How could've Trotsky took power?

[Parma]

Trotsky wouldn't purge the army as well, considering its members were among the few people who actually liked Trotsky

You never know, Stalin started this purges on a large scale in the thirties after he was some year in power. If officers in the Red Amry could be become a danger to his poewer, real or imagined he will start killing, like every despot

 

[CommieScum]

He might not target minorities, make him than better? I wonder if there is no Holodomor, there might be even a much larger famine in the Sovjet Union due to extremist agriculture experiments. Milions perished in China as well due to the policies of Mao and his communist.

There is really no way to go worse or more "extreme" than Lysenkoism, and Lysenko only gained prominence under Stalin. And with no Lysenko China is better also. I suspect that Trotsky will be harsher on the peasants however, atleast in the 1920s period as compared to Stalin.

 

[Parma]

There is really no way to go worse or more "extreme" than Lysenkoism, and Lysenko only gained prominence under Stalin. And with no Lysenko China is better also. I suspect that Trotsky will be harsher on the peasants however, atleast in the 1920s period as compared to Stalin.

Lysenkoism is indeed upper level lunacy. Never the less I am very, very sceptical of the communist system. It is inherent in disregarding the indiviual and value for life. Trotsky showed this in the civil war. Further power, specially absolute power combined with an extremist ideology will derail soner than later.

 

[Gar48]

You never know, Stalin started this purges on a large scale in the thirties after he was some year in power. If officers in the Red Amry could be become a danger to his poewer, real or imagined he will start killing, like every despot

Stalin was also a paranoid sociopath with a massive inferiority complex against popular army generals

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

Trotski was a communist, that alone is extreme enough. Defenitly he would sent milions in the slavery Gullag system , his ''buddy'' Lenin started the system.

There's a difference between using ex-Tsarist system with another name for political opponents and sending millions of persons without any good reason to.

Trosky led the Red Army during the civil war and was sucsesfull manly due to his extrmism and ruthlesness. It would be naive to think that the Sovjet Union would be even marginal better under Trotsky than under Stalin.

Obviously Trotsky isn't an angel but saying that he is as good as or worse than Stalin is an exaggeration.

I would think a Sovjet Union under Trotsky woul be even more expansionist in Europe and USA than under Stalin and dangerous. Stalin didn't like the possibility that , by exaple a Communist France or Germany would be more succesful than his Sovjet Union.

Trotsky believed in permanent revolution but he didn't believe that declaring war on all of Europe was a way of achieving his goals, he would only support communist movements for the moment (he's the guy who advised against invading Poland).

The communistic system disregard life and individuals. Trotsky would be the same insane dictator as Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and all the other comunist dictators. Will there not be milions sent in a slavery system as the Gulag than milions will perrish in insane economic and or agricultural experiments.

All communist dictators took inspiration of the first state who turned communist, they only copied Stalin and why do you think that Trotsky will do some crazy economic and agricultural experiments?

Lenin, Trotsky are extremist Stalin was more gangster, never the less they disregard life of humans in the name of their extremist world view.

That doesn't mean that he'll be worse than Stalin, he will do some of the policies Stalin did, but even excluding all regards for human beings, Stalin's policies were often stupid.

Maybe a Soviet victory during the Polish-Soviet war? OTL Trotsky supported the war, resulting in him and supporters being discretited by the Soviet defeat

ITTL Trosky's "Permanent Revolution" wpuld be proven right by the conquest of Poland and possibly the Baltics, alongside the likely survival of the Hungarian Soviet Republic

Trotsky advised against the war IOTL and the Hungarian Soviet Republic was already dead by the time of the battle of Warsaw.

He might not target minorities, make him than better? I wonder if there is no Holodomor, there might be even a much larger famine in the Sovjet Union due to extremist agriculture experiments. Milions perrished in China as well due to the policies of Mao and his communist.

Mao followed Stalin's example.

The structures that allowed Stalin to centralize power were already in place. Stalin was the first to realize the power of the General Secretary post, but it wont take political mastery to realize that the Resolution on Party Unity (1921) effectively makes the authority of the Central Committee ultimate. And if it is a Trotsky wins scenario, I would assume that Kamenev, Zinoviev and Stalin have already been eliminated from the Politburo

They don't necessarily need to be eliminated from the Politburo but they'll lose all real power at that point.

 

[Gar48]

Trotsky advised against the war IOTL and the Hungarian Soviet Republic was already dead by the time of the battle of Warsaw.

Could a victory help him anyway? While his opposition could be used against him, his reforms of the Red Army could be hailed as the reason for the conquest of Poland

Also the Soviet-Polish War started more or less during the Hungarian Revolution. A quick victory against Warsaw would mean the Soviet Union now borders Hungary, allowing Moscow to support their new comrades

Alternitavely a more succesfull Communist Hungary could be another POD to explain Trotsky's rise to power, alongside Germany going Red as well

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

Could a victory help him anyway? While his opposition could be used against him, his reforms of the Red Army could be hailed as the reason for the conquest of Poland

It would definitely make plans to support German communists more concrete and would scare the politicians in France and GB.

