Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly. You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Despite their success, their leader visionary, Vladimir Lenin, had in May 1922 a massive stroke. Trotskij, for all, seemed to be the natural successor. However, crucially, there was one other member of the Bolshevik power structure who had other ideas - his name was Iosif Stalin.
it will focus more on the internal politics of the early USSR, leading up to the exile of Trotsky and setting up his eventual, or rather hopeful, return.
At what point/time do we switch from our time line to an alternate one? Will it be 1936 and a game start, or will the narrative start to change in the build up before that? Just curious.
At what point/time do we switch from our time line to an alternate one? Will it be 1936 and a game start, or will the narrative start to change in the build up before that? Just curious.
There might be some tweaks that happen in the 20s and 30s, not major ones like "Hitler never came to power", but more subtle changes that will help drive the narrative further. For example, it could be, keeping to Germany, a less severe Night of the Knives. I might also change things around a little with focus trees, i.e that they can be in a different order or that I will extend the timeline a little bit ahead of 1936. That is, again looking toward Germany, the Rhineland episode might have happened in 1935, and see if that changes things up. Of course it will be little gameplay effect, but it will impact the story narratively, and might enable certain focuses earlier.
The latter is yet to be detirmined, but there will be some events that will be altered in the 20s and 30s, albeit subtle.
As of a note, I believe I have found a good gameplay and narrative wise way to return Trotsky to power. Just wait and see what will happen, a major storm is brewing!
Member of the Georgian Mafia, "Sooner or later there will be a clash between the Communist Bear and the Western Bulldog. There will be no mercy for our sugar-coated, honey-dripping, wheedling, grovelling allies! We'll blow them to blazes with all their kings, with all their traditions, lords, castles, heralds, Orders of the Bath and Garter, and their white wigs. When the Bear's paw strikes, no-one will remain to nurse the hope that their gold can rule the world. Our healthy, socially strong young idea, the idea of Lenin and Stalin, will be the victor! ... When we roar they sit tight on their tails! I am told that there were Tsars who watered their horses in the Oder. Well, the time will come when we will water Soviet horses in the Thames!" ...
... the puppet, " ... under Stalin he was the nominal signatory of all decrees, while in reality he rarely took part in government business. Sometimes he was made a member of a commission, but people didn't take his opinion into account very much. It was embarrassing for us to see this; one simply felt sorry for Mikhail Ivanovich."
... finally, the bloody protege and the henchman of the Ukraine. Reporting 41,305 "kulak and criminal elements" to the Vozhd.
Anyway. With the White Army challenging them from the east, and Cossacks in the south, the Bolsheviks also faced pressure from the north, as the Finnish group known as the White Guard sought to rescue the Romanovs from captivity. The group was on the verge of taking control of the town of Yekaterinburg, which is where the Imperial Family was being held captive. Then the order came through to execute the entire family. With this terrible deed done the White Guard was ousted from the capital, however, the White Guard was too late to save the Tsar and his family.
I'm more than a little confused by this paragraph. A specifically Finnish group, called the White Guard, pressing down on Yekaterinburg? From the north? Is this one of the divergence spanners you're throwing into the works, or should it be the Czechoslovak Legion? And in either case, I assume the next part should say "the Red Guard was ousted from Yekaterinburg"?
My other guess is some sort of unfinished sentence about the Finns, or possibly mix-up with the Petrograd part farther down?
I'm more than a little confused by this paragraph. A specifically Finnish group, called the White Guard, pressing down on Yekaterinburg? From the north? Is this one of the divergence spanners you're throwing into the works, or should it be the Czechoslovak Legion? And in either case, I assume the next part should say "the Red Guard was ousted from Yekaterinburg"?
My other guess is some sort of unfinished sentence about the Finns, or possibly mix-up with the Petrograd part farther down?
How embarrassing! You are indeed right, it must be an oversight. I think some notes have gone mixed up (structure etc), I was thinking about Petrograd or another front, while writing it - and that it, unfortunately, escaped proofreading. For now, I blame the third corona vaccine dose.
I will look at it tomorrow and edit it to its original meaning!
