What If?

[Lost In Translation]

As human beings, we are generally curious of what another outcome of something might be. I was reading this book discussing alternative results might be for World War 2, and I was interested in what they had to say about the communist involvement.

The answer: not much.

So, I leave you, comrades, to discuss this question: What if "socialism in one country" never existed? What if Trotsky, not Stalin, took over during world war 2? Would this have any affect over the connotation of communism in the 21st century?

[Dros]

Well the Soviet Union would have become openly capitalist much sooner and Germany may have won WWII.

[Red October]

Two scenarios (depending on who you ask).

Scenario 1: Socialism flourishes all over the USSR, creating miracles such as unicorns, fairy dust, and friendly dragons.

Scenario 2: Evil Trotsky soon reforms the USSR back into capitalism and gets tight with Hitler, thereby betraying the Russian Revolution and losing WW2.


I'm just taking the piss

[Niccolò Rossi]

Well the Soviet Union would have become openly capitalist much sooner and Germany may have won WWII.

Oh how I love your fantastically informative and in depth posts Drosera, after all who needs evidence when we have assertions...

In all seriousness I'll agree Red October in that this thread will soon turn into another pointless debate and dogmatic debate on Trotsky and Stalin.

Before it does however, I would like to make known my position.

Firstly, questions such as the one you posed serves only academic purposes and is a rather pointless debate. Not to say that it won't be interesting though *cough* yeah right *cough*, but that depends on your opinion.

Secondly, even if Trotsky had come to power I think very little would have been different. Certainly Trotsky would have made different decisions and what not, but unlike the dogmatists on here (certain Trots and M-L's), I don't believe that history would have been radically different. Any such garbage talk is a return to a "great-men-in-history" perspective.

[Random Precision]

You cannot separate Trotsky's fall from power with the social conditions in the USSR that caused Stalin's rise to power. Trotsky remaining in power would require the expansion of the revolution beyond Russia's borders during the revolutionary wave of 1917, which would have shaped a very different Europe- so no World War II, at least not the one we remember, or one that bears any resemblance whatsoever. Simply substituting Trotsky for Stalin would change essentially nothing, because in Stalin's position Trotsky would have had no choice but to act in the interest of the Russian bureaucratic leadership, just like his rival.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Well, except that since 1920 Trotsky was ALREADY acting in the interests of certain bureaucratic segments (Lenin criticized Trotsky's bureaucratic tendencies time and again). It's just that "Comrade" Stalin represented the more politically important bureaucratic segments (cadres and what not). :)

[Dros]

Oh how I love your fantastically informative and in depth posts Drosera, after all who needs evidence when we have assertions...

Well...

Since Trotsky openly opposed the construction of socialism in the USSR in the absence of revolutions throughout Europe, I think the first part is rather obvious. The second part is that in the absence of central planning, industrialization could never have happened fast enough to give Russia a chance against the Nazis. And it was essentially the crushing defeat in Russia that stopped German expansion and really began to end Fascist military supremacy.

[Random Precision]

Well...

Since Trotsky openly opposed the construction of socialism in the USSR in the absence of revolutions throughout Europe, I think the first part is rather obvious. The second part is that in the absence of central planning, industrialization could never have happened fast enough to give Russia a chance against the Nazis. And it was essentially the crushing defeat in Russia that stopped German expansion and really began to end Fascist military supremacy.

Do you seriously not know that Trotsky proposed centrally-planned industrialization years before Stalin did?


Well, except that since 1920 Trotsky was ALREADY acting in the interests of certain bureaucratic segments (Lenin criticized Trotsky's bureaucratic tendencies time and again). It's just that "Comrade" Stalin represented the more politically important bureaucratic segments (cadres and what not).

What "less important" bureaucratic segments was Trotsky acting in the interest of?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Whatever commissariat(s) he was in charge of besides Army and Navy (I think it was railroads or something)... ;)

Yeah: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Trotsky#1920

In any event, personal-power politics during the revolutionary era meant that significant persons had multiple relationships outside their formal bureaucracies (kinda like Yezhov at his peak, with his economic post being a formality in addition to his secret police post).

He didn't advocate labour armies and what not (even with the Civil War winding down and the Polish-Soviet war brewing) just for nothing.

[Prairie Fire]

If Trotsky (Lenins "Hier" :rolleyes:) had come to power instead of Joe?

Well, obviously the bureacracy would have been swept away (Why? Because, that's why), trade union strikes all over the developed imperialist countries would have developed into revolutions (Why? Because, that's why), and socialism would have spread in the absence of" socialism in one country" (Why? because, that's why.).

There never would have been a cult of persynality (:lol:), the German revolution would have triumphed (Why? Because, that's why), the whole world would be socialist on the road to communism, and gum drops would grow on trees instead of leaves, (Why?Because, that's why)which the workers could harvest and eat to their hearts content, but their teeth would never rot from all that candy, because Trotsky triumphed over Stalin! Hooray!

:rolleyes:

[punisa]

State of war is usually a complex environment which is hardly won by reason. After the German invasion of USSR it has become obvious that this war will be fought to the extinction (sort of).
Millions of casualties in the ruins of Stalingrad could mean only one thing - eventually Berlin will look the same.

I am critical about some Stalin's practices and reforms, but Joe won the war and I doubt many could do this.
Stalin's personality poured over to the battlefield and many army commanders were (so to say) imitating his cruel and emotionless stance.

