Special thanks to Cypher the Cynical Historian for helping out with this video. Check out his Soviet Myth video here: th-cam.com/video/97qO3g5MGmc/w-d-xo.html
I have a question: What if the Second Balkan War never happened because, I don't know, Bulgaria takes a few parts of Macedonia? I feel that that might make WW1 end differently because Bulgaria would probably join the Entente at some point during the war. Would this change the outcome of WW1? Would it be similar to what would happen if Teddy Roosevelt became president in 1912?
Hello Cody, I sincerely enjoy watching your videos and content and was wondering if you could perhaps dedicate a video towards the question of "What if Britain and the United States accepted Himmler's peace negotiations to help the Germans fight the Soviets?". I know Hitler and some of his still faithful supporters weren't aware and I think it would be interesting to see how the whole situation would turn out. I hope the question doesn't come off as idiotic as I did not do too much research into the peace talks, but I think it would still be interesting nonetheless. Thank you and keep making awesome content for everyone to enjoy!
Honestly I don’t like the last part. Until 1933 Germany didn’t have the N. in control. They would remain a democracy. Then if Trotsky helped the communists in Germany either they would take over and become an ally, or trigger a civil war. Then the western powers would likely work together against him like you said. Then there is the fact of the Great Depression, and that could spur communism in the west. Lastly, France had many socialist supporters, and Trotsky also could’ve demanded they trigger a civil war. This is very great tho, 10/10
"The world may never know if Stalin's paranoia was targeting the right people, or whether he made more enemies trying to exterminate every Trotsykist in the Party. What is known is that what he feared eventually came to pass. Today, Leon Trotsky reemerged as having returned from his exile, and with the support of several influential party members and NKVD officers, launched a coup overthrowing Stalin's rule. The former General Secretary was attacked in his home with an ice axe, and was swiftly executed along with several of his supporters. Tearing down the cult of personality he built up will take time, but the people know now at least that he was not immortal." - HOI4
I'm reminded of an old joke. A Soviet artist is told to design a poster for the film, "Lenin in Poland." He returns with a picture of a man and woman engaging in barely-acceptable-to-print behavior. The maker of the film is furious. "Who is this shameless man here?" "That is Trotsky." "And who is this loose woman beside him?" "That is Lenin's wife." "And where," cries the filmmaker, "is Lenin?!" The artist gives a conspiratorial smile. "Lenin's in Poland."
“Long time fans might be thinking, didn’t he do a video about this already?” Dude, I still remember the old alternatehistorypt-style videos you used to make
I always assumed Trotsky rising to power would have resulted in a much more severe Cold War, because Trotsky really was committed to spreading communism ideologically, while Stalin only sought that as a means of promoting Soviet interests.
My guess is that had Trotsky wound up at the top of the heap instead of Stalin, it would have resulted in the failure of Communism any number of times. Trotsky simply lacked the political skills and iron determination to drive the Communist agenda with the talent and energy Stalin brought to it. Just as a possible scenario--- Trotsky was HOT to collectivize the land ---to take it away from the control of the peasantry who had grabbed it during THEIR revolution. Lenin took a shot at doing that. He failed and adopted the NEP. I can see Trotsky doing what Lenin did, and driving the USSR and Communism over the cliff when the peasantry revolted effectively. Trotsky was always hot to collectivize the land, while Stalin patiently accumulated the power to WAGE WAR effectively on the peasantry when the time came. So again I would expect Trotsky to have gone off prematurely, causing a rebellion he couldn't contain. Stalin DID begin his campaign to collectivize the land, right after getting rid of Trotsky! At that time he has the political means to wage WAR effectively against the peasants who constituted most of the population of Russia. He killed off MILLIONS in getting what he wanted. Trotsky was as brutal as Lenin or Stalin, but I don't think he would have had the political talent to carry that off. Just my guess and bias, of course. But while Stalin was successfully waging war on the peasantry, stealing their assets and collectivizing the land, Trotsky was first kicked out of the Communist Party, then forced into internal exile, then kicked out of the Soviet Union altogether. That's the measure of the difference between Stalin and Trotsky, in my opinion.
being devoted to spreading communism as opposed to just advancing soviet interests is a good thing though. Stalin was such a controversial figure the USSR underwent an entire period of de-Stalinisation after he died. He was then replaced by increasingly liberal leaders who culminated in Gorbachyov & the destruction of the soviet union from the inside-out. I think it would have played out a lot differently if Trotsky did a good job of promoting communism, something that Stalin failed at.
Interesting speculation. I would suppose that Trotski would have failed to be willing to kill millions of Russians and Ukraineans in order to steal grain produced by peasants to selll on the world market to finance USSR's industrialization. That would have meant that USSR would only had a part of the industrialization needed to arms millions of Red Army soldiers with T34 tanks and aircraft to defeat Hitler. And he would not have flogged and terrorized a winning effort out of Red army commanders and soldiers, and thus the USSR would have been defeated by Germany. So PERHAPS the people of the USSR would not have been as enslaved by Stalin, and instead would have been enslaved when USSR was defeated by Germany in WWII. Stalin's main way of justifying all his murder and terror was the defeat of Germany. That really only happened BECAUSE of Stalin's murder and terror. So your suggestion that Trotsky would not have been as murderous as Stalin also suggests that USSR% would not have had the margin of power needed to defeat Hitler ---and even at that it was a very near thing early in Germany's invasion.
A Soviet Joke: A man in the USSR is sentenced to ten years in the gulag. Upon his arrival, he is asked by another prisoner, “How did you get ten years?” He responds, “I did nothing!” The prisoner says to him, “Don’t lie to me now! Everyone knows that nothing gets you five years!”
Communism spreads beyond Russia, as well as becoming the aggresser in what would become WW2. And so after the Soviets are defeated, the Nazis and America enter into a Cold War. Which would ALSO mean, that instead of "The Nazis Were Right!" and "Neo Nazis" being in America, there would be far left "The Soviets Were Right!" and "Neo Soviets" would be in America.
I doubt that, Trotsky was a military leader and history has a tendency to fetishize military leaders. Stalin being a complete bungler, really hurts him in history.
@@Edax_Royeaux Funnily enough, Nazi Germany's military was so effective directly *because* Hitler didn’t touch it. Most of the officers of WW1 weren’t purged, with promotions and medals still being based on competence. The problem was that having all political power consolidated into one man is a double-edged sword. While Hitler could promote skilled leaders at a record pace and make risky moves, it also meant that commanders would over-promise and grovel to Hitler for resources. Not to mention the fact that because France fell so quickly (a war that Hitler himself thought would cost over a million German lives), it made Hitler feel invincible and caused him to overextend his military until it broke.
@@morningwoody4514 Hitler was Supreme Commander of the German Army. During the Battle of Stalingrad (before the encirclement), he sacked General Halder and Field Marshal List and took direct command of Army Group A in the Caucasus. And at least according to TIK, he wasn't terrible as Commander of Army Group A, because he was capable of thinking on a grand strategic level while his generals had tunnel vision. Even though Hitler could see the impending disaster at Stalingrad coming, there wasn't many forces left he could put in it's way to try and stop it. Also Hitler being Supreme Commander of the German Army and Commander of Army Group A created a weird chain of command structure loop
@@Edax_Royeaux It shows that the German military was most effective when he provided a general overview and allowed the military to do its thing, but once he because overly involved in military matters things got worse. But Germany was bound to loose, and there was nothing Hitler could do about that.
"Tell the guy in charge of giving people jobs not to let that jerk Stalin take over. BTW, who's the guy in charge of giving people jobs again?" "That would be Stalin, sir"
I don't understand why the post-Lenin period is always framed as a Stalin vs. Trotsky rivalry. It was so much more complicated than that, for example Nikolai Bukharin was very influential as well, surely more than Trotsky, but he is rarely even mentioned when this period is discussed.
Speaking of Bukharin, another aspect I'm curious about is to what degree the Old Bolshiveks would have had Stalin not kill them off. I feel Trotsky would've kept them around to support his legitimacy, and in doing so, might have kept enough "carefully curated opposition" to help keep memory of the revolution alive... whereas Stalin basically killed everyone off who wasn't constantly loyal to him personally and therefore upon Stalin's death the USSR was basically drifting with a system that doesn't develop a system of leadership willing to take chances. Would the USSR still be around today had the Old Bolshiveks been left around to in turn keep that revolutionary zeal alive?
Strange as it might sound, as far as the West is concerned at least, I think the reason might be George Orwell. For a long time, Orwell has been capitalism’s favorite anti-communist shill, and his perceptions of Soviet politics have become the *only* perceptions of Soviet politics for a lot of westerners who don’t study the subject with any interest. But while he might have been an irritating reactionary gnat, Orwell was a strange sort of Trotsky proponent. You see it over and over again, in his two most subsidized works especially. Snowball and Goldstein. Apart from Trotsky’s own writings, the idea that Trotsky was just a few years away from achieving “real socialism” really starts in most people when they read Animal Farm. None of it is true, of course. Trotsky was a political fool whose ideology was riddled with petty bourgeois revision. But the idea has gotten there none the less.
@@Robert_Douglass Remilia is character in the avatar of OP but I thought you were making a joke about the theme song of Flandre Scarlet look it up, whom is the sister of Remilia
That’s kinda true tho, Britain was supposed to become communist, not a pre industrial nation with less resources like Russia. And the soviets weren’t really following the whole Marxist theory because they really couldn’t. You could say it’s like in capitalism you have rotten countries like the Latin America and US and more balanced and fair countries like the nordics, Europe, etc. If the whole world was like Germany or Norway I don’t think many people would oppose capitalism so much, the same way, if Britain had developed communism in the vein of Marxist theory I don’t think it would have been as bad as it was
I think you're missing some nuances from Germany. The Russian Communists (including Lenin) never thought any revolution would work without at least one fully capitalist country having their own socialist revolution (the Bolsheviks are kind of like the dog that caught the car, in this way). Germany ends up with two competing groups of socialists: the Democratic Socialists and the German Communists (one wants to elect socialism into power, the other wants to revolt). Fascism gets going while these two (bigger) groups fight each other. When Hitlers says that in the early days, if his enemies had united fascism would've been crushed, this is what he's referring to. So the real historical question is: If it was Trotsky, instead of Stalin, would a more aggressive Communist Russia, create conditions in Germany where a socialist government (through either elections or revolution) would have come to power. This would have extinguished fascism in Germany before it began. Who knows. Additionally, Trotsky was Jewish and Russia post-revolution still had a lot of Anti-Semitic sentiment (even if it was illegal). He declined the offer to become Prime Minister after the coup, for this reason. He didn't think the country would follow him. Lenin would have had to over come Russian prejudice to get Trotsky in.
Hey, do you happen to have a source on the Trotsky turning down that position thing? Not doubting you but I'm doing a pet-project related to Soviet History and I wanted to know where you heard that he declined the position. Thanks!
@@quack6292 Sorry for the late reply: Revolutions Podcast by Mike Duncan. He's a journalist, not a prof, but he does do a HUGE amount of research and keeps a relatively neutral position as he goes through Russian History, Marxism, etc. He's also a good source for French, Haitian, American, and Mexican revolutions and the English Civil Wars.
Trotsky was opposed to Lenin's change and move to the NEP. Stalin used this to isolate Trotsky. Trotsky also overestimated his popularity and underestimated Stalin's intelligence.
He was also an inconsistent and undecided leftist who had bad strategies and couldn’t make up his mind. Lenin called him a political slut in the newspapers, to make sure that he wouldn’t replace him.
@@JakobMoscow Trotsky. He played a crucial role in the October revolution and in the civil war, but then his ideas were constantly changing and he wasn’t consistent. Then he fled in 1928-29 and started advocating for a US military coup in the SU.
@@thomasprat7760 Stalins were also changing throughout the years. Stalin was the ultimate opportunist. It was charecteristic of State Socialism for the 'party line' to change. These people were forging absolutely new paths. Their ideas changed as the conditions changed, and their prospects of being in or out of power also changed
Churchill wrote that 'Russia's greatest misfortune was Lenin's birth. It's second greatest misfortune was his untimely death' Even an arch imperialist and capitalist like Churchill could see that the Soviet Union was ultimately a humanist ideology. He found it easy to be an ally of the Soviet Union because he argued 'Whilst Nazism can only get worse, Bolshevism can only get better' When your ideological opponents respect and agree with you, you know you are doing something right.
Ironic that his willingness to listen to technical experts would have helped some problems but his ideological zeal even by revolutionary standards would have caused other issues
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I recall, Orwell's portrail of Snowball/Trotsky wasn't all unicorns and rainbows. He was in favour of pigs getting special treatment just as much as Napoleon.
He was a decorated war hero, who advocated for 4-day work weeks, a windmill to save labor and generate electricity for the farm, and was generally more open to democracy than totalitarianism. The book normally paints Snowball as “the good guy,” and he’s generally the pig who wants everything equal for the animals. But Orwell just generally seemed to love Trotsky anyways, because the character Emmanuel Goldstein in 1984 is also based on him.
