Total Posts:26|Showing Posts:1-26
Jump to topic:

Trotsky's Union

BlargArgNarg
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2016 3:09:57 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
I'm new to this forum, so don't unleash hell upon me if this has been discussed before. But what if Trotsky managed to come to power in lieu of Stalin?
Subutai
Posts: 4,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2016 9:44:21 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 11/5/2016 3:09:57 AM, BlargArgNarg wrote:
I'm new to this forum, so don't unleash hell upon me if this has been discussed before. But what if Trotsky managed to come to power in lieu of Stalin?

Interesting question. First, Stalin's vision of communism was mostly industrial. His five year plans were basically grandiose plans to get the Soviet Union caught up the West in industrialization. Trotsky's vision of communism was more agricultural, in similarity with what Mao would later believe. He was a much bigger proponent of farm collectivization than Stalin was.

This would have had two-fold effects. Trotsky's lesser emphasis on industrialization would have made Russia lag even further behind the West than it already was, which would greatly affect its warring capabilities (more on that later). And Trotsky's greater emphasis on farm collectivization would have made the famine of 1932-33 even worse than it was under Stalin. Even if you consider the rumors that Stalin made the famine worse in places like Ukraine to snuff out their independence movements, the death toll, and consequent demographic effect would have at least been the same under Trotsky as it was under Stalin, if not worse, given that Trotsky was more devoted to farm collectivization.

The next important point is that Stalin was extremely paranoid. This was the major reason that Stalin executed or exiled so many people in his career. Trotsky would still have executed to exiled a lot of people, but it would have been a lot fewer people than Stalin, and in different areas. Trotsky's power base was the army, while Stalin's power base was the bureaucracy. Thus, Stalin's favorite target for purges was the army, who he always thought held designs on taking over power. But with Trotsky, it would have been the bureaucracy. Thus, the army would be much more intact, with the more competent, more experienced officers in command.

Combining these two points, we see that, as the Nazi military machine became stronger and stronger, Russia's military would be comparatively more experienced, but less well equipped under Trotsky than under Stalin. While, initially, the Russian military was completely unable to even slow down the Nazis, they were eventually able to turn the tide, in large part because of their better military equipment. The lack of experience in Russian commanders was quickly lessened as the campaign progressed, making it less and less of a problem. Under Trotsky, I don't think that the poor equipment of the military could have been balanced by the better overall experience of the high command, as that poor equipment couldn't be fixed so quickly. At best, I think the Soviet Union would have had a much harder time defeating the Nazis had Trotsky come to power.

From there, I'm not sure. Regardless, the war would have lasted longer than it did. If the Nazis eventually defeated Russia, which would have been very possible, they may have even had a chance to win the war (although I still think that's unlikely; the Nazi military machine would have been utterly depleted of resources and extremely disorganized at the end of such a campaign, and consequently unable to deal with an allied offensive). This would obviously created an entirely new world. Regardless, the geopolitical landscape would have completely changed. With Russia destroyed, China probably wouldn't have become communist. There would be no nation in the world even half way comparable to the U.S. in industrial capacity, technological innovation, or shear power for a very long time.

Overall, I think a lot would have changed if Trotsky had come to power, especially from a geopolitical perspective after WWII had concluded.
Don't let this site's demise affect you:

- Make an account on eDeb8
- Message Mikal to transfer your stats to eDeb8 (if you want them transferred)
- Contact any friends on here you'd like to stay in contact with
- Download any debates you'd like archived (go here: http://webpagetopdf.com...)
- Download as many mafia games as you can to preserve stats and history
BlargArgNarg
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2016 12:44:32 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 11/5/2016 10:27:31 AM, Lynx_N wrote:
What's with the Maltese cross over a black/red/white flag?

It's the flag of the German Empire.
triangle.128k
Posts: 4,464
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2016 12:56:24 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 11/5/2016 3:09:57 AM, BlargArgNarg wrote:
I'm new to this forum, so don't unleash hell upon me if this has been discussed before. But what if Trotsky managed to come to power in lieu of Stalin?

There's a good video on this
triangle.128k
Posts: 4,464
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2016 12:57:41 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
Basically to shorten things, Stalin was more brutal but in favor of rapid industrialization, while Trotsky was less brutal, more ideological, and less in favor of rapid industrialization.
BlargArgNarg
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2016 8:29:35 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 11/6/2016 12:56:24 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 11/5/2016 3:09:57 AM, BlargArgNarg wrote:
I'm new to this forum, so don't unleash hell upon me if this has been discussed before. But what if Trotsky managed to come to power in lieu of Stalin?

There's a good video on this



That's where I was basing this topic off of, I just wanted to hear the DDO community's opinion on it.
Lynx_N
Posts: 458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2016 5:58:38 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 11/6/2016 12:44:32 AM, BlargArgNarg wrote:
At 11/5/2016 10:27:31 AM, Lynx_N wrote:
What's with the Maltese cross over a black/red/white flag?

It's the flag of the German Empire.

So you're a fan of Hitler then?
Bronto?
Congrats.
Kumbaya.
poet
Skepsikyma
Posts: 9,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2016 6:17:29 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 11/6/2016 12:57:41 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
Basically to shorten things, Stalin was more brutal but in favor of rapid industrialization, while Trotsky was less brutal, more ideological, and less in favor of rapid industrialization.

^^^
This
Say what you will about Stalin, but the man oversaw one of the most rapid modernization efforts in human history. That is what made the USSR a power to be reckoned with.
"See now Oblivion shimmering all around us, its very tranquility deadlier than tempest. How little all our keels have troubled it."
- Lord Dunsany -

"Over her head the stars, the thoughts of God in the heavens,
Shone on the eyes of man, who had ceased to marvel and worship"
- Henry Longfellow -

"We enjoy, we see nothing by direct vision; but only by reflection, and in anatomical dismemberment."
- Thomas Carlyle -
roothaan
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2017 10:41:11 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 11/6/2016 12:57:41 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
Basically to shorten things, Stalin was more brutal but in favor of rapid industrialization, while Trotsky was less brutal, more ideological, and less in favor of rapid industrialization.

Actually, this is a common misconception. Trotsky is not the flower-power hippy the contemporary Left has made him into. After the October Revolution he proposed a "militarization of labor" or compulsory labor service. This idea was rejected by Lenin and the Central Committee of the Communist Part of the Soviet Union. The history of the USSR is unfortunately garbled by a lot of ideological preconceptions. For instance, it is seldom mentioned that right after the revolution the allies, Britain, France and the U.S., led a military intervention to get rid of the Bolshevik government. Why? Because the Bolsheviks pulled Russia out of the war with Germany. In other words, the need to modernize the Russian industry and military to safeguard the revolution was apparent to everyone, not just Stalin but also Trotsky and even Lenin. Would things be different if Trotsky had gotten to power instead of Stalin? I sincerely doubt it. Both would have to make hard decisions during the interbellum period as Nazi hostility became more and more explicit.

You can read more about the Trotsky's militarization of Labor here: http://sfr-21.org...
He casts the mighty from their thrones and raises the lowly.- the Magnificat.
Emilrose
Posts: 3,281
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2017 2:33:24 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/5/2016 9:44:21 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/5/2016 3:09:57 AM, BlargArgNarg wrote:
I'm new to this forum, so don't unleash hell upon me if this has been discussed before. But what if Trotsky managed to come to power in lieu of Stalin?

Interesting question. First, Stalin's vision of communism was mostly industrial. His five year plans were basically grandiose plans to get the Soviet Union caught up the West in industrialization. Trotsky's vision of communism was more agricultural, in similarity with what Mao would later believe. He was a much bigger proponent of farm collectivization than Stalin was.