On the Paris leg of the tour, he met a young woman by the name of Natalia Sedova. Trotskij divorced Aleksandra that was left behind in exile, and Trotskij and Sedova soon became man and wife.
I feel bad for his first wife and daughters, but she sounds like a true believer, willing to sacrifice herself for the cause. What happened to Trotsky's children after the Civil War?
This discussion is very interesting. I had a history professor argue that the Chinese Communists briefly introduced capitalism to China so they could fulfill Marx's stages and go from capitalism to socialism. It was only a few years though, which makes it even sillier. Trotsky's ideas seem similar in that feudal societies can't become socialist, but he does seem more interested in countries outside the industrialized west.
These really add to the complexity of Trotsky. He was certainly not a moderate, but it also emphasizes his issues with Stalin, especially explaining how they ended up enemies.
I feel bad for his first wife and daughters, but she sounds like a true believer, willing to sacrifice herself for the cause. What happened to Trotsky's children after the Civil War?
She was indeed. The revolution took center stage for these people. A common theme, let it be her, Lenin, Trotsky, Plekhanov etc. His children will be covered, but if you are interested.
Zinaida, his first daughter, did as their parents and lived as revolutionaries. After the revolution of 1917 she married, soon divorced in mid 20s, and her first husband would later be executed during the Great Purge, their daughter would be exiled to Kazakhstan in 1949. She re-married soon after the divorce. Her new hubsand, however, "dissaperead" somewhere in Siberia during the purges. Zinaida was allowed to visit her father in exile, but then got her citizenship revoked. She later became sick and depressed and committed suicide in Berlin, 1938.
Nina, the younger child of the first marriage died in 1928 of tuberculose, under the care of Zinaida. She was also a revolutionary like her older sister.
Aleksandra, his first wife, was arrested in 1935 during the Great Purge, and executed in 1938.
Second marriage, the frist born son of Trotsky, Lev Sedov, was exiled to Germany in 1929, and there he worked with Ivan Smilga and other old bolsheviks, forming an underground anti-Stalin opposition bloc. When mr. Mustache came to power he fled to Paris. There he remained a Trotskyist activist and was under surveillance by the NKVD, He became ill, and an NKVD agent, posing as a friend, took him to a private clinic that terminated his treatment before he was sent to public hospital. He died there in 1938. The NKVD refused to been part of his death.
His second, and last, son Sergei, did not follow his other family members and was apolitical and an engineer by profession. This did not help him, however, and he was banished to Siberia in 1935. He died in 1937, claims differ here, some saying he was killed in a prison uprising there, others that he was executed, another that he was poisioned there. Finally in 1988 New York Times alleged he was taken back to Moscow, and executed there for being Trotskyist.
The only one who survived Trotsky himself, was his second wife Natalia who lived on until a natural death in 1962. She was also a revolutionary, and continued to be so after her husband's death, but broke away from the Fourth International in 1951 as she meant it no longer was communist, and also then had a new position that the USSR ha become state capitalist.
So only his second wife survived Trotsky. A tragic story, but one how many tragic fates during the White and Red Terror, and the Great Purge. That Stalin quote about "one death is a tragedy, a million is a statistics", I believe is fitting here. When we look at this family it is quite sad and tragic, but when we look upon the deaths at a large during WW1, Civil War, and the Terros and Purges (often supported by Trotksy) it becomes statistics and we can't wrap around heads around it. I think it is a good reminder, that we must also look at the personal and tragedic aspects of far removed historical events.
Indeed, one but many! Trotksy, and Lenin for that matter, was writers and authors for many papers. And some of them we still recognize, but I think initially they only managed to smuggle Pravda in four times a year into Russia. We must not underestimate their effects, but not overestimate them either.
This discussion is very interesting. I had a history professor argue that the Chinese Communists briefly introduced capitalism to China so they could fulfill Marx's stages and go from capitalism to socialism. It was only a few years though, which makes it even sillier. Trotsky's ideas seem similar in that feudal societies can't become socialist, but he does seem more interested in countries outside the industrialized west.