I think you guys overcomplicated Trotsky rise to power. Yes, he was greatly disliked by the party. It doesn't matter though because he was liked by the army. There's a reason why Stalin executed pretty much every officers in the Red Army after Trotsky left (which is actually a big reason why the Soviets did so poorly in the Winter War and the start of WW2, they just had no experienced officers left at all.) That reason is that the army and especially the generals still supported Trotsky who was their leader for so long. So I don't think Trotsky rise to power happens by him somehow seducing the Politburo, I think it happens with Trotsky just not accepting it when they kick him out of the party, rallying up his generals and becoming a military dictator. Sure, doing something like that would be against what Trotsky believed in but, as you said, he was a contrarian and a zealot, he could easily convince himself it was in the interest of the revolution in the long run. I'm also glad you point out that the Soviets could easily win that version of WW2 because, without the officer's purge Stalin did, I think the Red army would have been a lot more formidable.
I don’t think the Soviets would take control of the world. More like Cody’s take on the Nazis: eventually civil conflicts bog down the empire, and US/Canada/Australia become fighting forces to eventually take it down....and just like in the IRL USSR their inevitable undoing will be their own system and lack of innovation to keep up with the West while maintaining such a vast empire. Making it larger doesn’t change the fact that a socialist empire fighting a capitalist one in innovation will never win. In fact it exasperates a lot of the issues it had being bogged down in massive bureaucracy and mismanagement. ...or everyone just dies in nuclear hellfire and no one wins. Don’t see a scenario where the Soviets take over the world. But yeah, probably the majority of it (Europe and most of Asia).
@@jpusar The thing is that with Trotsky, the ideology of the USSR is changed completely (you know, party separated from economics) and more union power, and less command economics, therefore there's more room for improvement (the USSR actually didnt lack improvement and innovation, it lacked consumer products and individual people)
@hypppo Yes, 3 of 5 marshalls. Also 13 of 15 army commanders, 8 of 9 admirals, 50 of 57 army corps commanders, 154 out of 186 division commanders, 16 of 16 army commissars, and 25 of 28 army corps commissars. And most of those who weren't purged were Bolsheviks who were put in those positions because of their political affiliation with the Politburo, every veteran officers who had actually served either Trotsky or the Tsar at some point were purged. And those who were reinstated were only reinstated during WW2 after Russia had already lost millions of men. The effects of the purge on the Red Army were massive dude. Their ''strategy'' during the Winter War was basically to send their armies in a single compact line toward Finland's biggest cities. And then they wondered why they lost 6 times more men and thousands of tanks to Finnish infantry on skis.
The same goes for Lenin himself. Simon Sebag Montefiore describes a scene in his biography of the young Stalin (until 1917, that is - he wrote about Stalin's later life and rule extensively earlier), in which Lenin, in an argument during a pre-revolution communist congress, began to call for the immediate exectuion of everyone who didn't agree with him. It was Stalin who told Lenin to calm the hell down and stop being so ridiculous.
what westen historians dont get right is that the "lenin letter" was refered to the general assembly of the Soviet Comunist party and metioned many personalitys of the politic buro with critism on their positive and negatives. Not only stalin but also Trosky buharin and otheirs.
Yes but he later sent a second letter calling for the removal of Stalin. Although the letter did come from Lenin's wife who was an active party member and was vocally against Stalin so who knows the authenticity.
I heard that and thought did I hear that right? Maybe that’s the same world where the president was Ronald Reagan, the First Lady was Jane wyman, and the Vice President was Jerry Lewis
Orwell WAS a radio host. For the BBC. He did anti communist propaganda. Look it up. His work as a broadcaster for the BBC is what gave him the details for the offices and rooms in the Ministry of Truth.
He was best known for the (largely fictional) panic aroused by his (actual) broadcast of a radio play based on War of the Worlds in 1938. But apparently this guy just had a brain fart when he said Orson Welles instead of George Orwell.
@@JonatasAdoM Oh, I know that; that's probably how the brain fart (or Freudian slip if you prefer the actual technical name) came about in the first place. I wasn't *dissing* the man, if that's what you thought. We *all* make such slips; God knows I've made my share. That doesn't mean the guy was dumb or anything. If anything the smarter and more educated you are the more likely you are to make such slips! Hence the common trope of the absent-minded professor. :-)
Gotta remember that Fascism was adopted by the Eastern European nations BECAUSE it was seen as fervently anti-communist. It’s entirely possible that Britain and France could have seen large and even prominent fascist parties as communism is seen as more of a threat than fascism
Fascism is not a threat to the bourgeoisie; on the contrary, it is salvation. Fascism was formed as a reaction to communist sentiments in the country, as a terrorist agony in an attempt to preserve the bourgeois system.
@@ratelarmonter4736 Communism is not seen as a threat to the bourgeoisie either. Those are the ones funding it. Communism is a threat to the middle and working class. To those with enough money to be hated, but not enough to be safe and to those who have no means of resisting tyranny.
@@randomuser5443 I mean, Cody was criticising people who would take fascists side just because communist attack them by calling them "basically centrist" so Cody isn't being nice to them, unless Jreg would centracide at the mention of them at all... would he?
@@JohnSmith-gz4fs So like "Meet the Parents" it is: "You said centrism on an airplane" "I said I didn't like centrism" "You said centrism on an airplane".
Personally, I'm particularly interested in Cypher's alternate history Animal Farm, which is his universe was written by Orson Welles rather than George Orwell... :D
I'm still not sure if it was a joke, or an oversight on Cypher's part. Either way, Citizen Kane but it's Animal Farm. Talk about a confusing crossover.
@@comissar8953 I can't think of a strain that LIKES trots. from anarchist, to Marxist-Leninist from Council comminists and syndicalists to Third world Maoists and Bordgists. Is there any actual kind of leftist that likes Trots?
You are supposing that Trotsky WAS NOT A BOLSHEVIK? There is PLENTY of evidence that he was ----and none that he was not. Shucks ---even soft hearted Stalin gave Trotsky opportunities to LIVE after being expelled from the party. Stalin never made THAT mistake again!
Trotsky takes power of the Soviet Union, accidently falls down the stairs onto 72 knives and Stalin reluctantly comes into power. There is always Stalin comrade.
AL S, Not if Stalin died before being able to gain power. That’s another possibility. Perhaps Trotsky only gained power because Stalin wasn’t around to take it
@@GargamelGold Comrade I think you need to talk to these nice men with guns. They will show you how Stalin would always have been around. Good point though.
I rmember reading one of trotsky's books once and he started it with going off about how the west are technically wrong with the months they use for the 1917 revolutions. The original umm acktually
It's not so much that the western dates are wrong, but that Russia used a different calendar. For example, in the old Russian calendar, the taking of the Winter Palace was in October 1917, but by the western calendar it was already November. LOTS of quotes give the dates in the original Russian calendar.
Having done Russian history from 1800 through the Napoleonic era up until the end of the Soviet Union, I found myself thinking about this same question and often found myself bemoaning the failure of Trotsky to take over from Lenin.
@@europadefender simplified, Woodrow Wilson kept the US neutral, which lead to WWI lasting longer, and the Germans sending Lenin back to Russia, who later lead a revolution against the Russian Republic, which lead the Soviet Union. Also he created Wilsonism, which basically means that America should intervene in other countries to make it safe for democracy
Twitter tankies: “I’m a Marxist-Leninist, meaning I believe Lenin was correct in his assertions about the world and politics.” Also Twitter tankies: “Stalin was based.”
In a nutshell. Stalin: Entrench against capitalism. Trotsky: Crusade against capitalism, *MARX VULT* Bukharin: Defeat capitalism on their own game. In order to defeat the enemy, we must become the enemy. *Deng Xiaoping takes notes
Deng was probably a communist in the 20s through 40s, but by the time of Mao's death he was arguably one of the most right-leaning leaders in China. Most of Deng's supporters today fits pretty well into the stereotypical US Republican voter image, although more socially conservative (you hear me right) and favor slightly more government intervention.
Just want to highlight that Holodomor wasn't only in Ukraine. In Kazakhstan the cattle was taking from nomads causing around a million deaths which is much higher if you take population proportion. Same in Belarus, southern Russia and parts of Caucasus. Ukraine was a breadbasket of the USSR that is why they were impacted heavy but it was not only them.
Pedantic point - Trotsky was only very briefly a Menshevik, he quit the Mensheviks to become an "interdistricter" an independent Marxist hoping to bring the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks back together again. (although he remained friends with Julius Martov, the Menshevik leader) Trotsky was very bad at political scheming and building a power base, so I think if Lenin had denounced Stalin more vocally the anti-Trotsky troika would have been Zinoviev, Kamanev and Bukahrin rather than Zinoviev, Kamanev and Stalin. Zinoviev was probably the second best political schemer after Stalin, so he would ultimately have taken over, Trotsky would have found himself kicked upstairs, perhaps serving as president. (Basically a non-job in the Soviet Union, the real president in our timeline - Kalinin - was so insignficant Stalin didn't even bother having him killed.) If Trotsky had somehow got into power, he might have been better than Stalin, but still not great. His criticisms of Stalin read a lot like Khruschev's - ironic since modern Trotskyists consider the post-Stalinist Soviet Union to be a "deformed worker-state" or even "state capitalist". Trotsky was also an advocate of pursuing revolution in western colonies and semi-colonial areas, especially India and China. We would likely see massive Soviet aid to the Chinise Communists and to the Congress Party in India; Britain could have faced a major uprising in India while Mao (or one of his rivals) could have come to power in the 1930's. As for Germany, Trotsky would probably have avoided Stalin's truly stupid "third period" doctrine which saw the Communists ordered to spend all their time attacking the Social Democrats and ignoring Hitler. While an alliance of Communists and Social Democrats might have simply prompted Hindenburg to appoint Hitler Chancellor a year or two earlier than in our timeline, it is possible that this could instead have forstalled the rise of Hitler - perhaps by radical Social Democrat - backed by the Communists - taking the German presidency. However, there would have been fierce resistance from German conservatives and the military to this, so it is possible that Germany could have slid into civil war, and perhaps ended up devided. With Germany split and the USSR waging proxy wars against the west in the developing world, this alternate 1930's looks a lot like the Cold War, maybe that was the one inevitablity of the 20th century!
Trotsky's only chance was to have switched sides in the Kronstadt Rebellion and go back to his (very ferocious) anti-Lenin gimmicks of his earlier years. He was definitely not smart enough and was swallowed by the BP Neo-Platonic nonsense.
best take in the comments section, seriously there's an entire collection of shit trotsky wrote AT THE TIME about what the USSR should have been doing about fascism and I don't recall "idk headfirst invasion of germany" being in there, and yeah the third period then popular front strategy was awful and trotsky specifically wrote against it
@Awawawa CM True, but my point is, modern Trotskyists don't like Khrushchev, and didn't when he was in power. The feeling was mutual, Khrushchev gave Ramon Mercader - Trotsky's assassin - the Order of Lenin and the Soviet Union continued to view Trotsky as a traitor, even though the "Stalinism-lite" policies of this era weren't that different from Trotsky's position.
Amusing to hear Trotskyist use the term "State Capitalist (correctly too as it happens) In their criticisms of the Soviet Union, when Trotsky andvhis cronies themselves were the arch advocates of State Capitalism when in government. Talk about stealing others' terminology.
I do like playing with Permanent Revolution + NKVD Primacy to turn Europe communist without firing a shot. Slower wargoals are annoying, but I’m not a fan of world conquest anyways. Once I kill the Axis as USSR, it gets pretty boring.
@@mangoshi1251 im doing that with road to 56, you should challange japan and the usa, and this comment was 2 months ago so idk if you done it, and also build up the nuke piles.
I feel that Trotsky was the closest to fully embrace Marx's ideals. Lenin was ruthless, but he did think communism would help everybody, Stalin was just an asshole
What people don’t really understand is that the prime difference between Stalin and Trotsky geopolitically is that Trotsky believed in exporting the Revolution while Stalin wasn’t really that expansionist. His reasons for taking the Eastern European satellites was not because he wanted to spread communism, but because he wanted a buffer to keep Russia safe from western invasions.
2 things that I would like to clarify about Animal farm: - In the book it is hinted that Snowball would be just as bad of a leader as Napoleon(the windmill plan, his zealotry about Animalism, the stolen milk ,etc..) . -Orwell didn't release the book, that is a thing only a publishing company can do, and in fact was rejected numerous times because of the war alliance.
There was also Snowball agreeing with the plan that all apples from the apple tree would go to only the pigs. It was one of the few things he and Napoleon agreed on.
Remember, there was also Imperial Japan and a Soviet Russia that was VERY concerned about the security of their Siberian hinterland. It is possible that Trotsky would have gotten the USSR so deeply invested in supporting the Maoists in Asia that he might have just dug in and gone on the defensive in Europe. Admittedly, that is a huge "if" since he had little restraint. I also suspect that when the Reich invaded Yugoslavia, Trotsky would have decided that there was no choice but to intervene on behalf of their "ally" (the paternalistic Russian view of Balkan Slavs as their protectorate).
I don't believe Trotsky had a paternalistic Russian view as others did. His view of other peoples was very much ideologically based and sought a global rather than a regional framework.
The Reich wouldn't need to invade yugoslavia if they aren't at war with the Allies, which if Trotsky is in power, the allies will probably be on the side of the Nazis.