This would have had two-fold effects. Trotsky's lesser emphasis on industrialization would have made Russia lag even further behind the West than it already was, which would greatly affect its warring capabilities (more on that later). And Trotsky's greater emphasis on farm collectivization would have made the famine of 1932-33 even worse than it was under Stalin. Even if you consider the rumors that Stalin made the famine worse in places like Ukraine to snuff out their independence movements, the death toll, and consequent demographic effect would have at least been the same under Trotsky as it was under Stalin, if not worse, given that Trotsky was more devoted to farm collectivization.



Worse? He pretty much caused the famine.

The next important point is that Stalin was extremely paranoid. This was the major reason that Stalin executed or exiled so many people in his career. Trotsky would still have executed to exiled a lot of people, but it would have been a lot fewer people than Stalin, and in different areas. Trotsky's power base was the army, while Stalin's power base was the bureaucracy. Thus, Stalin's favorite target for purges was the army, who he always thought held designs on taking over power. But with Trotsky, it would have been the bureaucracy. Thus, the army would be much more intact, with the more competent, more experienced officers in command.

Combining these two points, we see that, as the Nazi military machine became stronger and stronger, Russia's military would be comparatively more experienced, but less well equipped under Trotsky than under Stalin. While, initially, the Russian military was completely unable to even slow down the Nazis, they were eventually able to turn the tide, in large part because of their better military equipment. The lack of experience in Russian commanders was quickly lessened as the campaign progressed, making it less and less of a problem. Under Trotsky, I don't think that the poor equipment of the military could have been balanced by the better overall experience of the high command, as that poor equipment couldn't be fixed so quickly. At best, I think the Soviet Union would have had a much harder time defeating the Nazis had Trotsky come to power.

From there, I'm not sure. Regardless, the war would have lasted longer than it did. If the Nazis eventually defeated Russia, which would have been very possible, they may have even had a chance to win the war (although I still think that's unlikely; the Nazi military machine would have been utterly depleted of resources and extremely disorganized at the end of such a campaign, and consequently unable to deal with an allied offensive). This would obviously created an entirely new world. Regardless, the geopolitical landscape would have completely changed. With Russia destroyed, China probably wouldn't have become communist. There would be no nation in the world even half way comparable to the U.S. in industrial capacity, technological innovation, or shear power for a very long time.

Overall, I think a lot would have changed if Trotsky had come to power, especially from a geopolitical perspective after WWII had concluded.
: At 5/29/2017 9:17:31 PM, Vaarka wrote:
: fake and gay

http://www.debate.org...
PetersSmith
Posts: 6,894
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2017 2:49:39 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 5/21/2017 2:33:24 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 11/5/2016 9:44:21 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/5/2016 3:09:57 AM, BlargArgNarg wrote:
I'm new to this forum, so don't unleash hell upon me if this has been discussed before. But what if Trotsky managed to come to power in lieu of Stalin?

Interesting question. First, Stalin's vision of communism was mostly industrial. His five year plans were basically grandiose plans to get the Soviet Union caught up the West in industrialization. Trotsky's vision of communism was more agricultural, in similarity with what Mao would later believe. He was a much bigger proponent of farm collectivization than Stalin was.

This would have had two-fold effects. Trotsky's lesser emphasis on industrialization would have made Russia lag even further behind the West than it already was, which would greatly affect its warring capabilities (more on that later). And Trotsky's greater emphasis on farm collectivization would have made the famine of 1932-33 even worse than it was under Stalin. Even if you consider the rumors that Stalin made the famine worse in places like Ukraine to snuff out their independence movements, the death toll, and consequent demographic effect would have at least been the same under Trotsky as it was under Stalin, if not worse, given that Trotsky was more devoted to farm collectivization.



Worse? He pretty much caused the famine.

The next important point is that Stalin was extremely paranoid. This was the major reason that Stalin executed or exiled so many people in his career. Trotsky would still have executed to exiled a lot of people, but it would have been a lot fewer people than Stalin, and in different areas. Trotsky's power base was the army, while Stalin's power base was the bureaucracy. Thus, Stalin's favorite target for purges was the army, who he always thought held designs on taking over power. But with Trotsky, it would have been the bureaucracy. Thus, the army would be much more intact, with the more competent, more experienced officers in command.

Combining these two points, we see that, as the Nazi military machine became stronger and stronger, Russia's military would be comparatively more experienced, but less well equipped under Trotsky than under Stalin. While, initially, the Russian military was completely unable to even slow down the Nazis, they were eventually able to turn the tide, in large part because of their better military equipment. The lack of experience in Russian commanders was quickly lessened as the campaign progressed, making it less and less of a problem. Under Trotsky, I don't think that the poor equipment of the military could have been balanced by the better overall experience of the high command, as that poor equipment couldn't be fixed so quickly. At best, I think the Soviet Union would have had a much harder time defeating the Nazis had Trotsky come to power.

From there, I'm not sure. Regardless, the war would have lasted longer than it did. If the Nazis eventually defeated Russia, which would have been very possible, they may have even had a chance to win the war (although I still think that's unlikely; the Nazi military machine would have been utterly depleted of resources and extremely disorganized at the end of such a campaign, and consequently unable to deal with an allied offensive). This would obviously created an entirely new world. Regardless, the geopolitical landscape would have completely changed. With Russia destroyed, China probably wouldn't have become communist. There would be no nation in the world even half way comparable to the U.S. in industrial capacity, technological innovation, or shear power for a very long time.

Overall, I think a lot would have changed if Trotsky had come to power, especially from a geopolitical perspective after WWII had concluded.

https://media.giphy.com...
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
Emilrose
Posts: 3,281
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2017 2:58:53 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 5/21/2017 2:49:39 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/21/2017 2:33:24 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 11/5/2016 9:44:21 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/5/2016 3:09:57 AM, BlargArgNarg wrote:
I'm new to this forum, so don't unleash hell upon me if this has been discussed before. But what if Trotsky managed to come to power in lieu of Stalin?

Interesting question. First, Stalin's vision of communism was mostly industrial. His five year plans were basically grandiose plans to get the Soviet Union caught up the West in industrialization. Trotsky's vision of communism was more agricultural, in similarity with what Mao would later believe. He was a much bigger proponent of farm collectivization than Stalin was.

This would have had two-fold effects. Trotsky's lesser emphasis on industrialization would have made Russia lag even further behind the West than it already was, which would greatly affect its warring capabilities (more on that later). And Trotsky's greater emphasis on farm collectivization would have made the famine of 1932-33 even worse than it was under Stalin. Even if you consider the rumors that Stalin made the famine worse in places like Ukraine to snuff out their independence movements, the death toll, and consequent demographic effect would have at least been the same under Trotsky as it was under Stalin, if not worse, given that Trotsky was more devoted to farm collectivization.



Worse? He pretty much caused the famine.

The next important point is that Stalin was extremely paranoid. This was the major reason that Stalin executed or exiled so many people in his career. Trotsky would still have executed to exiled a lot of people, but it would have been a lot fewer people than Stalin, and in different areas. Trotsky's power base was the army, while Stalin's power base was the bureaucracy. Thus, Stalin's favorite target for purges was the army, who he always thought held designs on taking over power. But with Trotsky, it would have been the bureaucracy. Thus, the army would be much more intact, with the more competent, more experienced officers in command.

Combining these two points, we see that, as the Nazi military machine became stronger and stronger, Russia's military would be comparatively more experienced, but less well equipped under Trotsky than under Stalin. While, initially, the Russian military was completely unable to even slow down the Nazis, they were eventually able to turn the tide, in large part because of their better military equipment. The lack of experience in Russian commanders was quickly lessened as the campaign progressed, making it less and less of a problem. Under Trotsky, I don't think that the poor equipment of the military could have been balanced by the better overall experience of the high command, as that poor equipment couldn't be fixed so quickly. At best, I think the Soviet Union would have had a much harder time defeating the Nazis had Trotsky come to power.