Indeed. Early Russian Marxists was also very much into analyzing Russian economics, and argue wether or not it was capitalist or not, and when it became capiutalist. More so than actually trying to form bonds with the working class or organizing an actual revolution. Lenin also spent much of his first years in Russia simply trying to write articles to prove that Russia was already capitalist.
But later, this is where Lenin, and Trotksy, later diverged from the other Marxists. That Russia was either already capitalist, or could become socialist even without capitalism. The latter is the position Trotsky later took, and it was already advocated by the SRs. They believed they could go straight from an agrarian society to a socialist one. However, IIRC, they did not want to industrialize. Trotsky did so. Mao's position is similar, that China could become socialist even if they were not capitalist. That is the whole socialism with Chinese characteristics thing. Imo very similar to Trotsky, who maintained that a society did not have to be to capitalist to become socialist.
These really add to the complexity of Trotsky. He was certainly not a moderate, but it also emphasizes his issues with Stalin, especially explaining how they ended up enemies.
He was an oddball. As someone else mentioned in this thread, he was popular among many party members as he was very ideological and very self assured. He often also critized Stalin, but not necessarily for his means, but for his methods. For exaomple during the collectivization and crack down of Kulaks by Stalin, he did say Stalin was right to do so but would, paraphrasing, "not used those methods".
So he was very principled, believed only himself to be correct, at the same time he could quickly flip flop in positions (from Menshevik, to non-aligned, to a too radical Bolshevik, to a Permanent Revolutionary), at the same time he was opposed to Stalin and his policies, but often supported his policies, but not his methods without specifying what his methods would be. So indeed a very compex character!
And an update, I had meant to post Book Two: Chapter One by now, but I have some sort of viral infection and have been bedridden for days now. I am starting to recover, so hopefully I will be able to start on writing it tommorow! Can't promise anything though. Hope to see you then
A tragic story, but one how many tragic fates during the White and Red Terror, and the Great Purge. That Stalin quote about "one death is a tragedy, a million is a statistics", I believe is fitting here. When we look at this family it is quite sad and tragic, but when we look upon the deaths at a large during WW1, Civil War, and the Terros and Purges (often supported by Trotksy) it becomes statistics and we can't wrap around heads around it. I think it is a good reminder, that we must also look at the personal and tragedic aspects of far removed historical events.
Indeed. Early Russian Marxists was also very much into analyzing Russian economics, and argue wether or not it was capitalist or not, and when it became capiutalist. More so than actually trying to form bonds with the working class or organizing an actual revolution. Lenin also spent much of his first years in Russia simply trying to write articles to prove that Russia was already capitalist.
Mao's position is similar, that China could become socialist even if they were not capitalist. That is the whole socialism with Chinese characteristics thing. Imo very similar to Trotsky, who maintained that a society did not have to be to capitalist to become socialist.
The whole thing seems a little silly to me, especially since I'd argue Marx was working from an industrialized, western European viewpoint rather than even a country like Russia, let alone China. His progression of history seems too rigid since some countries were never really feudal like Europe. It seems like Trotsky and Mao's interpretation is an inevitable evolution of the ideology.
So he was very principled, believed only himself to be correct, at the same time he could quickly flip flop in positions (from Menshevik, to non-aligned, to a too radical Bolshevik, to a Permanent Revolutionary), at the same time he was opposed to Stalin and his policies, but often supported his policies, but not his methods without specifying what his methods would be. So indeed a very compex character!
Seems like a recipe to be an unpopular leader! It seems easy to criticize when not making decisions, so I'll be curious how a Trotsky-led Soviet Union develops. I'll be especially curious how effective his leadership proves, and how different from Stalinism it becomes.
And an update, I had meant to post Book Two: Chapter One by now, but I have some sort of viral infection and have been bedridden for days now. I am starting to recover, so hopefully I will be able to start on writing it tommorow! Can't promise anything though. Hope to see you then
The whole thing seems a little silly to me, especially since I'd argue Marx was working from an industrialized, western European viewpoint rather than even a country like Russia, let alone China. His progression of history seems too rigid since some countries were never really feudal like Europe. It seems like Trotsky and Mao's interpretation is an inevitable evolution of the ideology.