At that point, we might have seen the US supplying arms and fuel to Japan in a war against the Soviets in exchange for Japan curbing its ambitions in Southeast Asia and the Pacific islands. The US was very isolationist in the 1930s, but an expansionist Soviet Union might have been a bridge too far.
@@Depipro yes but I just don't like how everyone cared so much about the wrong name being said, someone tried to portray it as a reason why Cody is a bad TH-camr or something
Surely, whether there would be an alliance between the Western Allies and Nazi Germany to resist a Soviet invasion depends on when such an attack occurs? If Trotsky decides to take advantage of the Great Depression, and launches the invasion in the spring or summer of 1930, the Nazis are not yet in power in Germany. IOT, they assumed power in 1933 because they grew their parliamentary mandate until then and struck a deal with the Conservative Party. If war breaks out as early as 1930 and Germany allies with France and Britain, with the US supplying war materiel, there is little risk of a Nazi takeover. Don't you think the Conservatives and Social Democrats would form a broad coalition government for the duration of the war, and keep both the Nazis and communists out? However hesitant, France and Britain would likely have no choice but to agree to a Versailles Treaty II, which eliminates (or postpones) Germany's war indemnities, possibly the war guilt clause, but most important of all - the cap on Germany's armed forces. After all, every extra German soldier would be another man between the Red Army and Paris. These measures would be widely popular in Germany, and be credited to the coalition government, not the Nazis.
Although the German military was nowhere near capable of conducting a large scale war in the midst of the 1930s. It should be noted that preemptive preparation and large scale development of military theory was rapidly advancing.
You are right sir. And yet this invasion may catapult them to power earlier depending on how the war is going as the Nazi's may be able to spin things so the german people may welcome their rule eagerly. Another factor is that they'll have to deal with rampant resistance to their rule in every nation they occupied. Like Finland who if the winter war is anything to go by would make holding their nation absolute hell for the USSR. Think the french resistance across all of occupied eastern Europe.
The Germans would be allowed to remilitarize as soon as the Red Army crosses the Vistula. When the Red Army crosses the Vistula is an open question. Trotsky would purge more members of society and the Party, but he would also shield the Red Army from the purges that handicapped it in the late '30's in our timeline. So the Red Army would be more efficient, but the Soviet war economy would be less so. I don't think they'd take Poland and Finland in a month, and I doubt they'd try to invade more than one war at a time, but I don't think the USSR would sit idly by while Europe backs Franco in Spanish Civil War. Trotsky would probably invade Germany in 1936 at the latest.
Lenin never appointed Stalin as his successor. In fact Lenin on his death bed warned about the dangers of Stalin ascending to power. From memory Lenin wrote a letter that hinted at the removal of Stalin from the Politburo and his support for Trotsky. (Correct me if I'm wrong) Of course the letter never made it to Politburo eyes, and Stalin positioned himself as Lenin's successor at his funeral (Trotsky btw was given the wrong date for the funeral).
Lenin's Testament, the last version of which called for Stalin's removal from the leadership, did make it the Politburo. At the Central Committee meeting on the eve of the Twelfth Congress of the Party, the first following Lenin's death. Stalin's supporters on the CC argued for the Testament not to be circulated to the Congress delegates. Trotsky's supporters initially argued for its circulation as of course did Lenin's widow, Krupskaya. The CC agreed to a recess during which Stalin was said to have sat on a step outside with his head in his hands muttering "it is all over". However, when the Central Committee resumed Trotsky surprised everyone by accepting suppression of Lenin's Testament on the grounds of maintaining Party unity. Krupskaya felt betrayed that her husband's wishes were not just being ignored but being kept secret from the Party activists. Trotsky even publicly denied the existence of the document when it was published in America in 1925 by one of his disciples. However, once the break with Stalin intensified he admitted its existence. All this shows Trotsky's naivety in internal party battles.
@@patbyrneme007 Trotsky's wasn't naive. He was power hungry. He agreed to suppress Lenin's Last Will, because he would have been just as suppressed as Stalin.
Replace one ruthless dictator with another ruthless dictator that was supposed to be the original ruthless dictator that got replaced by the ruthless dictator
The bureaucracy is a piece of state apparatus, but unlike the executive branch (in this case the soviets themselves) it can simply provide options. Economics is still subservient to democracy if policy is still ratified by the vote of representatives held accountable to their constituents.
3:20 On mobile, when I tap the screen to pull up the pause, previous & next video, CC, fullscreen, etc. buttons, the figures get an outline and little angry faces in light gray.
Silly. The Anglosaxons did not defeat anyone: they were basically allowed in by retreating Nazis focused on trying to cotain the USSR in the Eastern Front. In an alternative redder history, without the treacherous complicity of both the Nazis and Stalin, the West would have been isolated to the seas and out of all mainland Eurasia, even of India!
@@craigbiggam2111 No, there would be purges, just of a slightly different nature. The generals would be demoted to sergeants and sent to teach Close Order Drill rather than command Red Army troops. If they got mouthy, they disappeared into Siberia.
Brief point of order on Animal Farm: George Orwell wrote the Novella in 1945 - after he was no longer a Trotskyist. He stated specifically that it would have been better if the Russian Revolution had been influenced by the Kronstadt Uprising (which as was mentioned, Trotsky famously crushed).
Luther Blissett Cynical said Orson Welles when he talked about Animal Farm, Orson Welles did not write Animal Farm, George Orwell did. Orwell, O. Welles.
Much as many liked Trotsky as a good, competent alternative to Stalin, unfortunately as Cody stated, to say he was not the most favourite choice would be a massive understatement. Trotsky had some qualities for being the leader the Soviets needed, as he was passionate, clever, learned, organized, inspiring when needed and ruthless when necessary. Character-wise, however, he was an abrasive and arrogant asshole who alienated everybody around him and thinks he knows better than anybody, as well as being uncompromisingly dogmatic bordering on fanaticism. To add onto Cody's and Cypher's points, Trotsky saw politics as beneath him when it was critical to rising to power in the post-Lenin power vacuum, and even Lenin himself in his testament (assuming authentic) did not spare Trotsky from criticism. In fact they were quite antagonistic with each other from a falling-out (which Trotsky claims he regret in his memoirs) that mirrored the split between the Bolsheviks (Lenin) and the Mensheviks (Trotsky) and that was not patched up until the Russian Revolution, whereupon Trotsky realized only the Bolsheviks could win while Lenin realize he needed Trotsky's skills as an organizer and later military commander. There were additionally a lot of resentments from the other Soviet leaders on account of his rapid rise to prominence during the Revolution and Civil War (when he spent a lot longer around the Menshviks) and for being Jewish, antisemitism being prominent back in the day as it is. Additionally, while he was instrumental to the Red Army's triumph in the Civil War, some had accused him of losing Soviet Union the chance to spread Communism to Europe and in the way he conduct the civil war, and there were some truths to it - read the surprising Polish victory at Vitsula during the Polish-Soviet War 1920, and the whole fiasco with the Czechoslovak Legion (he ordered their arrest over a few incidents) whose uprising costed the Soviets control of the Russian Far East and prolonged the conflict by several years. Ultimately all these factors worked against him and his chances of assuming command of the Soviet Union over Stalin, but they are not actually that hard to fix, and one POD could lead to another: 1] Don't let anyone know of his Jewish-Ukrainian heritage. Antisemitism alone could cost him a lot of support, but is incidentally quite simple to fix. Just have him and his family nearly experiencing getting lynch once or nearly victimized by some pogrom that were prevalent at the time. It could convince him and his family that it would be their best interest to keep their Jewish heritage anonymous. 2] The bigger POD would be to avoid his falling out with Lenin. Trotsky started out as a Nadvorik, but was introduced to Communism through his first wife and was won over to it. Suppose his wife maintained that level of influence and got involved in the conflict between Trotsky and Lenin, perhaps persuading him in spite of his arrogance that it is not to their interest to have divisions over ideological matters. This is the most tricky to pull off, but not entirely impossible for it to happen, but keeping them cordial and in contact, even if the rest of the Menshevik/Bolshevik split happened anyway, might give him much more pull as Lenin's 'right hand'. 3] Have a more charismatic/pragmatic character. Trotsky was radicalized by the events of the failed 1905 Revolution, when he was captured and exiled to Siberia where he later escaped. Suppose during the chaotic events of the time, he got bumped or shot in the head (but survived), or was rescued by those whom he usually looked down upon. Either or both happening forcing a personality change, or whatever else happened (There are examples of this throughout history to many historical figures. Martin Luther became a monk instead of a banker after nearly getting struck by lightning), ensures that while keeping his ideals, he became less arrogant and realize he still need the support of others, thus becoming more willing to at least put up with socializing/politicking with others. Stalin, in spite of his own character faults, was able to do the same and so could Trotsky, had he made an effort to do so. 4] Win Civil War better and keep the Red Army loyal. Simply avoid blame for the failure at Poland (Incidentally, he OPPOSED the invasion of Poland, but went through with it because the Bolsheviks thought the proletariat there would rise up to help them - which as Trotsky observed didn't really happen. And even then it was also quite close, but then the 'Miracle at Vistula' happened where the Polish beat them back, and it was apparently Stalin's fault, having screwed up the flanks - all Trotsky had to do was find out and point that out) and avoid antagonizing the Czechoslovakian Legion (like arrange to get them out of Russia, which was what they wanted to do all along) could a lot to win the Civil War a lot faster and better, putting him in an even better standing if he could get all the credit. Him being less arrogant and more pragmatic as noted in pt 3] would help immensely. Incidentally, he made the mistake of maintaining the Red Army in a strictly professional relationship with him (admittedly a credit to him) - maintaining the Red Army's loyalty to him personally would further reinforce his standing, as irregardless of how the rest of the party leadership perceive him, none of them would go against a war hero who still have many, many soldiers with rifles and bayonets backing him up, though it would run the risk of him being perceived as a potential 'Napoleon/Caesar' that some had feared him as. Having a shorter civil war would also be to his advantage as it would reduce the size of the Soviet bureaucracy - which Trotsky himself had detested - and stop it from growing out of control in meeting the demands of war, incidentally weakening his main rival at its head, Joseph Stalin. 5] Lenin's death and testament: Simple, Trotsky should attend Lenin's funeral and make sure that Lenin's Testament comes out. Him not attending in part because of Stalin's trickery was for many Soviet leaders the final straw regarding Trotsky, many of whom wanted no association with him afterwards. Showing some respect would do significantly in bolstering his standing. Lenin's Testament would be more detrimental to Stalin than it would be to Trotsky if it comes out, and if Trotsky could somehow gain control of its publication Trotsky could simply edit out Lenin's parts on him, making his case even further. Do all this and in all likelihood Trotsky would most likely end up as the leader of the Soviet Union. Unless Yakov Sverdlov survived the Spanish Flu and beat him to it - that little known Bolshevik, believe it or not, was actually Lenin's personal favourite.
As a russian I want to say If Trotsky became leader of USSR Russia will be a Pol Pot Cambodia , but very big and cold. A lot of leftist methods of Stalin in agroeconomics caused death of more then 10 millions people, Trotsky was much more leftier than anyone in the Party. Also he had an idea of the world revolution, so my country had a war with everybody if he became a leader
Trotsky was the master of jibber jabber, which is the source of his continuing appeal to intellectual types. Stalin and Lenin were the masters of political intrigue and organization. Jibber jabber can be useful, but it was not the basis for making the USSR successful as a country, and later as a world power. Trotsky was never a success in active political or military power except when he was under the tutelage of Lenin.
@@SeattlePioneer Debatable. Trotsky is very good at organization should he applied himself. He helped organise political activities of the mensheviks and bolsheviks during the 1905 and 1917 revolutions (in fact, Lenin reconciled with him precisely because he needed his organisational skills), and he as the commissar of war effectively founded the Red Army and led it to victory in the Russian Civil War. The problem is he felt politics and intrigue as beneath him, and as you said was more interested and capable at the proverbial 'jibber jabber'. He could had applied himself, he just didn't have the character to apply them where it would matter.
Based on his proven (when he did have power) acceptance of expertise and the limited private market and food policies, I think he would've listened to his military commanders and _not_ invade any of his neighbor countries unless there was at least a mildly successful revolution. That combined with not killing off his army officers during the great purge would've left Russia in a far better place. He'd probably also not leave the front basically unguarded as Stalin did. At least that's one of the ways I could see it go. Stalin did some really dumb shit leading up to WW2. I'm not even sure he'd stay in power if it weren't for the political clout he got for winning the war.
Lol Trotsky got fucked by poor strategic plans in the Polish war and ended up losing like 100 kilometres of land. Also of course Trotksy would "purge" some of his high command because there were some that were heavily "Stalinist". Trotsky believed in the idea of World Revolution, so he would just try to invade neighboring countries to "spread the revolution", only to get destroyed because his own nation wasn't ready to do that.
@@NikKliaf We can agree that at some point Trotsky would intervene directly. The true question remains, would Trotsky build up arms massively before so like his generals would likely advise, or would he run in like a banshee?
@@JoseEmidio firstly u pulled that "stalin didnt help Trotsky in the polish war" out of your ass, because stalin wasnt a military commander or sth. Also how would he be looking after himself, he wasn't even fighting or anything. And what makes you say stalin was an empiricist, i dont understand.