From there, I'm not sure. Regardless, the war would have lasted longer than it did. If the Nazis eventually defeated Russia, which would have been very possible, they may have even had a chance to win the war (although I still think that's unlikely; the Nazi military machine would have been utterly depleted of resources and extremely disorganized at the end of such a campaign, and consequently unable to deal with an allied offensive). This would obviously created an entirely new world. Regardless, the geopolitical landscape would have completely changed. With Russia destroyed, China probably wouldn't have become communist. There would be no nation in the world even half way comparable to the U.S. in industrial capacity, technological innovation, or shear power for a very long time.

Overall, I think a lot would have changed if Trotsky had come to power, especially from a geopolitical perspective after WWII had concluded.

https://media.giphy.com...

http://i.imgur.com...
: At 5/29/2017 9:17:31 PM, Vaarka wrote:
: fake and gay

http://www.debate.org...
PetersSmith
Posts: 6,894
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2017 3:01:40 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 5/21/2017 2:58:53 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 5/21/2017 2:49:39 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/21/2017 2:33:24 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 11/5/2016 9:44:21 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/5/2016 3:09:57 AM, BlargArgNarg wrote:
I'm new to this forum, so don't unleash hell upon me if this has been discussed before. But what if Trotsky managed to come to power in lieu of Stalin?

Interesting question. First, Stalin's vision of communism was mostly industrial. His five year plans were basically grandiose plans to get the Soviet Union caught up the West in industrialization. Trotsky's vision of communism was more agricultural, in similarity with what Mao would later believe. He was a much bigger proponent of farm collectivization than Stalin was.

This would have had two-fold effects. Trotsky's lesser emphasis on industrialization would have made Russia lag even further behind the West than it already was, which would greatly affect its warring capabilities (more on that later). And Trotsky's greater emphasis on farm collectivization would have made the famine of 1932-33 even worse than it was under Stalin. Even if you consider the rumors that Stalin made the famine worse in places like Ukraine to snuff out their independence movements, the death toll, and consequent demographic effect would have at least been the same under Trotsky as it was under Stalin, if not worse, given that Trotsky was more devoted to farm collectivization.



Worse? He pretty much caused the famine.

The next important point is that Stalin was extremely paranoid. This was the major reason that Stalin executed or exiled so many people in his career. Trotsky would still have executed to exiled a lot of people, but it would have been a lot fewer people than Stalin, and in different areas. Trotsky's power base was the army, while Stalin's power base was the bureaucracy. Thus, Stalin's favorite target for purges was the army, who he always thought held designs on taking over power. But with Trotsky, it would have been the bureaucracy. Thus, the army would be much more intact, with the more competent, more experienced officers in command.

Combining these two points, we see that, as the Nazi military machine became stronger and stronger, Russia's military would be comparatively more experienced, but less well equipped under Trotsky than under Stalin. While, initially, the Russian military was completely unable to even slow down the Nazis, they were eventually able to turn the tide, in large part because of their better military equipment. The lack of experience in Russian commanders was quickly lessened as the campaign progressed, making it less and less of a problem. Under Trotsky, I don't think that the poor equipment of the military could have been balanced by the better overall experience of the high command, as that poor equipment couldn't be fixed so quickly. At best, I think the Soviet Union would have had a much harder time defeating the Nazis had Trotsky come to power.

From there, I'm not sure. Regardless, the war would have lasted longer than it did. If the Nazis eventually defeated Russia, which would have been very possible, they may have even had a chance to win the war (although I still think that's unlikely; the Nazi military machine would have been utterly depleted of resources and extremely disorganized at the end of such a campaign, and consequently unable to deal with an allied offensive). This would obviously created an entirely new world. Regardless, the geopolitical landscape would have completely changed. With Russia destroyed, China probably wouldn't have become communist. There would be no nation in the world even half way comparable to the U.S. in industrial capacity, technological innovation, or shear power for a very long time.

Overall, I think a lot would have changed if Trotsky had come to power, especially from a geopolitical perspective after WWII had concluded.

https://media.giphy.com...

http://i.imgur.com...

http://www.debate.org...
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
fishhunter61
Posts: 239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2017 3:04:17 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/20/2016 5:58:38 PM, Lynx_N wrote:
At 11/6/2016 12:44:32 AM, BlargArgNarg wrote:
At 11/5/2016 10:27:31 AM, Lynx_N wrote:
What's with the Maltese cross over a black/red/white flag?

It's the flag of the German Empire.

So you're a fan of Hitler then?
It's a flag of the German Empire used between 1871-1918.
So in other words, before WW2 and the reign of Hitler.
Emilrose
Posts: 3,281
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2017 3:07:08 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 5/21/2017 3:01:40 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/21/2017 2:58:53 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 5/21/2017 2:49:39 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/21/2017 2:33:24 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 11/5/2016 9:44:21 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/5/2016 3:09:57 AM, BlargArgNarg wrote:
I'm new to this forum, so don't unleash hell upon me if this has been discussed before. But what if Trotsky managed to come to power in lieu of Stalin?

Interesting question. First, Stalin's vision of communism was mostly industrial. His five year plans were basically grandiose plans to get the Soviet Union caught up the West in industrialization. Trotsky's vision of communism was more agricultural, in similarity with what Mao would later believe. He was a much bigger proponent of farm collectivization than Stalin was.

This would have had two-fold effects. Trotsky's lesser emphasis on industrialization would have made Russia lag even further behind the West than it already was, which would greatly affect its warring capabilities (more on that later). And Trotsky's greater emphasis on farm collectivization would have made the famine of 1932-33 even worse than it was under Stalin. Even if you consider the rumors that Stalin made the famine worse in places like Ukraine to snuff out their independence movements, the death toll, and consequent demographic effect would have at least been the same under Trotsky as it was under Stalin, if not worse, given that Trotsky was more devoted to farm collectivization.



Worse? He pretty much caused the famine.

The next important point is that Stalin was extremely paranoid. This was the major reason that Stalin executed or exiled so many people in his career. Trotsky would still have executed to exiled a lot of people, but it would have been a lot fewer people than Stalin, and in different areas. Trotsky's power base was the army, while Stalin's power base was the bureaucracy. Thus, Stalin's favorite target for purges was the army, who he always thought held designs on taking over power. But with Trotsky, it would have been the bureaucracy. Thus, the army would be much more intact, with the more competent, more experienced officers in command.

Combining these two points, we see that, as the Nazi military machine became stronger and stronger, Russia's military would be comparatively more experienced, but less well equipped under Trotsky than under Stalin. While, initially, the Russian military was completely unable to even slow down the Nazis, they were eventually able to turn the tide, in large part because of their better military equipment. The lack of experience in Russian commanders was quickly lessened as the campaign progressed, making it less and less of a problem. Under Trotsky, I don't think that the poor equipment of the military could have been balanced by the better overall experience of the high command, as that poor equipment couldn't be fixed so quickly. At best, I think the Soviet Union would have had a much harder time defeating the Nazis had Trotsky come to power.

From there, I'm not sure. Regardless, the war would have lasted longer than it did. If the Nazis eventually defeated Russia, which would have been very possible, they may have even had a chance to win the war (although I still think that's unlikely; the Nazi military machine would have been utterly depleted of resources and extremely disorganized at the end of such a campaign, and consequently unable to deal with an allied offensive). This would obviously created an entirely new world. Regardless, the geopolitical landscape would have completely changed. With Russia destroyed, China probably wouldn't have become communist. There would be no nation in the world even half way comparable to the U.S. in industrial capacity, technological innovation, or shear power for a very long time.

Overall, I think a lot would have changed if Trotsky had come to power, especially from a geopolitical perspective after WWII had concluded.

https://media.giphy.com...

http://i.imgur.com...

http://www.debate.org...

