Webster

The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions." --American Statesman Daniel Webster (1782-1852)


Thursday, October 22, 2026

"Why Did Stalin Go Through All The Trouble To Assassinate Trotsky in His Mexican Fortress in Mexico?"

 

There is a quote that I like to keep in mind when the apparatus of the state start getting "too big for their britches" as they say here in the south.


   In the late 1930's Stalin in his paranoia sent millions to the gulags for "crimes against the State", he eviscerated the officer corp of the Red Army and they paid the price during the "Winter War" and the early parts of the "Great Patriotic War"  I don't know how different the Soviet Union would have been if Trotsky had replaced Lenin instead of Stalin.   Would be an interesting Alternative history story.   Personally I still considered Trotsky a Godless Communist and the world is better off without him and those like him, but he is a figure of history.


This is a Quora thing again

In 1917, a world war allowed an exiled Leon Trotsky to return and seize Russia. As WWII erupted, Stalin was terrified a 60-year-old man 6,700 miles away would do it again.

Even isolated in a heavily guarded compound in Coyoacán, Mexico, Trotsky remained the single greatest existential threat to the Soviet regime.

Trotsky was not just a dissident. He was the co-architect of the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution and the charismatic founder of the Red Army. To the Old Bolsheviks—the original revolutionaries—Trotsky, not Stalin, was Vladimir Lenin’s logical heir. Stalin’s ascent to power was built on bureaucratic maneuvering, and he spent the 1930s executing almost all of the original revolutionary leaders during the Great Purge to cement his control.

Stalin’s narrative required a chief villain to justify the endless show trials and executions. He framed Trotsky as the mastermind of a global fascist conspiracy seeking to destroy the USSR. As long as Trotsky lived and wrote, he actively dismantled this narrative. From his Mexican exile, Trotsky published works like The Revolution Betrayed, exposing Stalin as a totalitarian usurper who had corrupted Marxist ideals. Even more dangerously, Trotsky founded the Fourth International, a rival communist organization designed to foment global revolution and bypass Moscow entirely.

With the outbreak of World War II validating Stalin's fears of global destabilization, he finally ordered the assassination.

Brute force failed to penetrate Trotsky's defenses. In May 1940, a Soviet-backed hit squad of twenty men, led by Mexican muralist David Alfaro Siqueiros, stormed the compound and riddled Trotsky’s bedroom with machine-gun fire, but Trotsky and his wife survived by hiding under their bed.

Realizing a frontal assault was useless against the "fortress," Stalin’s intelligence agency, the NKVD, switched to infiltration. They dispatched Ramón Mercader, a Spanish communist who spent months seducing a woman in Trotsky’s inner circle. Mercader slowly earned the guards' trust, posing as a sympathetic businessman. On August 20, 1940, Mercader was finally allowed alone into Trotsky’s study under the guise of asking for feedback on an article. While the 60-year-old revolutionary read the paper, Mercader struck him in the back of the head with a cut-down ice axe.

Leon Trotsky (1879–1940) photographed in the 1930s during his exile. Source: Wikimedia Commons.
I did some surfing and got more background on the Stalin/Trotsky feud and shamelessly cut and pasted it.   The following is from Jason Dawsey PHD, He is related to the WWII museum in New Orleans, I got the information from their website.

On the afternoon of August 20, 1940, Ramón Mercader, a young Spaniard in the hire of the GPU, Joseph Stalin’s secret police, seized the moment. Under the alias of Canadian businessman “Frank Jacson,” he had infiltrated Leon Trotsky’s household in Coyoácan, a borough of Mexico City, several months earlier. As Trotsky leaned over his desk, Mercader viciously struck him on the right side of the head with a pickax, its handle cut down to hide it more easily under a raincoat. The wound inflicted was three inches deep. Reeling, the old revolutionary found the strength to fight back against the assassin. Trotsky prevented Mercader from inflicting another, fatal blow and battled for his life until his bodyguards arrived. With Mercader beaten unconscious and the police called, he collapsed into the arms of his wife, Natalia Sedova. The next day, Trotsky succumbed to his wounds, dead at the age of 60.  

