What if Trotsky took over the Communist Party instead of Stalin? How would Russia have fared in WW2...

What if Trotsky took over the Communist Party instead of Stalin? How would Russia have fared in WW2, how would the Soviet Union and Communism overall be seen today?

I am not a communist or even to the left of political spectrum but Stalin was a better choice than Trotsky.

Trotsky was a true ideologist who wanted eternal revolution to spread Marxism over the globe. He would most likely destroy Russian people with his actions. Stalin was far more pragmatical and after reading some of his letters, esseys, I am starting to doubt if he even believed in communism.

Then true communism would have been tried

The dude in your pic is kalinin, not trotsky.

WHO THE FUCK CARES

>How would Russia have fared in World War 2?

Poorly. Because being the revolutionary that he was, Trotsky would have quickly pissed off the Western democracies to the point that they would at best look the other way when Germany started the war, and at worst actively helped Germany.

Remember, there was a vocal minority in the 30s already saying that the Nazis were a necessary check against Bolshevism. Had Trotsky been kicking up shit in every country on his border, he would seem to be the pressing threat. His belligerence would match or even exceed Hitler's, making Hitler seem like the more pleasant option.

Honestly, poorly. Trotsky would be unwilling to work with the Capitalist powers and the USSR would have likely been stomped by Germany come Barbarossa

Stalin actually adopted many of Trotsky's domestic policies after he had him killed.

My guess is that the biggest difference would have been foreign policy, with Trotsky trying to foment revolutions worldwide.

This would have likely manifested in a Soviet invasion of China early within the Chinese Civil War, my guess is between 1927-1931.

Hitler would have just another antisemite and the world probably would have united against Trotsky at some point.

While Stalin did adopt certain ideas on domestic policy from Trotsky, he was far more savy in foreign policy and geopolitics than Trotsky.

WW2 would probably have been very different, if it happened at all.

Trotsky was a communist and Stalin was not. Stalin wanted to rule Russia, Trotsky wanted a world revolution.
But they were both pragmatic and intelligent people.
Leon would not have sacrificed his power base in a gamble to expand the revolution, his strategy would have been to foster and support communists movements abroad, but not start wars when there's a good chance to lose or not be able to control the "liberated" territory.
For example, when Poland invaded Russia in 1919, and then got btfo, it was Lenin's idea to go all out and try to conquer Warsaw. Trotsky wanted to negotiate a peace treaty.

It is probable that Trotsky would do a lot more than Stalin to support the Chinese and Spanish communists.
It is also likely that he would not order the European communists to oppose socialists more than fascists.

This last single change in policy makes Hitler's rise to power much more difficult.
And if he does take power and wants to start a war, a republican/communist Spain is a huge issue on the western front, as it must be conquered and defended, which requires a lot of men not available in the east (that's if the French army doesn't retreat further and keep fighting now that they have an ally behind them).
Trotsky also was a better commander and organiser, and was not so paranoid, so the red army would never have been gutted by purges, and would have been a much tougher opponent.

The only way Russia would be worse off is if the capitalist powers decide to start a war against Russia to stop the support it gives to their local revolutionaries. But it's unlikely.
Or if a Nazi Germany manages to get an agreement with Poland to attack eastwards.

Soviet union would be seen as a misguided attempt. Communism would not have died with the authoritarian doctrine of Lenin, as Moscow would have exacted less control over the worldwide movements, allowing other ideas to gain influence.

Literally the same. Lenin was right, Trotsky and Stalin were wrong.

Trotsky would try to aggressively expand Soviet borders, In the best case scenario, Germany becomes a Soviet republic and we don't get WW2.

> Trotsky would be unwilling to work with the Capitalist powers
What makes you think that ?

Congrats user. First guy I find in this board who actually has some knowledge.

>Have a (You)

Hell, maybe Trotsky would have started WWII with his concept or permanent revolution and trying to expand Communism beyond the neighbouring borders.