Haha) Well, I think Stalin was a bit freaky tbh. The fact is that there would not have been a famine, had he not nationalised the majority of the Ukrainian farming sector; they ended up going without food, money, or any means to live what so ever.
: At 5/29/2017 9:17:31 PM, Vaarka wrote:
: fake and gay

http://www.debate.org...
PetersSmith
Posts: 6,894
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2017 3:09:53 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 5/21/2017 3:07:08 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 5/21/2017 3:01:40 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/21/2017 2:58:53 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 5/21/2017 2:49:39 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/21/2017 2:33:24 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 11/5/2016 9:44:21 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/5/2016 3:09:57 AM, BlargArgNarg wrote:
I'm new to this forum, so don't unleash hell upon me if this has been discussed before. But what if Trotsky managed to come to power in lieu of Stalin?

Interesting question. First, Stalin's vision of communism was mostly industrial. His five year plans were basically grandiose plans to get the Soviet Union caught up the West in industrialization. Trotsky's vision of communism was more agricultural, in similarity with what Mao would later believe. He was a much bigger proponent of farm collectivization than Stalin was.

This would have had two-fold effects. Trotsky's lesser emphasis on industrialization would have made Russia lag even further behind the West than it already was, which would greatly affect its warring capabilities (more on that later). And Trotsky's greater emphasis on farm collectivization would have made the famine of 1932-33 even worse than it was under Stalin. Even if you consider the rumors that Stalin made the famine worse in places like Ukraine to snuff out their independence movements, the death toll, and consequent demographic effect would have at least been the same under Trotsky as it was under Stalin, if not worse, given that Trotsky was more devoted to farm collectivization.



Worse? He pretty much caused the famine.

The next important point is that Stalin was extremely paranoid. This was the major reason that Stalin executed or exiled so many people in his career. Trotsky would still have executed to exiled a lot of people, but it would have been a lot fewer people than Stalin, and in different areas. Trotsky's power base was the army, while Stalin's power base was the bureaucracy. Thus, Stalin's favorite target for purges was the army, who he always thought held designs on taking over power. But with Trotsky, it would have been the bureaucracy. Thus, the army would be much more intact, with the more competent, more experienced officers in command.

Combining these two points, we see that, as the Nazi military machine became stronger and stronger, Russia's military would be comparatively more experienced, but less well equipped under Trotsky than under Stalin. While, initially, the Russian military was completely unable to even slow down the Nazis, they were eventually able to turn the tide, in large part because of their better military equipment. The lack of experience in Russian commanders was quickly lessened as the campaign progressed, making it less and less of a problem. Under Trotsky, I don't think that the poor equipment of the military could have been balanced by the better overall experience of the high command, as that poor equipment couldn't be fixed so quickly. At best, I think the Soviet Union would have had a much harder time defeating the Nazis had Trotsky come to power.

From there, I'm not sure. Regardless, the war would have lasted longer than it did. If the Nazis eventually defeated Russia, which would have been very possible, they may have even had a chance to win the war (although I still think that's unlikely; the Nazi military machine would have been utterly depleted of resources and extremely disorganized at the end of such a campaign, and consequently unable to deal with an allied offensive). This would obviously created an entirely new world. Regardless, the geopolitical landscape would have completely changed. With Russia destroyed, China probably wouldn't have become communist. There would be no nation in the world even half way comparable to the U.S. in industrial capacity, technological innovation, or shear power for a very long time.

Overall, I think a lot would have changed if Trotsky had come to power, especially from a geopolitical perspective after WWII had concluded.

https://media.giphy.com...

http://i.imgur.com...

http://www.debate.org...

Haha) Well, I think Stalin was a bit freaky tbh. The fact is that there would not have been a famine, had he not nationalised the majority of the Ukrainian farming sector; they ended up going without food, money, or any means to live what so ever.

Well, my real question was why you replied to a 6 month old post, in the history forum, with an obvious statement.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
Emilrose
Posts: 3,281
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2017 3:22:39 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 5/21/2017 3:09:53 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/21/2017 3:07:08 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 5/21/2017 3:01:40 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/21/2017 2:58:53 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 5/21/2017 2:49:39 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/21/2017 2:33:24 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 11/5/2016 9:44:21 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/5/2016 3:09:57 AM, BlargArgNarg wrote:
I'm new to this forum, so don't unleash hell upon me if this has been discussed before. But what if Trotsky managed to come to power in lieu of Stalin?

Interesting question. First, Stalin's vision of communism was mostly industrial. His five year plans were basically grandiose plans to get the Soviet Union caught up the West in industrialization. Trotsky's vision of communism was more agricultural, in similarity with what Mao would later believe. He was a much bigger proponent of farm collectivization than Stalin was.

This would have had two-fold effects. Trotsky's lesser emphasis on industrialization would have made Russia lag even further behind the West than it already was, which would greatly affect its warring capabilities (more on that later). And Trotsky's greater emphasis on farm collectivization would have made the famine of 1932-33 even worse than it was under Stalin. Even if you consider the rumors that Stalin made the famine worse in places like Ukraine to snuff out their independence movements, the death toll, and consequent demographic effect would have at least been the same under Trotsky as it was under Stalin, if not worse, given that Trotsky was more devoted to farm collectivization.



Worse? He pretty much caused the famine.

The next important point is that Stalin was extremely paranoid. This was the major reason that Stalin executed or exiled so many people in his career. Trotsky would still have executed to exiled a lot of people, but it would have been a lot fewer people than Stalin, and in different areas. Trotsky's power base was the army, while Stalin's power base was the bureaucracy. Thus, Stalin's favorite target for purges was the army, who he always thought held designs on taking over power. But with Trotsky, it would have been the bureaucracy. Thus, the army would be much more intact, with the more competent, more experienced officers in command.

Combining these two points, we see that, as the Nazi military machine became stronger and stronger, Russia's military would be comparatively more experienced, but less well equipped under Trotsky than under Stalin. While, initially, the Russian military was completely unable to even slow down the Nazis, they were eventually able to turn the tide, in large part because of their better military equipment. The lack of experience in Russian commanders was quickly lessened as the campaign progressed, making it less and less of a problem. Under Trotsky, I don't think that the poor equipment of the military could have been balanced by the better overall experience of the high command, as that poor equipment couldn't be fixed so quickly. At best, I think the Soviet Union would have had a much harder time defeating the Nazis had Trotsky come to power.

From there, I'm not sure. Regardless, the war would have lasted longer than it did. If the Nazis eventually defeated Russia, which would have been very possible, they may have even had a chance to win the war (although I still think that's unlikely; the Nazi military machine would have been utterly depleted of resources and extremely disorganized at the end of such a campaign, and consequently unable to deal with an allied offensive). This would obviously created an entirely new world. Regardless, the geopolitical landscape would have completely changed. With Russia destroyed, China probably wouldn't have become communist. There would be no nation in the world even half way comparable to the U.S. in industrial capacity, technological innovation, or shear power for a very long time.

Overall, I think a lot would have changed if Trotsky had come to power, especially from a geopolitical perspective after WWII had concluded.

https://media.giphy.com...

http://i.imgur.com...

http://www.debate.org...

Haha) Well, I think Stalin was a bit freaky tbh. The fact is that there would not have been a famine, had he not nationalised the majority of the Ukrainian farming sector; they ended up going without food, money, or any means to live what so ever.

Well, my real question was why you replied to a 6 month old post, in the history forum, with an obvious statement.

It won't tell me http://m.imgur.com...
: At 5/29/2017 9:17:31 PM, Vaarka wrote:
: fake and gay

http://www.debate.org...
PetersSmith
Posts: 6,894
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2017 3:34:07 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 5/21/2017 3:22:39 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 5/21/2017 3:09:53 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/21/2017 3:07:08 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 5/21/2017 3:01:40 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/21/2017 2:58:53 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 5/21/2017 2:49:39 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/21/2017 2:33:24 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 11/5/2016 9:44:21 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/5/2016 3:09:57 AM, BlargArgNarg wrote:
I'm new to this forum, so don't unleash hell upon me if this has been discussed before. But what if Trotsky managed to come to power in lieu of Stalin?