With his nemesis murdered and Mercader, the murderer, denying any Soviet involvement (he would eventually serve 20 years in a Mexican prison), Stalin could feel a deep satisfaction. The individual, who, more than any other, symbolized opposition to Stalinism, had been eliminated. Mercader’s vile act closed the long, bitter conflict between the two men. From the fictionalized version in Unforgiving Years, the excellent novel by Victor Serge, his one-time comrade, to the 1972 movie, The Assassination of Trotsky, where Richard Burton portrayed him, the lurid details of Trotsky’s death have often commanded more attention than his extraordinary life. Trotsky’s struggle against Stalin and Stalinism, the subject of this article, was a crucial part of his life’s final decade.

 Born Leon Davidovich Bronstein to a family of Jewish farmers in Ukraine in 1879, Trotsky came of age among the revolutionary movements operating in the ultra-repressive atmosphere of the Russian Empire. At the age of eighteen, he enthusiastically embraced Marxism. The remainder of his life, one can say, without exaggeration, was based around a single, ultimate goal: worldwide workers’ revolution. During his early involvement in Russian socialist politics, Trotsky clashed with Vladimir Lenin over how a revolutionary party should be organized (such clashes would later serve Stalin well when he depicted Trotsky as hostile to Lenin’s ideas).  During the 1905 Revolution, after the formation of the first soviets (radical councils representing the working masses), Trotsky, only twenty-six at the time, served briefly as Chairman of the St. Petersburg Soviet. After his trial and life sentence to Siberia for his revolutionary activities, he escaped and resumed life as a radical intellectual in Vienna, capital of the multinational Habsburg Empire. Trotsky's Results and Prospects (1906) outlined his brilliant conception of "permanent revolution," a Marxist theory of how a bourgeois-democratic revolution in Imperial Russia would inevitably transform into a socialist revolution that would engender revolution far beyond Russian territory. A long period of exile following Tsar Nicholas II’s crackdown on left-wing radicals ended when he returned in May 1917 to a Russia aflame with revolution. Joining the Bolsheviks a few months later, Trotsky worked closely with Lenin. Together, they prepared the overthrow of the ruling Provisional Government which kept the country in the disastrous world war. Henceforth, throngs of people uttered their names together—“Lenin and Trotsky.” As a member of the Bolshevik-led Military Revolutionary Committee, Trotsky played a decisive role in the insurrection in Petrograd (formerly St. Petersburg), events he would later chronicle in his famed History of the Russian Revolution. The following March, he negotiated the punitive Treaty of Brest-Litovsk forced on the Bolsheviks by Imperial Germany.  In the Russian Civil War (1918-1921), he organized and led the Red Army to an impressive victory over counterrevolutionary forces.

Trotsky also witnessed the tremendous setbacks of the early 1920s to revolutionary hopes. Under the New Economic Policy (NEP) set in motion by Lenin in 1921, the Bolsheviks had to concentrate on economic recovery after the severe wartime measures. The working class had been ravaged by three years of civil war. Many workers who survived the conflict had moved into administrative positions in the Soviet government or relocated to the countryside. Internationally, the USSR stood alone. The proletarian revolution Trotsky had expected to spread and take hold elsewhere had been stymied.  The radical Left underwent terrible defeats in 1919 in Germany and Hungary. There was the “Red Scare” in the United States in the same period. Benito Mussolini, a former socialist, acquired power in Rome in 1922 and his Fascist dictatorship became a fierce enemy of the Bolsheviks. More defeats soon followed in Germany, Estonia, and Bulgaria in 1923-25.

