How different would the Soviet Union and world history be if he had taken power instead of Stalin

So basically the same except the soviet union takes a much more active role in fucking with everyones shit, especially during the great depression.

This goes one of two ways, either some revolutions actually happen in europe and we ww2 with communists instead of nazis, or the revolutions fail colossaly and he gets replaced or just becomes basically stalin anyway.

Not him but i have, they dont do this thats silly, usually they meet up, someone gives a talk on what whatever group theyre part of officially thinks about a certian issue and everyone agrees and its incredibly boring, then everyone goes to the pub and drinks a lot and makes left wing jokes

i use to rape faggots like you in juvie

Trotsky believed in supporting other communist parties in foreign countries. He would have gotten Western countries pissed really fast with that. More importantly, he wouldn't have made the deal with Hitler that Stalin did, he would have acted way more aggressively.

Hitler's warnings about communists and Jews would seem more valid with a communist Jew acting aggressively near the German border and funding communism in other countries. More importantly, war with Russia would have come faster, so Hitler wouldn't have implemented the Holocaust due to a lack of time.

It's unlikely that Western countries would support Trotsky or Hitler in the German-Russo War. No matter who wins, fascism doesn't get discredited because Hitler is kind of right about evil Russian communist Jews in this history. The winner probably gets betrayed by the West and attacked.

>then everyone goes to the pub and drinks a lot and makes left wing jokes

>S-see? We're bro's just like you!

Pathetic.

Well, he was a bolshevik. Of course he was a treacherous snake.

he wasn't even popular since the end of the civil war. He was even hated by almost all top Bolsheviks. He wouldn't have lasted very long.

/thread
They are a bunch of fanatics with no political smell.

WWII would have been the liberal and fascit country allying against the soviets. Tortsky's exsapaionism would put Hitler's to shame.

USSR attacks its neighbors prematurely and gets BTFO. Trotsky finds himself unable to achieve the same influence as Stalin and even if by some chance the regime survives it doesn't conquer half of Europe and millions are saved.

Current day neoconservatives derive from Troskyism. Fuck I hate Trotsky now.

On the plus side, he was an intellectual that tolerated difference of opinion more than Stalin. He also was more skilked and had good organizational skills. He wasn't paranoid like Stalin so the red army would be better equipped and not prurged of its best officers before the war.
On the minus side, he was more ideological than Stalin, and would try to spread revolution abroad angering the west.
It is possible that he would have been able to turn German commmunist instead of nazi by helping the local communists with a lot of funds so ww2 could have been avoided and a cold war starting early and ending the same after 70 years. But without all the ww2 deaths.

Do you think the republicans could win the spanish civil war with Trotsky in control of the Soviet Union?

No because they had neither God nor Man on their side

>they had neither God nor Man
Gulag awaits you.

WW2 would end with Moscow getting nuked as Trotsky sweeps past Berlin in an attempt to spread the revolution to the rest of the world by force.

>USSR attacks its neighbors prematurely and gets BTFO

Trotsky was already behind that one.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish–Soviet_War

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_westward_offensive_of_1918–19

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithuanian–Soviet_War

>Trotsky = People's Commissar of Military and Naval Affairs of the Soviet Union from 1918-1925

As opposed to Stalin, he was pragmatic. For one, the red army wouldnt have been in shambles because he wouldnt have purged it.

>leaving the anti-jewish Tukachevsky at the upper end of the military hierarchy instead of the brown nosing Zhukov

What a world that would be

Yeah, call me retarded but I think a Trotzky led USSR couldve btfo the germans. (Inb4 retard)

I don't know man. What do you think would have changed? Trotsky had a pretty mediocre record when he was low ranking and a terrible record as he climbed in station. Is there something he would've done alternatively, like using some type of preparation or method or tool?

I'm in the camp that Trotsky would've gotten btfo hardcore right now.

He was specially bad since he was way more into forcefully exporting his ideas than Stalin was.

Well, as far as I know the initial failure of USSR was due to both the stalinist purges and Stalin thinking germans wouldnt attack. Trotzky literally built the red army and wouldnt have purged it, so the higher ranks wouldve been full of experienced people from the civil war and polish war. Also, trotzky was very aware of the danger that fascists posed to them, so he wouldnt have signed the non aggression pact.

At the very least he wouldve been prepared for war.

Trotsky was of the 'ideological crusading' type of person. It would have been 'Red Menace' like people were fearing communism would be. Stalin changed a ton of things about communism movements and government in the USSR.

>Trotzky literally built the red army

All I'm saying is that he was in charge of the army that failed to take any of the Baltic states and got BTFO by Poland. A bunch of ragtag German volunteers and even less Lithuanians managed to beat the Bolshevik army. The Bolsheviks were more prepared even. Not sure how the purges would've went. It's hard to say. Trotsky definitely knew about purges, and wasn't opposed to them. He might've just purged differently but he wasn't against the idea fundamentally. Stalins mobilization efforts built up the largest tanking force and one of the largest air forces in the world. The only fault was purging the military so extensively. Which Trotsky might have done anyways to some extent.

