Leon Trotsky would've done more good than harm had he succeeded Lenin.

Thank you for your response. I'd first like to point out a blunder I made - I did not include any of the sources I used for my arguments. To prevent misunderstanding, or a lack of evidence on my part to support my arguments, I will now list my definitions. I hope my opponent has not been burdened by this in any way.1. Assured and steadfast Allied victory in European centered WW2, if WW2 occured at all. http://www.marxists.org... 2. A Strong Fascist Opposition throughout Europe http://www.amazon.com... 3. Would Have Prevented the Corruption of the Marxist Movement by Bureacracy and Totalitarianism http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. Created the Perfect Command Economy Model, Attaining a Higher State of Living for the Slavs and Any Other Country that Incorporates Itself within the USSR http://www.trotsky.net...; I will add more sources in this round, which I will certainly cite this time.I will get into rebutting my opponent's arguments against my own.1. Starting WW2A) My opponent believes that one of the greatest flaws in a Trotsky rule would be his willingness for war over perhaps even the bloodthirstyness of Stalin. He states that the world's distaste for Communism and Trotsky's own war hungriness would have sparked a different WW2. He then sources Trotsky's own autobiography, My Life, using Trotsky's own words to support his argument. While Trotsky was for forced conscription if armed forces were in short supply, my opponent has fully misunderstood his reasons for wanting forced conscription. Trotsky was desperate at the time. The bolsheviks had barely managed to overthrow the Tsar, and the Reds were fighting what seemed to be a losing battle against the Whites. Lenin had been shot, and almost died. The hopes of a Socialist country rising from the rubble of a country that was quickly losing sympathisers and its industry was beginning to fade.Trotsky didn't want to force people to join the armed forces in the revolution because of ANY sense of war mongering or need for blood. In fact, it was the opposite. Trotsky knew that the few months where they desperately needed military power were going to be the most decisive and difficult.My opponent then once again quotes Trotsky, using his own words to suggest that he only cared about military success. Once again, Trotsky cared so much about military success because he knew that military success would be the key factoring in establishing their country.B) While my opponent has some validity in his argument about the red scare in the US, and the role of governments in terms of passing anti-Communist laws, they are irrelevant to the point of Permanent Revolution and fail to refute my point.The government is not the people. The people are the workers. And as Marx states, Capitalism can only fall in an era of economic downfall where the poor become so poor that they realize the new ruling class of the rich that faces them. To put things shortly, in an era of economic downfall, the people of countries begin to have socialist and communist sympathies. After all, they did elect FDR.I stand firm in saying that Trotsky would not in fact invade countries in a time of weakness for the USSR, and would work to incite Communist revolutions through non-combat means. Trotsky would've done this by creating communist sympathies in the workers of other countries, as they all looked up to the USSR as a model state that they could become. He was a master tactician - he would not risk the wellbeing of his entire country by starting too many Communist revolutions too quickly let alone start invading.2. Permanent Revolution FailuresI'd like to point out that my opponent is misjudging the geopolitical timeline of the early 20th century. While obviously the entire world would not go communist in that decade of the 20's alone, communist sympathies would arise during the Great Depression, which, by the way, starts exactly as Russia's economy has finished recovering according to you.You are correct in saying that Trotsky is the ideological polar opposite of Stalin. This however, does not make him too much of an idealist and certainly not a fool. As I've already stated, he was a master tactician who knew how to win engagements and warfare, and had a broad understanding of the political spectrum and geopolitical climate.My opponent's arguments resulting from his sources are slightly misleading. The Polish-Russo war was not an attempt at colonizing other countries for Communism as in fact the war was in defense. The polish invaded Russia as they saw the weak Bolshevik government floundering amidst their revolution."Poland's Chief of State, Józef Piłsudski, felt the time was right to expand Polish borders as far east as feasible." -WikipediaThe convenience of Poland as a bridge to Germany exists, however it was not the sole intention of Russia and certainly not a good decision in the eyes of the Bolsheviks to invade Poland in a time where they were only two years into their revolution.I'm simply going to say this to refute the rest of my opponent's argument on the failure of Permanent Revolution:While my opponent CAN say Trotsky would work to spread Communist revolution in the early 20's, he CANNOT say that Trotsky would immediately go out of his way to blatantly risk the welfare of his own nation by starting a second world war. As I've stated, he was not an idiot to be blunt, he was a master of military and political tactics and had a clear understanding of the geopolitical climate of the world. I can offer a counter-interpretation of what Trotsky would do in a situation like this, based on his views, the fragility of the Russian state, and the value of his military skills.Leon Trotsky would've worked in the early 20's to incite Communist Revolution through the Third Internationale through political means, while he fixed the country of Russia. While he is a firm supporter of permanent revolution, all evidence points to the fact that he'd use other means of political warfare other than cannons and bullets to sway the people of other nations. Trotsky was NOT an imperialist in any sense, he was an anti-authoritarian who would not have invaded a country strictly for the purpose of making it Communist if it was clear the people did not wish to have one. He was a legitimate Marxist who believed that Capitalism would only fall when the workers were ready.Your point on this supposed "economic collapse" is null because again you're assuming that Trotsky would go ALL out in creating as many Communist revolutions as possible. I'll say it AGAIN. You're undervaluing Trotsky's intelligence and painting him as an insane radical that will do anything against all form of logic to cause Communist revolutions. Trotsky would not help a revolution if the people did not want it, and it defies common sense for him to invade a country and set it up Communist as he did not preach imperialism and was anti authoritarian. Pro has demonstrated that Trotsky would stop the rise of Hitler, spread Communism throughout the world politically before violentally, opposed Fascism, would have prevented corruption through bureacracy, and created the perfect Command economy model.I await my opponent's next arguments.Sources for Rebutts:1. Starting WW2http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://europeanhistory.about.com... 2. Failure of Permanent Revolutionhttp://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.goodreads.com...http://www.fsmitha.com...