After Lenin died in January 1924, the question arose immediately about who would be the next leader of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Trotsky was one of the most recognizable figures associated with the October Revolution—admired, hated, and emulated within and outside the USSR.  Although history rightly remembers Joseph Stalin as Trotsky’s chief rival and later mortal enemy, in the early 1920s Stalin passed unnoticed by many observers. He had been a “barely perceptible shadow,” as Trotsky put it. One of the classic histories of the Bolshevik Revolution, Ten Days That Shook the World, written by the American radical, John Reed, hardly mentions Stalin. Gregori Zinoviev and Lev Kamenev, not Stalin, emerged as Trotsky’s principal opponents in the immediate aftermath of Lenin’s death. These two men, who had been with Lenin for years, felt threatened by Trotsky’s popularity and his military record. A mistake, fateful for all three, though, had already been made. In 1922, Lenin, appreciating his organizational talents, chose Stalin for the position of General Secretary of the Communist Party. This gave him authority over party membership and appointments. Stalin quickly accrued enormous power and influence in the party over the next few years. Once Lenin, who, in his last months, sorely regretted his choice of Stalin, was no longer in the picture, Stalin sided with Zinoviev and Kamenev in their opposition to Trotsky.

As Trotsky later recognized, Stalin took advantage of the situation not only to appoint his own people but also to advance his own ideas about the future of the USSR. In 1924, he introduced the notion of “socialism in one country.” A socialist society could be built, Stalin contended, in the Soviet Union alone, regardless of the international context. The concept appealed to many Bolsheviks confronting the isolation of the globe’s only Marxist state.  Stalin went on to directly counter this idea to Trotsky’s emphasis on "permanent (i.e. world) revolution." Thanks to Stalin, “Trotskyism” soon became a term of opprobrium for elitism, factionalism, and a lack of connectedness to the masses of workers and peasants.
   
During the mid-1920s, Trotsky responded to these developments by calling for a restoration of workers’ democracy within the Communist Party. While he had advocated centralization during the Civil War, he had done so out of necessity. As the de facto leader of what became known as the Left Opposition, Trotsky assailed the growing bureaucratization of political life, the retreat from the old ideal of revolutionary internationalism, and the transformation of Marxism into “Marxism-Leninism,” a dogma not to be questioned. He gathered many supporters such as Karl Radek, Christian Rakovsky, and Victor Serge. Further support came from unexpected quarters. After Stalin maneuvered them out of positions of authority, Kamenev and Zinoviev threw in their lot with Trotsky in 1926. This Joint Opposition, never the most robust alliance, did not hold. Young “activists” violently broke up Opposition meetings with methods reminiscent of Mussolini’s Fascist squads. Stalin, wielding his power like a club, expelled Trotsky and his followers from the party in late 1927. Prophetically, Trotsky denounced Stalin as the “gravedigger of the Revolution.” Sent into “internal exile” in Kazakhstan for a year, he was then deported to Turkey in February 1929.     

In Prinkipo, a suburb of Istanbul, Trotsky wrote his autobiography, My Life. In that book is this remarkable description of Stalin, by then the sole ruler of the Soviet Union:
 
"He is gifted with practicality, a strong will, and persistence in carrying out his aims. His political horizon is restricted, his theoretical equipment primitive. His work of compilation, The Foundations of Leninism, in which he made an attempt to pay tribute to the theoretical traditions of the party, is full of sophomoric errors. His ignorance of foreign languages compels him to follow the political life of other countries at second-hand. His mind is stubbornly empirical and devoid of creative imagination. To the leading group of the party (in the wide circles he was not known at all) he always seemed a man destined to play second and third fiddle. And the fact that today he is playing first is not so much a summing up of the man as it is of this transitional period of political backsliding in the country."

This period was not to be nearly as “transitional” as Trotsky believed. With his opponents removed, Stalin enacted the collectivization of agriculture and state-directed industrialization, programs once championed by the Left Opposition, but now brutally implemented with a staggering toll of lives. He was not yet ready, though, to implement, to quote Trotsky, the “physical liquidation of the old revolutionaries, known to the whole world.” Stalin would bide his time for a number of years. And he could do so while watching his enemy live a refugee’s existence.  

