Trotsky wanted to invade India?

[Blanquist]

I'm reading a Chinese trotskyist and he says trotsky wanted to send 40,000 troops to India to forment an uprising? and he wanted to invade germany in 1923?

Are there any english sources for this?

[Vorchev]

Russia fought the Great Game with Britain, and it's well known that the Polish-Soviet War was supposed to be a launchpad for invading Western Europe.

It sounds plausible, but no, I can't confirm it.

[Hit The North]

I can't find any evidence that Trotsky wanted to send troops to India. In the case of Germany, this would have meant having to pass through Poland first and would have been disasterous. In fact, in an address to Moscow Metal Workers (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1923/11/german.htm), Trotsky argues:


War is an equation with many unknowns. As far as a victory inside Germany is concerned, it is unnecessary to offer any assistance to Germany. A revolution which is not able to deal with its own bourgeoisie is a poor revolution. The German revolution is not in need of physical assistance.

So I'd suggest the Chinese comrade is mistaken.

[A Marxist Historian]

I can't find any evidence that Trotsky wanted to send troops to India. In the case of Germany, this would have meant having to pass through Poland first and would have been disasterous. In fact, in an address to Moscow Metal Workers (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1923/11/german.htm), Trotsky argues:



So I'd suggest the Chinese comrade is mistaken.

On Germany, that was a speech to the public, with Polish and German agents quite possibly in the audience. Trotsky clarified this later, in his autobiography I think.

In 1920, to some degree the whole point of marching into Poland was for a land bridge to Germany, so that the Red Army could come to the assistance of the expected German Revolution.

And in 1923, while Trotsky was making bland reassuring public speeches, he sent Bodyonny's cavalry division to the Polish border just across from East Prussia, where there was a thin slice of Polish territory between the USSR and Germany.

India I don't know about. I think Lenin speculated on the possibility at one point of sending the Red Army to aid an Indian insurrection, by way of Afghanistan, which had friendly relations with Soviet Russia under King Amanullah.

-M.H.-

[Aussie Trotskyist]

Trotsky supported World Revolution if that is what you wish to know. As such, he supported the assistance global revolutions. Therefore, I do not like to use the term invade, unless the nation in question was not experiencing a revolution.

[shinjuku dori]

On Germany, that was a speech to the public, with Polish and German agents quite possibly in the audience. Trotsky clarified this later, in his autobiography I think.

In 1920, to some degree the whole point of marching into Poland was for a land bridge to Germany, so that the Red Army could come to the assistance of the expected German Revolution.

And in 1923, while Trotsky was making bland reassuring public speeches, he sent Bodyonny's cavalry division to the Polish border just across from East Prussia, where there was a thin slice of Polish territory between the USSR and Germany.

India I don't know about. I think Lenin speculated on the possibility at one point of sending the Red Army to aid an Indian insurrection, by way of Afghanistan, which had friendly relations with Soviet Russia under King Amanullah.

-M.H.-

So he lied to people he supposed to represent while making secret plans with other red bureaucrats? This is Soviet democracy?

And friendly relations between a communist regime and a King? Is that an oxymoron, a sad joke, or a sad reality?

[jookyle]

Invading India would have been terrible idea. It probably would have meant war with the Britain and putting the USSR into that situation at the time would have meant it's end.

[Permanent Revolutionary]

And Blanky strikes again.

Might we be informed about whom you are reading?

[Comrade Trollface]

Trotsky supported World Revolution if that is what you wish to know. As such, he supported the assistance global revolutions. Therefore, I do not like to use the term invade, unless the nation in question was not experiencing a revolution.
He was also totally into suppressing workers' soviets if such counterrevolutionary suppression was deemed to be in the interests of the Bolshevik state. But I guess that is sort of the same thing. If you're completely and utterly mad.

[A Marxist Historian]

So he lied to people he supposed to represent while making secret plans with other red bureaucrats? This is Soviet democracy?

And friendly relations between a communist regime and a King? Is that an oxymoron, a sad joke, or a sad reality?

Amanullah was resisting British imperialism occasionally and even carrying out a few minor reforms. Which is why he got toppled in the late '20s by a reactionary ultra-Islamic plot backed by the Brits.

So, given that Afghanistan had nothing even slightly resembling a proletariat at that time and not even a rebellious peasantry, or even would-be reform-minded intellectuals for that matter, friendly diplomatic relations were perfectly appropriate, especially if that could facilitate helping revolution in India.

Public statements that the USSR had no plans to invade Poland at a public meeting aren't "lies to the workers." That was strictly for the benefit of the bourgeois press and foreign observers. In fact I suspect that party members were circulating around and explaining the situation to the workers at that meeting.

We're talking about a military situation here. Military secrets are necessary in any war or potential war situation. If military commanders are compelled, out of some misguided notions of "honesty," to publish their plans to the world--they lose and the other guys win.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

Invading India would have been terrible idea. It probably would have meant war with the Britain and putting the USSR into that situation at the time would have meant it's end.

No doubt, that's why it wasn't done.

But, if you'd had a revolution in India to support, which you did not, then perhaps the risk might have been worth it--at least after the Whites had been crushed and the USSR had recovered from the worst ravages of the Civil War through the NEP.

-M.H.-