>Trotsky was a communist and Stalin was not.
Trot pls

>implying more soviet support would have changed the outcome of the SCW

Boi you are wrong. The fascists nations were ideologically motivated too. And the republicans recieved crucial military aid by the SU which gave them a material edge in the early phase of the war. They were unable to utilize this due to a lack of internal organization and a lack of military professionalism. No amount of soviet intervention could have changed that before the falangists,Legion Condor etc. kick their teeth in.

>muh SocDems and Socialists would have cooperated in the Trotsky timeline

Unlikely. The SocDems would have utilized the Freikorps too counter the the socialist revolutionaries( Luxemburg and Liebknecht as shining examples). This rift was too deep. And even if some miracle happens and the establishment SocDems ally with the revolutionary left, there would have been an equal reaction on the right. A broad Red coalition would have led to massive symphaties for the NSDAP from circles who were opposed or apathetic in OTL.

Internal organization problems would have been lighter if the man in charge in Moscow had more interest in the success of the revolution than in his control over it.

As for the tensions between KPD and SPD, they will of course remain. If Trotsky takes power, in any case it is after the spartakists insurrection. But that doesn't mean that they cannot cooperate.
And no circle would become more sympathetic to Hitler. No significant one. The capitalist elites gave him their support anyway, and even the center supported him in the end.
If socialists and communists didn't fight so much among themselves, though, they would not have lost so much support from the workers.
And when push came to shove, they could have defended themselves.

There's also the French example: the middle classes there didn't go full fascist just because the left stopped fighting itself too hard.

>if the man in charge in Moscow had more interest in the success of the revolution than in his control over it.

You vastly underestimate the internal differences of the popular front. Sure Stalin played a role in it but you completely ignore that the leftist/centrist factions of the popular front had homemade differences that festered regardless of the SU.

>If Trotsky takes power, in any case it is after the spartakists insurrection. But that doesn't mean that they cannot cooperate.

Stalin and his influence only widened the gap. The well was poisoned because of the spartakist uprisings. Its questionable if Trotsky would have achieved the same amount of control over the KPD and it is even more questionable that they would have just forgotten the differences on Moscow's orders. You seem to completely ignore that other socialist/communist groups had their own agency. The socialists in the Weimar Republic hated the SocDems. The SPD on the other hand was dependent on the cooperation of the old elites and thus had to distance themselves from the extreme left.

>And no circle would become more sympathetic to Hitler. No significant one.

That's not true. Circles who were indifferent towards him would be very likely to support him in the face of a Red coalition. Zentrum catholics for example. Just look at the Reichstagsbrand and how it helped justifying the Ermächtigungsgesetze. A broad leftwing coalition would have united all right wing and most of the center forces.

>There's also the French example

Apples and Oranges senpai. France won WW1 thus no revanchism. France actually embraced a democratic culture and lacked the well entrenched reactionary elites the weimar republic had. Italy is the reasonable example here. And golly wonder there the fascists were backed by liberal and conservative forces.

>political meme
Opinion discarded.

This. Fuck Trotsky.

The meme has no connection to my post. Retarded af to discard my oppinion because i post a meme on an image board.

>Comes to a Taiwanese image board about history and humanties

>REEEEE's when people talk about history

Retard.

I am not ignoring the divergences between the factions of the republican side, but I am saying that with Moscow pushing for unity instead of aggravating them on one side, and helping significantly more on the material and military sides, the war would have ended differently.

Similarly, I don't argue that the German communists would forget the past, or the future. Trotsky would not want that himself. He viewed workers fronts as a circumstantial necessity, to be dissolved when it is advantageous to communists.
As for the SPD, it will always distance itself from communism, because that's what they are. They have no need to go beyond proposing different policies to the voters.
They don't need to actually form a coalition, just stop shitting on each other and cooperate on antifascist actions.

If they do form a coalition, it will be because it seems that they can reach a majority together, which implies that the SPD is not dependent. And it also mean that the Nazi party is not as popular and will not be a recourse for the Zentrum. They also gave legislative power to Hitler not because of the communist threat, but because of the Nazi threat, they wanted to associate themselves to the winner before it was too late.

If really two coalitions form, it still makes things harder for Hitler to take over, without sparking a civil war against a united front.

