Could a Trotskyite Soviet Union Have Survived World War II?

[Red Icepick]

Alright, lets say that Trotsky succeeded Lenin instead of Stalin. Can the Soviet Union under Trotsky's leadership win the Great Patriotic War? Give your answer and discuss.

I'm certainly saying NO myself. Without Stalin's rapid industrialization and his consolidation of Socialism in One Country, the USSR would have been doomed. The Red Army was unbeatable under Stalin and his generals. Zhukov, Konev, Rokossovsky, Chikov, Lelyushenko, and Rybalko were giants who rose to command after Stalin purged the moribund, Tsarist era generals who had no new ideas. If Trotsky was left constantly trying to start his world revolution while leaving the people already under the Red Banner in a lurch, Hitler probably would have overran Poland AND the USSR without even stopping. The bulk of the population would have been deported. He wasn't pragmatic enough to have pulled off receiving all the aid from the liberal western states either. Churchill probably wouldn't have had a problem calling him an Ally, but Roosevelt, who enjoyed and respected Stalin, probably would have spit on Trotsky as opposed to providing Studebakers, Jeeps, and Spam.

In short, the Fascist invasion of the Soviet Union presented an incredible challenge, almost unparalled in history, that would have destroyed most peoples of the globe. Only Comrade Stalin was able to pull it off. If the Trotskyites were left to run that war, the Russian people would have been nothing but ashes and blood smeared snow.

Anyhow, state your case.

[Raúl Duke]

Trotsky had experience in handling military affairs no?
Wasn't he once in command of the Red Army?

I really don't know if it's possible or not for a Trotskyite Soviet Union to have a fighting chance...

[Nwoye]

first of all, this is a pretty obvious attempt to fuel a tendency war against trots.

second of all, is your screenname a reference to Trotsky's assassination? cuz that would be ridiculous.

third of all, I think any Marxist worth their salt would recognize that individuals do not make history. Simply replacing Staling with Trotsky would be irrelevant, because it wouldn't change the class relations and material conditions underlying the situation. Besides what kind of "leadership" do you think Stalin provided? As far as I know uncle Joe wasn't a particularly adept military strategist, and I don't see how any reasonable person could conclude that a cult of personality is in any way productive.

[gorillafuck]

Churchill probably wouldn't have had a problem calling him an Ally, but Roosevelt, who enjoyed and respected Stalin, probably would have spit on Trotsky as opposed to providing Studebakers, Jeeps, and Spam.
What are you basing that off of?

[Red Icepick]

What are you basing that off of?

Churchill was a hardcore anti-Communist, but he said that if Hitler had invaded Hell, he would have made a favorable reference for the Devil in the House of Commons. So that's what I'm basing that off of. However, the British offered almost no actual support, unlike the Americans who greatly aided the Red Army's logistics. The Soviet Union still would have prevailed without American help, but it would have taken much longer.

Roosevelt, although from a capitalist banking dynasty, had Socialist tendencies. He always sought better relations with the USSR even before the war. However, he was greatly disturbed by things like the Comintern, which Stalin actually disbanded partly to appease the USA. Roosevelt considered Stalin a true giant and a practical leader. He wouldn't have cared for a consistent global agitator like Trotsky.

[Red Icepick]

first of all, this is a pretty obvious attempt to fuel a tendency war against trots.

It's a debate, knucklehead, and it's in the opposing ideology section. I've been restricted for no given reason, so I pretty much don't care if Trotskyites have their feelings hurt by the truth, as I think that's why I'm probably restricted in the first place. Quit being crybabies, Trotskyites.


third of all, I think any Marxist worth their salt would recognize that individuals do not make history. Simply replacing Staling with Trotsky would be irrelevant, because it wouldn't change the class relations and material conditions underlying the situation. Besides what kind of "leadership" do you think Stalin provided? As far as I know uncle Joe wasn't a particularly adept military strategist, and I don't see how any reasonable person could conclude that a cult of personality is in any way productive.

That's simply not an honest conclusion, it's just a generality. Look at the German people, they wouldn't have been smashed if they didn't have a lunatic like Adolf Hitler calling the shots, starting aggressive wars, and making retarded military decisions. Leadership matters, and any people worth their salt need decent leaders.

Comrade Stalin wasn't a military mastermind, but he wasn't a micromanaging doofus like Churchill or Hitler. He knew when to be firm and when to back off. It's true that it was the people of the USSR who advanced every step of the way, bullet by bullet, kill by kill. However, Stalin enabled a great victory, and I gave reasons to support this. You're simply too arrogant to read anything more than the thread title. It's funny how you haven't been able to make a counterpoint on any of my actual points.

As for the cult of personality, are you familiar with any Soviet propaganda during the Great Patriotic War? Most of it had nothing to do with Comrade Stalin. It was a Cult of Vengeance, a Cult of the Russian People, and a Cult of Socialist Victory. Stalin knew that the people wouldn't fight hard simply for him. He knew they would fight hard for eachother and to preserve everything they've accomplished since the October Revolution.


Ourrah Pobieda!

[Dimentio]

Who has said that Trotsky wouldn't be pragmatic had he become the general secretary?

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Say what you want about him but Trotsky was a far better Military strategist then stalin and was just as if not more ruthless.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Also young western men with a fetish for a Georgian dead tyrant and a strange hatred of a dead wana be tyrant = nerds

[Red Icepick]

Who has said that Trotsky wouldn't be pragmatic had he become the general secretary?

Maybe he would have been, but I doubt he would have given up his schtick. It's a good point as you can't really say what Trotsky would have actully done. It's just a guessing game, but I'm guessing he would have blown it.


Say what you want about him but Trotsky was a far better Military strategist then stalin and was just as if not more ruthless.

Trotsky was a better strategist and has a better personal combat record than Stalin, but I think that would have simply caused him to meddle in the affairs of the generals like Hitler would do. Stalin didn't conduct military operations, he'd say what he wants to happen and let his people decide how they would get it done, akin to the Prussian concept of auftragstaktik.


Also young western men with a fetish for a Georgian dead tyrant and a strange hatred of a dead wana be tyrant = nerds

You couldn't manage to get your little comments into what reply? Either you're a complete moron or you're just trying to up your post count, and you're a troll regardless. You realize there is an edit feature, and you can add a sentence to a post if you think of something extra two minutes after writing it? I suspect you're a reactionary sockpuppet who trolls the board with inane comments causing everyone to get carpal tunnel syndrome as they endlessly scroll past your garbage.

[hugsandmarxism]

Given the ferocity with which he repeated the menshnevick slanders against Lenin (with Stalin as his target in later years), his meddling with communist affairs abroad that rubbed comrades like Lenin and Kollontai the wrong way, his militaristic and anti-progressive methods in putting together the Red Army, and his hyper factionalism and opportunist tendencies, a Trotskyist Soviet Union would have swerved to the right rather quickly. The resluting government wouldn't have been able to industrialize in the manner that Stalin's CCCP did, nor make the agricultural gains necessary to break the bourgeois in the countryside. The end result, therefor, would be a surge of right-wing collaborators within the government at the time of Nazi invasion, a less capable and inferiorly equipped war machine, and a complete disaster for the Soviet Union. But, what else could you really expect from a "reformed" menshnevick, opportunist, whose only "contribution" to theory is in the form of plagiarism?