Interesting question. First, Stalin's vision of communism was mostly industrial. His five year plans were basically grandiose plans to get the Soviet Union caught up the West in industrialization. Trotsky's vision of communism was more agricultural, in similarity with what Mao would later believe. He was a much bigger proponent of farm collectivization than Stalin was.

This would have had two-fold effects. Trotsky's lesser emphasis on industrialization would have made Russia lag even further behind the West than it already was, which would greatly affect its warring capabilities (more on that later). And Trotsky's greater emphasis on farm collectivization would have made the famine of 1932-33 even worse than it was under Stalin. Even if you consider the rumors that Stalin made the famine worse in places like Ukraine to snuff out their independence movements, the death toll, and consequent demographic effect would have at least been the same under Trotsky as it was under Stalin, if not worse, given that Trotsky was more devoted to farm collectivization.



Worse? He pretty much caused the famine.

The next important point is that Stalin was extremely paranoid. This was the major reason that Stalin executed or exiled so many people in his career. Trotsky would still have executed to exiled a lot of people, but it would have been a lot fewer people than Stalin, and in different areas. Trotsky's power base was the army, while Stalin's power base was the bureaucracy. Thus, Stalin's favorite target for purges was the army, who he always thought held designs on taking over power. But with Trotsky, it would have been the bureaucracy. Thus, the army would be much more intact, with the more competent, more experienced officers in command.

Combining these two points, we see that, as the Nazi military machine became stronger and stronger, Russia's military would be comparatively more experienced, but less well equipped under Trotsky than under Stalin. While, initially, the Russian military was completely unable to even slow down the Nazis, they were eventually able to turn the tide, in large part because of their better military equipment. The lack of experience in Russian commanders was quickly lessened as the campaign progressed, making it less and less of a problem. Under Trotsky, I don't think that the poor equipment of the military could have been balanced by the better overall experience of the high command, as that poor equipment couldn't be fixed so quickly. At best, I think the Soviet Union would have had a much harder time defeating the Nazis had Trotsky come to power.

From there, I'm not sure. Regardless, the war would have lasted longer than it did. If the Nazis eventually defeated Russia, which would have been very possible, they may have even had a chance to win the war (although I still think that's unlikely; the Nazi military machine would have been utterly depleted of resources and extremely disorganized at the end of such a campaign, and consequently unable to deal with an allied offensive). This would obviously created an entirely new world. Regardless, the geopolitical landscape would have completely changed. With Russia destroyed, China probably wouldn't have become communist. There would be no nation in the world even half way comparable to the U.S. in industrial capacity, technological innovation, or shear power for a very long time.

Overall, I think a lot would have changed if Trotsky had come to power, especially from a geopolitical perspective after WWII had concluded.

https://media.giphy.com...

http://i.imgur.com...

http://www.debate.org...

Haha) Well, I think Stalin was a bit freaky tbh. The fact is that there would not have been a famine, had he not nationalised the majority of the Ukrainian farming sector; they ended up going without food, money, or any means to live what so ever.

Well, my real question was why you replied to a 6 month old post, in the history forum, with an obvious statement.


It won't tell me http://m.imgur.com...

The answers are inside your head, not Google.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
Emilrose
Posts: 3,281
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2017 3:40:06 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 5/21/2017 3:34:07 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/21/2017 3:22:39 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 5/21/2017 3:09:53 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/21/2017 3:07:08 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 5/21/2017 3:01:40 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/21/2017 2:58:53 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 5/21/2017 2:49:39 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/21/2017 2:33:24 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 11/5/2016 9:44:21 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/5/2016 3:09:57 AM, BlargArgNarg wrote:
I'm new to this forum, so don't unleash hell upon me if this has been discussed before. But what if Trotsky managed to come to power in lieu of Stalin?

Interesting question. First, Stalin's vision of communism was mostly industrial. His five year plans were basically grandiose plans to get the Soviet Union caught up the West in industrialization. Trotsky's vision of communism was more agricultural, in similarity with what Mao would later believe. He was a much bigger proponent of farm collectivization than Stalin was.

This would have had two-fold effects. Trotsky's lesser emphasis on industrialization would have made Russia lag even further behind the West than it already was, which would greatly affect its warring capabilities (more on that later). And Trotsky's greater emphasis on farm collectivization would have made the famine of 1932-33 even worse than it was under Stalin. Even if you consider the rumors that Stalin made the famine worse in places like Ukraine to snuff out their independence movements, the death toll, and consequent demographic effect would have at least been the same under Trotsky as it was under Stalin, if not worse, given that Trotsky was more devoted to farm collectivization.



Worse? He pretty much caused the famine.

The next important point is that Stalin was extremely paranoid. This was the major reason that Stalin executed or exiled so many people in his career. Trotsky would still have executed to exiled a lot of people, but it would have been a lot fewer people than Stalin, and in different areas. Trotsky's power base was the army, while Stalin's power base was the bureaucracy. Thus, Stalin's favorite target for purges was the army, who he always thought held designs on taking over power. But with Trotsky, it would have been the bureaucracy. Thus, the army would be much more intact, with the more competent, more experienced officers in command.

Combining these two points, we see that, as the Nazi military machine became stronger and stronger, Russia's military would be comparatively more experienced, but less well equipped under Trotsky than under Stalin. While, initially, the Russian military was completely unable to even slow down the Nazis, they were eventually able to turn the tide, in large part because of their better military equipment. The lack of experience in Russian commanders was quickly lessened as the campaign progressed, making it less and less of a problem. Under Trotsky, I don't think that the poor equipment of the military could have been balanced by the better overall experience of the high command, as that poor equipment couldn't be fixed so quickly. At best, I think the Soviet Union would have had a much harder time defeating the Nazis had Trotsky come to power.

From there, I'm not sure. Regardless, the war would have lasted longer than it did. If the Nazis eventually defeated Russia, which would have been very possible, they may have even had a chance to win the war (although I still think that's unlikely; the Nazi military machine would have been utterly depleted of resources and extremely disorganized at the end of such a campaign, and consequently unable to deal with an allied offensive). This would obviously created an entirely new world. Regardless, the geopolitical landscape would have completely changed. With Russia destroyed, China probably wouldn't have become communist. There would be no nation in the world even half way comparable to the U.S. in industrial capacity, technological innovation, or shear power for a very long time.

Overall, I think a lot would have changed if Trotsky had come to power, especially from a geopolitical perspective after WWII had concluded.

https://media.giphy.com...

http://i.imgur.com...

http://www.debate.org...

Haha) Well, I think Stalin was a bit freaky tbh. The fact is that there would not have been a famine, had he not nationalised the majority of the Ukrainian farming sector; they ended up going without food, money, or any means to live what so ever.

Well, my real question was why you replied to a 6 month old post, in the history forum, with an obvious statement.


It won't tell me http://m.imgur.com...

The answers are inside your head, not Google.

Really? Wow...
: At 5/29/2017 9:17:31 PM, Vaarka wrote:
: fake and gay

http://www.debate.org...
PetersSmith
Posts: 6,894
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2017 3:40:47 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 5/21/2017 3:40:06 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 5/21/2017 3:34:07 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/21/2017 3:22:39 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 5/21/2017 3:09:53 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/21/2017 3:07:08 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 5/21/2017 3:01:40 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/21/2017 2:58:53 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 5/21/2017 2:49:39 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/21/2017 2:33:24 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 11/5/2016 9:44:21 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/5/2016 3:09:57 AM, BlargArgNarg wrote:
I'm new to this forum, so don't unleash hell upon me if this has been discussed before. But what if Trotsky managed to come to power in lieu of Stalin?

Interesting question. First, Stalin's vision of communism was mostly industrial. His five year plans were basically grandiose plans to get the Soviet Union caught up the West in industrialization. Trotsky's vision of communism was more agricultural, in similarity with what Mao would later believe. He was a much bigger proponent of farm collectivization than Stalin was.