Also the Soviet-Polish War started more or less during the Hungarian Revolution. A quick victory against Warsaw would mean the Soviet Union now borders Hungary, allowing Moscow to support their new comrades

You have to speed up the Polish-Soviet war a lot for this.

Alternitavely a more succesfull Communist Hungary could be another POD to explain Trotsky's rise to power, alongside Germany going Red as well

I think supporting Hungary would be enough, IOTL they didn't even try to support Hungary (meanwhile they supported Kemal in his war of independence) and maybe Hungary not invading Slovakia and focusing on defending against Romania (IOTL the generals supported the communists until they decided to create the Slovak Soviet Republic when they resigned since Slovakia was considered naturally Hungarian). But a Communist Hungary and Germany wouldn't influence the power struggle in Moscow if Trotsky does the same things as IOTL.

 

[CommieScum]

I am skeptical that victory in Poland would give Trotsky the edge. If anything, the defeat was as much Stalin's fault and he survived it. Trotsky already has the army and the population on his side, the problem is that that didn't matter in the end, only the party.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

I am skeptical that victory in Poland would give Trotsky the edge. If anything, the defeat was as much Stalin's fault and he survived it. Trotsky already has the army and the population on his side, the problem is that that didn't matter in the end, only the party.

This thread is about how he could've won in the party.

 

[CommieScum]

This thread is about how he could've won in the party.

Yes, thats what I am saying. War performance seems not to have stopped Stalin from winning.

 

[Gar48]

So the more likely scenario for a Trotsky's leadership in the Soviet Union would be:

1. Lenin living a bit longer, solidifying Trotsky's position in the Soviet Government
2. The Hungarian Soviet Republic doing better than OTL, persuading Trotsky that Soviet expansion is possible
3. Poland falling or at least doing worse than OTL during the Polish-Soviet War, increasing the influence of the Red Army
4. Trotsky capitalising on his reforms of the Red Army and the its succeses during the Russian Civil War and the invasion of Poland
5. Stalin dying because I want him to die painfully in a ditch

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

Lenin living a bit longer, solidifying Trotsky's position in the Soviet Government

Not absolutely necessary but useful especially if him and Stalin still have conflicts

The Hungarian Soviet Republic doing better than OTL, persuading Trotsky that Soviet expansion is possible

You don't need that to convince Trotsky, he was already convinced.

Poland falling or at least doing worse than OTL during the Polish-Soviet War, increasing the influence of the Red Army

If Poland does worse it gets conquered, there's a reason it's called the "Miracle on the Vistula".

Trotsky capitalising on his reforms of the Red Army and the its succeses during the Russian Civil War and the invasion of Poland

I think he still needs a powerbase in the government, if everybody gangs up on him all of the successes of the world won't be enough to save him.

Stalin dying because I want him to die painfully in a ditch

Not necessary but useful and I hope he dies in a gulag from starvation and that after that he goes to the same place Judas went.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

Trotsky was popular with the Red Army, from his years as Commissar of War. Could he have just used his connections to launch a military coup?

From what I've read, he burned a lot of his support after the Civil War by advocating the transformation of the Red Army into a workers militia, including a disbandment of the professional officer corps.

 

[Gar48]

You don't need that to convince Trotsky, he was already convinced.

Sorry, I meant Trotsky backing the war against Poland

think he still needs a powerbase in the government, if everybody gangs up on him all of the successes of the world won't be enough to save him.

I think Lenin living longer (aka not getting shot and developing some serious health problems afterward) would help.

OTL Stalin got promoted to General Secretary in 1922 because Lenin could barely talk, let alone move around. In a timeline where Lenin is still actively involved with the Soviet Government, Stalin's rise would be butterflied away or slowed down significantly

Likewise Lenin favored a collegial leadership for the Soviet Union. The longer he lives the longer the Soviet Sistem will be reformed according to his project with the Old Bolsheviks still in charge.

Trotsky won't have the same level of power of Stalin ITTL, but he could be a first among equals in the right circumstances.