[Stranger Than Paradise]

But, what else could you really expect from a "reformed" menshnevick, opportunist, whose only "contribution" to theory is in the form of plagiarism?

I know, I mean it's just like Lenin really isn't it? What else can really be expected from a Bolshevik oppurtunist whoes only contributions were War Communism, The New Economic Policy and the crushing of workers soviets.

[hugsandmarxism]

I know, I mean it's just like Lenin really isn't it? What else can really be expected from a Bolshevik oppurtunist whoes only contributions were War Communism, The New Economic Policy and the crushing of workers soviets.

Firstly, I was talking about theoretical contributions. Secondly, it's kind of funny hearing an anarchist bash Lenin's contributions, when Anarchism has been the political equivalent of egging the bourgeois' house. :rolleyes:

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I was merely trying to show the stupidity of wars between Trotsykists and Leninists and the idiotic idea of following the ideas of these men instead of going on the side of the working class.

[Red Icepick]

The resluting government wouldn't have been able to industrialize in the manner that Stalin's CCCP did, nor make the agricultural gains necessary to break the bourgeois in the countryside.

That is the key issue, I think. Stalin's policies of rapid industrialization and collectivization were instrumental. If it wasn't for that, they certainly would have been smashed.


I was merely trying to show the stupidity of wars between Trotsykists and Leninists and the idiotic idea of following the ideas of these men instead of going on the side of the working class.

"instead of"?

[Stranger Than Paradise]

"instead of"?

Yes Instead Of, I don't think events such as crushing the power of the soviets, the suppression of the Kronstadt rebellion and anything Stalin ever did were on the side of my class.

[hugsandmarxism]

Yes Instead Of, I don't think events such as crushing the power of the soviets, the suppression of the Kronstadt rebellion and anything Stalin ever did were on the side of my class.

So, building up the defensive might to defend Soviet citizens from a high tech, well trained, genocidal horde ISN'T on the side of the working class or in its interests? Really now.

[Red Icepick]

So, building up the defensive might to defend Soviet citizens from a high tech, well trained, genocidal horde ISN'T on the side of the working class or in its interests? Really now.

I suppose StP would have been waiting for the Fascist 'liberation.'

[hugsandmarxism]

I suppose StP would have been waiting for the Fascist 'liberation.'

Now, now... maybe he' would have held the Trotskyist hope that Jesus H. Trotsky would come in on the back of a Panzer to smite the Soviet bureaucracy and restore his title as Lenin's heir apparent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heir_apparent). :rolleyes:

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Nah, working class control of the means of production is what I want, it's a hard concept for you two to grasp I'm sure.

[Red Icepick]

Nah, working class control of the means of production is what I want, it's a hard concept for you two to grasp I'm sure.

Yes, because you're really making a point in the context of this thread.

[Nwoye]

It's a debate, knucklehead, and it's in the opposing ideology section. I've been restricted for no given reason, so I pretty much don't care if Trotskyites have their feelings hurt by the truth, as I think that's why I'm probably restricted in the first place. Quit being crybabies, Trotskyites.
thank you for proving my point.


That's simply not an honest conclusion, it's just a generality. Look at the German people, they wouldn't have been smashed if they didn't have a lunatic like Adolf Hitler calling the shots, starting aggressive wars, and making retarded military decisions. Leadership matters, and any people worth their salt need decent leaders.the rise of fascism or imperialist war didn't really have anything to do with Hitler. You have to understand that great leaders (Lenin, Washington, Napoleon, Hitler, etc) are results, not causes; they do not cause social change they are simply a result of it. The rise of Hitler and fascism in germany represented a shift in the relations between classes, and the reflection of this shift onto the socio-political superstructure (encompassing the state and various other social institutions). Even if Hitler had gotten into art school in Vienna, fascism still would most likely have developed in germany, and millions of people would still likely have died as a result of it.

talking about this makes me think i should start a thread on fascism. i do have some questions about its history.


Comrade Stalin wasn't a military mastermind, but he wasn't a micromanaging doofus like Churchill or Hitler. He knew when to be firm and when to back off. It's true that it was the people of the USSR who advanced every step of the way, bullet by bullet, kill by kill. However, Stalin enabled a great victory, and I gave reasons to support this. You're simply too arrogant to read anything more than the thread title. It's funny how you haven't been able to make a counterpoint on any of my actual points. as some have noted, Trotsky was a pretty adept militarist, and also a pretty ruthless one. looking back again at your OP it's basically just speculation so i don't even see why i should address it.


As for the cult of personality, are you familiar with any Soviet propaganda during the Great Patriotic War? Most of it had nothing to do with Comrade Stalin. It was a Cult of Vengeance, a Cult of the Russian People, and a Cult of Socialist Victory. Stalin knew that the people wouldn't fight hard simply for him. He knew they would fight hard for eachother and to preserve everything they've accomplished since the October Revolution.i mentioned the concept of a cult of personality because i wasn't sure what you meant by leadership. I guess you made what you meant a little clearer.

[Durruti's Ghost]

The outcome of a war is decided by the material conditions of each side, not by the merits of the personalities propped up to represent the ruling classes thereof. :sleep:

[Red Icepick]

The outcome of a war is decided by the material conditions of each side, not by the merits of the personalities propped up to represent the ruling classes thereof. :sleep:

Yeah, and Stalin ensured his people would have superior material conditions.

[Red Icepick]

Organized Confusion;1576332]thank you for proving my point.[/QUOTE]

No problem, I wasn't disputing it.


the rise of fascism or imperialist war didn't really have anything to do with Hitler. You have to understand that great leaders (Lenin, Washington, Napoleon, Hitler, etc) are results, not causes; they do not cause social change they are simply a result of it. The rise of Hitler and fascism in germany represented a shift in the relations between classes, and the reflection of this shift onto the socio-political superstructure (encompassing the state and various other social institutions). Even if Hitler had gotten into art school in Vienna, fascism still would most likely have developed in germany, and millions of people would still likely have died as a result of it.

I agree. Hitler was a biproduct of conditions that beset Germany from the Versailles Treaty and their economic collapse. My point is that Hitler, as a warlord, made a lot of crazy decisions that led to his nation's defeat. Leadership matters.


talking about this makes me think i should start a thread on fascism. i do have some questions about its history.

Could be interesting, go for it.


as some have noted, Trotsky was a pretty adept militarist, and also a pretty ruthless one. looking back again at your OP it's basically just speculation so i don't even see why i should address it.

It's complete speculation on my part, that's why I'm asking the question. I think Trotsky was a better military strategist than Stalin, but I think he would have led the country in a direction that couldn't have won regardless. Hitler, for instance, was a better strategist than either, but he still lost.


i mentioned the concept of a cult of personality because i wasn't sure what you meant by leadership. I guess you made what you meant a little clearer.

That's good. I completely am against cults of personalities, even Stalin's. It's not healthy, and thankfully Stalin's was more or less dropped during the war. Nobody was actually hailing Stalin in their battlecries.

[Durruti's Ghost]

Yeah, and Stalin ensured his people would have superior material conditions.

No, Stalin was merely a product of the conditions that already existed. It's pointless to say, "Oh, but if Trotsky had been in charge, the Nazis would have TAKEN OVER THE FUCKING WORLD!" because for Trotsky to have been in charge, conditions would have had to have been different.