Although reading about soviet army officials makes us shiver, Stalingrad was defended and one of the biggest armies in human history (German 6th Army) was crushed. As we all know, these events served as the foundation for massive contra attack that eventually destroyed Nazi Germany.

If Stalingrad fell, I'm pretty sure Moscow would do - and there you have it, alternative history where we are all Nazi. Well perhaps I wouldn't be, cause Hitler hated Slavs and would eventually exterminated us :scared:

Could Trotsky win this war? Perhaps he could - I'll just stick to that.

BTW, if I understood the topic introduction correctly, we are debating about WW2, not "before" or "after" phases.

[Lamanov]

Well, except that since 1920 Trotsky was ALREADY acting in the interests of certain bureaucratic segments (Lenin criticized Trotsky's bureaucratic tendencies time and again). It's just that "Comrade" Stalin represented the more politically important bureaucratic segments (cadres and what not). :)

Oh, and "Comrade" Lenin had nothing to do with bureaucracy. :laugh:

The "What if" questions, if you ask me, are generally infantile, and so is this one.

[Invader Zim]

I fail to see why these kinds of nonsense counter-factual questions are placed in this history forum. They aren't history. History deals with the past, i.e. actual events in human history. Counter Factual history does have a place within the disipline, but I would argue a very small one. I can see the logic of concluding that without 'x' factor, 'y' seems unlikely to have occured in the manner it did. For example I think it fair to assume, baed on the documentary evidence, that without the cracking of the Enigma codes, various military campaigns would have been more costly to the allies. But to attempt to fathom the impact a different regime in the Soviet Union upon the history of WW2 is impossible; indeed, it is beyond even being a useful question. It is the kind of question posed not by serious historians, but by novelists; and rightly so.

[Dros]

Do you seriously not know that Trotsky proposed centrally-planned industrialization years before Stalin did?

I'm aware of that. That's why you always claim Stalin stole Trotsky's plan!

I'm not continuing this line of though further because I don't want to sidetrack yet another thread into "Stalin: For or Against Part 3,271, the Redundant and Unnecessary Sequel".

But I will say that I don't think Trotsky could have managed to do it while opposing socialism in one country.

[Lost In Translation]

Ok...so would there have been any better way for Stalin to do things? Without depending on the Americans with the War Loans? Would they still have been in the winner's circle? Would Communism be more mainstream? Would we not have to discuss this in a forum?

[KrazyRabidSheep]

What if Trotsky, not Stalin, took over during world war 2? Would this have any affect over the connotation of communism in the 21st century?
Yes, it would have affected the 21st century in numerous ways.

How? Don't ask me. It didn't happen, so I can't tell you.

Maybe Michael Jackson would still be a black man.

[Prairie Fire]

Ok...so would there have been any better way for Stalin to do things?

Well, yeah, of course;there are things that could have been done, certainly (Albania improved qualitatively on many of these aspects, especially in the realm of social issues).

That said, the way things were done had successes that in many ways trumped the failures.


Without depending on the Americans with the War Loans?


Oh, fuck off, "Depending on the Americans". After the Second world war, many forecasters predicted it may take the USSR as much as a century to completely recover from the devastation of the horrible world war; the USSR surprised them by bouncing back within a decade, and they did this without massive American aid, unlike the former European powers and defeated fascist countries.


Would Communism be more mainstream?

I hate having to show this graphic to Trots repeatedly, because I don't think it's ever going to sink in, but still I try:

http://www.thebestlinks.com/images/c/cf/WhiteArmyPropagandaPosterOfTrotsky.jpg

This is the type of propaganda the capitalists were producing, before Stalin was a major Bolshevik player (still important, but not commander in chief.).

I know occasionally capitalists feign interest that Trotsky "got robbed" of power by Stalin, but the reality is that if somehow, some way ,Trotsky had become general secretary of the CPSU instead, the only thing different about the propaganda posters would be the face that was demonized.

Let's rewind a bit earlier, before Trotsky, before the USSR, before the Revolution, before proletarian power had been applied on a mass scale (other than the paris commune), to this graphic:

http://marxists.anu.edu.au/subject/art/visual_arts/satire/marx/marx1.jpg

You don't get it do you? Communism is not "Mainstream", not because of it's own inherent contradictions (although social-imperialism did fuck up the rep,) but because of a carefully orchestrated mass propaganda campaign and ideological warfare against it. Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky.... The capitalist propaganda campaign will continue against communism no matter who it's leading theoretician is, and the capitalist state police will always squash un-ruly proletarians, so no, communism will never be "Mainstream" in a country under the dictatorship of the bourgoisie. The ruling ideas in every society are the ideas of the ruling class, this is basic Marxism. Don't be so naive and reformist.


Would we not have to discuss this in a forum?

Technically, we don't have to discuss anything in a forum, least of all this Trotskyist whining that your cult figure didn't get his "rightful place" as "Lenin's hier".

[Fiskpure]

It depends entirely on when Trotsky would have 'made his return'. I'm pretty sure the "brotherly unions" would have tryed to break away, which would probobly have lead to another fight for re-union or civil war.

I belive this would have been taken to advantage by many countries, either the former Entente powers in the '20s and the fascists in the '30s, not to mention all the neighboring nations.

Then again, what would have happened if Hitler would not been appointed Chancellor.

[Charliesoo]

In history I don't like to deal in historical what ifs. There are so many mistakes that were made throughout history that would have made the world better today. People make different decisions when they are backed against a wall and fighting. Much as the allied powers were in WWII. So, who can really say how things would have turned out? There are infinite possibilies. Plus, "what if's" just bring up many painful events.