Trotsky did not hesitate to label the Stalin dictatorship “totalitarian,” a concept still relatively new in political thought.  Thus, Stalinism, the counterrevolutionary system and ideology Stalin represented, preoccupied him. In this form of totalitarianism, a bureaucracy, a privileged caste, at the top of which Stalin perched like an absolute monarch, lorded it over the working class. Trotsky likened Stalinist domination to “Thermidor,” the term used to denote the end of the radical phase of the French Revolution and the shift to reactionary politics. As late as 1933, he thought, however, the Soviet system could be reformed by working through the structures of the Communist Party. The Left Opposition might dislodge Stalin from within without directly challenging state power. Trotsky held to this position until Adolf Hitler became chancellor of Germany in January 1933. Germany was a country with a modern urban, industrial society he had long regarded as vital to the prospects for socialism. Trotsky decried the impact of Stalin’s policies in this catastrophe. The Soviet leadership had tied the hands of the German Communist Party and hindered a united front against the Nazi Party by construing moderate socialists as the real threat. Subsequently, Hitler crushed the mighty German workers’ movement with hardly a fight.  This disaster forced a profound shift in Trotsky’s thinking.
 
After Hitler took power, Trotsky concluded that reform of the Stalin regime had to be abandoned. Ousting Stalin by working through the channels of the Communist Party was no longer possible.  This much more radical perspective culminated in his 1936 The Revolution Betrayed.  Proletarian revolt would have to topple Stalin and the bureaucracy. This revolution, Trotsky made clear, would resemble the European upheavals of 1830 and 1848 more than the October Revolution. It would be a political revolution, not a social one. Collective ownership and control of the means of production (e.g. land, factories, mines, shipyards, oilfields), railways, and banks, as well as the planned economy, would remain. Trotsky’s designation of the USSR as a “degenerated workers’ state” highlighted his conviction that Stalin had betrayed and degraded the original, liberatory aspects of the Bolshevik Revolution. Still, much could be salvaged from the damage done by Stalinism.

The vision Trotsky held in The Revolution Betrayed of political institutions in a liberated, post-Stalin USSR may surprise some. He called for free elections, freedom of criticism, and freedom of the press. While the Communist Party would benefit most from this open atmosphere, it would no longer possess a monopoly on power. As long as political parties did not try to restore capitalism, they could operate, recruit, and compete for power.  Stalin’s downfall would also signal new life for the trade unions. Trotsky imagined a restored involvement of workers in economic policy. Science and the arts might flourish once more. The state, no longer bound to the calamitous Stalinist policies, could return to the satisfaction of workers’ needs, like housing.  Stratification would yield to the reinvigorated aim of “socialist equality.” Youth, in whom Trotsky placed so much hope, “will receive the opportunity to breathe freely, criticize, make mistakes, and grow up.”
   
These thoughts Trotsky put to paper only months before he would be compelled to move again. For eight years, Trotsky had traversed what he called a “planet without a visa,” a planet torn apart by the worst economic crisis in the history of capitalism. Since Stalin expelled him and Natalia from the USSR, the beleaguered revolutionaries had found temporary sanctuary in Turkey, France, and Norway. Granted refuge by the leftist Cardénas government of Mexico, their arrival in Coyoácan in January 1937 was greeted with derision and menace by the country’s pro-Stalin Communist Party.

Trosky grave

Photograph of Trotsky and Sedova’s Tomb, in the Garden of Their House in Coyoácan, in Mexico City. Credit: Gunther Schenk.

Stalin not only hunted Trotsky but anyone close to him from country to country. In Barcelona, in June 1937, his assassins abducted Trotsky’s former collaborator, Andrés Nin, a leader in the POUM (Workers’ Party of Marxist Unification), the organization of militants made famous by George Orwell’s Homage to Catalonia. Nin disappeared at a critical moment in the Spanish revolutionaries’ struggle against Francisco Franco, never to been seen again.  Thirteen months later, in Paris, Rudolf Klement, who had once worked as Trotsky’s secretary, sat down for breakfast. Klement was kidnapped, presumably by GPU agents. They seized him and left his food on the table untouched.  A few weeks after he vanished, a body, missing its head and legs, washed up on the Seine.  It was not enough to just kill Klement; decapitation and dismemberment were required to incite extra terror.