[Red Icepick]

No, Stalin was merely a product of the conditions that already existed. It's pointless to say, "Oh, but if Trotsky had been in charge, the Nazis would have TAKEN OVER THE FUCKING WORLD!" because for Trotsky to have been in charge, conditions would have had to have been different.

Right, Stalin had nothing to do with rapid industrialization and collectivization. The Russian people decided to do that on their own, and Stalin just made it official. Yes, that's very true. Just like how the Durruti's Column randomly marched to war, and he got himself killed for no reason.

No kidding conditions would have had to have been different. This whole thread is to debate how things might have been had it been different. If history just naturally played out like you seem to think it does, there would be no point in being a revolutionary because things are just going to happen as it is anyways.

I suppose you consider yourself an educated bystander? Oh wait, don't answer that.

[Rosa Provokateur]

As far as theory goes, Trotsky is an obvious superior to Stalin. As far as running a country goes though I think Stalin was better the type than Trotsky. They're both dead; Stalinists need to move on and find something productive to do than just ***** about Trotsky. Most people on the street don't even KNOW who Trotsky was so why bother.

Time like these I'm glad I'm an anarchist:closedeyes:

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

.



You couldn't manage to get your little comments into what reply? Either you're a complete moron or you're just trying to up your post count, and you're a troll regardless. You realize there is an edit feature, and you can add a sentence to a post if you think of something extra two minutes after writing it? I suspect you're a reactionary sockpuppet who trolls the board with inane comments causing everyone to get carpal tunnel syndrome as they endlessly scroll past your garbage.

http://media1.break.com/dnet/media/2008/10/87%20Elf%20Nerd.jpg

NO LOOK I FOOKIN LOVE COMRADE STALIN TOO!

[Outinleftfield]

Assuming the same scenario with the USSR facing Hitler I think it would've worked. Trotsky was even more pushy about industrialization than Stalin and was a Red Army commander.

But I don't assume that.

Under Trotsky the Soviet Union would've been more militant. Stalin wanted "Socialism in One Country". Trotsky wanted "Permanent Revolution". Until the world was communist the revolution wasn't over for him. He would've been pouring Soviet support into any communist revolutionary group that asked for his help. The USSR would've gotten itself involved in a war trying to help communists very early probably in China maybe on multiple fronts if Trotsky felt the Soviet Union had a moral imperative to help all of them. This could've actually lead to WWII years a decade or more earlier with every country in the world. It would've lasted long though as it would be the largest country and the most populated country together in an alliance very early since communism was gaining popularity in China and with Soviet support could've quickly taken over. Mongolia would've also been in the alliance since Mongolia became communist the same year Stalin took power and would've happened either way. Possibly more countries very early on.

This wouldve most likely lead to defeat but given the Great Depression in the 1930s there is a possibility Trotsky could've won or there could've been a stalemate at some point with either Trotsky agreeing to pull assistance from communists in the remaining capitalist countries or some other leader taking power, possibly in a coup by disgruntled officers who wanted the war to end before it destroyed the Soviet Union.

[Red Icepick]

As far as theory goes, Trotsky is an obvious superior to Stalin. As far as running a country goes though I think Stalin was better the type than Trotsky. They're both dead; Stalinists need to move on and find something productive to do than just ***** about Trotsky. Most people on the street don't even KNOW who Trotsky was so why bother.

Time like these I'm glad I'm an anarchist:closedeyes:

I generally agree with this post. For theory, Trotsky was admittedly closer to Marx than Stalin. What do you mean move on though? You want to throw history books in the garbage? The future is directly related to the past, you know.

It's true that the average Joe has no idea who Trotsky was, but it's not like I'm on the street handing out anti-Trotsky flyers. I don't see the problem with debating these things in house. In fact, I think that's quite healthy.

[Red Icepick]

Assuming the same scenario with the USSR facing Hitler I think it would've worked. Trotsky was even more pushy about industrialization than Stalin and was a Red Army commander.

But I don't assume that.

Under Trotsky the Soviet Union would've been more militant. Stalin wanted "Socialism in One Country". Trotsky wanted "Permanent Revolution". Until the world was communist the revolution wasn't over for him. He would've been pouring Soviet support into any communist revolutionary group that asked for his help. The USSR would've gotten itself involved in a war trying to help communists very early probably in China maybe on multiple fronts if Trotsky felt the Soviet Union had a moral imperative to help all of them. This could've actually lead to WWII years a decade or more earlier with every country in the world. It would've lasted long though as it would be the largest country and the most populated country together in an alliance very early since communism was gaining popularity in China and with Soviet support could've quickly taken over. Mongolia would've also been in the alliance since Mongolia became communist the same year Stalin took power and would've happened either way. Possibly more countries very early on.

This wouldve most likely lead to defeat but given the Great Depression in the 1930s there is a possibility Trotsky could've won or there could've been a stalemate at some point with either Trotsky agreeing to pull assistance from communists in the remaining capitalist countries or some other leader taking power, possibly in a coup by disgruntled officers who wanted the war to end before it destroyed the Soviet Union.

Great post. That's pretty interesting. I think that could have been pretty probable. However, with Trotsky continuing a permanet revolution, there wouldn't have been time to consolidate and industrialize. Trotsky didn't even believe the Soviet Union was a developed enough nation to pull it off.

I think serious agitation could have really stirred things up in the USA during the Great Depression before the New Dealers came around. I don't know if there was really enough support to pull off the more massive revolution. Mao certainly wasn't in good shape in China. The movement in Germany was just about crushed(though still vigorous in many ways). The Popular Front in France proved feeble. However, I do think that the Spanish Civil War probably would have proved a revolutionary success in this scenario. Just a lot of speculation of course, but I think it's worth considering.

[Muzk]

trotsky wins



http://i362.photobucket.com/albums/oo69/MUZKROX/trotskypen1.jpg

[Richard Nixon]

Yes because I doubt that Trotsky would have purged the Soviet Army so thoroughly as Stalin.

[Red Icepick]

Yes because I doubt that Trotsky would have purged the Soviet Army so thoroughly as Stalin.

This was an initial disaster in the first year of the was, but they bounced back stronger than ever. Admittedly, the purge was over-zealous and a lot of good officers were removed. Tukhachevsky was quite brilliant, but it's likely he really was plotting against Comrade Stalin.

Overall though, it actually helped the Red Army more than it hurt it. The Tsarist-era officers had their minds entrenched in moribund military doctrine. A new wave of commanders brought a breath of fresh air, and their ideas helped create strongest army the world has ever known.

[Axel1917]

The only way a "Trotskyite" Soviet Union could have been maintained would have been for the revolution to spread to advanced capitalist countries to break the isolation of the revolution that caused it to degenerate into Stalinism in the first place. And such a spread would most likely have gone to Germany (Lenin even remarked that the Russian Revolution was doomed without a successful German revolution) as well.

A revolutionary wave to advanced capitalist countries (required for a "Trotskyite" Soviet Union) would have prevented World War II. The question does not really make sense.


Roosevelt, although from a capitalist banking dynasty, had Socialist tendencies. He always sought better relations with the USSR even before the war. However, he was greatly disturbed by things like the Comintern, which Stalin actually disbanded partly to appease the USA. Roosevelt considered Stalin a true giant and a practical leader. He wouldn't have cared for a consistent global agitator like Trotsky.

