What if Trotsky was made General Secretary instead of Stalin...

Trotsky would never become general secretary because everyone hated him, and even if he did he would get backstabbed very quickly.

The most likely successor was Bukharin , with Zinoviev ,Kamenev and Stalin as the "troika" opposition as outsiders.

A Bukharin led Soviet Union would have been all around better than Stalin, Kamenev, Zinoviev or Stalin, but everyone viewed him as a capitalist "shill" because they were dumb-fucks and had a lick of understanding of Marxism. The NEP could have propelled the Soviet Union much faster to industrialism than Stalin's collectivization and with a far smaller death tall. It wouldn't be the Bolshevism Lenin dreamed about but it was a much better and more pragmatic approach with the tools they had available.

or Trotsky*

Stalin's maneuvers did fuck all to predict a preemptive German war.

Winter War and the partition of Poland were all in all pointless conflicts, that had contributed almost nothing to the Soviet Union's victory.

Trotsky commanded as much respect in the army as Napoleon had a century earlier. Stalin feared Trotsky since if Trotsky wanted to he could have easily launched a successful military coup as he led the Red Army into Red Square yet that was never Trotsky's plan.

"Partition of Poland" is 95% meme.

Pact with Germany practically secured Soviet victory in WWII by forcing Allies and Axis to fight each other, instead of having them both unite against USSR.

...

Is there pic with "every hour"?

I think this is pretty obvious, yeah.

I'd be interested to read anything anyone had on people (I'm assuming within the inner circles of the Bolshevik party) hating him. I don't think the general populace or red army disliked him at all until after he was branded a fascist, spy, wrecker, etc by Stalin.

What makes you say that? He moved Soviet industry east, a move that let him stomp Germany after they wore themselves down with advancing through the Russian winter and scorched earth.

What would Trotsky had done?

Oh good point I forgot about it being a meme and not actually happening.

But Britain, France, and Poland were allies before the treaty between the USSR and Nazi Germany. The allies were a leftover from various treaties before and after WWI. The pact if anything did nothing but endanger the USSR from the allies, who had promised to defend Poland.

Anybody would have done that. You move your production away from danger. Trotsky would have done it. Hitler would have done it if he had the chance.

user was talking about Stalin's actions before the war, anyway. The winter war, purges of the military and the treaty with the Nazis.

But the allies wouldn't start a war with both the USSR and the Nazis, that would be fucking insane. The USSR took a bit of heat knowing Germany would continue to grab all the clay, making the already pissed off allies start giving them the deep dicking and letting the USSR steamroll their way to Berlin.

Where would Hitler move it to? Do you think Trotsky would have retreated to Moscow?

Thanks, I didn't know that's what I was talking about but at least now I do.

No they wouldn't, which is why they didn't. The USSR had no reason to take heat, and despite what stalinists insist, I don't think grabbing part of Poland was anything other than wanting the territory, just like the winter war.

How does the USSR taking heat from the allies for its treatment of Poland help the USSR?

Hitler couldn't move it anywhere, since it was a two front war within a tightening net, hence why I said he would have had he the chance.

What do you mean retreated to Moscow? Not sure what you are referring to sorry.

Well I apologise user, I thought that's what you were talking about.

Stalin completely fucked the start of the war and they just won by sheer manpower to the end

Stalin killed a German officer who defected to warn him that Hitler planned to betray them because it wasn't what he wanted to hear, then when Hitler did attack he went into seclusion for a week while the country collapsed

Guy was a total fuckwit

faggot/10 gg m8 kys

only dumb-fuck here is you

Bucharin was a reformist
muh can't disturb economic equilibrium
muh can't build heavy industry before light industry
muh evolution not revolution

lol, NEP was a fucking failure
price scissors is what forced SU to embrace central planning

Trotsky was defending an invasion against Germany before Germans attacked the Soviet Union, he defended a United Front with Communist and Social-Democratic parties when Stalin was still keeping them divided and he defended a greater autonomy for the KPD when those were still parroting Stalinist slogans for a bunch of people that didn't care.

Not to mention that, with Trotsky, industrialization would have happened earlier and the military establishment wouldn't have to be completely purged out of all its talent.

Jesus Christ you have no idea what you're talking about. Planned industrialization was Trotsky's agenda since 1924, which Stalin fought against for half a decade, favoring a trade-based policy favoring the kulaks instead.

Yes. People tend to forget it for some reason. Personally, I blame Capitalist propaganda.

And your point is …?

Because if you wanted to demonstrate something that would've prevented pan-European alliance against USSR, you failed.

How does that follow from anything? Not to mention, Soviets didn't attack Poland. Which you forgot again.

Trotsky sucked when it came to organizing things. And don't use Red Army as an example - it was a clusterfuck.

Is there anything but your opinion? "Grabbed clay" was initially Soviet territory, if you forgot.

Primary offender was Reich.

Because by getting in with the Nazis and splitting Poland the Nazis were more likely to go to war with the allies than gang up on the SU.

Stalin was pushed back pretty much all the way to Moscow.