@@Deadlyaztec27 It doesn't really matter how much Trotsky builds up. The combined forces of the western allies (Germany and Italy included) with their resources, supplies, manufacturing and manpower and technology would win the allies the war 99/100 times.
I agree with Anders 100%. Trotsky would have learned from his and Soviet mistakes of the past. Come WWII, USSR would have perhaps only attempted to invade a small number of Eastern European states and more likely would have been successful due to revolutionary support there. Would not have attempted to have invaded Finland like Stalin did. Would have (perhaps only slightly) "healthier" state and military apparatuses due to no or much less severe Great Purges. As a result WWII's eastern front would have been won more quickly and more decisively with much less loss of life than under Stalin and perhaps been fought further west due to possible addition under Trotsky of a few satellite states further west. Geographic results would end up the same.
Emphasis on the Hell part. God only knows what the Soviet Union on the losing side of a total war would look like, but it's easy to imagine even the total inhumanity of the real WWII would blanch in comparison.
Since so many different people have different reasons for portraying Trotsky in a certain way it seems ill advised to trust an account that attributes Animal Farm to Orson Welles
Stalin's standards were too high for the people to sent to GULAG for a thought of joke. He expected not only purity of heart, of spirit, of mind, of thought, but people's entire consciousness and more
In Orwell's Defense he did show some corruption before Snowball [Trotsky] was exiled. The Pigs all agreed to hoard the apples, Snowball [Trotsky] included. Snowball [Trotsky] also discouraged Boxer from crying over a dead man. Snowball [Trotsky] by all accounts was a fanatic. However Animal Farm's view of the Russian Revolution was still rather skewed in favor of Snowball [Trotsky] making him into a martyr for the Socialist's Theology. Old Georgie was a socialist himself after all. Therefore his work cannot be used to criticize Socialism, despite that clearly being what Animal Farm is about!!
The irony is Trotsky was as much of a tankie as Stalin. There wasn't a big disagreement on fundamental ideology, Trotsky's issues with Stalin had more to do with Stalin's incompetency at governance and ham handed brutality. Trotsky was just as brutal, but thought he had more competent ideas on how to run things.
@@robertjarman3703 I find it telling when I see anarchists defend the Soviets out a misguided belief that they would have gone ancom if they succeed. The destruction of the anarchists in Ukraine shows otherwise.
@@nicholasrowley947 You haven't been paying attention to the news lately, and checking more than one source for it. Lines are being drawn, and by all means we are heading into a Second American Civil War.
So did you read any Trotsky? Out of his entire body of anti-imperialist work, what part exactly showed he would invade other countries? What part showed he actually wanted Soviet power to be concentrated in a head of state and not in workers councils?
Special thanks to Cypher the Cynical Historian for helping out with this video. Check out his Soviet Myth video here: th-cam.com/video/97qO3g5MGmc/w-d-xo.html
Dear AlternateHistoryHub,
Do you ever look at history and how it turned out, and figure that there really is a God?
I have a question: What if the Second Balkan War never happened because, I don't know, Bulgaria takes a few parts of Macedonia? I feel that that might make WW1 end differently because Bulgaria would probably join the Entente at some point during the war. Would this change the outcome of WW1? Would it be similar to what would happen if Teddy Roosevelt became president in 1912?
What if South Africa kept its nuclear weapons program?
Hello Cody, I sincerely enjoy watching your videos and content and was wondering if you could perhaps dedicate a video towards the question of "What if Britain and the United States accepted Himmler's peace negotiations to help the Germans fight the Soviets?". I know Hitler and some of his still faithful supporters weren't aware and I think it would be interesting to see how the whole situation would turn out. I hope the question doesn't come off as idiotic as I did not do too much research into the peace talks, but I think it would still be interesting nonetheless. Thank you and keep making awesome content for everyone to enjoy!
Honestly I don’t like the last part. Until 1933 Germany didn’t have the N. in control. They would remain a democracy. Then if Trotsky helped the communists in Germany either they would take over and become an ally, or trigger a civil war. Then the western powers would likely work together against him like you said. Then there is the fact of the Great Depression, and that could spur communism in the west. Lastly, France had many socialist supporters, and Trotsky also could’ve demanded they trigger a civil war. This is very great tho, 10/10
Lenin: “I want Trotsky to be in charge”
Trotsky: “Nice pick”
Stalin: “Ice pick”
So dumb...
I LOVE IT!
"The world may never know if Stalin's paranoia was targeting the right people, or whether he made more enemies trying to exterminate every Trotsykist in the Party. What is known is that what he feared eventually came to pass. Today, Leon Trotsky reemerged as having returned from his exile, and with the support of several influential party members and NKVD officers, launched a coup overthrowing Stalin's rule.
The former General Secretary was attacked in his home with an ice axe, and was swiftly executed along with several of his supporters. Tearing down the cult of personality he built up will take time, but the people know now at least that he was not immortal." - HOI4
😂
lol
That’s gold 😂
I'm reminded of an old joke. A Soviet artist is told to design a poster for the film, "Lenin in Poland." He returns with a picture of a man and woman engaging in barely-acceptable-to-print behavior. The maker of the film is furious.
"Who is this shameless man here?"
"That is Trotsky."
"And who is this loose woman beside him?"
"That is Lenin's wife."
"And where," cries the filmmaker, "is Lenin?!"
The artist gives a conspiratorial smile. "Lenin's in Poland."
For some reason I read this in the voice of Slavoj Zizek
@@HiromiyamotoDesuDesu *nose touching intensifies*
@@HiromiyamotoDesuDesu PAH-URE IDEOLOGY
@@oracle8192 *sniff*
That was not about Trotsky, that was about Dzierżynski.
“Long time fans might be thinking, didn’t he do a video about this already?” Dude, I still remember the old alternatehistorypt-style videos you used to make
i rembered that
I remember when the What if l Persia defeated Greece video came out
Zoomer Imperator that was 2017. I’m talking about the 2013 era.
Same
@Zoomer Imperator I'm pretty sure he still does it. The timing is just erratic.
I always assumed Trotsky rising to power would have resulted in a much more severe Cold War, because Trotsky really was committed to spreading communism ideologically, while Stalin only sought that as a means of promoting Soviet interests.
My guess is that had Trotsky wound up at the top of the heap instead of Stalin, it would have resulted in the failure of Communism any number of times. Trotsky simply lacked the political skills and iron determination to drive the Communist agenda with the talent and energy Stalin brought to it.
Just as a possible scenario---
Trotsky was HOT to collectivize the land ---to take it away from the control of the peasantry who had grabbed it during THEIR revolution.
Lenin took a shot at doing that. He failed and adopted the NEP. I can see Trotsky doing what Lenin did, and driving the USSR and Communism over the cliff when the peasantry revolted effectively.
Trotsky was always hot to collectivize the land, while Stalin patiently accumulated the power to WAGE WAR effectively on the peasantry when the time came. So again I would expect Trotsky to have gone off prematurely, causing a rebellion he couldn't contain.
Stalin DID begin his campaign to collectivize the land, right after getting rid of Trotsky! At that time he has the political means to wage WAR effectively against the peasants who constituted most of the population of Russia. He killed off MILLIONS in getting what he wanted.
Trotsky was as brutal as Lenin or Stalin, but I don't think he would have had the political talent to carry that off.
Just my guess and bias, of course. But while Stalin was successfully waging war on the peasantry, stealing their assets and collectivizing the land, Trotsky was first kicked out of the Communist Party, then forced into internal exile, then kicked out of the Soviet Union altogether. That's the measure of the difference between Stalin and Trotsky, in my opinion.
being devoted to spreading communism as opposed to just advancing soviet interests is a good thing though. Stalin was such a controversial figure the USSR underwent an entire period of de-Stalinisation after he died. He was then replaced by increasingly liberal leaders who culminated in Gorbachyov & the destruction of the soviet union from the inside-out. I think it would have played out a lot differently if Trotsky did a good job of promoting communism, something that Stalin failed at.
@@SeattlePioneeractually, by that logic, Trotsky would probably end the Bolshevik rule, prematurely freeing Russia
Interesting speculation.
I would suppose that Trotski would have failed to be willing to kill millions of Russians and Ukraineans in order to steal grain produced by peasants to selll on the world market to finance USSR's industrialization.
That would have meant that USSR would only had a part of the industrialization needed to arms millions of Red Army soldiers with T34 tanks and aircraft to defeat Hitler. And he would not have flogged and terrorized a winning effort out of Red army commanders and soldiers, and thus the USSR would have been defeated by Germany.
So PERHAPS the people of the USSR would not have been as enslaved by Stalin, and instead would have been enslaved when USSR was defeated by Germany in WWII.
Stalin's main way of justifying all his murder and terror was the defeat of Germany. That really only happened BECAUSE of Stalin's murder and terror. So your suggestion that Trotsky would not have been as murderous as Stalin also suggests that USSR% would not have had the margin of power needed to defeat Hitler ---and even at that it was a very near thing early in Germany's invasion.
I would be suprised if the soviet union still exists in the 50s, at least in Europe
A Soviet Joke: A man in the USSR is sentenced to ten years in the gulag. Upon his arrival, he is asked by another prisoner, “How did you get ten years?”
He responds, “I did nothing!”
The prisoner says to him, “Don’t lie to me now! Everyone knows that nothing gets you five years!”
I don’t get it
@@Cadu_Ferreira The joke is that people that did nothing get 5 years in the gulag, the man got 10, meaning he did something
Wow you are a comedy genius
@@mycrobyte6063 I think he gets the joke but is adding his own humorous layer. As perhaps are you.
It's funny because it's true!
**points** Hey, I've seen this one a few years ago.
“This is a classic!”
New fans: What do you mean you've seen this? It's brand new,
Communism spreads beyond Russia, as well as becoming the aggresser in what would become WW2. And so after the Soviets are defeated, the Nazis and America enter into a Cold War. Which would ALSO mean, that instead of "The Nazis Were Right!" and "Neo Nazis" being in America, there would be far left "The Soviets Were Right!" and "Neo Soviets" would be in America.
Hunter V and instead the left jeers and points at everything remotely right wing and calls it Nazi propaganda
@@hunterv9983 nah, even If the Nazis won (which No, but let's ignore that), they would still lose
You’re telling me Trotsky was so leftist he actually annoyed other leftists?
As a leftist, trust me when I say that all leftists annoy other leftists
Maria G as another Leftist, the anarchist kind, I can confirm
@@Maria29G No wonder Franco won the Spanish Civil War.
To be fair, all leftists are annoying to all other leftists. Have you ever met a leftist?
And the leftists are so obnoxious that they tried to each other alive.
The thing is, in this alternate timeline we’d be thinking, “man this trotsky guy stinks, if Stalin came to power everything would be better”
I doubt that, Trotsky was a military leader and history has a tendency to fetishize military leaders. Stalin being a complete bungler, really hurts him in history.
@@Edax_Royeaux That's true, but you could also make the case that Hitler was a military leader, and I don't see many people fetishizing him.
@@Edax_Royeaux Funnily enough, Nazi Germany's military was so effective directly *because* Hitler didn’t touch it. Most of the officers of WW1 weren’t purged, with promotions and medals still being based on competence.
The problem was that having all political power consolidated into one man is a double-edged sword. While Hitler could promote skilled leaders at a record pace and make risky moves, it also meant that commanders would over-promise and grovel to Hitler for resources. Not to mention the fact that because France fell so quickly (a war that Hitler himself thought would cost over a million German lives), it made Hitler feel invincible and caused him to overextend his military until it broke.
@@morningwoody4514 Hitler was Supreme Commander of the German Army. During the Battle of Stalingrad (before the encirclement), he sacked General Halder and Field Marshal List and took direct command of Army Group A in the Caucasus. And at least according to TIK, he wasn't terrible as Commander of Army Group A, because he was capable of thinking on a grand strategic level while his generals had tunnel vision. Even though Hitler could see the impending disaster at Stalingrad coming, there wasn't many forces left he could put in it's way to try and stop it. Also Hitler being Supreme Commander of the German Army and Commander of Army Group A created a weird chain of command structure loop
@@Edax_Royeaux It shows that the German military was most effective when he provided a general overview and allowed the military to do its thing, but once he because overly involved in military matters things got worse. But Germany was bound to loose, and there was nothing Hitler could do about that.
"Tell the guy in charge of giving people jobs not to let that jerk Stalin take over. BTW, who's the guy in charge of giving people jobs again?"
"That would be Stalin, sir"
I see you're a man of culture
Thats too simplified
@@riccards You could even say it's Oversimplified
@@oswald7597 Roll the credits
nice oversimplified reference
If Snowball kicked Napoleon out from the Animal Farm and stayed in power, then he could've saved the windmills.
Everything Snowball wanted to do Napoleon did so the results would've stayed the same.
@@mysteryjunkie9808 umm, no.
@@mysteryjunkie9808 No, not really lol
snowball was a fucking revisionist and you know it
@@darjeelingoffthegourd not as bad as Napoleon, he was just a pig...
Sorry
The true heir should not have been Stalin or Trotsky. The true heir was Tim Curry all along
spaaAAACE
REEEEE
Red Alert ?
@@pitipuziko3555 realistically no as anime would be near unrecognisable or never exist.
Wrong the people elected Stalin , Lenin didnt chose heirs in USSR people elected their leaders.