That is far from the truth, actually. Roosevelt was totally supportive of capitalism. The difference is that he was far more intelligent than some other capitalist supporters and politicians in that he made some concessions in order to stave off growing revolutionary sentiment within the USA.

[fidzboi]

Assuming the same scenario with the USSR facing Hitler I think it would've worked. Trotsky was even more pushy about industrialization than Stalin and was a Red Army commander.

But I don't assume that.

Under Trotsky the Soviet Union would've been more militant. Stalin wanted "Socialism in One Country". Trotsky wanted "Permanent Revolution". Until the world was communist the revolution wasn't over for him. He would've been pouring Soviet support into any communist revolutionary group that asked for his help. The USSR would've gotten itself involved in a war trying to help communists very early probably in China maybe on multiple fronts if Trotsky felt the Soviet Union had a moral imperative to help all of them. This could've actually lead to WWII years a decade or more earlier with every country in the world. It would've lasted long though as it would be the largest country and the most populated country together in an alliance very early since communism was gaining popularity in China and with Soviet support could've quickly taken over. Mongolia would've also been in the alliance since Mongolia became communist the same year Stalin took power and would've happened either way. Possibly more countries very early on.

This wouldve most likely lead to defeat but given the Great Depression in the 1930s there is a possibility Trotsky could've won or there could've been a stalemate at some point with either Trotsky agreeing to pull assistance from communists in the remaining capitalist countries or some other leader taking power, possibly in a coup by disgruntled officers who wanted the war to end before it destroyed the Soviet Union.

Counterfactual history, like this thread, is ultimately an intellectual guessing game which essentially makes for some intriguing works of fiction. But they are intriguing and interesting, and ultimately the best ones draw heavily on what was in order to determine what could have been. They show an understanding of the actual history. The above post by Outinleftfield is a tremendous example of good counterfactual history, most of what else has been posted is an indication that many of you are hopelessly focused on political personalities, as opposed to focusing on political forces.

[Red Icepick]

The only way a "Trotskyite" Soviet Union could have been maintained would have been for the revolution to spread to advanced capitalist countries to break the isolation of the revolution that caused it to degenerate into Stalinism in the first place. And such a spread would most likely have gone to Germany (Lenin even remarked that the Russian Revolution was doomed without a successful German revolution) as well.

A revolutionary wave to advanced capitalist countries (required for a "Trotskyite" Soviet Union) would have prevented World War II. The question does not really make sense.

Or would it have united the reactionaries against the USSR in a World War, causing multiple nations to attack alongside the Fascists? The Comintern was still active under Stalin, it simply wasn't the basis of Soviet policy.

How would the revolution spread to Germany? In a conventional advance, it was beat back before Warsaw. Then the Communists were crushed over and over again by the Freikorps in Germany itself. The leadership was all executed. How would Trotsky have spread the revolution to Germany?


That is far from the truth, actually. Roosevelt was totally supportive of capitalism. The difference is that he was far more intelligent than some other capitalist supporters and politicians in that he made some concessions in order to stave off growing revolutionary sentiment within the USA.

True, but the point still stands. He did want a better relationship with the USSR and didn't hesitate in sending aid.

[Kayser_Soso]

Say what you want about him but Trotsky was a far better Military strategist then stalin and was just as if not more ruthless.

No, actually he was not a better military strategist. Besides, the success of the Soviet Union owed more to the doctrine developed by its general staff, though the role Stalin played was very important as well. The Soviet army at every level from the private all the way up to Stalin learned from its mistakes from day one.

To answer the question about Trotsky- one must first remember that he was extremly shifty, and his positions were always contradictory. Trotsky often supported the same policies of Stalin, only at different times. He would first declare it impossible to build socialism in the USSR, and later claim that socialism was so firmly entrenched in the same country that it could only be overthrown with a massive bloody insurgency. J. Arch Getty uncovered some up-till-recently secret correspondence of Trotsky which shows how unprincipled he was.

But for the sake of argument let's just imagine that Trotsky seriously believed his "permanent revolution" dogma and followed it to a t. Let's see, revolutions in Germany, Austria, and Hungary fail- USSR's advance to socialism is supposedly dependent on these advanced capitalist nations- which become fascist nations. I don't think it's hard to see what would happen there.

It's wonderful to think what would have happened if the revolution spread to other European countries after 1918- but that DIDN'T happen, so the Soviet people were stuck with what the had.

As a side note, I have yet to see a coherent Trotskyite explanation as to how precisely the revolution was to be spread to so many countries, why such countries would not have problems with that ever-vague "bureaucracy", and how this would help the Soviet Union in detail.

[Rosa Provokateur]

What do you mean move on though? You want to throw history books in the garbage? The future is directly related to the past, you know.

It's true that the average Joe has no idea who Trotsky was, but it's not like I'm on the street handing out anti-Trotsky flyers. I don't see the problem with debating these things in house. In fact, I think that's quite healthy.

No, I was thinking more along the lines of cutting them into confetti or making them into bonfire fuel. The future is unwritten. We only need history so we can look around for patterns and avoid them; Leninism has a pattern, let's avoid it.

The only "anti-revisionist" group I'm familiar with is the Stalin Society and they treat Trotsky like the devil and Stalin like G-d. I know not all Stalinists are like that but those guys give me a bad taste in my mouth and when I hear Stalin support, I kinda just let loose with cynicism.

[Conquer or Die]

I think alternative history is a waste of time, to be honest. I think materialism necessarily requires this.

A trotsky dictator certainly would not tolerate any vestige of anti semitism or racism in his leadership. I'd like to think he could learn from his mistaken ultra communism and reassert the NEP.

[Pogue]

Of course he could have won it. He was a better military man than Stalin and was, as Joe said, just as ruthless. He probably would have won it easier because I doubt he could have been as trigger happy with purging his own officers as Stalin was.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Your praising Stalin on winning the war...maybe he was involved, however, the fascists would have overran the Soviets and won the war had it not been for mother-nature and Russia's intense winters that the German's were NOT prepared for.

Also, on the point of Hitler. Shit might have been a lot worse had Himmler been leader.

[Angry Young Man]

Just to let everyone know, I answered before reading everyone else's posts.

Chances are that, had Trotsky succeeded, WWII would not have been Allies vs. Central - Russia would have exported revolution Westwards, with a particular emphasis on Germany. Therefore WWII would have been Socialism vs. Capitalism if the bourgeoisie had a chance to launch an offensive

[Angry Young Man]

I suspect you're a reactionary sockpuppet who trolls the board with inane comments causing everyone to get carpal tunnel syndrome as they endlessly scroll past your garbage.

Anyone remember that thread about irony, where we couldn't define it because we couldn't agree on a cogent example?

[Kayser_Soso]

Just to let everyone know, I answered before reading everyone else's posts.

Chances are that, had Trotsky succeeded, WWII would not have been Allies vs. Central - Russia would have exported revolution Westwards, with a particular emphasis on Germany. Therefore WWII would have been Socialism vs. Capitalism if the bourgeoisie had a chance to launch an offensive


This assumes, against a lot of evidence, that the attempt to export revolution would have succeeded(most attempts to export revolution or any other system tend to fail).