Indeed. Interesting to note is that i.e Lenin, and Plekhanov for that matter, argued he was an Orthodox Marxist. However at that time, there really was no ortodoxy as it was a releativley new ideology, and Lenin himself had ideas even before the 1905 revolution that was in opposition to the strict stagism of Marx, and was heavily inspired by the Russian agrarian socialism. So when someone say that "x" is the true orthodox Marxist, always take that with a grain of salt. We will see more of that further down the down the line, especially with the Stalin-Trotsky conflict.
Seems like a recipe to be an unpopular leader! It seems easy to criticize when not making decisions, so I'll be curious how a Trotsky-led Soviet Union develops. I'll be especially curious how effective his leadership proves, and how different from Stalinism it becomes.
Thank you. I have been well for a time now, and have started to work on the next update. Hopefully it will be released soon enough, so we can be back on track!
Lenin and Trotskij, photographed during a parade in 1920 when Trotskij was Lenin's right hand and created the Red Army. Lenin, who turned 50 this year, suffered two years later from a stroke, and on the 21st of January 1924, he died.
As long as Lenin lived and had his full vigor and power, he was the total domineering figure in communist Russia - the Soviet state. None of the leaders possessed any authority that could measure with his even approximately. Neither when it came to theoretical questions nor daily and practical politics from day to day. Despite his position, Lenin was greatly physically weakened, among other things because of the immense burden of his working load, and the strain on his nerves from his great trials during the revolutions and civil war. May 1922 he had a stroke; during autumn he could partly resume his work, but he was paralyzed and deprived of his speech during yet another stroke in April 1923; on the 21st of January 1924 he died. The death of Lenin triggered an over decade long power-struggle in Kreml.
In reality, it had already begun before Lenin's death, the last months of his life, he had been sidelined from the power struggle, and it was clear what line it all went down along. He had himself thought greatly and several times upon the issue of leadership when he was no more, ever since his first stroke, but he had not attached himself to any leading candidate. He had serious objections against most of his leading comrades and possible successors. Trotksij appeared to have the strongest hand from the outside, after his immense and critical efforts during the revolution and civil war; he was undoubtedly the most gifted, however, he was also, according to Lenin, too confident and too self-centered. Kamenev and Zinoviev failed during the critical moment in 1917, when they, along with Stalin, vehemently opposed Lenin, Trotskij, Radek, and Smilga and their social revolution. Nikolaj Bukharin was a scholastic theoretician. Stalin, General Secretary of the Party, was a man most of the time counted on as a real candidate for leadership. He, all to be counted, seemed pretty much effective, but he was a colorless functionary type, a grey mouse, without real dimensions. Lenin was, on the other hand, aware that Stalin in his key position possessed great power, and Lenin feared and was proved correct, he would utilize his position in a brutal and ruthless way. In his political will, Lenin even went as far as to warn against Stalin, and he planned to remove Stalin from his position. Trotskij and his supporters got a hold of this political testament, and despite Trotskij first not wanting to use it for personal gains, were convinced to do so. At the behest of Lenin's wife, the testament was read by all local Soviets and representatives to each delegate in the following party congress. Other than increasing the Party Central Committee, giving the State Planning Committee legislative power, and reverting and deriding Stalin's nationalities policies, by Trotskij's and the opposition's efforts, the political testament widely available among the party and local soviets. In turn undermined Stalin and the Troika's, composed of Stalin, Kamenev, and Zinoviev, authority. At the party congress it for a time seemed like Stalin would fall from power, but through shrewd politics, and the other leaders still thinking him to not be a real contender, he barely managed to stay afloat, although in a greatly weakened state. Other than that, it seemed like Lenin envisioned a collective leadership of the party; thus the individual member could strengthen each other and neutralize their flaws and weaknesses.
This picture from 1920 shows Stalin during a time he was yet not in the first line, and none of the other Bolsheviks in their wildest dreams did think he would become Lenin's successor.