Revanchism doesn't really matter in this scenario. And France's democratic culture should not be overstated, seeing how Petain was able to take power.
In Italy, Mussolini had to use force to get power. It was easy in his case, but I think in Germany, Hitler would not succeed with the sane strategy.

Even assuming you are right, you shouldn't assume that the USSRs support would of been enough to

1_Give the socialists victory in the Spanish Civil War
2_Prevent the rise of Hittler to power.

If we are making an alternate history scenario, then yes, we could make a scenario where both of those things happen, but you also have to consider that it is also very likely that they wouldn't have happened.

In any rate, making alt history scenarios in general is hard because there's a lot of dice rolling IRL.

Trotsky's USSR wouldn't have been quite as vicious as Stalin but still would have been pretty bad. I can see collectivization happen, but not the Great Purge, Gulag archipelago, or deliberate famine in Ukraine.

He also wouldn't have been able to consolidate power as well as Stalin, Trotsky was too ideological and not pragmatic enough. I can easily see a group of generals and party rightists basically assuming power during WW2 and ruling the USSR after as a military regime.

Would the SU still be around if Trotsky took charge?

That he was known for being fucking autistic.

No it probably would have collapsed sooner because Trotsky wouldn't have killed every potential source of discontent.

His eyes were clearly too small, Trotsky lacked vision.

alt-'''''''''history'''''''''' is not history discussion

Yes, it is. Stop being a sperg.

>Muh Worldwide Revolution!

it's not in most cases. HOWEVER it is if the post doing it like OP when the scenario makes SENSE and he laid out potential what ifs of the new timeline.

Trotsky was a bloodthirsty petty tyrant that would not only enact some of the most vicious Stalinist policies, like the collectivization of agriculture and liquidation of the kulaks as a class, but would go even further, with the militarization of industrial labour, basically instituting slavery in Russia.

The only reason he entered Western imagination as some sort of humanist version of a communist is because he was a Jew that associated with Western intellectuals.

>For example, when Poland invaded Russia in 1919

What alternate timeline was this?

>For example, when Poland invaded Russia in 1919, and then got btfo

I knew it! It was the evil Polish imperialists the whole time!

Attacking someone´s territory sounds quite like an invasion to me.

Russians attacked so Poles are agressors????

Better question is, what if Lenin never became ill and weak?

*le tips le fedora XD*

It would have been great. The whole world would have united against the Soviet Union and destroyed them.

>Soviets invade Poland as it's the only thing preventing the Red Army from reaching Germany and helping local revolutionaries
>Get their ass beaten

Yeah, it was obvious Polish agression, seems clear to me

Didn't Lenin want Trotsky to become head of the party and not Stalin? I recall that he wrote a letter where he's basically shitting on Stalin.

I think the world would be very different if stalin didnt ice pick that beta jew.
The communism trots practices believes that revolution never ends and must be pushed into every country.
While stalin believed in communism in one country.
Now imagine trotsky running Russia during ww2

I feel like rightwingers think communism is this homogeneous thing.
If you ever actually did research or just went on far left websites you would see they are all backstabbers with their own special snowflake communist tendency.

Maoism, stalinism, trotskyism, leninism, etc

We would be living in full automated luxury communism now

Stalin was a monster but he at least had the smarts to realise that the Soviet state would never be maintained without proper planning and regulation. He had some fair points in his five-year-plan proposals.

Trotsky was an idealistic moron who thought everything would work itself out for literally no other reason than "dude Gommunism lmao".

Damn you, Stalin!

>Trotsky was a communist and Stalin was not. Stalin wanted to rule Russia, Trotsky wanted a world revolution.

Trots, forever butthurt

Lenin wanted Trotsky in power because Trotsky was his right hand during the revolution. Trotsky shared closer political views with Lenin than Stalin did. Lenin recognized that Stalin was power hungry. The rest of the party viewed Trotsky as too radical and decided against what Lenin wanted, and put Stalin into power. There's plenty of reason to think that Trotsky would have been just as terrible or even worse than Stalin was.

...

poor Bukharin

Looking at this photo, it's obvious that these guys shouldn't have been trusted to run a lemonade stand, much less a country.

What's wrong with them in the photo?

The literally who of Communism.