[Kayser_Soso]

Your praising Stalin on winning the war...maybe he was involved, however, the fascists would have overran the Soviets and won the war had it not been for mother-nature and Russia's intense winters that the German's were NOT prepared for.

This is the common Nazi argument, or at least the argument given by many generals after the war. Stalin had FAR more to do with the Soviet victory than nature; which by the way also negatively affected the Red Army though to a lesser extent.



Also, on the point of Hitler. Shit might have been a lot worse had Himmler been leader.

Himmler was a follower. Hitler was more fanatical; keep in mind that when Himmler betrayed Hitler and tried to claim authority over the Reich(for the purposes of negotiating), he was attempting to surrender. Hitler on the other hand could not even imagine negotiating. That's the difference in fanaticism.

[RHIZOMES]

That's simply not an honest conclusion, it's just a generality. Look at the German people, they wouldn't have been smashed if they didn't have a lunatic like Adolf Hitler calling the shots, starting aggressive wars, and making retarded military decisions. Leadership matters, and any people worth their salt need decent leaders.

Yes, because the government of Nazi Germany was just Hitler, and it came out of thin air with no social conditions backing it up at all. :rolleyes: What a bunch of unmaterialist shite.

[Kléber]

Your praising Stalin on winning the war...maybe he was involved, however, the fascists would have overran the Soviets and won the war had it not been for mother-nature and Russia's intense winters that the German's were NOT prepared for.The Germans were unprepared for the first Winter because they thought the war could be won before its onset. They were wrong, they underestimated the tenacity of the Soviet people. That said, the Wehrmacht knew the next few Winters were coming so the "Winter beat Hitler" argument is bunk. The Soviet people beat Hitler. And they could have done it a lot quicker with qualified, intelligent generals like Tukhachevsky and Blyucher alive and in charge.

P.S. to those claiming "Stalin's industrialization" won the war.. are you not aware that Trotsky proposed the first Five-Year Plan, and Stalin initially opposed and defeated it?

[Kayser_Soso]

The Germans were unprepared for the first Winter because they thought the war could be won before its onset. They were wrong, they underestimated the tenacity of the Soviet people. That said, the Wehrmacht knew the next few Winters were coming so the "Winter beat Hitler" argument is bunk. The Soviet people beat Hitler. And they could have done it a lot quicker with qualified, intelligent generals like Tukhachevsky and Blyucher alive and in charge.

The doctrine of Tukhachevsky survived him, and perhaps it was better that way since Tukhachevsky's loyalty was indeed suspect. Chris Bellamy at the end of his book Absolute War suggests that a pro-Nazi coup led by Tukhachevsky could have created a scenario "too terrible to imagine".

That aside, the reason for the problems in early 1941 were manifold, and not simply related to incompetent officers. The Red Army relied heavily on telephone lines for security; technically a good idea, save for the fact that before 22 June, the Germans activated their spies and dropped parachutists to cut telephone lines all over, severing commanders from their troops at the front. In some areas, Germans approached border guards as though they wanted to talk, and then machine gunned their victims. Tukhachevsky's strategy, as well as the strategy of the Red Army worked out in May of 1941 was also flawed in the sense that it stressed offense above all, with very little in the way of concepts like strategic retreat or defense in depth. The doctrine of "deep battle" had to be developed in practice, not just on the table, and as David M. Glantz and other authors show, the Red Army officers learned from their mistakes quickly.

That being said, the fact is that Operation Barbarossa was a failure(it was supposed to capture Moscow in three weeks or less), and there were many set backs and minor defeats from the first days. I suggest reading Erhard Rauss's chapter in Fighting in Hell to see what kind of dangers the Germans faced even in early in the campaign. Then there were things like the Yelnya counter-offensive, and the initial stand in Ukraine which forced the Germans to rethink their offensive.



P.S. to those claiming "Stalin's industrialization" won the war.. are you not aware that Trotsky proposed the first Five-Year Plan, and Stalin initially opposed and defeated it?

Immaterial. What matters is who actually carried the process out. Trotsky also claimed that socialism couldn't be built in one country. How would the USSR have faired had they been sitting around waiting for revolution in more advanced countries(which of course WOULDN'T be "bureaucratic"; something we can be sure of for unknown reasons).

[RedStarOverChina]

Truth is, none of us knows.

But Trotsky was the "ironfist" leader of the Soviet Union before Stalin gained such a reputation...I'm quite certain Trotsky too would have done similar distasteful but necessary things to resist the Nazis.

[greymatter]

Stalin was in collusion (Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov-Ribbentrop_Pact)) with Hitler to carve up Poland, so with Trotsky in charge the Germans might not have had Soviet permission to start the whole fucking war in the first place.

Stalin ignored repeated warnings of a German invasion. I think Trotsky would not have ignored these warnings have would have mobilized earlier than Stalin did. Trotsky would not have purged the Soviet Union's military commanders either, so maybe the soviet strategists would have been able to come up with better strategies than massed attacks with unarmed peasants. Or, maybe they would have fed and armed their men (and women, which is way cool) well enough that they wouldn't need barrier troops to shoot the retreaters.

Daamn, that's some ice pick baby.

[Kayser_Soso]

Stalin was in collusion (Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov-Ribbentrop_Pact)) with Hitler to carve up Poland, so with Trotsky in charge the Germans might not have had Soviet permission to start the whole fucking war in the first place.

Great, another Wikipedia scholar. Did you know that Poland had a non-aggression pact with Germany as well, and that they colluded to carve up Czechoslovakia, while at the same time the USSR was negotiating with Britain and France to send as many as 1 million troops to prevent the annexation of Czechoslovakia. The negotiations failed partially because of the French and British deliberately sending diplomats without authority to sign agreements, and partially because Poland refused to give transit rights to the Red Army. Hmm...let's see, Poland refuses to stop Germany's annexation of Czechoslovakia, they refuse transit rights to the Red Army, and as a reward, they get a piece of the newly independent Slovakia. Almost like a quid pro quo, until Nazi Germany attacked Poland and Slovakia took it's territory back.

The argument that the Molotov-Ribbentrop act started WWII is simply ludicrous, and is a modern right-wing argument. It assumes that Hitler would not have gone to war if he had to risk and open flank, which is a ridiculous assumption based on Hitler's behavior. It also ignores a long line of collaboration and collusion which Britain and France engaged in from 1933.



Stalin ignored repeated warnings of a German invasion. I think Trotsky would not have ignored these warnings have would have mobilized earlier than Stalin did.

He did not ignore the warnings, he believed they might have been disinformation to provoke the USSR into a war. Germany generally always had some kind of crazy excuse as to why their invasions of other countries were actually "defensive".



Trotsky would not have purged the Soviet Union's military commanders either, so maybe the soviet strategists would have been able to come up with better strategies than massed attacks with unarmed peasants.

I don't know why you make this assumption. Soviet strategy at the time was probably the most advanced in the world, rivaled only by that of Germany. The term "blitzkrieg" was rarely used in Germany, and did not constitute a form of official doctrine. By contrast, "deep battle" was the Soviet doctrine of choice. And "massed attacks with unarmed peasants"? Where the hell did you get that idea? Not even Enemy at the Gates was that inaccurate.