Stalin’s agents also infiltrated the circle around Trotsky’s son, Leon Sedov. Despite a difficult relationship with his father, Leon worked tirelessly for him in Paris. He communicated with Left Oppositionists still holding on inside Russia, edited the Bulletin of the Opposition, the most significant forum for Trotsky’s analyses of the contemporary world, and wrote an exposé of the Show Trials then taking place in the USSR. Mark Zborowski, Ukrainian-born and known to Trotsky’s supporters under the false name “Étienne,” soon worked his way into Sedov’s circle. Zborowski became Sedov’s personal assistant, helping with his correspondence and eventually taking care of the publication of the Bulletin. Thanks to “Étienne,” the GPU could count on seeing many of the articles from the latter before they even appeared in print. And Zborowski delivered to them vital information about Sedov’s health. When Sedov checked himself into a private clinic in Paris run by Russian emigres complaining of an appendicitis, the Soviets knew. He died there under mysterious circumstances in February 1938, five months before Klement disappeared.  To this day, the cause of death has not been conclusively determined. In a moving tribute to his son, Trotsky told of the terrible grief he and Natalia felt. “Together with our boy has died everything that still remained young within us.” Their other son, Sergei Sedov, had remained in Russia after his parents’ expulsion and always kept politics at arm’s length. That did not save him. He vanished and, it is believed, was shot in October 1937.   

This systematic killing overlapped with the monstrosity of Stalin’s Show Trials. These abhorrent mockeries of justice had their roots in the murder of Sergey Kirov, Stalin’s party boss in Leningrad. Kirov was gunned down in December 1934. Likely, Stalin himself was responsible for the assassination. The murder gave him the pretext for systematically and publicly purging the Communist Party. As the most visible aspect of the Purges, the Show Trials started with the Trial of the Sixteen in August 1936.  Old Bolsheviks, such as Zinoviev and Kamenev, stood accused of conspiring against the Soviet government. Shockingly, they confessed, confessed to submitting to Trotsky’s demands to assassinate Stalin and several of his subordinates. Following their death sentences, several successor trials ensued through 1938. The “physical liquidation of old revolutionaries, known to the whole world” was at hand. Trotsky knew that a combination of torture, threats to family members, and promises of freedom, if confessions were given, allowed the travesties to occur. When he read the infamous sentence uttered by Stalin’s Prosecutor-General, Andrey Vyshinsky—“I demand that these dogs gone mad should be shot—every one of them!”—Trotsky knew this was no idle threat.

Vyshinsky’s words became murderous reality in the USSR in the late 1930s and '40s. The violence swept away both supporters and opponents of Stalin and Stalinism. Radek and Rakovsky, former allies of Trotsky who later submitted to Stalin, were killed. So, too, was Nikolai Bukharin, one of Bolshevism’s leading theoreticians, a sharp critic of Trotsky and the Left Opposition, and a onetime backer of Stalin. Others were murdered in labor camps, the infamous Gulags, or in prisons. Among the thousands of victims were the Marxist economic thinker, Isaak Ilich Rubin, and the great historian of the Left and former director of The Marx-Engels Institute, David Ryazanov. Isaac Babel, whom Trotsky once termed the “most talented of our younger writers,” confessed to working as a spy and terrorist mastermind for Trotsky. The secret police put him to death in January 1940.  In this period, the Soviet Union was perhaps the most dangerous place in the world for independent-thinking Marxists, an astounding thing to say, given the records of the fascist regimes. For their contributions to the butchery, Stalin rewarded Genrikh Yagoda and Nikolai Yezhov, chiefs of the GPU during these years, by having them shot.

From the Show Trials, ever more outlandish tales about Trotsky were spun. The stories relayed by the accused placed him at the center of a massive, worldwide anti-Soviet conspiracy. Turning his calls for an anti-Stalin revolution against him, Vyshinsky pilloried Trotsky, the inveterate adversary of fascism, as the master fascist, as the string-puller and puppet-master. Besides links to the Gestapo, Soviet investigators claimed to have uncovered Trotsky’s connections to Mussolini, the government of Imperial Japan, and the capitalist democracies. Reminiscent of Nazi anti-Semitic theories, “Trotskyism” metamorphosed into a truly demonic apparition during the Show Trials. Yet Trotsky fought back vigorously.

