There is an on-line interview/discussion about Trotsky at http://fora.tv/2009/07/28/Uncommon_Knowledge_Christopher_Hitchens__Robert_Service that I found quite interesting. Churchill is hardly mentioned, but the discussion delves into assessing the character, actions, motivations and legacy of Trotsky. To this extent it addresses the question: Was Churchill on the mark with his comments?
Stan ----- Original Message ----- From: Carey Stronach To: ChurchillChat Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2011 9:12 PM Subject: [ChurchillChat] Churchill and Trotsky In his recent book, "In Defense Of Leon Trotsky," David North quotes WSC as saying of Trotsky in 1937, "Like the cancer bacillus he grew, he fed, he tortured, he slew in fulfillment of his nature." Was Churchill on the mark with these comments, or was he mistaken, possibly grossly mistaken (as North claims)? The Russian revolution was terribly bloody, but many, perhaps most, of the atrocities were committed on the orders of others, Lenin, Stalin and the NKVD. It's a fascinating, but ultimately frustrating, game to construct alternative histories. Trotsky lost the power struggle with Stalin in 1927 and left the Soviet Union in fear of his life in 1929. (He was eventually murdered in Mexico by a Stalinist thug in 1940.) The worst horrors of the Soviet regime lay in the future, the Ukrainian famine of 1931-33, and the great purge of 1937-38. The book "Bloodlands," by Timothy Snyder, documents these terrors in excruciating detail, as does the historical novel "Everything Flows," by Vasily Grossman. Let us assume for the moment that Trotsky had defeated Stalin in the 1920s. Would the Soviet people have accepted a Jewish leader? Would the USSR have morphed into a social democracy along the lines of a Slavic Sweden? Or would there have been a coup, perhaps led by the army, that might have brought a right-wing dictatorship to power? If Trotsky had prevailed, World War II might never have happened, at least not along the lines of what actually took place. This is because a Trotsky - Hitler pact would have been utterly unthinkable, indeed laughable in its absurdity. Then Britain and Churchill would not have had to endure the supreme challenge of 1940-41, and WSC might have ended his career as a relatively unknown back bencher. This chat group has been relatively quiet recently. I know that there are a number of distinguished scholars present, from both right and left. Maybe this topic will draw out some interesting and divergent opinions. CES -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ChurchillChat" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ChurchillChat" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat?hl=en.