This would have had two-fold effects. Trotsky's lesser emphasis on industrialization would have made Russia lag even further behind the West than it already was, which would greatly affect its warring capabilities (more on that later). And Trotsky's greater emphasis on farm collectivization would have made the famine of 1932-33 even worse than it was under Stalin. Even if you consider the rumors that Stalin made the famine worse in places like Ukraine to snuff out their independence movements, the death toll, and consequent demographic effect would have at least been the same under Trotsky as it was under Stalin, if not worse, given that Trotsky was more devoted to farm collectivization.



Worse? He pretty much caused the famine.

The next important point is that Stalin was extremely paranoid. This was the major reason that Stalin executed or exiled so many people in his career. Trotsky would still have executed to exiled a lot of people, but it would have been a lot fewer people than Stalin, and in different areas. Trotsky's power base was the army, while Stalin's power base was the bureaucracy. Thus, Stalin's favorite target for purges was the army, who he always thought held designs on taking over power. But with Trotsky, it would have been the bureaucracy. Thus, the army would be much more intact, with the more competent, more experienced officers in command.

Combining these two points, we see that, as the Nazi military machine became stronger and stronger, Russia's military would be comparatively more experienced, but less well equipped under Trotsky than under Stalin. While, initially, the Russian military was completely unable to even slow down the Nazis, they were eventually able to turn the tide, in large part because of their better military equipment. The lack of experience in Russian commanders was quickly lessened as the campaign progressed, making it less and less of a problem. Under Trotsky, I don't think that the poor equipment of the military could have been balanced by the better overall experience of the high command, as that poor equipment couldn't be fixed so quickly. At best, I think the Soviet Union would have had a much harder time defeating the Nazis had Trotsky come to power.

From there, I'm not sure. Regardless, the war would have lasted longer than it did. If the Nazis eventually defeated Russia, which would have been very possible, they may have even had a chance to win the war (although I still think that's unlikely; the Nazi military machine would have been utterly depleted of resources and extremely disorganized at the end of such a campaign, and consequently unable to deal with an allied offensive). This would obviously created an entirely new world. Regardless, the geopolitical landscape would have completely changed. With Russia destroyed, China probably wouldn't have become communist. There would be no nation in the world even half way comparable to the U.S. in industrial capacity, technological innovation, or shear power for a very long time.

Overall, I think a lot would have changed if Trotsky had come to power, especially from a geopolitical perspective after WWII had concluded.

https://media.giphy.com...

http://i.imgur.com...

http://www.debate.org...

Haha) Well, I think Stalin was a bit freaky tbh. The fact is that there would not have been a famine, had he not nationalised the majority of the Ukrainian farming sector; they ended up going without food, money, or any means to live what so ever.

Well, my real question was why you replied to a 6 month old post, in the history forum, with an obvious statement.


It won't tell me http://m.imgur.com...

The answers are inside your head, not Google.

Really? Wow...

Yep, that's some existential stuff right there.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
Emilrose
Posts: 3,281
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2017 3:45:43 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 5/21/2017 3:40:47 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/21/2017 3:40:06 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 5/21/2017 3:34:07 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/21/2017 3:22:39 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 5/21/2017 3:09:53 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/21/2017 3:07:08 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 5/21/2017 3:01:40 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/21/2017 2:58:53 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 5/21/2017 2:49:39 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/21/2017 2:33:24 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 11/5/2016 9:44:21 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/5/2016 3:09:57 AM, BlargArgNarg wrote:
I'm new to this forum, so don't unleash hell upon me if this has been discussed before. But what if Trotsky managed to come to power in lieu of Stalin?

Interesting question. First, Stalin's vision of communism was mostly industrial. His five year plans were basically grandiose plans to get the Soviet Union caught up the West in industrialization. Trotsky's vision of communism was more agricultural, in similarity with what Mao would later believe. He was a much bigger proponent of farm collectivization than Stalin was.

This would have had two-fold effects. Trotsky's lesser emphasis on industrialization would have made Russia lag even further behind the West than it already was, which would greatly affect its warring capabilities (more on that later). And Trotsky's greater emphasis on farm collectivization would have made the famine of 1932-33 even worse than it was under Stalin. Even if you consider the rumors that Stalin made the famine worse in places like Ukraine to snuff out their independence movements, the death toll, and consequent demographic effect would have at least been the same under Trotsky as it was under Stalin, if not worse, given that Trotsky was more devoted to farm collectivization.



Worse? He pretty much caused the famine.

The next important point is that Stalin was extremely paranoid. This was the major reason that Stalin executed or exiled so many people in his career. Trotsky would still have executed to exiled a lot of people, but it would have been a lot fewer people than Stalin, and in different areas. Trotsky's power base was the army, while Stalin's power base was the bureaucracy. Thus, Stalin's favorite target for purges was the army, who he always thought held designs on taking over power. But with Trotsky, it would have been the bureaucracy. Thus, the army would be much more intact, with the more competent, more experienced officers in command.

Combining these two points, we see that, as the Nazi military machine became stronger and stronger, Russia's military would be comparatively more experienced, but less well equipped under Trotsky than under Stalin. While, initially, the Russian military was completely unable to even slow down the Nazis, they were eventually able to turn the tide, in large part because of their better military equipment. The lack of experience in Russian commanders was quickly lessened as the campaign progressed, making it less and less of a problem. Under Trotsky, I don't think that the poor equipment of the military could have been balanced by the better overall experience of the high command, as that poor equipment couldn't be fixed so quickly. At best, I think the Soviet Union would have had a much harder time defeating the Nazis had Trotsky come to power.

From there, I'm not sure. Regardless, the war would have lasted longer than it did. If the Nazis eventually defeated Russia, which would have been very possible, they may have even had a chance to win the war (although I still think that's unlikely; the Nazi military machine would have been utterly depleted of resources and extremely disorganized at the end of such a campaign, and consequently unable to deal with an allied offensive). This would obviously created an entirely new world. Regardless, the geopolitical landscape would have completely changed. With Russia destroyed, China probably wouldn't have become communist. There would be no nation in the world even half way comparable to the U.S. in industrial capacity, technological innovation, or shear power for a very long time.

Overall, I think a lot would have changed if Trotsky had come to power, especially from a geopolitical perspective after WWII had concluded.

https://media.giphy.com...

http://i.imgur.com...

http://www.debate.org...

Haha) Well, I think Stalin was a bit freaky tbh. The fact is that there would not have been a famine, had he not nationalised the majority of the Ukrainian farming sector; they ended up going without food, money, or any means to live what so ever.

Well, my real question was why you replied to a 6 month old post, in the history forum, with an obvious statement.


It won't tell me http://m.imgur.com...

The answers are inside your head, not Google.

Really? Wow...

Yep, that's some existential stuff right there.

Yeah...I can't believe it...
: At 5/29/2017 9:17:31 PM, Vaarka wrote:
: fake and gay

http://www.debate.org...
PetersSmith
Posts: 6,894
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2017 3:47:18 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 5/21/2017 3:45:43 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 5/21/2017 3:40:47 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/21/2017 3:40:06 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 5/21/2017 3:34:07 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/21/2017 3:22:39 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 5/21/2017 3:09:53 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/21/2017 3:07:08 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 5/21/2017 3:01:40 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/21/2017 2:58:53 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 5/21/2017 2:49:39 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/21/2017 2:33:24 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 11/5/2016 9:44:21 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/5/2016 3:09:57 AM, BlargArgNarg wrote:
I'm new to this forum, so don't unleash hell upon me if this has been discussed before. But what if Trotsky managed to come to power in lieu of Stalin?

Interesting question. First, Stalin's vision of communism was mostly industrial. His five year plans were basically grandiose plans to get the Soviet Union caught up the West in industrialization. Trotsky's vision of communism was more agricultural, in similarity with what Mao would later believe. He was a much bigger proponent of farm collectivization than Stalin was.