Countering the way Stalin’s handpicked historians distorted the Soviet past, Trotsky had already authored The Stalin School of Falsification. His adherents, many of whom by this point referred to him, with affection, as the “Old Man,” founded the Fourth International outside of Paris in September 1938. Its aim was to provide a revolutionary alternative to the Moscow-led Third or Communist International (Comintern). This Fourth International would bolster radical, anti-Stalinist working-class parties and unions around the world. When it came to repudiating the preposterous charges raised in the Show Trials, he received considerable help. Frida Kahlo, with whom Trotsky had an affair in 1937, and Diego Rivera were his tireless defenders in Mexico City. In the United States, a Committee for the Defense of Leon Trotsky formed. Similar organizations were founded elsewhere. The American Committee set up a Commission of Inquiry, chaired by John Dewey, the famous Pragmatist philosopher. Only one of the members, Alfred Rosmer, a syndicalist and early supporter of the October Revolution, could be described as a Trotsky supporter. Traveling to the Mexican capital, the Commission held thirteen sessions in April 1937. Trotsky, speaking in his quite imperfect English, responded to every accusation leveled by the Stalinists. He cast a powerful impression on those present, including the liberal Dewey, no admirer of his politics. In September 1937, the Commission issued its findings, clearing Trotsky of all the charges.   

The following years were dark, awful times for Trotsky, Natalia, and their inner circle. Losing two sons and innumerable comrades and friends to Stalin did not break his spirit, but the losses threw a shadow over everything he had done.  With the Japanese in China, Hitler moving into Austria, and threatening Czechoslovakia, and Mussolini dreaming of a  Roman Empire in the Mediterranean, the prospect of a new world war soon overtook him. Almost a year before it started, Trotsky spoke of an impending Second World War as a “new slaughter which is about to drown our whole planet in blood.”
 
Trotsky had good reason to utter such things. And he knew that Stalin’s response to German expansion in Eastern Europe would be critical. Following the Munich Agreement of September 1938, Trotsky expected the Soviet government to seek an agreement with Hitler. Stalin’s 1937-38 purge of the Red Army, including some of its most capable commanders, like Mikhail Tukhachevsky, had so seriously weakened the USSR that a military confrontation with Nazi Germany had to be avoided at all costs. Whatever anti-Nazi sentiments issued from the Kremlin, Trotsky thought, were not worth the paper they were written on. In the aftermath of the Show Trials, he believed an even more important reason would drive Stalin to come to an agreement with Berlin: survival. The Stalin regime was too despotic and unpopular to weather the storm of total war. According to Trotsky, a settlement with Nazi Germany might secure some stability for the dictatorship.    

When Vyacheslav Molotov, the Soviet foreign minister, and Joachim von Ribbentrop, his German counterpart, signed a Non-Aggression Pact between the two nations on August 23, 1939, Trotsky was scarcely surprised. Earlier that year, he had declared that Stalin’s name will be a “byword for the uttermost limits of human baseness.”  This damning statement received confirmation with Stalin’s next move—dividing up Poland with Hitler.

Stalin Ribbentrop

Standing: Joseph Stalin with Nazi Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop; Seated: Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov-at the signing of the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact. Credit: Hulton Archive/Toronto Star.

Trotsky’s struggle against Stalin entered a new and final phase with the start of World War II just a week later. In a steady stream of articles and interviews, he condemned the role of the Soviet Union, a state that, at least in its rhetoric, had sided with the colonized against imperialism. The betrayal of the principles of Red October had reached a new level of treachery. Perhaps Stalin, Trotsky surmised, now seemed content with partitioning Eastern Europe with the German fascists. Whatever the motives, he dubbed Stalin Hitler’s “quartermaster,” a lackey who reacted to his senior partner’s moves.     

The Soviet attack on Finland in November 1939, the beginning of the Winter War, made him wonder how far Stalin was willing to go to create a sphere of interest for himself. While he again damned Soviet aggression, Trotsky, at the same time, despised Marshal Mannerheim, the right-wing Finnish leader rallying his people. Still, Trotsky, true to his Marxism, hoped that “sovietization” in Poland and Finland might free workers and peasants in both countries from the dominance of capitalists and landlords. Yet socialism, he realized, ultimately could not be built on the tips of the Red Army’s bayonets.