>trotzky was very aware of the danger that fascists posed to them

All communists were. That's part of the reason they purged so much. Somebody like Tukachevsky definitely didn't fit in. As for the non-aggression pact, it wouldn't have made much of a difference.

>At the very least he wouldve been prepared for war.

He was far less prepared in the wars he participated in than Stalin was for WW2.I think he would've under prepared the tool kit and industry of the USSR, lost, leave for exile in Mexico, and get assassinated anyways.

Actually, they did well in poland initially, both him and other generals blamed Stalin for the failure in poland. I mean, Stalin was literally removed from his position in the military by lenin, due to his failure in the polish war. Also, I dont see why he would purge the army he himself built, especially when Tukachevsky was a good friend of his. I also dont see any reason for why he wouldve failed when it comes to industrialization of the USSR, there is absolutely no indication for that.

Part of a reason I also believe he wouldve done better is his political foresight. From the get go, he knew that communists in other areas of the world would have to be supported and that communism in one country was doomed to fail. All in all he seems just like a more capable leader than the brutish Stalin.

>everyone goes to the pub and drinks a lot and makes left wing jokes
I can fucking imagine that

>Be sitting in local pub
>Having a beer with friends
>Lifesgood.jpg
>Suddenly eight or so kids in their late teens/early twenties enter
>all wearing red shirts with Che guevera, Marx and "Proud socialist" etc.
>They all look extremely obnoxious
>One of them shouts "Hello comrades!"
>No one answers
>They sit down and start drinking "heavily" as they loudly claim
>They are actually having Frisco
>Ten minutes in and they're all "drunk"
>Can hear their conversation
>"So I told him he's bourgeois scum haha"
>"Capitalism will fall in like two months tops man"
>"Luckily, the guy was white so I just told him to check his privelege"
>"Dude like I know EXACTLY what to do to make communism work"
>One dude stands up and yells "Permanent Revolution!"
>They all laugh and clap
>One of them then tries to convince bartender to give them more Frisco for free because they are his working class comrades
>Mfw

Sounds about as believable as the former claim, tbeh.

kek

Cuck?

>Literally complaining about credibility of a greentext

Lurk more

more dead christians and a bigger israel

fag

What point are you trying to make? People like bullshitting and drinks regardless of political alignment.

What point are you trying to make? People like bullshitting and drinks regardless of political alignment.

Let me butt in.

>I don't know man. What do you think would have changed?
The Red Army introduced in late 1917 was almost completely voluntary and without proper hierarchy, because that was considered anti-revolutionary of course. In second half of 1918, when the Don Cossacks were right outside Tsaritsyn (later Stalingrad, currently Volgograd), the Bolshieviks figured out that it's a good idea to have somebody give out orders. At the same time, they also got divided over army organization, which was probably the first big conflict between Trotsky and Stalin.

Trotsky (with support from Vacietis) was for reintroduction of white officers into the Red Army. He wanted a professional conscripted army with experienced and educated officers. Most of them wanted to just survive in this new commie reality, while other were convinced by keeping their families hostage.

Stalin (with Voroshilov) was for a "socialist army", with officers who were "politically reliable" and came from the ranks of the Red Army. On top of that, he wanted the party to have a complete control over the armed forces.

In the end, Trotsky's approach won, probably because in the first half of 1919 the situation seemed really spooky for the Reds, but mostly because they expected a full Allied intervention (for example, Vacietis claimed that between 150 to 200 thousand allied troop will land in southern Ukraine alone).

>All I'm saying is that he was in charge of the army that failed to take any of the Baltic states...
Actually, the early failures in Baltic States come from the fact in late 1918 and early 1919 only 15 to 20 thousand Red Army troops were stretched between the Baltic States and Belarus.

>...and got BTFO by Poland
No question here, but it's a hilarious mess of Tukhachevsky underestimating Poles, and Stalin basically saying "go fuck yourself" to Trotsky and insisting on taking Lviev instead of helping take Warsaw.

>Reading this post
>'Common People' starts playing on my spotify list.
>mfw

Im in this anons camp.
Hot2trot also advocated a buy in to the workers collective Stalin eventually disbanded. It would have been a more socialist russia with some old money and old army allowed in to the emerging power structure which if (and It's a big if) Trotsky could have held together would have been in a position both economically and militarily to intervene internationally. Whether this could have stopped the rise of fascism in the west I don't know. But the idea that poland was Trotsky's fault is only half right. The basterd made a mistake, tried to correct it and got lol'd at by his supposed allies.

>workers collective
You mean trade unions? Because yeah, Trotsky's approach to Soviet Union's politics was more decentralized. I'm more familiar with events of Russian Civil War, but I recall that after the war there was some divide between Lenin and Trotsky on the matter of factions inside the communist party. There was a healthy support for Trotsky's factionalism. Maybe if he was the head-honcho, there would be some political "clubs" inside the communist party.

Unfortunately true. If any actual working class person there tries to talk to them in any way they either get quiet and have no idea what to say or they have such little social awareness they spout shitty obscure leftist memes. Then they all become liberals in 2 years and lecture you on how the EU is great and Hillary was the lesser evil.

t. exhausted commie