I don't understand why the post-Lenin period is always framed as a Stalin vs. Trotsky rivalry. It was so much more complicated than that, for example Nikolai Bukharin was very influential as well, surely more than Trotsky, but he is rarely even mentioned when this period is discussed.
Speaking of Bukharin, another aspect I'm curious about is to what degree the Old Bolshiveks would have had Stalin not kill them off. I feel Trotsky would've kept them around to support his legitimacy, and in doing so, might have kept enough "carefully curated opposition" to help keep memory of the revolution alive... whereas Stalin basically killed everyone off who wasn't constantly loyal to him personally and therefore upon Stalin's death the USSR was basically drifting with a system that doesn't develop a system of leadership willing to take chances. Would the USSR still be around today had the Old Bolshiveks been left around to in turn keep that revolutionary zeal alive?
Remilia elected as Chairwoman of the State Soviet
Strange as it might sound, as far as the West is concerned at least, I think the reason might be George Orwell. For a long time, Orwell has been capitalism’s favorite anti-communist shill, and his perceptions of Soviet politics have become the *only* perceptions of Soviet politics for a lot of westerners who don’t study the subject with any interest. But while he might have been an irritating reactionary gnat, Orwell was a strange sort of Trotsky proponent. You see it over and over again, in his two most subsidized works especially. Snowball and Goldstein. Apart from Trotsky’s own writings, the idea that Trotsky was just a few years away from achieving “real socialism” really starts in most people when they read Animal Farm. None of it is true, of course. Trotsky was a political fool whose ideology was riddled with petty bourgeois revision. But the idea has gotten there none the less.
@@seronymusWho was Remilia?
@@Robert_Douglass Remilia is character in the avatar of OP but I thought you were making a joke about the theme song of Flandre Scarlet look it up, whom is the sister of Remilia
*Trotsky:* "This Empire is in...unacceptable...CONDITIOOOOOOOOOOONS! UNACCEPTABLE! One million years work camp!"
Huh, you are here too
Is it wrong that I read that in lemongrabs voice?
Joshua Saffy saaame lol
You here too????? We’re are you coming from?
Joshua Saffy no
so trotsky was the first guy to say "But thats not real communism"
Lol
Nailed it.
That’s kinda true tho, Britain was supposed to become communist, not a pre industrial nation with less resources like Russia. And the soviets weren’t really following the whole Marxist theory because they really couldn’t.
You could say it’s like in capitalism you have rotten countries like the Latin America and US and more balanced and fair countries like the nordics, Europe, etc. If the whole world was like Germany or Norway I don’t think many people would oppose capitalism so much, the same way, if Britain had developed communism in the vein of Marxist theory I don’t think it would have been as bad as it was
@@MacetazzOpina You aren‘t levying the criticism Trotsky did
@@n.m.8802 well we have a political party that flip flopped between centrism and socialism so it's not that strange.
19:07 did cypher really call George Orwell Orson Welles?
Yes, he did.
Orson Welles wrote Animal Farm in the timeline where Trotsky got to power
I was so confused....
At least it wasn't me having a brain fart. I'm getting old and thought I was having a senior moment, or maybe there was a glitch in the matrix.
Cypher, to me, can be a bit of a know-it-all pompous twat, so I find this especially funny.
I think you're missing some nuances from Germany. The Russian Communists (including Lenin) never thought any revolution would work without at least one fully capitalist country having their own socialist revolution (the Bolsheviks are kind of like the dog that caught the car, in this way). Germany ends up with two competing groups of socialists: the Democratic Socialists and the German Communists (one wants to elect socialism into power, the other wants to revolt). Fascism gets going while these two (bigger) groups fight each other. When Hitlers says that in the early days, if his enemies had united fascism would've been crushed, this is what he's referring to. So the real historical question is: If it was Trotsky, instead of Stalin, would a more aggressive Communist Russia, create conditions in Germany where a socialist government (through either elections or revolution) would have come to power. This would have extinguished fascism in Germany before it began.
Who knows.
Additionally, Trotsky was Jewish and Russia post-revolution still had a lot of Anti-Semitic sentiment (even if it was illegal). He declined the offer to become Prime Minister after the coup, for this reason. He didn't think the country would follow him. Lenin would have had to over come Russian prejudice to get Trotsky in.
U kidding right!!!!! Uker famine holocaust in 30s was caused by zion komissars...lenin jew, marx jew, trotski jew...kommies were jews
Hey, do you happen to have a source on the Trotsky turning down that position thing? Not doubting you but I'm doing a pet-project related to Soviet History and I wanted to know where you heard that he declined the position. Thanks!
@@quack6292 Sorry for the late reply: Revolutions Podcast by Mike Duncan. He's a journalist, not a prof, but he does do a HUGE amount of research and keeps a relatively neutral position as he goes through Russian History, Marxism, etc.
He's also a good source for French, Haitian, American, and Mexican revolutions and the English Civil Wars.
@@BlueRockBill Sorry for my late reply lol, Thank you very much! This should be very helpful to me
National socialism and fascism are not the same.
Trotsky was opposed to Lenin's change and move to the NEP. Stalin used this to isolate Trotsky. Trotsky also overestimated his popularity and underestimated Stalin's intelligence.
He also under-estimated the spinelessness and bravery of potential allies in the party.
He was also an inconsistent and undecided leftist who had bad strategies and couldn’t make up his mind. Lenin called him a political slut in the newspapers, to make sure that he wouldn’t replace him.
@@thomasprat7760 Whom are u referrıng to?
@@JakobMoscow Trotsky. He played a crucial role in the October revolution and in the civil war, but then his ideas were constantly changing and he wasn’t consistent. Then he fled in 1928-29 and started advocating for a US military coup in the SU.
@@thomasprat7760 Stalins were also changing throughout the years. Stalin was the ultimate opportunist. It was charecteristic of State Socialism for the 'party line' to change. These people were forging absolutely new paths. Their ideas changed as the conditions changed, and their prospects of being in or out of power also changed
"The Soviets might not just stop at Germany"
"Hmm sounds familiar..."
*Looks at China*
Japan already had China and most of Asia pretty well flatten by then (2nd Sino war).
Excuse his lack of knowledge in sure he thinks Japan was an allied 😁😁
@@mommat794 a perfect vehicle to export the revolution across
@@maxwellli7057 look up William Blum on the internet archive.
Uh.... the CCP was waging its revolution since the mid 1920s
Another scenario that could be interesting: what if Lenin was in better health and remained alive and in power a few years (or decades) longer?
Then, since Lenin wiuld be in, Stalin would be out, so he would become Stalout and maybe be related to Stallone.
@Jonathan Williams Search up Lenin's : Peaceful Coexistence
It would have been the opposite
Churchill wrote that 'Russia's greatest misfortune was Lenin's birth. It's second greatest misfortune was his untimely death'
Even an arch imperialist and capitalist like Churchill could see that the Soviet Union was ultimately a humanist ideology. He found it easy to be an ally of the Soviet Union because he argued 'Whilst Nazism can only get worse, Bolshevism can only get better'
When your ideological opponents respect and agree with you, you know you are doing something right.
@@PORRRIDGE_GUN man fuck I wish Lenin didn't die
Lenin would’ve accidentally been killed and Trotsky would’ve disappeared. Stalin would then reluctantly take power and eat all the grain.
Ironic that his willingness to listen to technical experts would have helped some problems but his ideological zeal even by revolutionary standards would have caused other issues
"He was extremely opinionated"
Okay
"even by leftist revolutionary standards"
oh no
Sounds like he'd be right at home on twitter... Just saying.
So, like AOC?
@@lewisvargrson Look no more than 18:27 😂
Oh no indeed
@@willblack7353 aoc bad bottom text
It took me until now that you replaced the swastica with the TH-cam logo, and I have never been happier with a substitute symbol..
Scrolled all the way down here to see a comment appreciating it as much as I did 😄
Swastica ? You confused hold east asian symbols with hammers and sickles.
Aren't those the same thing?
@@johnathangaminj8200 The difference is one of them has incorporated females into their regime, and the other one never had the chance
@@johnathangaminj8200 Yes, you’re right, my apologies
RIP this comments section. May the tankie/red-baiter feud commence!
May the comments be stained red with blood and communism.
Maybe they'll cancel each other out.
Adelante, Compañeros!
*munches popcorn in anarchist*
What if the Second Great Depression actually happens?
Trotsky: propose Stalin to the general secretary post
Stalin: exile Trotsky
Trotsky: suprised pikachu face
So basically people romantacized Trotszky because he wrote fanfiction of himself all the time
Considering the alternatives: *Romanticizing Stalin*
Yeah I can understand the blind hope.
Useless fact Stalin very rarely took a bath of course everyone was too scared to say something
@Spartan 506 and the fact he killed 20milion people
@Spartan 506 ? Stalin was estimated to have killed 20 million
@Spartan 506 tankie detected
A yes, Leon "I'm gonna start a revolution in every country that hosts me in my exile" Trotsky
Based
Fuck he really did not think that one through
@@ItsButterBean1020 Mexican Ice Picks! Come get your Mexican Ice Picks!
Ah, yes. The famous writer behind Animal Farm: Orson Welles.
I was thinking maybe it was some sort of "fool-the-algorithm" thing, a bit like the TH-cam Party replacing the Nazis in all these videos...
My family still thinks Orson Welles is the English socialist and George Orwell did the broadcast about aliens.
@@Doctor_Robert nope, just a slip of the tongue that neither Cody or I caught, LOL
@@CynicalHistorian lol, awesome. (Could've entirely fooled me)
In an alternative timeline where citizen Kane ran an animal farm in 1984 called Insoc
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I recall, Orwell's portrail of Snowball/Trotsky wasn't all unicorns and rainbows. He was in favour of pigs getting special treatment just as much as Napoleon.
This comment must be quite nonsensical to people who haven't heard of animal farm
He was a decorated war hero, who advocated for 4-day work weeks, a windmill to save labor and generate electricity for the farm, and was generally more open to democracy than totalitarianism. The book normally paints Snowball as “the good guy,” and he’s generally the pig who wants everything equal for the animals.
But Orwell just generally seemed to love Trotsky anyways, because the character Emmanuel Goldstein in 1984 is also based on him.
I think you guys overcomplicated Trotsky rise to power. Yes, he was greatly disliked by the party. It doesn't matter though because he was liked by the army. There's a reason why Stalin executed pretty much every officers in the Red Army after Trotsky left (which is actually a big reason why the Soviets did so poorly in the Winter War and the start of WW2, they just had no experienced officers left at all.) That reason is that the army and especially the generals still supported Trotsky who was their leader for so long. So I don't think Trotsky rise to power happens by him somehow seducing the Politburo, I think it happens with Trotsky just not accepting it when they kick him out of the party, rallying up his generals and becoming a military dictator. Sure, doing something like that would be against what Trotsky believed in but, as you said, he was a contrarian and a zealot, he could easily convince himself it was in the interest of the revolution in the long run.
I'm also glad you point out that the Soviets could easily win that version of WW2 because, without the officer's purge Stalin did, I think the Red army would have been a lot more formidable.
The correct take
I don’t think the Soviets would take control of the world. More like Cody’s take on the Nazis: eventually civil conflicts bog down the empire, and US/Canada/Australia become fighting forces to eventually take it down....and just like in the IRL USSR their inevitable undoing will be their own system and lack of innovation to keep up with the West while maintaining such a vast empire. Making it larger doesn’t change the fact that a socialist empire fighting a capitalist one in innovation will never win. In fact it exasperates a lot of the issues it had being bogged down in massive bureaucracy and mismanagement.
...or everyone just dies in nuclear hellfire and no one wins. Don’t see a scenario where the Soviets take over the world. But yeah, probably the majority of it (Europe and most of Asia).
@@jpusar The thing is that with Trotsky, the ideology of the USSR is changed completely (you know, party separated from economics) and more union power, and less command economics, therefore there's more room for improvement (the USSR actually didnt lack improvement and innovation, it lacked consumer products and individual people)
Most purged officers were not shot. Many were in fact reinstated. Do 3 of 5 marshals were shot.
@hypppo Yes, 3 of 5 marshalls. Also 13 of 15 army commanders, 8 of 9 admirals, 50 of 57 army corps commanders, 154 out of 186 division commanders, 16 of 16 army commissars, and 25 of 28 army corps commissars. And most of those who weren't purged were Bolsheviks who were put in those positions because of their political affiliation with the Politburo, every veteran officers who had actually served either Trotsky or the Tsar at some point were purged. And those who were reinstated were only reinstated during WW2 after Russia had already lost millions of men.
The effects of the purge on the Red Army were massive dude. Their ''strategy'' during the Winter War was basically to send their armies in a single compact line toward Finland's biggest cities. And then they wondered why they lost 6 times more men and thousands of tanks to Finnish infantry on skis.
15:02
"Far less restraint than Stalin" is one of, if not the most terrifying phrases I think I've ever heard.
Well sh
So Stalin was tame in comparison???
@@laurocoman As terrifying as it sounds I guess so
The same goes for Lenin himself. Simon Sebag Montefiore describes a scene in his biography of the young Stalin (until 1917, that is - he wrote about Stalin's later life and rule extensively earlier), in which Lenin, in an argument during a pre-revolution communist congress, began to call for the immediate exectuion of everyone who didn't agree with him. It was Stalin who told Lenin to calm the hell down and stop being so ridiculous.