This was a huge dilemma for Trotsky. How could one support social revolution in areas under Soviet control without giving any ground on his anti-Stalinism? An even bigger problem posed itself. What if Hitler repudiated the pact and attacked the USSR? Trotsky had no doubt Hitler would do so at the earliest opportunity. His answer was absolutely unequivocal. Socialists and workers everywhere must rally to the defense of the Soviet Union. The achievements of the Bolshevik Revolution had to be defended.

This position, which alienated many of his adherents, coexisted with another claim—the new world war would mean the end of the Stalin regime. Trotsky predicted that the workers and peasants of the USSR, their revolutionary energies revitalized, would put an end to the Stalinist bureaucracy. The revolution he outlined in The Revolution Betrayed would itself form part of a gigantic wave of revolutionism engulfing the Axis powers and the capitalist democracies. Like Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini would meet the severe justice of the proletariat. Trotsky argued that capitalism, stricken for a decade by mass unemployment, immigration quotas, tariff wars, and the constriction of trade, had entered its “death agony” as well. Defiantly, he announced, “from the capitalist prisons and the concentration camps will come most of the leaders of tomorrow’s Europe and the world!” One outcome Trotsky envisioned resulting from this world revolution would be a Socialist United States of Europe. The latter, in turn, would form part of a World Federation of Socialist Republics.  This would have amounted to the greatest geopolitical revolution in human history with socialism becoming a truly global societal form.

Trotsky held to this radical perspective even as Stalin signed a commercial agreement with Hitler in February 1940, then seized Bessarabia and Bukovina from Romania, and annexed Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia. He clung to it as his own health deteriorated and, as he had long feared, Stalin’s assassins closed in on him.  At the end of February, Trotsky wrote a final testament, fearing death was near. “Life is beautiful,” he said. “Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full.” Three months later, radical evil appeared very much alive and on the move.

On May 1, a day long associated with the Left and labor militancy, 20,000 Mexican Communists marched in the capital and shouted: “Out with Trotsky!” Trotsky and Natalia had already assumed their lives were in jeopardy. With its electrified wires, alarms, and enforced doors, their house in Coyoácan looked more like a fortress than a home. As Trotsky tried from afar to keep pace with Hitler’s invasion of France and the Low Countries, launched on May 10, a plot to kill him took shape. It was led by the painter David Alfaro Siqueiros, once a friend of Rivera, but now a convinced Stalinist. On the night of May 23, Siqueiros’s men broke into the home and fired over 200 shots. Miraculously, Trotsky and Natalia survived. So did their grandson, Esteban Volkov, who had been living with them.
    
Trotsky proclaimed in defiance, “in the annals of history Stalin’s name will forever be recorded with the infamous mark of Cain.” When the May attempt failed, the GPU decided to go with Mercader. In August, after delays and missteps, he fulfilled his deadly mission. Among the papers next to where Trotsky struggled against his assassin was a long, unfinished manuscript, a biography of Stalin he penned to expose his enemy. The blood spilled in the study confirmed what was etched in ink on the book’s pages. Indeed, with Trotsky’s murder, Stalin demonstrated his most terrifying talent. He was a hangman whose noose could reach across oceans.
   
In retrospect, it is astonishing just how confident were Trotsky and his supporters (not least those in the United States such as James P. Cannon) in a coming proletarian revolution that would sweep away the Stalin regime. Trotsky’s expectation that World War II would lead to the toppling of Stalin and the restoration of a true workers’ state in the U.S.S.R. never, of course, materialized. In fact, the victory of the Red Army during the “Great Patriotic War” against the Axis states only solidified Stalin’s rule. For many, Marxism became irrevocably defined by and identified with Stalinism. Victory did not mean in this case, though, validity for the system Stalin molded. Trotsky’s critiques of Stalin the person and Stalinism the phenomenon remind us of that.

 

Wednesday, October 21, 2026

"When the U.S First Landed on the moon, How close were the Soviets?"

 Yep this was another Quora question and I shamelessly clipped it because it had infoo I never heard of before and I thought it was pretty neat.


Seventeen days before Apollo 11 landed, a loose metal fragment brought down a 3,000-ton Soviet moon rocket. It triggered one of the largest non-nuclear explosions in history.