There's a name for the strategy he used which would have more info, but I can't find it and we're having a heatwave so I'm struggling to internet properly.

Stalin was not exactly a bastion of mental health.

Sounds like Trotsky should have wised up and launched a coup then. Why didn't he?

You mean the non aggression treaty? What has that got do do with anything? Britain and France had already pledged to support Poland if attacked. Germany broke the treaty and attacked Poland.

So? You realise we are talking about the legitimacy of the USSR and Nazi Germany working together to carve up Poland as a smart tactic that helped the USSR win the war.

And?

What are you babbling about, user?

So the USSR didn't invade Poland..? Are you for real?

Stalin's pact with the Nazis had nothing to do with the allies joining the war against the Nazis, nor did it have anything to do with the Nazis war mongering.

Right. The USSR didn't anex any territory from Poland which involved them moving soldiers in, with the resulting battle leading to thousands dead and tens of thousands captured. What are you implying? It wasn't technically a 'war' because it want formally declares or some shit? Poland attacked the USSR? Whatever. You're an idiot who dances around what they mean so you are never caught out.

Is that anything other than your opinion?

The Nazis taking Poland was happening with or without the USSR helping. Again, taking heat from allies was pointless.

this thread is cringey as fuck
He wouldn't have, literally nobody agreed with him economically within the party outside his sect, and this has been going on since Lenin.
Except that he lost more and more authority within the military as the civil war progressed, due to his military blunders, like his fuck-ups on the southern front. The key word being 'was' a far more competent military commander, there is a reason why he lost this authority, and it isn't handwaving by some greater force. It is why Stalin rose to relevance in the context of the civil war, since he replaced Trotskies roll quite successfully.
It scares me to consider what Trotskyist industrialization would look like, seeing as nobody agreed to his economic policy, and this itself was opportunism on his part as he denounced the industrialization of the soviet union when it occurred. His plan for industrialization was one much less advanced than Stalin's, and it is doubtful he would have survived the German onslaught if he went at his pace of industrialization.
Or he would have industrialized the same way Stalin did, due to the material conditions forcing him to, again contradicting what he was saying.
There was a reason the soviet union industrialized and collectivized when it did, there were no material conditions for socialist construction prior to this, and I doubt that industrialization was feasible if the entirety of the party congress outside of his sect was against it inb4 soviets=porkey meme

Your entire argument of industrialization is Trotsky woulda done it in 1924 so it is completely the same as the industrialization in 1936, only better :^)

Trotsky was a sectarian mess that was denounced by every member of the party outside his sect, and even Lenin wrote about this. He leads a sect within the party that everyone is opposed to, stirs shit up in the beginning of the party, switches political ideology like shoes, spreads his sectarianism when he is sent across the borders for negotiations, and then starts active anti-party work by publishing a newspaper against the party and distributing it, and later sabotaging the soviet union and smears it's name by calling it undemocratic, when the majority vote literally was for the exact opposite of his economic propositions. He was only attacking soviet democracy because he was a political minority. And then afterwards while in exile he launches a smear campaign against marxism-leninism,causing widespread sectarianism that plagues the left to this very day, the very harbinger of leftist infighting.

Party discipline. Even when members of the Opposition were being arrested and thrown in jail he still adviced even against leaving the party of setting up a new, rival organization.

Ironic given what Trotskyists became known for.

The Nazis were going to go to war with the allies with or without the USSR moving into Poland.

You mean the red army, and if Trotsky in charge would have led to a similar loss of territory? No idea. Speculating threads can't go too far since everyone disagrees and people only have hypotheticals to argue with.

I'm always jealous of the hability tankies have of just coming up with shit on the spot without feeling like it has to be sustained by the facts whatsoever. Learned with the best I guess.

...

The party said that it's facts were true, comrade. Are you saying true facts are a bad thing?

you couldn't make such a perfect idiot as this one up lmao

Who wrote that?

Soviet did not "work together". They promised not to help Poland fight against Germans (as they've threatened before), if Germans didn't go past Curzon line when they invade Poland.

That's it.

100%

Soviets "attacked" Poland retroactively, in December of 1939, because it was then they had actually attacked Finland. Allies changed their position towards USSR, took out Polish "government" out of toy box and rewrote history, saying that in fact Soviets did attack Poland in September.

Soviets give Reich a chance to attack Poland unpunished.
Reich attacks Poland.
This puts Reich at odds with Allies.

What is so hard to understand? Everybody knew that Allies will be pissed if Germans invade Poland.

There was no Poland at this point.

here, comrade

don't listen to those WESTERN LIES that put the blame of Poland on Stalin and give Trotsky the credit for the Red Army

marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/x01/ch08.htm

Yeah. Tell me how Stalin fucked up Trotsky's megalomaniacal crusade towards Warsaw, by being very far away and not in command.

And it's not "western". It's Trotsky's opinion.