@@Depipro is there any communist who wasn't bat-shit insane?
what westen historians dont get right is that the "lenin letter" was refered to the general assembly of the Soviet Comunist party and metioned many personalitys of the politic buro with critism on their positive and negatives. Not only stalin but also Trosky buharin and otheirs.
The worst adjective Lenin stated on the big three:
Stalin - Authoritarian
Trotsky - Political Slut
Bukharin - Young and unprepared
So it was Lenin's essentially roasting the Bolsheviks from his deathbed...
Yes but he later sent a second letter calling for the removal of Stalin.
Although the letter did come from Lenin's wife who was an active party member and was vocally against Stalin so who knows the authenticity.
Trotsky's willingness to use people from the old regime to train people in the USSR is kinda similar to what Mao ended up doing later
Yeah but Mao ended up doing Lysenkoism which was done by Stalin's apprentice tho.
Not only Trotsky but Lenin too.
Alternate History: What if George Orwell was a radio host and Orson Wells was a writer.
"Snowball... That's right. Snowball Frozen Peas. Full of country goodness and green peaness."
I heard that and thought did I hear that right? Maybe that’s the same world where the president was Ronald Reagan, the First Lady was Jane wyman, and the Vice President was Jerry Lewis
Orwell WAS a radio host. For the BBC. He did anti communist propaganda. Look it up. His work as a broadcaster for the BBC is what gave him the details for the offices and rooms in the Ministry of Truth.
Citizen Smith (that's probably only going to work for UK readers).
@@NoahBodze and Wells was a writer. He co-wrote Citizen Kane.
On Hitler's armband, he replaced the swastica with the youtube Icon, subtle, lol.
(Not making fun of you) It's been like that for a while, specifically since TH-cam's been flagging and censoring WWII videos.
Remember the the left for their sins and vote come Nov
Königstiger what?
I don't think Qannon is healthy for you. Don't listen
Yeah I do remember that now, he made a whole video. I feel like an idiot.
George Orwell: "...who the bloody hell is Orson Welles?"
You’ve never seen The Magnificent Burmese Ambersons?
He was best known for the (largely fictional) panic aroused by his (actual) broadcast of a radio play based on War of the Worlds in 1938. But apparently this guy just had a brain fart when he said Orson Welles instead of George Orwell.
@@bradfordhatch5085 To be honest their names are quite similar.
@@JonatasAdoM Oh, I know that; that's probably how the brain fart (or Freudian slip if you prefer the actual technical name) came about in the first place. I wasn't *dissing* the man, if that's what you thought. We *all* make such slips; God knows I've made my share. That doesn't mean the guy was dumb or anything. If anything the smarter and more educated you are the more likely you are to make such slips! Hence the common trope of the absent-minded professor. :-)
@@bradfordhatch5085 If I had a nickel for the times I've messed up Will Farrell and Pharell Williams...
Gotta remember that Fascism was adopted by the Eastern European nations BECAUSE it was seen as fervently anti-communist. It’s entirely possible that Britain and France could have seen large and even prominent fascist parties as communism is seen as more of a threat than fascism
Fascism is not a threat to the bourgeoisie; on the contrary, it is salvation. Fascism was formed as a reaction to communist sentiments in the country, as a terrorist agony in an attempt to preserve the bourgeois system.
That's part of how the US's current fascist party came into power
@@ratelarmonter4736 Communism is not seen as a threat to the bourgeoisie either. Those are the ones funding it. Communism is a threat to the middle and working class. To those with enough money to be hated, but not enough to be safe and to those who have no means of resisting tyranny.
@@therainbowconnection6813 lol. Tell me you're joking, because if you are then that's a good one.
@@ДартКсенос Explain.
"So basically centrist"
Jreg wants to know your location
For a handshake?
Targi Svear
Centracide
@@randomuser5443 I mean, Cody was criticising people who would take fascists side just because communist attack them by calling them "basically centrist" so Cody isn't being nice to them, unless Jreg would centracide at the mention of them at all... would he?
@@Targisvear I think we both know the answer
@@JohnSmith-gz4fs So like "Meet the Parents" it is: "You said centrism on an airplane" "I said I didn't like centrism" "You said centrism on an airplane".
Personally, I'm particularly interested in Cypher's alternate history Animal Farm, which is his universe was written by Orson Welles rather than George Orwell... :D
I'm still not sure if it was a joke, or an oversight on Cypher's part. Either way, Citizen Kane but it's Animal Farm. Talk about a confusing crossover.
“He was extremely opinionated, even by leftist revolutionary standards.”
“Blow up the moon to empower black minorities”
Yeah we leftists don't like trots
@@comissar8953 I can't think of a strain that LIKES trots. from anarchist, to Marxist-Leninist from Council comminists and syndicalists to Third world Maoists and Bordgists. Is there any actual kind of leftist that likes Trots?
@@bouddicathesleepinglioness3148 maybe leftcoms but idk , he has Trotskyists
@@bouddicathesleepinglioness3148 there is a kind of meme Trotskyism , posadism believes in permanent Revolution and nuclear war and aliens lol
To be honest I think that Trotsky would realize maybe after taking power that his thought of safety through elimination was not such a good idea.
It didn't stop Lenin. If Trotsky had ultimate authority he would have used it.
You are supposing that Trotsky WAS NOT A BOLSHEVIK?
There is PLENTY of evidence that he was ----and none that he was not.
Shucks ---even soft hearted Stalin gave Trotsky opportunities to LIVE after being expelled from the party. Stalin never made THAT mistake again!
Trotsky takes power of the Soviet Union, accidently falls down the stairs onto 72 knives and Stalin reluctantly comes into power. There is always Stalin comrade.
😆😆😆🤮
AL S,
Not if Stalin died before being able to gain power. That’s another possibility. Perhaps Trotsky only gained power because Stalin wasn’t around to take it
@@GargamelGold Comrade I think you need to talk to these nice men with guns. They will show you how Stalin would always have been around.
Good point though.
*"reluctantly"*
Two self-inflicted gunshots in the back of Trotsky's head, Stalin had no choice but to step up
"But *Orson Welles* had to stick his pen in it..."
This is truly an alternate timeline.
probs because welles is similar to orwell
I rmember reading one of trotsky's books once and he started it with going off about how the west are technically wrong with the months they use for the 1917 revolutions. The original umm acktually
What a stupidly pointless and irrelevant detail, definitely Trotsky
It's not so much that the western dates are wrong, but that Russia used a different calendar.
For example, in the old Russian calendar, the taking of the Winter Palace was in October 1917, but by the western calendar it was already November.
LOTS of quotes give the dates in the original Russian calendar.
@@fanaticaltechpriest1002 Very relevant given that the topic was Russia's relationship with modernity. Moron.
It's because Russia still used the Julian calendar and it's date differs by a week or so.
@@thaneofwhiterun3562 - By some 13 days.
Having done Russian history from 1800 through the Napoleonic era up until the end of the Soviet Union, I found myself thinking about this same question and often found myself bemoaning the failure of Trotsky to take over from Lenin.
Then we'd bemoan the failure of Stalin to take over
So, Trotsky would be my average Soviet run of Hearts of Iron
I tried being a nice Stalin and not purge anyone in one of my Russia runs, but then Trotsky attacked.
@@sevret313 Everything changed when...
Never mind
I always do a Trotsky run, I like the stage a coup buffs
Alternate History Cypher: Woodrow Wilson is to blame for the rise of Trotsky
Why
@@europadefender simplified, Woodrow Wilson kept the US neutral, which lead to WWI lasting longer, and the Germans sending Lenin back to Russia, who later lead a revolution against the Russian Republic, which lead the Soviet Union.
Also he created Wilsonism, which basically means that America should intervene in other countries to make it safe for democracy
@@gamebawesome Wilsonianism is just a fancy way of saying imperialism with democracy sprinkled in. At least Teddy was honest about it
@@samuelwithers2221 aT lEaSt
@@NathanDudani Relax, not defending Teddy, but he didn't even beat the bush about it
Twitter tankies: “I’m a Marxist-Leninist, meaning I believe Lenin was correct in his assertions about the world and politics.”
Also Twitter tankies: “Stalin was based.”
Marxist Leninists are not Leninists but Stalinists.
@@MasterAdam100 depends on who you arguing
@@MasterAdam100 that's dumb
Not all ML's are the Stalinist types, the stalinists are usually teenagers and just really loud(they post and reply a lot).
@@theblackestvoid I know 40 year old MLs which support Stalin and can be considered stalinists
Stalin: We must prepare, for a great threat shall soon come.
Trotsky: *WE ARE THE DANGER*
I love how he replaced the swastika with the TH-cam logo 😂
Where
@@antilinkpartyleader3239 The fact that you didn't notice makes it even funnier
@@CassDaMan1138 I was at 4 minutes while reading comments and I noticed it
always has been
@@antilinkpartyleader3239 14:12
*holy crap he's wearing a budenovka, my life is complete.*
Russian civil war uniform goes brrrrrrrrr
he just needs some telogreika and then our lives would be complete
@@awkwardbound569 And Sapogi. Don't forget the Sapogi
@@historyarmyproductions Also the gimnasterka
In a nutshell.
Stalin: Entrench against capitalism.
Trotsky: Crusade against capitalism, *MARX VULT*
Bukharin: Defeat capitalism on their own game. In order to defeat the enemy, we must become the enemy. *Deng Xiaoping takes notes
Nice one mate
Xiaoping wasn't a socialist
Deng was probably a communist in the 20s through 40s, but by the time of Mao's death he was arguably one of the most right-leaning leaders in China. Most of Deng's supporters today fits pretty well into the stereotypical US Republican voter image, although more socially conservative (you hear me right) and favor slightly more government intervention.
@@lukexu6400 So a stereotypical US Democrat. I see.
@@orrorsaness5942 weak
I mentally jumbled Trotsky with Tchaikovsky when reading the title, and that sounds like a interesting scenario.
USSR anthem: 1922 overture
Waltz of the Bolshevik Fairy. Hmm. Could be interesting.
19:04 Calls George Orwell "Orson Welles".
K
He didn't even direct the film. It was John Stephenson, 14 years after Welles died...
@@fikanera838 I think the bigger issue is that Orson Welles had nothing to do with it.
In his defense, I know many people who get then confused (myself included, I also throw in H. G. Wells because reasons).
He did that to avoid demonetization.
@@JohnSmith-wx9wj ...how does that work exactly?
"And they have aged terribly."
*"OOOOPS."*
RIP Sequelitis
I wish I understood, alas I know nothing of history and only watch these because me likey the voice
@@creshiell The picture was used on an old video of his on Trotsky, but it's not Trotsky there. I forgot what the guy's name was.
@@dakkarnemo1094 that's amazing LMFAO thank you
@@dakkarnemo1094 Yeah, IIRC, it was Mikhail Kalinin
Just want to highlight that Holodomor wasn't only in Ukraine. In Kazakhstan the cattle was taking from nomads causing around a million deaths which is much higher if you take population proportion. Same in Belarus, southern Russia and parts of Caucasus. Ukraine was a breadbasket of the USSR that is why they were impacted heavy but it was not only them.
I agree, I'm glad that I met such a person. For some reason, many people like to think that the USSR just wanted to destroy its own people.
5:58 the memories this scene gave me. Ill never forget this series
Astronaut:"Wait Trotsky's regime would have been equally as bad as Stalin's and maybe even worse?"
Astronaut with gun:"всегда был известен."
I guess they would be Cosmonauts in this case.
Братан, ты запостил скукожиться
Pedantic point - Trotsky was only very briefly a Menshevik, he quit the Mensheviks to become an "interdistricter" an independent Marxist hoping to bring the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks back together again. (although he remained friends with Julius Martov, the Menshevik leader)
Trotsky was very bad at political scheming and building a power base, so I think if Lenin had denounced Stalin more vocally the anti-Trotsky troika would have been Zinoviev, Kamanev and Bukahrin rather than Zinoviev, Kamanev and Stalin. Zinoviev was probably the second best political schemer after Stalin, so he would ultimately have taken over, Trotsky would have found himself kicked upstairs, perhaps serving as president. (Basically a non-job in the Soviet Union, the real president in our timeline - Kalinin - was so insignficant Stalin didn't even bother having him killed.)
If Trotsky had somehow got into power, he might have been better than Stalin, but still not great. His criticisms of Stalin read a lot like Khruschev's - ironic since modern Trotskyists consider the post-Stalinist Soviet Union to be a "deformed worker-state" or even "state capitalist". Trotsky was also an advocate of pursuing revolution in western colonies and semi-colonial areas, especially India and China. We would likely see massive Soviet aid to the Chinise Communists and to the Congress Party in India; Britain could have faced a major uprising in India while Mao (or one of his rivals) could have come to power in the 1930's.
As for Germany, Trotsky would probably have avoided Stalin's truly stupid "third period" doctrine which saw the Communists ordered to spend all their time attacking the Social Democrats and ignoring Hitler. While an alliance of Communists and Social Democrats might have simply prompted Hindenburg to appoint Hitler Chancellor a year or two earlier than in our timeline, it is possible that this could instead have forstalled the rise of Hitler - perhaps by radical Social Democrat - backed by the Communists - taking the German presidency. However, there would have been fierce resistance from German conservatives and the military to this, so it is possible that Germany could have slid into civil war, and perhaps ended up devided.