Stalin, still licking his wounds from the party congress and Lenin's testament, had other ideas, and precisely because his comrades were still misled by his apparently mediocrity and did not, yet, view him as a particularly dangerous rival, he could from the shadows rebuild his power positions and fill them with cronies and prepare for the inevitable settlement. Stalin, the Man of Steel, was a pseudonym. His real name was Iosif Vissarionovitsj Dsjugasjvili and was born in the village of Gori, Georgia in 1879. He was the son of a poor and drunken cobbler, but because of his convincing abilities, he was given a place at the priest seminary in Tiflis. Here, he came under the influence of socialist propaganda, was soon expelled from the priest school, and later dedicated all his workforce to the revolutionary cause, active day and night as an agitator and organiser. He led strikes among oil workers, and soon got a reputation among privy circles as one of the movement's boldest and most energetic men, harsh and ruthless, singularly occupied on bringing the revolutionary idea out in life, - one time he plundered a bank transport to gain funds to the party. It was a dangerous and taxing life in illegality, with the Tsar's police close on his heels; time after time he was imprisoned, and had to spend, as many other revolutionary figures, many years banished into the Siberian wilderness.
Early on he came under the influence of Lenin and followed him when the party was blown apart by the conflict between the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, and for all practical purposes stuck close to Lenin when internal struggle brewed. When the February Revolution erupted in 1917, Stalin was in Siberia, but like many of the other political prisoners, he was released and set his course straight to Petrograd and history. He was there during the October Revolution and played no role other than opposing the second revolution, positioning himself with Kamenev and Zinoviev, but he was a non-entity with no real sway. After the revolution, he followed Lenin and his path through thick and thin. It was now his career started to gain traction. He was part of the First Council of People's Commissars, where he became part of an unofficial foursome that led the government and worked with the nationality-questions, that he had made a special study; and during the civil war, he excelled himself multiple times as a military organizer, for example during the battles that raged in and around Tsaritsyn, the city that would later be named Stalingrad. Here, as in many times before and after, he would enter in a bitter conflict with Trotskij, the minister of defense, creator of the Red Army; the conflict lines encompassed political, military, and personal prestige-questions. Both also blamed each other for their failure during the Soviet-Polish War, with Trotskij blaming Stalin for sabotaging any chance Tukhachevsky had of capturing Warsaw and bringing the Revolution Westward - only to sabotage for Trotskij personally and strengthen his own position.
Sick and malnourished Russians in one of Nansen's relief centers under the famine in 1922. This relief program saved 1.5-2.2 million lives in the volga region and Ukraine alone.
Nevertheless, in 1922 Stalin was made by Lenin General Secretary of the Communist Party, a position few at the time considered particularly important: It was a boring and tiring daily routine work most would rather be free from during a time when most had a feeling that world-historical questions were coming up to find their final answer, and the most interesting debates were conducted on complex interpretational issues within Marxist theory. Party-scholastic barely interested Stalin, but in the general secretariat, he had a task and position that fit him perfectly. Here he could, partly anonymous, camouflaged by his apparent average person, lay the foundations for a power apparatus for himself when he placed persons loyal to him in key positions all across the huge nation. He had an enormous capacity and patience, while he appeared as a grey mouse, in reality, he was a cunning fox, he had the ability to work systematically and in the long term, unlike Trotskij he was in no rush and could wait and bide his time. He once said that the funniest thing he knew, was to set up a trap for an adversary that he knew he would have to walk right into - and then go straight to bed to sleep.
Only real power meant anything to him, not outer brilliance and fame, having no scruples when it came to conquering, keeping, and exercising power. Violence, deceit, treason, everything was allowed. However, while he was ruthless, he was at the same time a very cautious, often hesitating strategist, until he was certain he was on firm ground. He never, that is until the mid-'30s, lashed out prematurely, and often before decisive resolutions within the party, he was to the last seeking, yes even faltering, tried out the different positions, refused to engage on either side, held multiple exits open, secured himself a retreat if it would become necessary, always made sure of having someone to blame if it went downhill. Still, when he first made his choice he was firm and adamantly consequent, resorted to every means at his disposal to put his will through. It is characteristic that Stalin, who ruled his country as an oriental despot, did not conquer this position of power with a sudden coup, like i.e Lenin and Trotskij, but laid its foundations slowly, gradually, and carefully through 6-8 years, in a process where he sidelined his opponents one by one - by the ancient rule of divide and rule. He allied himself with one group, then with another, and let them destroy each other - while he himself often afterward pursued the policies a beaten group had advocated. In the end, he was more absolute, autocratic, and sovereign than any former Tsar, and ruled arbitrarily through his police and his methods of terror; but the slow and suspicious man never rested on his laurels and never ceased to further expand his power apparatus, and planned to be ahead of any eventuality. It ended in persecution madness and purely clinical megalomania. It led to his own, eventual demise.
