Talk:Trotsky Succeeds Lenin
From Alternative History
What an intersting idea. What a simple effect a document would/could have on history! Louisiannan
And it was a matter of timing. If the testament was published while Lenin was alive, none of the Bolsheviks would have dared dismiss it. But it was, in fact, only revealed immediately after his death, and there was no living Lenin to dispute. No one knew what a devil Stalin would turn out to be, but his political fortunes would have been crippled at the critical moment when a successor came forward.
- Very interesting indeed. Much more pleasant timeline than ours. :-) Nik 03:16, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- No Hiroshima and Nagasaki, presumably, since the war against Japan would've ended before the bombs were ready. One wonders how nuclear weapons would've developed in that timeline. Presumably the bomb would've been invented at some point, but without a Cold War, there'd be no MAD Nik 03:20, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Atomic weapons were on their way before the war, but wouldn't have been employed during the war. Maybe they would have been developed but banned, like nerve gas. Certainly, a more cooperative post-war world would have less incentive to arm to the teeth and perhaps more willingness to enforce a non-proliferation treaty.
- The big question remains China (as it does for us today). A potential super state outside of the American-European framework. Maybe no Korean War (without Soviet support) but Taiwan would remain a flash point. China would try to achieve parity with nuclear weapons. Maybe the Cold War would move east!
- Not so sure they'd be banned. Gas wasn't banned until after it was used, after all. Perhaps there'd be some kind of China-US war in which a few nukes might be used.
- As for China, several questions arise. Depending on how Japan was defeated, they might be allowed to keep Taiwan, for example. Second, without Soviet support, the Nationalists might've won. Even if they didn't, it's possible that a divided China would've arisen with the Communists holding Manchuria and the Nationalists the rest of China, in a North Korea/South Korea type situation, though admittedly, this might not necessarily follow from the POD - Nik 04:06, 20 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Poison gas was used but I don't think nerve gas was used (the Nazis had it but were afraid to use it for fear of reprisal).
- I think the Chinese Communists do about the same. Stalin actually backed the Nationalists and tried to discourage the Chinese Communists (he wasn't much of an international revolutionary like Lenin and Trotsky). Mao bucked Stalin and went with the peasants (not the industrial proletariat). I think China tends toward unity -- it may have cataclysmic changes of government, but whatever government there is tends to see the world from the sino-centric view of the "Middle Kingdom."
- You may be right, however, about how the Japanese are treated. A shorter war may have prompted less radical surrender demands.
- A shorter war could very well leave Japan with both Korea and Taiwan, eliminating that flash point Nik 06:54, 20 Jul 2005 (UTC)
I think Trotsky would have provided quite a bit of aid to Mao or some other Chinese Communist.
- Would Mao's ideologies be influenced by Trotsky, then? Would China still be such a large American asset holder, would Tienanmen Square have happened, etc. Such a huge amount of change, all dependent on Stalin being a dickhead. @the author: Plans for more articles in the timeline? It would be nice to see McCarthy's paranoia directed to something else ("fascists determined to prevent the spread of communism, socialism, or democracy throughout the world", perhaps? Reagan getting elected on an anti-fascist platform, because of the rising threat of South Korea), but a thorough knowledge of political figures from the '40s to the present would be needed to create a reasonable list of Presidents.
Contents |
[edit] munich.
butterfly theory means it's very unlikely that the same thing would have happened, this should be changed somehow - highly unlikely that it would be so close to the original munich agreement.
[edit] I Applaud You
Recently my taking of IB Contemporary History and reading of Marples' "Lenin's Revolution" has given me significant insight into the historical situation surrounding the establishment of Lenin and Stalin's rise to power. You must be very educated on this topic to be able to write on it so effectively. Even to me, a semi-trained reader, this alternate history comes across as very likely to succeed; you have evidently done your homework. Congratulations on your success. Yunzhong Hou 01:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wouldn't happen
Go read a history book or something.
-G
This alt history is certainly a gem among a lot of the crap floating around on this wiki, but some of the ramifications of a Trotsky rise to power are not considered, specifically related to China. Given his belief in international revolution, it's unlikely he would have advised the burgeoning CCP to compromise with the KMT (nationalists) in the fight to unify China and oust the warlords. Chiang Kai-shek's treachery in Shanghai (extermination of the Communists would never have occurred, and the CCP would have remained largely centralized in industrial regions, according to Marx's writings - it was the urban proletariat, well-educated and industrial but still oppressed, who would revolt. Remember, Marx believed the serfs/peasants were too uneducated and content with their lot in life. Although Mao was a significant influence in the early CCP, his belief in the revolutionary potential of peasants became the majority opinion in the CCP only AFTER the horrible disaster of the Fifth Encirclement Campaign and the long march, where Mao was made a hero. If the CCP had remained largely urban, I find it doubtful that they would have gotten the massive support - and the placement in Yan'an, ready to steal Manchuria (and massive arms stockpiles) after the Japanese were defeated.
Of course, if that assumption is wrong and the development of the Communist party hadn't been massively hindered by the CCP joining the KMT, the massive corruption and ineffectiveness of the Nationalists might have simply been more leverage for the CCP. The revolution might have come much faster, say, in the early 1930s. And the only people the Japanese hated more than the Chinese were Communists, esp. Chinese Communists. The Marco Polo Bridge incident in 1936, which broke the ceasefire between Nationalists and the Japanese and caused the Sino-Japanese war (36-45) was actually staged by Communists to wear down the Nationalists and the Japanese, both their enemys. Might a communist-fearful Japanese empire and Chiang (who was insanely paranoid about the CCP, backstabbing them several times and refusing to fight the Japanese before he exterminated the Communists) have formed an ad-hoc alliance to exterminate the resurgent Communists? Certainly, this was unlikely while they were holed up in Yan'an after the Long March. But if they seized parts of Eastern China, an alliance is certainly not out of the question. And the Communists could certainly NOT have resistend both Nationalists and the Japanese empire, until 1945 the mightiest power in all Asia.
I don't know what effect this would have on Russia. The China lobby in the US was a major player after the Communists took complete control in 1949, and US interests would certainly have been staked in maintaining the pro-Western nationalist control. The same incentive applies to Trotsky and the CCP, given his belief in international revolution. The Cold War might have started anyway, in a showdown over the revolution in China, regardless of whether that means their lack of support base, or their accellerated development.
--66.154.208.35 20:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fascism
"In Germany, the Nazis come to power, and the Soviet Union and the Communist Party face a deadly new ideological and national enemy."
The role of Stalinised social fascism in preventing what Trotsky would call 'united fronts' in opposition to Fascism, seems of obvious relevance here to the outlawing of German Communism and arrest of its members including Thälmann.
[edit] World War II
Wouldn't the lack of a treaty between Germany and the USSR cause Hitler to need to keep troops in Poland in case of a Soviet Attack? With fewer troops to commit in France the Germans might not have been able to successfully execute a blitzcreig. At the very least, it would have taken longer.
Secondly, in your timeline it seems as if the US would enter the war at the same time (December 7, 1941) and so how would the US change its deployment of troops. Theoretically Germany would have similar defenses in Northern France and thus it would have taken the US until 1944 to amass enough troops for a cross-channel invasion. The US also would probably have sent less troops into Europe because a Germany which was losing to the Soviets would mount less of a credible threat.
In this case, World War II could very easily still end with Russia controlling most of Eastern Europe and the position of the Allies might even have been weakened post-war. Greencommie 21:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Is it me?
Is it me or does this story seem Utopian? Buk5 17:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)