With Germany split and the USSR waging proxy wars against the west in the developing world, this alternate 1930's looks a lot like the Cold War, maybe that was the one inevitablity of the 20th century!
Trotsky's only chance was to have switched sides in the Kronstadt Rebellion and go back to his (very ferocious) anti-Lenin gimmicks of his earlier years. He was definitely not smart enough and was swallowed by the BP Neo-Platonic nonsense.
best take in the comments section, seriously there's an entire collection of shit trotsky wrote AT THE TIME about what the USSR should have been doing about fascism and I don't recall "idk headfirst invasion of germany" being in there, and yeah the third period then popular front strategy was awful and trotsky specifically wrote against it
@Awawawa CM True, but my point is, modern Trotskyists don't like Khrushchev, and didn't when he was in power. The feeling was mutual, Khrushchev gave Ramon Mercader - Trotsky's assassin - the Order of Lenin and the Soviet Union continued to view Trotsky as a traitor, even though the "Stalinism-lite" policies of this era weren't that different from Trotsky's position.
Amusing to hear Trotskyist use the term "State Capitalist (correctly too as it happens) In their criticisms of the Soviet Union, when Trotsky andvhis cronies themselves were the arch advocates of State Capitalism when in government. Talk about stealing others' terminology.
Title: "What if Trotsky Came To Power Instead Of Stalin?"
Me who put Trotsky in power in HOI4: Been there, done that.
Is it given you some profit? Trotsky just gives faster wargoals and you have to trade best generals and ministers for Him...
I do like playing with Permanent Revolution + NKVD Primacy to turn Europe communist without firing a shot.
Slower wargoals are annoying, but I’m not a fan of world conquest anyways. Once I kill the Axis as USSR, it gets pretty boring.
@@mangoshi1251 same I usually just win ww2 conquer some time countries around me and give up
@@mangoshi1251 im doing that with road to 56, you should challange japan and the usa, and this comment was 2 months ago so idk if you done it, and also build up the nuke piles.
well, the New Soviet DLC comes out sooner, and good luck..
I feel that Trotsky was the closest to fully embrace Marx's ideals. Lenin was ruthless, but he did think communism would help everybody, Stalin was just an asshole
What people don’t really understand is that the prime difference between Stalin and Trotsky geopolitically is that Trotsky believed in exporting the Revolution while Stalin wasn’t really that expansionist. His reasons for taking the Eastern European satellites was not because he wanted to spread communism, but because he wanted a buffer to keep Russia safe from western invasions.
Except for the Baltic states who were outright conquered and were made as full states in the Union.
Eastern Europe was basically a Meat Shield
Cody did mentioned that in the first video he did on What if Stalin never rose to power? I'm disappointed that he didn't put that fact here.
@@nickrustyson8124 yeah, just like us europeans were to america. With the difference being that USA also have 2 oceans
@@MyName-lq7rv And also to have a bigger coast on the baltics i belive?
2 things that I would like to clarify about Animal farm:
- In the book it is hinted that Snowball would be just as bad of a leader as Napoleon(the windmill plan, his zealotry about Animalism, the stolen milk ,etc..) .
-Orwell didn't release the book, that is a thing only a publishing company can do, and in fact was rejected numerous times because of the war alliance.
There was also Snowball agreeing with the plan that all apples from the apple tree would go to only the pigs. It was one of the few things he and Napoleon agreed on.
It's almost as if most people are bad at getting subtlety... Hmm...
What do you call a communist sniper?
A Marx man
this pun makes you deserve 10 million years in G.U.L.A.G.
It's not original, I saw it in another video
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
@@omar_xxnader9246 cuz its *OUR* comment
The Red Death
*@ **19:00** or so;*
Orson Wells didn't write Animal Farm; George Orwell wrote it.
Remember, there was also Imperial Japan and a Soviet Russia that was VERY concerned about the security of their Siberian hinterland. It is possible that Trotsky would have gotten the USSR so deeply invested in supporting the Maoists in Asia that he might have just dug in and gone on the defensive in Europe. Admittedly, that is a huge "if" since he had little restraint. I also suspect that when the Reich invaded Yugoslavia, Trotsky would have decided that there was no choice but to intervene on behalf of their "ally" (the paternalistic Russian view of Balkan Slavs as their protectorate).
I don't believe Trotsky had a paternalistic Russian view as others did. His view of other peoples was very much ideologically based and sought a global rather than a regional framework.
@@Zorro9129 A good point to bear in mind.
The Reich wouldn't need to invade yugoslavia if they aren't at war with the Allies, which if Trotsky is in power, the allies will probably be on the side of the Nazis.
At that point, we might have seen the US supplying arms and fuel to Japan in a war against the Soviets in exchange for Japan curbing its ambitions in Southeast Asia and the Pacific islands. The US was very isolationist in the 1930s, but an expansionist Soviet Union might have been a bridge too far.
@@bluemarlin8138 That's just wild lmao
OutKast: What's cooler than being cool?
Trotsky: *ICE COLD*
avery, my hero
Hahahaaha ice pick go brrrr
ALRIGHT ALRIGHT ALRIGHT ALRIGHT ALRIGHT ALRIGHT ALRIGHT ALRIGHT ALRIGHT ALRIGHT ALRIGHT ALRIGHT ALRIGHT ALRIGHT ALRIGHT ALRIGHT ALRIGHT ALRIGHT
@@chuckleshelicopterwigwamjo7315 HEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEY YAAAAAA
Avery go away
Congrats to Cypher, getting Orson Wells and George Orwell mixed up
Lol
He said the wrong name, people do it all the time, Jesus
Georgson Orwells
@@twoscarabsintheswarm9055 Indeed, in the given context, Jesus would be the wrong name also. :p
@@Depipro yes but I just don't like how everyone cared so much about the wrong name being said, someone tried to portray it as a reason why Cody is a bad TH-camr or something
That damn Orson Welles and his romanticizing of Trotsky in Citizen Kane
Surely, whether there would be an alliance between the Western Allies and Nazi Germany to resist a Soviet invasion depends on when such an attack occurs? If Trotsky decides to take advantage of the Great Depression, and launches the invasion in the spring or summer of 1930, the Nazis are not yet in power in Germany. IOT, they assumed power in 1933 because they grew their parliamentary mandate until then and struck a deal with the Conservative Party. If war breaks out as early as 1930 and Germany allies with France and Britain, with the US supplying war materiel, there is little risk of a Nazi takeover.
Don't you think the Conservatives and Social Democrats would form a broad coalition government for the duration of the war, and keep both the Nazis and communists out? However hesitant, France and Britain would likely have no choice but to agree to a Versailles Treaty II, which eliminates (or postpones) Germany's war indemnities, possibly the war guilt clause, but most important of all - the cap on Germany's armed forces. After all, every extra German soldier would be another man between the Red Army and Paris. These measures would be widely popular in Germany, and be credited to the coalition government, not the Nazis.
Although the German military was nowhere near capable of conducting a large scale war in the midst of the 1930s. It should be noted that preemptive preparation and large scale development of military theory was rapidly advancing.
You are right sir. And yet this invasion may catapult them to power earlier depending on how the war is going as the Nazi's may be able to spin things so the german people may welcome their rule eagerly. Another factor is that they'll have to deal with rampant resistance to their rule in every nation they occupied. Like Finland who if the winter war is anything to go by would make holding their nation absolute hell for the USSR. Think the french resistance across all of occupied eastern Europe.
Impossible. USSR was weak in 1930s and imagine fighting with another famine. It suicidal
"The USSRs boarders will stretch from coast to coast for a united Union is our destiny ."
- Trotsky during the invasion of europe
The Germans would be allowed to remilitarize as soon as the Red Army crosses the Vistula. When the Red Army crosses the Vistula is an open question. Trotsky would purge more members of society and the Party, but he would also shield the Red Army from the purges that handicapped it in the late '30's in our timeline. So the Red Army would be more efficient, but the Soviet war economy would be less so. I don't think they'd take Poland and Finland in a month, and I doubt they'd try to invade more than one war at a time, but I don't think the USSR would sit idly by while Europe backs Franco in Spanish Civil War. Trotsky would probably invade Germany in 1936 at the latest.
Lenin never appointed Stalin as his successor.
In fact Lenin on his death bed warned about the dangers of Stalin ascending to power. From memory Lenin wrote a letter that hinted at the removal of Stalin from the Politburo and his support for Trotsky. (Correct me if I'm wrong)
Of course the letter never made it to Politburo eyes,
and Stalin positioned himself as Lenin's successor at his funeral (Trotsky btw was given the wrong date for the funeral).
Lenin's Last Will warns against both Trotsky and Stalin. That's why they both voted to suppress it.
Lenin's Testament, the last version of which called for Stalin's removal from the leadership, did make it the Politburo. At the Central Committee meeting on the eve of the Twelfth Congress of the Party, the first following Lenin's death. Stalin's supporters on the CC argued for the Testament not to be circulated to the Congress delegates. Trotsky's supporters initially argued for its circulation as of course did Lenin's widow, Krupskaya. The CC agreed to a recess during which Stalin was said to have sat on a step outside with his head in his hands muttering "it is all over". However, when the Central Committee resumed Trotsky surprised everyone by accepting suppression of Lenin's Testament on the grounds of maintaining Party unity. Krupskaya felt betrayed that her husband's wishes were not just being ignored but being kept secret from the Party activists.
Trotsky even publicly denied the existence of the document when it was published in America in 1925 by one of his disciples. However, once the break with Stalin intensified he admitted its existence.
All this shows Trotsky's naivety in internal party battles.
@@patbyrneme007 Trotsky's wasn't naive. He was power hungry. He agreed to suppress Lenin's Last Will, because he would have been just as suppressed as Stalin.
Stalin also tried resigning but the communist party VETOed it. This was immediately after his succession.
Lenin Criticized the entire politburo in his will, that is why the entire politburo suppressed it. This includes Trotsky.
TL;DR: We would be asking "what if Stalin came to power"
Replace one ruthless dictator with another ruthless dictator that was supposed to be the original ruthless dictator that got replaced by the ruthless dictator
"I understood that reference"
Communism in a nutshell
Communism: *is founded on a basis of economics*
Alternate Trotsky: *separates communism from economics*
H u h
Separating the party, i. e. the state apparatus, from economy does not mean that the economy is not Communist.
The bureaucracy is a piece of state apparatus, but unlike the executive branch (in this case the soviets themselves) it can simply provide options.
Economics is still subservient to democracy if policy is still ratified by the vote of representatives held accountable to their constituents.
That is closer to anarchism.
The economy is self-managed by the working populace?
No! Communism is when the state hands out food and healthcare!
Parallel lines are lines that no matter how much you stretch will never intersect
---communism---
---economics---
Trotsky? Never heard of him, we don’t talk about this so called “Trotsky”
Ah yes, the Glorious Supreme leader of the DPRK, so nice to see you here! btw having any relationship issues with South Korea?
It appears someone needs to pay a visit to the Soviet "summer camp"
Agreed!
Back from the grave! Welcome back sir.
3:20
On mobile, when I tap the screen to pull up the pause, previous & next video, CC, fullscreen, etc. buttons, the figures get an outline and little angry faces in light gray.
"We've defeated the right enemy"
- George Patton, Alternate Timeline
Silly. The Anglosaxons did not defeat anyone: they were basically allowed in by retreating Nazis focused on trying to cotain the USSR in the Eastern Front. In an alternative redder history, without the treacherous complicity of both the Nazis and Stalin, the West would have been isolated to the seas and out of all mainland Eurasia, even of India!
No it should be the LEFT enemy
Well.... without stalins purges and such...
Maybe Russia's military might didn't want America's helped or even get offered it against the Nazis?
@@craigbiggam2111 No, there would be purges, just of a slightly different nature. The generals would be demoted to sergeants and sent to teach Close Order Drill rather than command Red Army troops. If they got mouthy, they disappeared into Siberia.
for some reason i feel it would still be the same quote, but this time with more, we are going to defeat the other guy.
Brief point of order on Animal Farm: George Orwell wrote the Novella in 1945 - after he was no longer a Trotskyist. He stated specifically that it would have been better if the Russian Revolution had been influenced by the Kronstadt Uprising (which as was mentioned, Trotsky famously crushed).
"But Orson Welles had to stick his pen in it"
Very funny way to pronounce George Orwell there.
I didn't get this joke. What was it all about?
Luther Blissett Cynical said Orson Welles when he talked about Animal Farm, Orson Welles did not write Animal Farm, George Orwell did. Orwell, O. Welles.
@@LtLuigi25 Yeah i got that one, but i thought there would be something deeper about it 🤷🏻♂️
@@lutherblissett2634 deeper than your name?
@@skywindow6764 that was what I was hoping for 😉
Stalin's greatest atrocity? Allowing Ayn Rand to learn to read and write.
"I've seen this one before."
"What do you mean you've seen this before, it's brand new."
nice
I approve
@Thunder Lightning what's a re-run?
If Trotsky succeeded Lenin: "The Soviet Union would've been perfect if only Stalin had taken over!"