Or, maybe they would have fed and armed their men (and women, which is way cool) well enough that they wouldn't need barrier troops to shoot the retreaters.

They did feed and arm their men and women. Occasions when people were not sufficiently armed were rare.

[Bankotsu]

It also ignores a long line of collaboration and collusion which Britain and France engaged in from 1933.

Chamberlain's policy since he took over in 1937 was to let Germany expand eastwards and let Hitler move on east to destroy the USSR.

This is well known to the left but suppressed in most western histories.


Until the war began in September 1939, powerful factions of the French and British ruling class hoped that Hitler would attack the USSR and thereby eliminate their main enemy without them firing a shot. This was the thinking behind the Munich agreement of 1938, which dismembered Czechoslovakia. I remember the news reels when Neville Chamberlain came back from Germany waving a piece of paper and muttering, “Peace in our time.”


http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/nov2009/slau-n02.shtml




What was the real situation in the 1930s? The appeasement policy was not the result of some failure to stand up to the dictator Hitler, but involved a very definite set of calculations. British accommodation to the Nazi regime was based on the hope that Hitler would carry out the program outlined in his book Mein Kampf and launch a war against the Soviet Union, from which British imperialism would be able to benefit. Britain had pursued the overthrow of the Soviet regime from the day after the revolution of October 1917. There was no more passionate supporter of this goal than Churchill, who advocated military intervention by the imperialist powers to “strangle the Bolshevik infant in its cradle.”


http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/nov2009/nbww-n18.shtml


And by this date, certain members of the Milner Group and of the British Conservative government had reached the fantastic idea that they could kill two birds with one stone by setting Germany and Russia against one another in Eastern Europe.

In this way they felt that the two enemies would stalemate one another, or that Germany would become satisfied with the oil of Rumania and the wheat of the Ukraine. It never occurred to anyone in a responsible position that Germany and Russia might make common cause, even temporarily, against the West. Even less did it occur to them that Russia might beat Germany and thus open all Central Europe to Bolshevism...

http://www.yamaguchy.netfirms.com/7897401/quigley/anglo_12b.html


Far from opposing Nazism, however, the political leaders of Britain and France
and a number of other western countries believed that they could use Hitler to
destroy what they saw as a far greater danger to their power and privileges —
the Bolsheviks of the Soviet Union.

The socialist USSR was an example that a new social system bringing an end to
capitalist exploitation was possible. It was a hindrance to the plans of the
imperialist states to re-divide the world’s markets and control the resources
of the colonies to their own advantage.

While the governments of the US, Britain and France wanted to unite the
capitalist world against the Soviet Union by forming a compact with Hitler’s
Germany, the capitalists of Germany sought such a union through the subjugation
of other capitalist countries.

Some imperialist politicians saw this contradiction clearly — Churchill in
Britain, Barthou in France, Roosevelt in the US — but they were the minority.
Most were so blinded by anti-communism that they were prepared to give the
fascists a free hand.

Praised Hitler

In Australia, Robert Menzies publicly praised Hitler and helped the Japanese
militarist regime arm for war with exports of strategically important
resources. The name of "Pig Iron Bob" was associated with the conservative PM
from that time on.

Barthou brought the USSR into the League of Nations and, as Germany and Japan
left it, the Soviet Foreign Minister Litvinov began the fight for the adoption
of the principle of collective security.

However, influential leaders of the capitalist powers believed that German
fascism was the only bulwark against Bolshevism. They confidently expected that
a re-armed Germany would sweep to the East and destroy the centre of the Red
contagion — the USSR.

http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache:59D4W6HJHCsJ:www.mail-archive.com/pnews-l%40yahoogroups.com/msg02659.html+http://www.cpa.org.au/garchve05/1226ww2.html&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=sg&client=firefox-a



The anti-Bolsheviks, including D'Abernon, Smuts, Sir John Simon, and H. A. L. Fisher (Warden of All Souls College), were willing to go to any extreme to tear down France and build up Germany.

This Round Table Group formed the core of the three-bloc-world supporters, and differed from the anti-Bolsheviks like D'Abernon in that they sought to contain the Soviet Union between a German-dominated Europe and an English-speaking bloc rather than to destroy it as the anti-Bolsheviks wanted...

http://real-world-news.org/bk-quigley/12.html#42


Why should any of us be afraid to meet the representatives of other nations and discuss the possibilities of peace? Of what are hon. Members afraid? Is it not because we have a Government which has been concerned all along with pursuing its own Imperialist policy first, and in trying to direct Germany against the Soviet Union?

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1939/oct/03/war-situation#S5CV0351P0_19391003_HOC_350


An Interview with Brezhnev

There was much trumpeting about it in the West when, following October of 1917, Soviet Russia was invaded by some 15 countries, including the United States, in order to strangle the revolution and restore the old order. British Prime Minister Chamberlain expatiated about it when concluding a deal with Hitler in Munich aimed at directing his aggressive intentions against the Soviet Union.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,920032-4,00.html



Russia: Get it right on World War II

The article ‘Russia should admit to Stalinist missteps’ by a Mr Eric Auchard, published in the Business Daily on September 4, 2009, misrepresents facts and the position of the Russian Federation in connection with the 70th anniversary of the beginning of the Second World War. I would like to present the Russian position on this matter.

Seventy years ago, on the September 1, 1939 the greatest tragedy — the Second World War — started. It took lives of more than 50 million people, including 27 million of the Soviet Union citizens, becoming the most brutal and bloody in history.

The tolerance of the leading powers of those times, which were trying to settle the issue of their own safety at the expense of the safety and sovereignty of the others, as it had been shown by the Munich Agreement, promoted the realisation of the expansionist plans of the Fascist regime.

The atmosphere of mutual mistrust and suspiciousness which prevailed in Europe, the intention of the western ‘democracies’ to turn the vector of the aggression against the Soviet Union, smartly used by Hitler, also contributed to those plans.

The Soviet policy constituted a part of the general situation in Europe on the eve of the Second World War and should not be considered out of this context.

The difference was in the fact that up to the spring of 1939 the Soviet diplomacy had been more active and consequent in making efforts to organise the collective counteraction to the aggression. And it is not the fault of Moscow.

The tries of those who instigated Hitler to his campaign to the East to put the blame for unleashing the War on both Germany, nurturing its aggressive plans, and the Soviet Union, pursuing only defence ends, are blasphemous and even anti-historical.

The allegations that there was a ‘deal’ between Stalin and Hitler as well as about the Nazism and Communism were ‘identical’ are at least absurd.

Such approaches demonstrate the intention to shift the burden of responsibility for unleashing the War from its true initiators to Russia, to review the history of the Second World War, to discredit Russia and to play down its role in defeating the Fascism.

No surprise that the authors of the biased re-writing of the history try not to remember the policy of ‘pacification’ of Hitler and its shameful climax – the Munich Agreement which untied Hitler’s hands.

It is lamentable and disgusting that different kinds of political forces have recently become active, using the dishonest tricks to falsify the history to please the political conjuncture, and trying to revise the results of the Second World War which are set up in the UN Charter and other international legal documents.

Twenty years after the Berlin Wall fell, the attempts of politicising the history can be considered none other than the attempts to draw the new dividing lines in the European continent.