This would have had two-fold effects. Trotsky's lesser emphasis on industrialization would have made Russia lag even further behind the West than it already was, which would greatly affect its warring capabilities (more on that later). And Trotsky's greater emphasis on farm collectivization would have made the famine of 1932-33 even worse than it was under Stalin. Even if you consider the rumors that Stalin made the famine worse in places like Ukraine to snuff out their independence movements, the death toll, and consequent demographic effect would have at least been the same under Trotsky as it was under Stalin, if not worse, given that Trotsky was more devoted to farm collectivization.



Worse? He pretty much caused the famine.

The next important point is that Stalin was extremely paranoid. This was the major reason that Stalin executed or exiled so many people in his career. Trotsky would still have executed to exiled a lot of people, but it would have been a lot fewer people than Stalin, and in different areas. Trotsky's power base was the army, while Stalin's power base was the bureaucracy. Thus, Stalin's favorite target for purges was the army, who he always thought held designs on taking over power. But with Trotsky, it would have been the bureaucracy. Thus, the army would be much more intact, with the more competent, more experienced officers in command.

Combining these two points, we see that, as the Nazi military machine became stronger and stronger, Russia's military would be comparatively more experienced, but less well equipped under Trotsky than under Stalin. While, initially, the Russian military was completely unable to even slow down the Nazis, they were eventually able to turn the tide, in large part because of their better military equipment. The lack of experience in Russian commanders was quickly lessened as the campaign progressed, making it less and less of a problem. Under Trotsky, I don't think that the poor equipment of the military could have been balanced by the better overall experience of the high command, as that poor equipment couldn't be fixed so quickly. At best, I think the Soviet Union would have had a much harder time defeating the Nazis had Trotsky come to power.

From there, I'm not sure. Regardless, the war would have lasted longer than it did. If the Nazis eventually defeated Russia, which would have been very possible, they may have even had a chance to win the war (although I still think that's unlikely; the Nazi military machine would have been utterly depleted of resources and extremely disorganized at the end of such a campaign, and consequently unable to deal with an allied offensive). This would obviously created an entirely new world. Regardless, the geopolitical landscape would have completely changed. With Russia destroyed, China probably wouldn't have become communist. There would be no nation in the world even half way comparable to the U.S. in industrial capacity, technological innovation, or shear power for a very long time.

Overall, I think a lot would have changed if Trotsky had come to power, especially from a geopolitical perspective after WWII had concluded.

https://media.giphy.com...

http://i.imgur.com...

http://www.debate.org...

Haha) Well, I think Stalin was a bit freaky tbh. The fact is that there would not have been a famine, had he not nationalised the majority of the Ukrainian farming sector; they ended up going without food, money, or any means to live what so ever.

Well, my real question was why you replied to a 6 month old post, in the history forum, with an obvious statement.


It won't tell me http://m.imgur.com...

The answers are inside your head, not Google.

Really? Wow...

Yep, that's some existential stuff right there.

Yeah...I can't believe it...

It's okay, if you need someone to help you cope, I'm here.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
Emilrose
Posts: 3,281
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2017 3:49:24 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 5/21/2017 3:47:18 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/21/2017 3:45:43 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 5/21/2017 3:40:47 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/21/2017 3:40:06 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 5/21/2017 3:34:07 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/21/2017 3:22:39 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 5/21/2017 3:09:53 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/21/2017 3:07:08 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 5/21/2017 3:01:40 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/21/2017 2:58:53 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 5/21/2017 2:49:39 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/21/2017 2:33:24 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 11/5/2016 9:44:21 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/5/2016 3:09:57 AM, BlargArgNarg wrote:
I'm new to this forum, so don't unleash hell upon me if this has been discussed before. But what if Trotsky managed to come to power in lieu of Stalin?

Interesting question. First, Stalin's vision of communism was mostly industrial. His five year plans were basically grandiose plans to get the Soviet Union caught up the West in industrialization. Trotsky's vision of communism was more agricultural, in similarity with what Mao would later believe. He was a much bigger proponent of farm collectivization than Stalin was.

This would have had two-fold effects. Trotsky's lesser emphasis on industrialization would have made Russia lag even further behind the West than it already was, which would greatly affect its warring capabilities (more on that later). And Trotsky's greater emphasis on farm collectivization would have made the famine of 1932-33 even worse than it was under Stalin. Even if you consider the rumors that Stalin made the famine worse in places like Ukraine to snuff out their independence movements, the death toll, and consequent demographic effect would have at least been the same under Trotsky as it was under Stalin, if not worse, given that Trotsky was more devoted to farm collectivization.



Worse? He pretty much caused the famine.

The next important point is that Stalin was extremely paranoid. This was the major reason that Stalin executed or exiled so many people in his career. Trotsky would still have executed to exiled a lot of people, but it would have been a lot fewer people than Stalin, and in different areas. Trotsky's power base was the army, while Stalin's power base was the bureaucracy. Thus, Stalin's favorite target for purges was the army, who he always thought held designs on taking over power. But with Trotsky, it would have been the bureaucracy. Thus, the army would be much more intact, with the more competent, more experienced officers in command.

Combining these two points, we see that, as the Nazi military machine became stronger and stronger, Russia's military would be comparatively more experienced, but less well equipped under Trotsky than under Stalin. While, initially, the Russian military was completely unable to even slow down the Nazis, they were eventually able to turn the tide, in large part because of their better military equipment. The lack of experience in Russian commanders was quickly lessened as the campaign progressed, making it less and less of a problem. Under Trotsky, I don't think that the poor equipment of the military could have been balanced by the better overall experience of the high command, as that poor equipment couldn't be fixed so quickly. At best, I think the Soviet Union would have had a much harder time defeating the Nazis had Trotsky come to power.

From there, I'm not sure. Regardless, the war would have lasted longer than it did. If the Nazis eventually defeated Russia, which would have been very possible, they may have even had a chance to win the war (although I still think that's unlikely; the Nazi military machine would have been utterly depleted of resources and extremely disorganized at the end of such a campaign, and consequently unable to deal with an allied offensive). This would obviously created an entirely new world. Regardless, the geopolitical landscape would have completely changed. With Russia destroyed, China probably wouldn't have become communist. There would be no nation in the world even half way comparable to the U.S. in industrial capacity, technological innovation, or shear power for a very long time.

Overall, I think a lot would have changed if Trotsky had come to power, especially from a geopolitical perspective after WWII had concluded.

https://media.giphy.com...

http://i.imgur.com...

http://www.debate.org...

Haha) Well, I think Stalin was a bit freaky tbh. The fact is that there would not have been a famine, had he not nationalised the majority of the Ukrainian farming sector; they ended up going without food, money, or any means to live what so ever.

Well, my real question was why you replied to a 6 month old post, in the history forum, with an obvious statement.


It won't tell me http://m.imgur.com...

The answers are inside your head, not Google.

Really? Wow...

Yep, that's some existential stuff right there.

Yeah...I can't believe it...

It's okay, if you need someone to help you cope, I'm here.

Thanks, I think I may...I thought my head was for giving bj's :(
: At 5/29/2017 9:17:31 PM, Vaarka wrote:
: fake and gay

http://www.debate.org...
PetersSmith
Posts: 6,894
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2017 3:51:26 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 5/21/2017 3:49:24 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 5/21/2017 3:47:18 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/21/2017 3:45:43 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 5/21/2017 3:40:47 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/21/2017 3:40:06 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 5/21/2017 3:34:07 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/21/2017 3:22:39 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 5/21/2017 3:09:53 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/21/2017 3:07:08 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 5/21/2017 3:01:40 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/21/2017 2:58:53 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 5/21/2017 2:49:39 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/21/2017 2:33:24 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 11/5/2016 9:44:21 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/5/2016 3:09:57 AM, BlargArgNarg wrote:
I'm new to this forum, so don't unleash hell upon me if this has been discussed before. But what if Trotsky managed to come to power in lieu of Stalin?