No Soviet union would under Trotsky be poor.
I doubt Stallin will ever rose up enough if Trotsky took power and basically purged everyone,he's not really charismatic after all
@@croatianbolshevik3533 wtf. Stalin's USSR was miserable ruthless dictatorship. Trotsky's wouldn't be worst than this.
@@leandrou100 Stalin only put revisineste and capitaliste leaders in prison.
@@leandrou100 and if USSR was bad why the people wanto to restore back USSR.
Much as many liked Trotsky as a good, competent alternative to Stalin, unfortunately as Cody stated, to say he was not the most favourite choice would be a massive understatement.
Trotsky had some qualities for being the leader the Soviets needed, as he was passionate, clever, learned, organized, inspiring when needed and ruthless when necessary. Character-wise, however, he was an abrasive and arrogant asshole who alienated everybody around him and thinks he knows better than anybody, as well as being uncompromisingly dogmatic bordering on fanaticism.
To add onto Cody's and Cypher's points, Trotsky saw politics as beneath him when it was critical to rising to power in the post-Lenin power vacuum, and even Lenin himself in his testament (assuming authentic) did not spare Trotsky from criticism. In fact they were quite antagonistic with each other from a falling-out (which Trotsky claims he regret in his memoirs) that mirrored the split between the Bolsheviks (Lenin) and the Mensheviks (Trotsky) and that was not patched up until the Russian Revolution, whereupon Trotsky realized only the Bolsheviks could win while Lenin realize he needed Trotsky's skills as an organizer and later military commander.
There were additionally a lot of resentments from the other Soviet leaders on account of his rapid rise to prominence during the Revolution and Civil War (when he spent a lot longer around the Menshviks) and for being Jewish, antisemitism being prominent back in the day as it is. Additionally, while he was instrumental to the Red Army's triumph in the Civil War, some had accused him of losing Soviet Union the chance to spread Communism to Europe and in the way he conduct the civil war, and there were some truths to it - read the surprising Polish victory at Vitsula during the Polish-Soviet War 1920, and the whole fiasco with the Czechoslovak Legion (he ordered their arrest over a few incidents) whose uprising costed the Soviets control of the Russian Far East and prolonged the conflict by several years.
Ultimately all these factors worked against him and his chances of assuming command of the Soviet Union over Stalin, but they are not actually that hard to fix, and one POD could lead to another:
1] Don't let anyone know of his Jewish-Ukrainian heritage. Antisemitism alone could cost him a lot of support, but is incidentally quite simple to fix. Just have him and his family nearly experiencing getting lynch once or nearly victimized by some pogrom that were prevalent at the time. It could convince him and his family that it would be their best interest to keep their Jewish heritage anonymous.
2] The bigger POD would be to avoid his falling out with Lenin. Trotsky started out as a Nadvorik, but was introduced to Communism through his first wife and was won over to it. Suppose his wife maintained that level of influence and got involved in the conflict between Trotsky and Lenin, perhaps persuading him in spite of his arrogance that it is not to their interest to have divisions over ideological matters. This is the most tricky to pull off, but not entirely impossible for it to happen, but keeping them cordial and in contact, even if the rest of the Menshevik/Bolshevik split happened anyway, might give him much more pull as Lenin's 'right hand'.
3] Have a more charismatic/pragmatic character. Trotsky was radicalized by the events of the failed 1905 Revolution, when he was captured and exiled to Siberia where he later escaped. Suppose during the chaotic events of the time, he got bumped or shot in the head (but survived), or was rescued by those whom he usually looked down upon. Either or both happening forcing a personality change, or whatever else happened (There are examples of this throughout history to many historical figures. Martin Luther became a monk instead of a banker after nearly getting struck by lightning), ensures that while keeping his ideals, he became less arrogant and realize he still need the support of others, thus becoming more willing to at least put up with socializing/politicking with others. Stalin, in spite of his own character faults, was able to do the same and so could Trotsky, had he made an effort to do so.
4] Win Civil War better and keep the Red Army loyal. Simply avoid blame for the failure at Poland (Incidentally, he OPPOSED the invasion of Poland, but went through with it because the Bolsheviks thought the proletariat there would rise up to help them - which as Trotsky observed didn't really happen. And even then it was also quite close, but then the 'Miracle at Vistula' happened where the Polish beat them back, and it was apparently Stalin's fault, having screwed up the flanks - all Trotsky had to do was find out and point that out) and avoid antagonizing the Czechoslovakian Legion (like arrange to get them out of Russia, which was what they wanted to do all along) could a lot to win the Civil War a lot faster and better, putting him in an even better standing if he could get all the credit. Him being less arrogant and more pragmatic as noted in pt 3] would help immensely. Incidentally, he made the mistake of maintaining the Red Army in a strictly professional relationship with him (admittedly a credit to him) - maintaining the Red Army's loyalty to him personally would further reinforce his standing, as irregardless of how the rest of the party leadership perceive him, none of them would go against a war hero who still have many, many soldiers with rifles and bayonets backing him up, though it would run the risk of him being perceived as a potential 'Napoleon/Caesar' that some had feared him as. Having a shorter civil war would also be to his advantage as it would reduce the size of the Soviet bureaucracy - which Trotsky himself had detested - and stop it from growing out of control in meeting the demands of war, incidentally weakening his main rival at its head, Joseph Stalin.
5] Lenin's death and testament: Simple, Trotsky should attend Lenin's funeral and make sure that Lenin's Testament comes out. Him not attending in part because of Stalin's trickery was for many Soviet leaders the final straw regarding Trotsky, many of whom wanted no association with him afterwards. Showing some respect would do significantly in bolstering his standing. Lenin's Testament would be more detrimental to Stalin than it would be to Trotsky if it comes out, and if Trotsky could somehow gain control of its publication Trotsky could simply edit out Lenin's parts on him, making his case even further.
Do all this and in all likelihood Trotsky would most likely end up as the leader of the Soviet Union. Unless Yakov Sverdlov survived the Spanish Flu and beat him to it - that little known Bolshevik, believe it or not, was actually Lenin's personal favourite.
As a russian I want to say If Trotsky became leader of USSR Russia will be a Pol Pot Cambodia , but very big and cold. A lot of leftist methods of Stalin in agroeconomics caused death of more then 10 millions people, Trotsky was much more leftier than anyone in the Party. Also he had an idea of the world revolution, so my country had a war with everybody if he became a leader
@@darkusagixddxd Certainly quite possible as well. We'll never know for certain.
@@darkusagixddxd as a russian I am stongly disagree with you
Trotsky was the master of jibber jabber, which is the source of his continuing appeal to intellectual types.
Stalin and Lenin were the masters of political intrigue and organization.
Jibber jabber can be useful, but it was not the basis for making the USSR successful as a country, and later as a world power.
Trotsky was never a success in active political or military power except when he was under the tutelage of Lenin.
@@SeattlePioneer Debatable. Trotsky is very good at organization should he applied himself. He helped organise political activities of the mensheviks and bolsheviks during the 1905 and 1917 revolutions (in fact, Lenin reconciled with him precisely because he needed his organisational skills), and he as the commissar of war effectively founded the Red Army and led it to victory in the Russian Civil War. The problem is he felt politics and intrigue as beneath him, and as you said was more interested and capable at the proverbial 'jibber jabber'. He could had applied himself, he just didn't have the character to apply them where it would matter.
Love you guys! I’d love to get a VO gig like this one day
Based on his proven (when he did have power) acceptance of expertise and the limited private market and food policies, I think he would've listened to his military commanders and _not_ invade any of his neighbor countries unless there was at least a mildly successful revolution. That combined with not killing off his army officers during the great purge would've left Russia in a far better place. He'd probably also not leave the front basically unguarded as Stalin did. At least that's one of the ways I could see it go. Stalin did some really dumb shit leading up to WW2. I'm not even sure he'd stay in power if it weren't for the political clout he got for winning the war.
Lol Trotsky got fucked by poor strategic plans in the Polish war and ended up losing like 100 kilometres of land. Also of course Trotksy would "purge" some of his high command because there were some that were heavily "Stalinist". Trotsky believed in the idea of World Revolution, so he would just try to invade neighboring countries to "spread the revolution", only to get destroyed because his own nation wasn't ready to do that.
@@NikKliaf
We can agree that at some point Trotsky would intervene directly. The true question remains, would Trotsky build up arms massively before so like his generals would likely advise, or would he run in like a banshee?
@@JoseEmidio firstly u pulled that "stalin didnt help Trotsky in the polish war" out of your ass, because stalin wasnt a military commander or sth. Also how would he be looking after himself, he wasn't even fighting or anything. And what makes you say stalin was an empiricist, i dont understand.
@@Deadlyaztec27 It doesn't really matter how much Trotsky builds up. The combined forces of the western allies (Germany and Italy included) with their resources, supplies, manufacturing and manpower and technology would win the allies the war 99/100 times.
I agree with Anders 100%. Trotsky would have learned from his and Soviet mistakes of the past. Come WWII, USSR would have perhaps only attempted to invade a small number of Eastern European states and more likely would have been successful due to revolutionary support there. Would not have attempted to have invaded Finland like Stalin did. Would have (perhaps only slightly) "healthier" state and military apparatuses due to no or much less severe Great Purges. As a result WWII's eastern front would have been won more quickly and more decisively with much less loss of life than under Stalin and perhaps been fought further west due to possible addition under Trotsky of a few satellite states further west. Geographic results would end up the same.
"Britain, France and Germany team up to oppose the Soviet Union" *Hell March Intensifies*
And America watches, while eating popcorn
@@TheSkyGuy77 Nah we'd probably still join in, we hating communism too
Emphasis on the Hell part. God only knows what the Soviet Union on the losing side of a total war would look like, but it's easy to imagine even the total inhumanity of the real WWII would blanch in comparison.
19:04 Orson Wells and George Orwell were not the same person haha
good catch.
Now you tell me.
underrated comment 😂
Orson Welles, George Orwell, Ronald Reagan and Grimace from McDonalds are all the same person.
Since so many different people have different reasons for portraying Trotsky in a certain way it seems ill advised to trust an account that attributes Animal Farm to Orson Welles
Trotsky really strikes me as a “Robespierre” with standards to high for most
Stalin's standards were too high for the people to sent to GULAG for a thought of joke. He expected not only purity of heart, of spirit, of mind, of thought, but people's entire consciousness and more
Orson Welles wrote Animal Farm?
That's some Major League Counterfactual History.
Communism would be more International, and less ''Soviet.''
communism is already international
@@jaydengray4015 just after WWII
GEKOLONISEERD
@@CarffGames o h n o
@@piratamaia
What do you mean?
It was ever since the 1860s at least.
In Orwell's Defense he did show some corruption before Snowball [Trotsky] was exiled.
The Pigs all agreed to hoard the apples, Snowball [Trotsky] included. Snowball [Trotsky] also discouraged Boxer from crying over a dead man. Snowball [Trotsky] by all accounts was a fanatic.
However Animal Farm's view of the Russian Revolution was still rather skewed in favor of Snowball [Trotsky] making him into a martyr for the Socialist's Theology. Old Georgie was a socialist himself after all. Therefore his work cannot be used to criticize Socialism, despite that clearly being what Animal Farm is about!!
The last words Trotsky heard before his untimely demise:
“I like ya cut G.”
Stalin: “I want to be the general Secretary.”
Trotsky: “Nyet.”
Stalin: *HEY HE SAID THE N-WORD.*
*Second civil war intensifies*
I understand this reference
caribou companion you are a cultured individual.
HO BOY!!
"He was extremely opiniated even by leftist standards"
So basically any discussion of left ideologies when the tankies and anarchists crash the party.
There is nothing we leftists hate more than other leftists.
The irony is Trotsky was as much of a tankie as Stalin. There wasn't a big disagreement on fundamental ideology, Trotsky's issues with Stalin had more to do with Stalin's incompetency at governance and ham handed brutality. Trotsky was just as brutal, but thought he had more competent ideas on how to run things.
Tolstoy was an anarchist, and Trotsky's army brutally crushed anarchists in the Ukraine.
@@robertjarman3703 I find it telling when I see anarchists defend the Soviets out a misguided belief that they would have gone ancom if they succeed.
The destruction of the anarchists in Ukraine shows otherwise.
@@Xo-3130 Not like said anarchists in Spain didn't learn that lesson. They didn't trust the Republicans who quickly became coopted by Stalin.
You should totally do a what if Beria took over after Stalin video
Can't wait to see George Orwell's Citizen Kane
Big brain time.
*R O S E B U D S K I*
“Oh boy can’t wait to see the comments section” Indeed who does not like a comment section that show that Civil War is coming
...what civil war?
yep I have the popcorn ready
@@nicholasrowley947 You haven't been paying attention to the news lately, and checking more than one source for it. Lines are being drawn, and by all means we are heading into a Second American Civil War.
Here is something random: What if the Second Great Depression actually happens?
books from Windblown A Great Depression, coming to a county near you!
So did you read any Trotsky? Out of his entire body of anti-imperialist work, what part exactly showed he would invade other countries? What part showed he actually wanted Soviet power to be concentrated in a head of state and not in workers councils?
13:55 another perfect opportunity to use the “OOPS!” sound effect