Trotsky's strategy in Poland was a precursor to Blitzkrieg that Nazi Germany later refined and proved a superior land doctrine to that of Stalin during the war with Poland. The general idea is to concentrate your forces into one massive offensive to penetrate into the heart of the enemy and keep penetrating till you capture their capital and decapitate their army.

the history of the skp(b) was a work of many people, not just Stalin, and this very example was written by an officer on the southern front, from his own experience.

Stalin wasn't even in command of the southern front when this blunder happened, are you really this historically illiterate?

...

Stalin was right!

Sources: Stalin.

That's pretty blatant working together, yeah.

OK, and what's your source for this? And did the second polish republic not exist when it says it existed? What soldiers died? Who did the territory belong to? Whose territory did the Nazis occupy?

Yes, and tensions between the nazis and poland were very high, but why did the USSR have to invade po… The territory that you believe.. Uh, wait. They didn't. I forgot. Poland didn't exist like everyone says it did and the USSR didn't invade.

Your argument relies solely on Poland not existing and the USSR not attacking. So I guess since everyone believes otherwise I'll just wait for you to prove this one.

Are you genuinely retarded?

I don't really feel the need to discuss anything further after this statement.

That's your signature line! Classic XijnrwOqQI proves he's the biggest idiot on this board once again.

Because no nation bears duty to defend other nation if there is no agreement. Soviet Union was under no obligation to help Poland defend itself. Moreover, Poland was completely and thoroughly against any treaties with USSR.

And yet you claim Soviet neutrality to be "pretty blatant working together" with Reich.

Yes. If refusing to waste time on idiots and/or obvious trolls is the "biggest idiocy", then that's me.

but that's exactly a reason why they could have made him general secretary, it was a useless position originally and Stalin happened to have the mind to make it as powerful as it became

Then the USSR would have ceased to be socialist, and would have just been another proxy of Anglo-American imperialism

How would the USSR stop being socialist under Trotsky?

So? We are talking about whether the USSR invading Poland was a good idea, nobody is talking about their obligations, and right now your only argument is
You can't claim neutrality either, since they invaded, anexed territory, and killed and captured soldiers. That's a bit more than just "not helpong".

Again, so? Did this force the invasion in some way, not having a treaty?

It wasn't neutrality though. They signed treaties together and invaded poland. Pic related. Most stalinists at least pretend the working together was for some scheme, you just deny it happened, like everything that doesn't suit you.

Going to show me why Poland didn't exist and what the USSR's "non" invasion of Poland was not when history says it was?

Pathetic. You don't think I'm just trolling, you just have nothing.

Trotsky was a capitalist plant. Even Lenin realized that

Lenin never thought Trotsky was a capitalist plant thus why Lenin never challenged Trotsky's power and even turned to Trotsky to crush the Kronstadt uprising.

...

...

This has potential tbh

fuck off you fat faggotry faggy fag fuckface from furry faggot fagland

No innocents would be killed
No one would be wrongfully purged
Socialism would be more international and spread all over the world
WWII wouldn't have happened
Communism would be mainstream everywhere

good meme/10

Ahhh, there's that trademark tankie eloquence.

That is a classic Stalinist argument:

You can't back up what you said and you can't argue what you simply believe is true.

No. We were talking about having a Non-Aggression Pact with Germany.

This is an obvious bullshit.

Moving goalposts. September 17th is a different thing.

The NAP you were talking about is null and void at this point, there is no Poland and Allies are pretty obviously are not doing shit to bring it back. I.e. Poland is kill and will stay kill.

Accusing Soviets of moving into terra nullius that appeared on their borders to prevent Germans from seizing the whole of Poland is the height of hypocrisy.

Soviet union would have been weaker leading into ww2. War would have been much more drawn out. If allies still won, soviet union would have collasped by the 60s.

You've avoided the original statements and arguments so much that we have ended up here.

Uh, how is it hypocritical? I think you've got your generic insults mixed up there.

What country did the many thousands of soldiers killed and captured belong to, BTW? Or more specifically: who were they fighting for? Why did they resist the soviets or the Nazis at all? Why were they wearing uniforms and why were prisoners classed as POWs?

Do you just not agree with the second polish republic being formed, is that it? Is it a case of it's legitimacy not being recognised under the nazi-soviet treaty? Is it a case of simply no government or country existing on those lands after WWI, and history lying about it? It's up to you to to prove generally accepted history as false here. Merely stating that it didn't happen isn't worth anything.

Oh, and now the 'non' invasion has changed from being a sound strategy for pre emptive defense, and its now just grabbing land before the Germans did? That's close to what I was saying originally, except you don't believe it was land that belonged to anyone.

That the USSR signed a treaty with Nazi Germany? You will have to prove the many, many historical records proving otherwise as false before you can claim that it's bullshit. Again, the onus is on you.

This is a (You) you wanted.

Engaging with an intellectually dishonest tripfaggot is not worth your time. All you will get is the avoidance of any of the arguments you present, while he proclaims his superiority.

I've noticed him in other threads being called out to prove something ridiculous that he's argued for, and then just avoid the topic and run away.

Yeah. Those stories are exactly the reason why I wear tripcode.