Unfortunately, there is too much unconcealed lie, conjuncture, self-interest and striving for declining the responsibility for their own past, as well as for solving the existing problems at somebody else’s expense in the discussions regarding the origins of the Second World War.

Even during the period of the ‘cold war’ nobody ever tried to put the Nazi regime on a level with the Stalin dictatorship. The attempt to equate the dates of August 23 (the conclusion of the Soviet-German Non-Aggression Pact) and of September 1, 1939 (the German attack on Poland) constitutes the culmination of the historical revisionism.

These two events are taken from the general historic context, without mentioning that the Munich Agreement of 1938 caused the separation and occupation of Czechoslovakia and other events which became the ground for the German aggression consequently directing it to the East.

In the past, there are a lot of pages which many people in the West would like to forget about.

How to qualify the ‘Strange war’, which pointed out the dishonest plans of the Western allies in relation to the Soviet Union as regards the attack of Germany on Poland?

What to do with the collaborationism that took place everywhere at that time? Some have been standing up for their right to fight for independence in the SS uniform until now.

The politicising of history has become the state affair in some countries. Russia is not going to censor the historical science or re-writing the history in its own way. We paid a high price for our victory and we will not let anybody to take it from us. This is our corner-stone.

We believe that when analysing the dramatic events leading up to the Second World War, it is incumbent upon us to draw lessons from them. To do so it is necessary to cast aside the political stereotypes of the past, the clichés and distortions of history, and suppression of facts.


Valery Yegoshkin is Ambassador of the Russian Federation in the Republic of Kenya.


http://www.businessdailyafrica.com/Opinion%20&%20Analysis/-/539548/657826/-/item/0/-/ladndxz/-/index.html

[Jazzratt]

To be honest a much more interesting question is whether or not a Tsarist regime would have won in world war 2. Certainly a more fitting alt-history question for OI.

[Richard Nixon]

To be honest a much more interesting question is whether or not a Tsarist regime would have won in world war 2. Certainly a more fitting alt-history question for OI.

Depends on how much it's industrialized.

[Honggweilo]

To be honest a much more interesting question is whether or not a Tsarist regime would have won in world war 2. Certainly a more fitting alt-history question for OI.
I think a Tsarist regime could have made the rise of nazist fascism in germany much more difficult, because of the anti-communist backbone of its rise to power. I guess in such an alternate history, the storyline of the game "Ironstorm" might have been possible

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Storm_%28video_game%29


The game is set in an alternate 1964, in which World War I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I) never ended. The Baron Nikolai Alexsandrovich von Ugenberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_von_Ungern-Sternberg) seized Mongolia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongolia) in 1921 in an uprising following the Russian Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Revolution_%281917%29), and later invaded Russia itself to crush the Bolsheviks. His plan was to establish a Russo-Mongolian Empire stretching from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic. With the help of the United States, the Allied nations of Europe were reformed as the United States of Western Europe, or the Alliance, in 1933 to counter Ugenberg's plan.
Instead of the Great War ending in 1918, it was continued for almost half a century, with the battlelines drawn down Europe's center in 1929 shifting little for either side for the next several decades. As the USWE could no longer independently contribute to the war, the Alliance army was introduced into the American stock market, allowing private investors to speculate on the lives of the soldiers who carried on the war. The outcome of the war now depended almost entirely on the economy of the Alliance's member nations.

[Kayser_Soso]

To be honest a much more interesting question is whether or not a Tsarist regime would have won in world war 2. Certainly a more fitting alt-history question for OI.

Because of rising nationalism in Russia today, there seems to be a new rising current where it is claimed that everything was fine with the Tsarist regime, in WWI, and that it WOULD have industrialized Russia had it not been for WWI. Sadly, WWI did happen, so the argument is moot. I still hear it a lot though.

[Richard Nixon]

Because of rising nationalism in Russia today, there seems to be a new rising current where it is claimed that everything was fine with the Tsarist regime, in WWI, and that it WOULD have industrialized Russia had it not been for WWI. Sadly, WWI did happen, so the argument is moot. I still hear it a lot though.

That doesn't stop us from speculating, though. Also obviously Tsarist Russia had plenty of bad stuff: Rasputin most notably but a sane and rational Tsarist Russia might have been just as or even more well prepared than Stalin's USSR for World War 2.

[tellyontellyon]

I thought that the policies of the comintern under Stalin, with regard to the left in Germany, that made it possible for Hitler to come to power in the first place?

[Richard Nixon]

Nazism came to power in Germany based on anti-communism and Nazis murdered thousands of German communists while coming to power. They were the victims of Nazism. How can you blame the communists for Hitler coming to power? Also, which policies specifically are you saying aided Nazism or are you just randomly accusing Stalin for something that went horribly wrong?

What he's saying is that communism caused the Nazis to be elected on a wave of fear of communism.

[Bankotsu]

Here is a narrative and analysis of How Hitler came to power in Jan 1933:





In the crisis of 1929-1933, the bourgeois parties tended to dissolve to the profit of the extreme Left and the extreme Right.

In this the Nazi Party profited more than the Communists for several reasons:

(1) it had the financial support of the industrialists and landlords;

(2) it was not internationalist, but nationalist, as any German party had to be;

(3) it had never compromised itself by accepting the republic even temporarily, an advantage when most Germans tended to blame the republic for their troubles;

(4) it was prepared to use violence, while the parties of the Left, even the Communists, were legalistic and relatively peaceful, because the police and judges were of the Right.

The reasons why the Nazis, rather than the Nationalists, profited by the turn from moderation could be explained by the fact that

(1) the Nationalists had compromised themselves and vacillated on every issue from 1924 to 1929, and

(2) the Nazis had an advantage in that they were not clearly a party of the Right but were ambiguous; in fact, a large group of Germans considered the Nazis a revolutionary Left party differing from the Communists only in being patriotic.

In this polarization of the political spectrum it was the middle classes which became unanchored, driven by desperation and panic. The Social Democrats were sufficiently fortified by trade unionism, and the Center Party members were sufficiently fortified by religion to resist the drift to extremism. Unfortunately, both these relatively stable groups lacked intelligent leadership and were too wedded to old ideas and narrow interests to find any appeal broad enough for a wide range of German voters.

The whole of 1932 was filled with a series of intrigues and distrustful, shifting alliances among the various groups which sought to get into a position to use the presidential power of decree.

On October 11, 1931, a great reactionary alliance was made of the Nazis, the Nationalists, the Stahlhelm (a militaristic veterans' organization), and the Junker Landbund.

This so-called "Harzburg Front" pretended to be a unified opposition to Communism, but really represented part of the intrigue of these various groups to come to power. Of the real rulers of Germany, only the Westphalian industrialists and the army were absent.

The industrialists were taken into camp by Hitler during a three-hour speech which he made at the Industrial Club of Dusseldorf at the invitation of Fritz Thyssen (January 27, 1932).

The army could not be brought into line, since it was controlled by the presidential coterie, especially Schleicher and Hindenburg himself. Schleicher had political ambitions of his own, and the army traditionally would not commit itself in any open or formal fashion.