Stalin's path to dictatorial power in the years following Lenin's death paints a confusing zic-zac-line between persons and opinions, with the constant change of course, with shifting alliances and fronts. Still, from his own point of view, the line had its own logic, determined by his own will of power, and of the changing societal conditions. The first dangerous rival courter he had to eliminate, was Trotskij, besides Lenin the most known communist leader, with an illuminating intellect and a flaming temperament, the revolutionary hero with the halo of victory from the civil war, a man who appeared to be much better suited than Stalin, but who still had to bend the knee for the General Secretary's political astuteness and robust patience, blunt sense of reality, and bureaucratic effectivity.
The first Troika of Zinoviev, Kamenev, and Stalin.
During the first round Stalin allied with two others who also feared and rivaled with Trotskij: Zinoviev and Kamenev. Together they formed a triumvirate or a "troika". Trotskij attacked the party bureaucracy and meant that under the NEP they had conducted too defensive economic politics. He wanted to reinvigorate the offensive revolutionary spirit, raise new industries and the living standards - here he could show to the discontent among the workers, that in 1923-1924 had started spontaneous strikes. Trotskij's politics was also coupled with his greater optimism when it came to the world revolution. He advocated for the teachings of the Permanent Revolution: The very existence of the regime was dependant on the revolution being exported and encompassed other countries; if it did not happen, the capitalist powers would crush the Soviet state. Stalin, and Trotskij's other rivals, later developed a theory of their own Socialism in One Country and later formed the background for the Five Year Plans.
While Trotskij made great headway with him criticizing the bureaucratization and his attacks on his adversaries betraying the revolutionary cause, Stalin had a too-firm grip on the party. Interestingly the Troika canonized the now deceased Lenin and tried to use him against Trotskij. Lenin's works were made upon as the purest party-theology and a Lenin Cult was built, and his works would hold all the definitive answers. The only issue was that Lenin's Testament was already widely known and published in the Soviet Union, matters did not become better when it was revealed Stalin sent the wrong date of Lenin's funeral to Trotskij, to keep him out of the funeral, and picture Stalin as his true successor. This backfired, as supporters of Trotskij warned him of the ruse, and Trotskij with several leading members of the Left Opposition coming to the funeral, and in a melodramatic way exposed Stalin and his lies to the party, and it ended with Trotskij and his supporters, and not Stalin, becoming the coffin bearers. This strengthened Trotskij's consolidation as Lenin's successors, with his Testament, and painted Stalin as a cynic power figure, and the whole debacle soon become well known not only among the party but also the country. In addition, Trotskij and the Left Opposition, temporarily allied themself with Shlyapknikov and the Workers' Opposition, despite being former adversaries, and spoke to the workers on strikes, promising to give all power back to the Soviets as Lenin had promised, and reintroducing party democracy, further cementing his position as a revolutionary hero. However, Stalin's grip on power remained, and while he was severely weakened by the combined Left Opposition - Workers' Opposition coalition and the Cult of Lenin backfiring on Stalin, most of the party members was cowed by Stalin, and many were also opposed to Trotskij's factionalism, believing it was against Lenin's wish of party discipline. Moreover, the Troika managed to use Trotskij's past against him with good effect: He had belatedly entered the Bolshevik Party, and he was often in conflict with the great Lenin. While the party did not condemn Trotskij's teachings as heresy, as the Troika pressured them to, they did agree to force him away as minister of defense in January of 1925, merely one year after Lenin's death.