Interesting question. First, Stalin's vision of communism was mostly industrial. His five year plans were basically grandiose plans to get the Soviet Union caught up the West in industrialization. Trotsky's vision of communism was more agricultural, in similarity with what Mao would later believe. He was a much bigger proponent of farm collectivization than Stalin was.

This would have had two-fold effects. Trotsky's lesser emphasis on industrialization would have made Russia lag even further behind the West than it already was, which would greatly affect its warring capabilities (more on that later). And Trotsky's greater emphasis on farm collectivization would have made the famine of 1932-33 even worse than it was under Stalin. Even if you consider the rumors that Stalin made the famine worse in places like Ukraine to snuff out their independence movements, the death toll, and consequent demographic effect would have at least been the same under Trotsky as it was under Stalin, if not worse, given that Trotsky was more devoted to farm collectivization.



Worse? He pretty much caused the famine.

The next important point is that Stalin was extremely paranoid. This was the major reason that Stalin executed or exiled so many people in his career. Trotsky would still have executed to exiled a lot of people, but it would have been a lot fewer people than Stalin, and in different areas. Trotsky's power base was the army, while Stalin's power base was the bureaucracy. Thus, Stalin's favorite target for purges was the army, who he always thought held designs on taking over power. But with Trotsky, it would have been the bureaucracy. Thus, the army would be much more intact, with the more competent, more experienced officers in command.

Combining these two points, we see that, as the Nazi military machine became stronger and stronger, Russia's military would be comparatively more experienced, but less well equipped under Trotsky than under Stalin. While, initially, the Russian military was completely unable to even slow down the Nazis, they were eventually able to turn the tide, in large part because of their better military equipment. The lack of experience in Russian commanders was quickly lessened as the campaign progressed, making it less and less of a problem. Under Trotsky, I don't think that the poor equipment of the military could have been balanced by the better overall experience of the high command, as that poor equipment couldn't be fixed so quickly. At best, I think the Soviet Union would have had a much harder time defeating the Nazis had Trotsky come to power.

From there, I'm not sure. Regardless, the war would have lasted longer than it did. If the Nazis eventually defeated Russia, which would have been very possible, they may have even had a chance to win the war (although I still think that's unlikely; the Nazi military machine would have been utterly depleted of resources and extremely disorganized at the end of such a campaign, and consequently unable to deal with an allied offensive). This would obviously created an entirely new world. Regardless, the geopolitical landscape would have completely changed. With Russia destroyed, China probably wouldn't have become communist. There would be no nation in the world even half way comparable to the U.S. in industrial capacity, technological innovation, or shear power for a very long time.

Overall, I think a lot would have changed if Trotsky had come to power, especially from a geopolitical perspective after WWII had concluded.

https://media.giphy.com...

http://i.imgur.com...

http://www.debate.org...

Haha) Well, I think Stalin was a bit freaky tbh. The fact is that there would not have been a famine, had he not nationalised the majority of the Ukrainian farming sector; they ended up going without food, money, or any means to live what so ever.

Well, my real question was why you replied to a 6 month old post, in the history forum, with an obvious statement.


It won't tell me http://m.imgur.com...

The answers are inside your head, not Google.

Really? Wow...

Yep, that's some existential stuff right there.

Yeah...I can't believe it...

It's okay, if you need someone to help you cope, I'm here.

Thanks, I think I may...I thought my head was for giving bj's :(

And...of course you had to go there.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
Emilrose
Posts: 3,281
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2017 3:55:32 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 5/21/2017 3:51:26 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/21/2017 3:49:24 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 5/21/2017 3:47:18 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/21/2017 3:45:43 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 5/21/2017 3:40:47 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/21/2017 3:40:06 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 5/21/2017 3:34:07 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/21/2017 3:22:39 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 5/21/2017 3:09:53 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/21/2017 3:07:08 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 5/21/2017 3:01:40 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/21/2017 2:58:53 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 5/21/2017 2:49:39 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 5/21/2017 2:33:24 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 11/5/2016 9:44:21 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/5/2016 3:09:57 AM, BlargArgNarg wrote:
I'm new to this forum, so don't unleash hell upon me if this has been discussed before. But what if Trotsky managed to come to power in lieu of Stalin?

Interesting question. First, Stalin's vision of communism was mostly industrial. His five year plans were basically grandiose plans to get the Soviet Union caught up the West in industrialization. Trotsky's vision of communism was more agricultural, in similarity with what Mao would later believe. He was a much bigger proponent of farm collectivization than Stalin was.

This would have had two-fold effects. Trotsky's lesser emphasis on industrialization would have made Russia lag even further behind the West than it already was, which would greatly affect its warring capabilities (more on that later). And Trotsky's greater emphasis on farm collectivization would have made the famine of 1932-33 even worse than it was under Stalin. Even if you consider the rumors that Stalin made the famine worse in places like Ukraine to snuff out their independence movements, the death toll, and consequent demographic effect would have at least been the same under Trotsky as it was under Stalin, if not worse, given that Trotsky was more devoted to farm collectivization.



Worse? He pretty much caused the famine.

The next important point is that Stalin was extremely paranoid. This was the major reason that Stalin executed or exiled so many people in his career. Trotsky would still have executed to exiled a lot of people, but it would have been a lot fewer people than Stalin, and in different areas. Trotsky's power base was the army, while Stalin's power base was the bureaucracy. Thus, Stalin's favorite target for purges was the army, who he always thought held designs on taking over power. But with Trotsky, it would have been the bureaucracy. Thus, the army would be much more intact, with the more competent, more experienced officers in command.

Combining these two points, we see that, as the Nazi military machine became stronger and stronger, Russia's military would be comparatively more experienced, but less well equipped under Trotsky than under Stalin. While, initially, the Russian military was completely unable to even slow down the Nazis, they were eventually able to turn the tide, in large part because of their better military equipment. The lack of experience in Russian commanders was quickly lessened as the campaign progressed, making it less and less of a problem. Under Trotsky, I don't think that the poor equipment of the military could have been balanced by the better overall experience of the high command, as that poor equipment couldn't be fixed so quickly. At best, I think the Soviet Union would have had a much harder time defeating the Nazis had Trotsky come to power.

From there, I'm not sure. Regardless, the war would have lasted longer than it did. If the Nazis eventually defeated Russia, which would have been very possible, they may have even had a chance to win the war (although I still think that's unlikely; the Nazi military machine would have been utterly depleted of resources and extremely disorganized at the end of such a campaign, and consequently unable to deal with an allied offensive). This would obviously created an entirely new world. Regardless, the geopolitical landscape would have completely changed. With Russia destroyed, China probably wouldn't have become communist. There would be no nation in the world even half way comparable to the U.S. in industrial capacity, technological innovation, or shear power for a very long time.

Overall, I think a lot would have changed if Trotsky had come to power, especially from a geopolitical perspective after WWII had concluded.

https://media.giphy.com...

http://i.imgur.com...

http://www.debate.org...

Haha) Well, I think Stalin was a bit freaky tbh. The fact is that there would not have been a famine, had he not nationalised the majority of the Ukrainian farming sector; they ended up going without food, money, or any means to live what so ever.

Well, my real question was why you replied to a 6 month old post, in the history forum, with an obvious statement.


It won't tell me http://m.imgur.com...

The answers are inside your head, not Google.

Really? Wow...

Yep, that's some existential stuff right there.

Yeah...I can't believe it...

It's okay, if you need someone to help you cope, I'm here.

Thanks, I think I may...I thought my head was for giving bj's :(

And...of course you had to go there.

Ja)
: At 5/29/2017 9:17:31 PM, Vaarka wrote:
: fake and gay

http://www.debate.org...