In the middle of this crisis came the presidential election of March-April 1932. It offered a fantastic sight of a nominally democratic republic forced to choose its president from among four anti-democratic, anti-republican figures of which one (Hitler) had become a German citizen only a month previously by a legal trick. Since Hindenburg appeared as the least impossible of the four, he was reelected on the second ballot:

First Ballot Second Ballot

Hindenburg 18,661,736 19,359,533
Hitler 11,338,571 13,418,051
Thไlmann, Communist 4,982,079 3,706,655
Dsterberg, Stahlhelm 2,557,876

Hindenburg continued to support Brning until the end of May 1932, when he dismissed him and put in Von Papen. This was done at the instigation of Von Schleicher who was hoping to build up some kind of broad-front coalition of nationalists and workers as a facade for the Reichswehr.

In this plan Schleicher was able to get Hindenburg to abandon Brning by persuading him that the chancellor was planning to break up some of the bankrupt large estates east of the Elbe and might even investigate the Osthilfe scandals. Schleicher put in Papen as chancellor in the belief that Papen had so little support in the country that he would be completely dependent on Schleicher's ability to control Hindenburg.

Instead, the president became so fond of Papen that the new chancellor was able to use Hindenburg's power directly, and even began to undermine the influence of Schleicher in the president's entourage.

Papen's "Cabinet of the barons" was openly a government of the Quartet and had almost no support in the Reichstag and little support in the country. Papen and Schleicher realized that it could not last long. Each began to form a plot to consolidate himself and stop the polarization of political opinion in Germany.

Papen's plot was to cut off the financial contributions from industry to Hitler and break down the Nazi Party's independence by a series of expensive elections. The chancellor felt sure that Hitler would he willing to come into a Cabinet of which Papen was head in order to recover the financial contributions from industry and prevent the disruption of his party.

Schleicher, on the other hand, hoped to unite the Left wing of the Nazi Party under Otto Strasser with the Christian and Socialist labor unions to support the Reichwehr in a program of nationalism and unorthodox finance. Both plots dependent on retaining the favor of Hindenburg in order to retain control of the army and of the presidential power to issue decrees. In this, Papen was more successful than Schleicher, for the aged president had no liking for any unorthodox economic schemes.

Papen's plot developed more rapidly than Schleicher's and appeared more hopeful because of his greater ability to control the president. Having persuaded his close friends, the industrialists, to stop their contributions to the Nazis, Papen called a new election for November 1932. In the balloting the Nazis were reduced from 230 to 196 seats, while the Communists were increased from 89 to 100.

The tide had turned. This had three results:

(1) Hitler decided to join a coalition government, which he had previously refused;

(2) the Quartet decided to overthrow the republic in order to stop the swing to the Communists; and

(3) the Quartet, especially the industrialists, decided that Hitler had learned a lesson and could safely be put into office as the figurehead of a Right government because he was growing weaker.

The whole deal was arranged by Papen, himself a colonel and an industrialist as w ell as a Westphalian aristocrat, and was sealed in an agreement made at the home of the Cologne banker Baron Kurt von Schroder, on January 4, 933.

This agreement came into effect because of Papen's ability to manage Hindenburg.

On January 28, 1933, the president forced the resignation of Schleicher by refusing to grant him decree powers. Two days later Hitler came to office as chancellor in a Cabinet which contained only two other Nazis.

These were Minister of Air Goring and Frick in the vital Ministry of the Interior. Of the other eight posts, two, the ministries of economics and agriculture, went to Hugenburg; the Ministry of Labor went to Franz Seldte of the Stahlhelm, the Foreign Ministry and the Reichswehr Ministry went to nonparty experts, and most of the remaining posts went to friends of Papen.

It would not seem possible for Hitler, thus surrounded, ever to obtain control of Germany, yet within a year and a half he was dictator of the country....

http://real-world-news.org/bk-quigley/09.html#28

[Kléber]

Also, which policies specifically are you saying aided Nazism or are you just randomly accusing Stalin for something that went horribly wrong?
He's talking about the "social-fascism" policy, which theorized that, due to the killings of 1919, Social-Democracy was as dangerous as fascism. This mistaken conclusion led the Comintern to force the KPD to treat the SPD like, if not worse than, the NSDAP. For example, in 1931, the KPD and the Nazis worked together in a referendum to oust the local Prussian SPD government. Also, seeing the SPD as "social-fascists" led the KPD to refuse SPD calls for a fighting coalition against the Nazis, so the combat organizations of the two nominally Marxist parties engaged in three-way street warfare against each other and the Nazi gangs. IIRC, Thaelmann defied Comintern orders and tried to form a pact with the SPD shortly before Hitler took power, but the SPD cynically refused this offer.

[Kayser_Soso]

He's talking about the "social-fascism" policy, which theorized that, due to the killings of 1919, Social-Democracy was as dangerous as fascism. This mistaken conclusion led the Comintern to force the KPD to treat the SPD like, if not worse than, the NSDAP. For example, in 1931, the KPD and the Nazis worked together in a referendum to oust the local Prussian SPD government. Also, seeing the SPD as "social-fascists" led the KPD to refuse SPD calls for a fighting coalition against the Nazis, so the combat organizations of the two nominally Marxist parties engaged in three-way street warfare against each other and the Nazi gangs. IIRC, Thaelmann defied Comintern orders and tried to form a pact with the SPD shortly before Hitler took power, but the SPD cynically refused this offer.

The SPD had been taking other actions to fuck the Communists long before that, so it is not surprising that they refused such an offer.

[Red Icepick]

Except, that did not happen. Nazis were not "elected". They came to power based on creating fear and hatred among the common population and dividing the working class. Not to mention they were supported by the capitalist class. If you're claiming they were "elected", give your sources.

How about any history book on the subject? Quit smoking crack. It can't be argued that Hitler didn't legitimately rise to power democratically. If you want to learn from history, look at the facts honestly and soberly even if they might seem disturbing or inconvenient.

[Kayser_Soso]

How about any history book on the subject? Quit smoking crack. It can't be argued that Hitler didn't legitimately rise to power democratically. If you want to learn from history, look at the facts honestly and soberly even if they might seem disturbing or inconvenient.

He is right though, Hitler was chosen as Chancellor by Hindenburg after Fritz von Papen convinced him to do so. The Nazi party had lost some seats in the 1932 election and did not have a majority. Nazis also did not have a majority in the cabinet either.

[Red Icepick]

He is right though, Hitler was chosen as Chancellor by Hindenburg after Fritz von Papen convinced him to do so. The Nazi party had lost some seats in the 1932 election and did not have a majority. Nazis also did not have a majority in the cabinet either.

Right, all of it was legitimate. Hitler succeeded in seizing power democratically. One more reason why democracy does not work.

[Kayser_Soso]

Right, all of it was legitimate. Hitler succeeded in seizing power democratically. One more reason why democracy does not work.

Legally yes, but oftentimes people believe that he was voted into power. It didn't exactly work that way. Nor did he take absolute power via democratic means.

[AvanteRedGarde]

Who cares. A number of US presidents lost the popular vote but nonetheless became president 'legally.'

The lesson to be learned is how fascistic declassed labor aristocracts and petty bourgeoisie are, and that bourgeoisie democracy and 'social democratic' movements are hardly guarantees against inherently reactionary capitalist-imperialism.

[Luisrah]

People enphasize a lot the fact that Hitler was elected democratically, but that is possibly another anti-communist argument, since the Bolsheviks ''didn't take power in a democratic way''.

It's all something to make the Nazis better than the Communists in my opinion.