Obviously a wildly hypothetical counterfactual, but I think so. You wouldn't know this from talking to Trots today, or even reading things Trotsky himself wrote after he was kicked out of power, but Trotsky in the early 20s really did believe in council democracy to a much greater extent than Stalin. He would likely have created a more pluralistic leadership system based on a wider base of left factions. This is particularly evident in his works on 1905.
One thing that's definitely true: all the folks on this thread talking about how Stalin would have done a better job fighting the Nazis are talking out their ass. This is not surprising, because most people in the west are taught what is essentially the German perspective on the Red Army (hordes of ill equipped peasants). In reality, the Red Army had the resources, technology, doctrine and training to beat back the Germans pretty easily, but were hamstrung by idiotic decisions by Stalin and the various sycophants he put in charge after the purges. Deep Battle is a fantastic way of fighting a war, and conceptually very similar to how all postwar armies conduct combined arms defensive operations--it's a pity the Red Army was not allowed to implement it as planned. And of course prewar air force procurement under Stalin was a grotesque shitshow.
any time someone claims that Stalin single handedly won WW2 it lets me know that person is a total fucking moron and an embarrassment to socialists everywhere. Stalin was a hell of a lot like Hitler when it comes to commanding a military, totally out of his depth and constantly fucking up the general's plans. Like wasting millions of socialist lives on a town with his stupid fucking name in it....
If you're interested in learning more about why many scholars view Stalin in this light, and you don't speak Russian, I'd recommend John Erickson's history of the Eastern front. Given his connections in the Soviet wartime leadership, he was a key piece of the historiography right up until the Soviet archives opened in the 90s. And the new folks working off those archives are too young to have interviewed many of key players, so I think he still has an advantage.
Or maybe you're just stanning Stalin for the sick memes, dunno.
Suggesting that Stalin wasn't totally incompentent because that actually makes no sense is stanning Stalin apparently.
And no, I don't care to read this nieche stuff about history. I'm not a WWII buff and I don't find it particularly relavent to anything whether Stalin was a military genius or not. Frankly, I don't see what it proves one way or another.
It may well not be relevant to your interests, which is totally fair, but it's very relevant to this thread about whether Stalin or Trotsky would have better led the Soviet Union through the second world war.
Obviously a wildly hypothetical counterfactual, but I think so. You wouldn't know this from talking to Trots today, or even reading things Trotsky himself wrote after he was kicked out of power, but Trotsky in the early 20s really did believe in council democracy to a much greater extent than Stalin. He would likely have created a more pluralistic leadership system based on a wider base of left factions. This is particularly evident in his works on 1905.
One thing that's definitely true: all the folks on this thread talking about how Stalin would have done a better job fighting the Nazis are talking out their ass. This is not surprising, because most people in the west are taught what is essentially the German perspective on the Red Army (hordes of ill equipped peasants). In reality, the Red Army had the resources, technology, doctrine and training to beat back the Germans pretty easily, but were hamstrung by idiotic decisions by Stalin and the various sycophants he put in charge after the purges. Deep Battle is a fantastic way of fighting a war, and conceptually very similar to how all postwar armies conduct combined arms defensive operations--it's a pity the Red Army was not allowed to implement it as planned. And of course prewar air force procurement under Stalin was a grotesque shitshow.
any time someone claims that Stalin single handedly won WW2 it lets me know that person is a total fucking moron and an embarrassment to socialists everywhere. Stalin was a hell of a lot like Hitler when it comes to commanding a military, totally out of his depth and constantly fucking up the general's plans. Like wasting millions of socialist lives on a town with his stupid fucking name in it....
Did you know that Stalin was totally incompetent and that's how he became the leader of the most important revolutionary government in modern history?
If you're interested in learning more about why many scholars view Stalin in this light, and you don't speak Russian, I'd recommend John Erickson's history of the Eastern front. Given his connections in the Soviet wartime leadership, he was a key piece of the historiography right up until the Soviet archives opened in the 90s. And the new folks working off those archives are too young to have interviewed many of key players, so I think he still has an advantage.
Or maybe you're just stanning Stalin for the sick memes, dunno.
Suggesting that Stalin wasn't totally incompentent because that actually makes no sense is stanning Stalin apparently.
And no, I don't care to read this nieche stuff about history. I'm not a WWII buff and I don't find it particularly relavent to anything whether Stalin was a military genius or not. Frankly, I don't see what it proves one way or another.
It may well not be relevant to your interests, which is totally fair, but it's very relevant to this thread about whether Stalin or Trotsky would have better led the Soviet Union through the second world war.
I see what you mean, but these threads sort of rub me the wrong way because they are so open to wild ideological speculation.