Entrenchment – 1932 - 1935
A French girl in 1935. Trotsky's rule would be a hard time for the French people.
The elevation of Trotsky to the highest position within the French state would finally set - if there had been any dispute that they had not been set already – French relations with the rest of Europe. If there had been any possibility, however remote, of rapprochement before Trotsky’s impromptu coup, then that possibility was gone. France was now clearly under a style of leadership thinking which was dedicated to widespread re-armament, international extension of Communism, and a contemptuous attitude to it’s neighbours. Although the extent of Trotsky’s exact strategic thinking was only dimly perceived at the time, the coup was certainly acknowledged as a step towards a more potentially troublesome France, and policy began to shift accordingly. The coup is often cited as a prime reason for Britain moving towards finally dropping it’s caveats with regards to German re-armament and quiet abandonment of Versailles, and the ultimate fulfilment of this tendency in, for example, the Anglo-German Naval agreement of 1934, (Where German naval re-armament was confirmed, but pegged at no more than 42% that of the Royal Navy.) the Osnabrück finance agreement of the same year, which continued policies from the twenties aimed at assisting German capital and trade, particularly to ease the potential economic consequences of re-armament, and joint-confirmation in 1934 of non-aggression on the part of Germany towards Poland.
In France, Trotsky's plans for continuing expansion of the army demanded a change just as wide and aggressive within French society as within that army itself. Beginning in 1933, a large programme of industrialisation was introduced, with a new five-year plan directorate being established under the auspices of the occasionally inspired Trotskyite technocrat Georges Lévy. This was a move that overturned the rather haphazard and sloppy approach to the economy since the twenties. Industrialisation was now largely modelled on Trotsky’s own views on industry and the economy, with a particularly hard drive towards reducing France's large peasant base in favour of a more urban and worker-orientated heavy industrial capacity designed to serve military production; the quaint popular perception of provincial towns producing perfumes and lace was stifled by the increasingly real outpouring of tractors and fan belts; War Communism under Lenin was often invoked. Military production consequently increased exponentially, although poor planning in the effects this would have on agriculture lead to chronic food shortages, which would create a generation of underdeveloped French children due to poor nutrition and housing conditions. Although France largely avoided the mass-fallout of the same process in the USSR, thanks in part to its already substantial industrial base, the process would often be a brutal one. However, by the mid-decade, production was taking off and beginning to rival the traditionally hegemonic capacities of German and British production in some respects.
Construction of defences in 1934. The idea of the 'Thorez Line' appealed to Trotsky's instincts.
Although these processes would not be looked on with any favour by the population, they virtually eliminated the more intolerable effects of the depression in France, and by the later years of the thirties there were often chronic labour shortages in some key areas. Added to industrialisation and army expansion was a mass of public works projects aimed at improving infrastructure, together with a fortification project, which, in the words of Thorez, was
"unprecedented since the days of Vauban." It was certainly ambitious, not only in its scale, but also, in what was becoming typically Trotskyite, its attempt to solve long-term strategical problems and mundane, present economic ones at a stroke. Essentially, planning envisaged a massive string of fortifications stretching from the Pas-de-Calais to Switzerland, with a particular focus on the German border. However, Trotsky would attempt to keep the general quality stable along the entirety of the line (Which was soon christened the 'Thorez line', as Thorez was nominally ultimate supervisor for it's construction, although in Germany it was often referred to as 'Trotsky's wire'.), in a bid to both keep all options open in case of attack by Germany, and also to attempt to play down the idea - which was gaining some currency in international circles - that he was preparing for aggression. It at least gave the impression that France was quite content within a defensible frontier, but, as some wits in the foreign press pointed out in response to Thorez's remark, Vauban's employer was hardly known for his love of peace.
The church of St. Louis des Invalides, Paris: nominal headquarters of the Fourth International from 1933. However, most of the administration would be housed in the Invalides proper.
The establishment of the Fourth International in 1933 would, however, fit badly with this attempted image. Aimed to challenge the authority of the Moscow-based Third International, it would be met with limited success in converting European parties within an already occupied ideological marketplace. The Fourth International would, however, meet with some success in the Americas and Asia, where nascent parties found the Trotskyite view of energetic and violent progress to Socialism attractive. Trotsky did not, though, lose sight of the necessities of
realpolitik. France's commitment to Czechoslovakia was confirmed and expanded, with a similar amount of energy being expended on relations with Austria and Poland. In any potential attempt at revision of Germany's borders, it was clear where France's loyalties would lay, and such a fact had to be carefully considered by Germany.