 

[Dan1988]

So the more likely scenario for a Trotsky's leadership in the Soviet Union would be:

1. Lenin living a bit longer, solidifying Trotsky's position in the Soviet Government
2. The Hungarian Soviet Republic doing better than OTL, persuading Trotsky that Soviet expansion is possible
3. Poland falling or at least doing worse than OTL during the Polish-Soviet War, increasing the influence of the Red Army
4. Trotsky capitalising on his reforms of the Red Army and the its succeses during the Russian Civil War and the invasion of Poland
5. Stalin dying because I want him to die painfully in a ditch

The one thing underlying all those options and how they would dictate how Trotsky governs the Soviet Union is path dependency and whether the Communists try to break that or find it comfortable. Many of the USSR's leaders grew up under an autocratic system until 1917, hence having little experience with the type of democratic system Marx made a prerequisite for his socialist system. It's for that reason that Leninism, as well as Stalin's dictatorship, follows the classic patterns of Tsarist rule to the letter as an elitist doctrine that enshrined only the few who fully understand the precepts as leaders - which, strictly speaking to Marxists of the time, is actually anti-Marxist. The belief that Trotsky would govern no differently from Stalin - especially due to his lack of support within the Party - comes from this approach that the people's of the Soviet Union need a Tsar who can give a firm hand to the workings of the state. If, OTOH, he decides to break the cycle and be more like, say, Lázaro Cárdenas del Río in Mexico, then we have a different interpretation where, while tempted with path dependency, chooses an alternate path that follows the Constitution to the letter. It would still be awful as a Soviet citizen during the 1930s, but not as awful (which is still cold comfort for Ukrainians and Kazakhs).

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

OTL Stalin got promoted to General Secretary in 1922 because Lenin could barely talk, let alone move around. In a timeline where Lenin is still actively involved with the Soviet Government, Stalin's rise would be butterflied away or slowed down significantly

It is true that he was nominated General Secretary to help Lenin by Lenin however that was to counter Trotsky who sometimes opposed some of Lenin's decisions (for example the NEP was considered too capitalist by Trotsky and supporters), this would mean that while Stalin is not given the post of General Secretary and is largely irrelevant, Lenin would have conflicts with Trotsky (though Lenin still wanted Trotsky to be his successor so I don't think that would prevent Trotsky's rise to power if he makes the right decisions) which could give him difficulties to win the power struggle.

Likewise Lenin favored a collegial leadership for the Soviet Union. The longer he lives the longer the Soviet System will be reformed according to his project with the Old Bolsheviks still in charge.

Trotsky won't have the same level of power of Stalin ITTL, but he could be a first among equals in the right circumstances.

I doubt such a system would survive long term, IOTL it was a system where the Old Guard was dominant yet it didn't prevent a power struggle from the moment Lenin was terminally sick; this system would satisfy no one since everybody wants power, a power struggle is basically impossible to avoid and Trotsky would have to win it to become the leader of the USSR.

 

[Gar48]

General Secretary and is largely irrelevant, Lenin would have conflicts with Trotsky (though Lenin still wanted Trotsky to be his successor so I don't think that would prevent Trotsky's rise to power if he makes the right decisions) which could give him difficulties to win the power struggle.

To be clear, this is why I am focusing so much on Poland and Hungary. Massive succeses in foreign policy would be a good motivation for Trotsky's rise to the top spot in spite of him being jewish and widely disliked by the other Old Bolsheviks

doubt such a system would survive long term,

I was thinking more on the line of OTL Brenzhnev government. While the dude was in charge, he also had to keep the various parts of Communist Party happy or he risked to be removed from his position

Granted, I really can't see a scenario where Trotsky would actually be willing to do so.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

I was thinking more on the line of OTL Brenzhnev government. While the dude was in charge, he also had to keep the various parts of Communist Party happy or he risked to be removed from his position

Granted, I really can't see a scenario where Trotsky would actually be willing to do so.

That happened in a very different situation, Trotsky would want all powers just as everyone else in the Old Guard.

 

[CommieScum]

The one thing underlying all those options and how they would dictate how Trotsky governs the Soviet Union is path dependency and whether the Communists try to break that or find it comfortable. Many of the USSR's leaders grew up under an autocratic system until 1917, hence having little experience with the type of democratic system Marx made a prerequisite for his socialist system. It's for that reason that Leninism, as well as Stalin's dictatorship, follows the classic patterns of Tsarist rule to the letter as an elitist doctrine that enshrined only the few who fully understand the precepts as leaders - which, strictly speaking to Marxists of the time, is actually anti-Marxist. The belief that Trotsky would govern no differently from Stalin - especially due to his lack of support within the Party - comes from this approach that the people's of the Soviet Union need a Tsar who can give a firm hand to the workings of the state. If, OTOH, he decides to break the cycle and be more like, say, Lázaro Cárdenas del Río in Mexico, then we have a different interpretation where, while tempted with path dependency, chooses an alternate path that follows the Constitution to the letter. It would still be awful as a Soviet citizen during the 1930s, but not as awful (which is still cold comfort for Ukrainians and Kazakhs).

I don't see Trotsky giving up any power. He was very pro-Politburo and centralisation - until he got kicked from it.

 

[connorCD]

Funnily enough Nikita Khrushchev started off as a supporter of Trotsky IIRC, so one wonders if he still has the potential to rise through the ranks of Soviet leadership here.