Nikolaj Bukharin, proponent of the NEP and leader of the Right Opposition.
New battle lines emerged among the party leadership in 1925; it encompassed industry and agricultural politics. On the countryside under the NEP, a new and strong class of self-owning farmers - or Kulaks - were formed, who could sell most of their products. When it was still difficult to procure sufficient foodstuffs for the urban population, a "right-wing", or the Right Opposition, within the party - men as Rykov, Bukharin, and Tomskij - alleviate the shortages by giving further concessions to the farmers and Kulaks, lower taxes, pay more for increased production and so on, under the parole of "Enrich yourself!" A left-wing, now under the leadership of Zinoviev and Kamenev, went head-on against this policy, and while not saying so out loud taking the position held by Trotskij. They meant that the self-owning farmers, that to a great extent performed a "capitalist" production with a leased working force, equaled a political danger; they, therefore, advocated for forced collectivization of the agricultural sector, and heavy taxation of the Kulaks that in turn could be used to implement forced industrialization. They appropriated Trotskij's position and moved against Bukharin to eliminate him. But Stalin would remain the supreme master of divide and rule.
Stalin remained, as he often did, first carefully noncommitted to either side in this conflict, but turned against the left and his former members of the Troika when the issue came to a head on the Party Congress in November 1925, where Stalin and the Right Opposition barely managed to defeat the radical line of Kamenev, Zinoviev, and Trotskij. They sought the support of Trotskij, and formed the United Opposition, ahead of Congress. It was not enough, but their influence was growing as the Center under Stalin, and Right Opposition under Bukharin just managed to beat the Joint Opposition, mainly because of party members cowed by Stalin or personally loyal to him, and their cause gained traction as they demanded greater room for expression within the party - resonating well with members fearful of the General Secretary. Despite this new alliance, they faced a new defeat during the fall of 1926. Trotskij pointed fingers at the Stalinists, and advocated Socialism in One Country, for the defeats the international communist movement had suffered. E.g. in China; here Chang Kai-shek had crushed the Communist Party after it had - on the orders of Stalin - cooperated with him through many years. This would greatly impact Trotskij, who would for the remainder of his years be vehemently opposed to any Popular Front, with major repercussions in Spain and France. The Left and United Opposition, on the other hand, suffered another decisive defeat, its leaders were excluded from the party, and an appeal to the Party Congress was narrowly defeated; Stalin had managed to remain in a slim majority. Once the leaders were exiled, many of the members who had not voted with Stalin would either be excluded the right way, with the majority of them facing trials under the Great Purge or going into self-imposed exile. Stalin had now, seemingly, gained full power in the party. Trotskij was banished to Alma Ata in Central Asia, and at the beginning of 1929, he was forced into exile, first to France, then to Norway before being invited to Mexico. There he would arrive right before the Caudillo Rebellion, breathing new life into the Trotskyist movement and the oppositional factions in Mexico.
Here is the next chapter, I decided to split the chapter. The initial rule of Stalin, with the first five year plans and the intitial stages of the Great Purge, was ommitted and will instead come in the next chapter, and will be around the size of this chapter.
Then the next chapters will focus on the Left Opposition, Worker's Opposition, United Opposition, Right Opposition, their leading members and ideology, and then other factions with the communist party that are yet to be revealed.
There is some divergences already, spot them if you can, if you are unsure what they are don't hesitate to ask.
Well, the drama with the Kulaks came a lot earlier than I expected, and I did not expect Stalin to support them! I suppose he really just wanted to beat Trotsky and discredit his troika allies?
This would greatly impact Trotskij, who would for the remainder of his years be vehemently opposed to any Popular Front, with major repercussions in Spain and France.
Does this mean Trotsky wanted communist parties to work alone? I can see why China would convince him of that considering the KMT was fairly left-wing/socialist leaning until Chiang fully secured his power, and the communists still ended up losing.
At the very least Stalin busted his own triumvirate pretty quickly. We will see if Trotsky manage to rule on himself or will need to form another Troika
Well, the drama with the Kulaks came a lot earlier than I expected, and I did not expect Stalin to support them! I suppose he really just wanted to beat Trotsky and discredit his troika allies?
Stalin flip flopped positions to make secure all power to himself. Being opposed to collectivization and forced industrialization and being "pro" (there are some nuances here) Kulaks, then when the left position and his old troika is defeated, he will, as we will see in the next chapter, against change sides, betray his Right allies and now be against the NEP, and all for collectivazation and forced industrialization.
Does this mean Trotsky wanted communist parties to work alone? I can see why China would convince him of that considering the KMT was fairly left-wing/socialist leaning until Chiang fully secured his power, and the communists still ended up losing.
To form so-called United Fronts. He is opposed to them having Popular Front, and was so even before the KMT crackdown on the Communist Party. A popular front is that communist parties can enter into a government coalition with social democratic, liberal, democratic, moderate parties, etc. As happened in France under Blum, and in Spain that led to the military coup and civil war. Stalin was also opposed to this Popular Front line but changed his opinion. United Front is more than the communist parties can enter into alliances with labor and working class-based parties (i.e socialist and social democratic parties), it changed over time what it meant and the Comintern and Trotsky had different interpretations of what this cooperation would be. For Trotsky it would be more grassroots cooperation, not forming government coalitions, and taking part in street actions against fascists.
Trotskij's politics was also coupled with his greater optimism when it came to the world revolution. He advocated for the teachings of the Permanent Revolution: The very existence of the regime was dependant on the revolution being exported and encompassed other countries; if it did not happen, the capitalist powers would crush the Soviet state. Stalin, and Trotskij's other rivals, later developed a theory of their own Socialism in One Country and later formed the background for the Five Year Plans.
Once the leaders were exiled, many of the members who had not voted with Stalin would either be excluded the right way, with the majority of them facing trials under the Great Purge or going into self-imposed exile. Stalin had now, seemingly, gained full power in the party. Trotskij was banished to Alma Ata in Central Asia, and at the beginning of 1929, he was forced into exile, first to France, then to Norway before being invited to Mexico.
First of all, I will give an unreserved apology to all who followed and read this AAR for me suddenly quitting it. It was not my intention, and I feel bad for not giving any heads up, and I hope you will continue to follow it.
With a long sick period and Christmas, I was in no mood, nor state to continue the AAR for the moment. I was going to resume it, but as my job is related to Russian studies (I will leave it at that), when New Year came around it became more and more obvious for me, at the very least, what was happening in Russia and Ukraine. Simply put, it took my attention away from the AAR, which I really intended to continue and not abruptly finish.
As we know things only escalated further come February, in short, I was very busy, in addition, it felt wrong (for me) to continue the AAR at that moment, especially as I had almost finished the game itself and a lot of the story transpired around warfare in Ukraine, and especially Kyiv. I was distracted, and unmotivated, I should have told you by then, but I did not, and for that, you have my apologies. After a while, this AAR simply slipped out of my mind.
Now, I announce that I am "back", and hopefully I will be given a third chance so to say.
The AAR will continue next week, or the week after, where I will continue Book Two (about the various factions in the USSR/Communist Party, along with the main players). But book three will be different.
With By Blood Alone (BBA) announced, I got new ideas. Pondering about this summer for a new story direction, along with whether or not I should resume this AAR, I have decided to continue the AAR - and change Book Three. As mentioned in an earlier post, I wanted to make special chapters about various key events during the Inter-War era up to 1936. Now I have decided that after I finish Book Two (which will go away from being small and focused, and instead having elaborate chapters), Book Three will instead focus on the rest of Europe, and other key areas, in the Inter-War years leading up to 1936. To better set the stage, and to insert divergences here and there to better facilitate for the "proper" AAR when the game starts. This will continue until BBA is released.
Thank you for your time, and I hope you will continue to read and follow this AAR!
Indeed, they are small and only hinted at in that post. There will be more in the coming chapters regarding the main Soviet players and communist factions. However, if you're not well versed enough in the period, you might not see them at first glance. But trust me, once events start to unfold, these divergences will be further elaborated on, and they will be explained why they matter - and how.