This catastrophic failure on July 3, 1969, was the decisive blow to a secret crewed program that had made significant progress. The Soviet Union possessed much of the necessary spacecraft hardware for a human landing. They had designed the Soyuz 7K-LOK orbiter and constructed their own lunar lander, the Lunniy Korabl (LK). Unlike the two-person American Lunar Module, the LK was designed to carry a single cosmonaut to the surface. This hardware was not just theoretical; the Soviets had already built engineering models and flight units, eventually launching uncrewed LK landers into Earth orbit to verify the vehicle's systems.

An engineering test unit of the Soviet LK lunar lander, built in 1968, which was designed to carry a single cosmonaut to the lunar surface. Photo by Andrew Gray is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.

The bottleneck was the launch vehicle required to leave Earth orbit. To match the American Saturn V, Soviet engineers built the N1 rocket. While the Saturn V relied on five large engines on its first stage, the N1 used a ring of 30 smaller engines firing simultaneously. The plumbing required to synchronize and feed fuel to 30 engines created immense complexity. Lacking the budget for a ground test facility capable of firing the entire first stage at once, the Soviets were forced to test the complete system during live launches.

The first N1 rocket had already exploded 68 seconds into its flight in February 1969. During the second attempt in July, the loose fragment was ingested by an oxygen pump mere seconds after liftoff, automatically shutting down the engines. The fully fueled rocket fell back onto the pad, destroying the launch complex and ending any realistic chance of a crewed landing. "Here are the details of the N1 Rocket"

Still desperate to beat the Americans, the Soviets made one final play: a robotic sample return probe. On July 21, 1969, while Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin were still on the Moon, the Luna 15 probe crashed into a mountain just 500 miles away, definitively concluding the space race.

Tuesday, October 20, 2026

"How did most East Germans feel about being under Soviet rule? Did most eventually accept it and even came to believe that their system was better than West Germany's?"

 I picked this off "Quora", it was some tidbits I didn't know.  I did know about the removal of heavy industry to the USSR under Stalin's orders, this is part of the "reparations" and to punish the Germans for what they did to the "Rodina", that did cause heavy resentment, and the heavy Soviet response to the 1953 protest.  It did cause some pucker factors with the Berlin Brigade. especially after a few years earlier when Stalin tried to push the allies out of West Berlin.  The Soviets viewed the East Germans as their private playground back then, and the "Osties" had to endure a lot as an occupied people, far worse than the West did.   It did get a little better as time went on, but but the Soviets called East Germany the "Land of Milk and Chocolate".  For a conscript posting, it was one of the far better postings, better equipment, training, and the locals didn't complain.


East Germans never believed their Soviet-backed system was superior. After tanks crushed a 1953 uprising, they didn't accept the regime—they retreated into a secret double life to outlast it.

This survival mechanism is best understood through the concept of the Nischengesellschaft, or "niche society." In the years immediately following World War II, genuine acceptance was nearly impossible. The trauma of Soviet occupation—marked by mass rapes and the dismantling of East German industry for reparations—had already fostered deep resentment. The brutal suppression of the 1953 protests over production quotas simply cemented a lingering lesson: active resistance was futile, and Soviet rule was there to stay.

Once the Berlin Wall went up in 1961 and emigration became nearly impossible, East Germans had to adapt. People retreated from public political life into private "niches," such as weekend garden plots (Datsche) and tight-knit family circles, where they could speak freely without fear of the Stasi, the state security apparatus.

This is not to say there was zero genuine support. A minority of committed socialists believed in the state's official anti-fascist ideology. Others took pride in specific aspects of the German Democratic Republic, such as guaranteed employment, extensive child care, cheap housing, and the nation's outsized success in Olympic sports. These social safety nets provided a sense of security that some later missed after reunification.

However, the regime could never convince the public that its system was fundamentally better than the West, largely because of television. The majority of East Germans could receive West German broadcasts (Westfernsehen). Every evening, they watched Western news and entertainment, contrasting the colorful, consumer-rich society of the Federal Republic with their own gray, dilapidated cities and chronic shortages of basic goods like fresh fruit or modern cars.

When the Soviet Union's grip loosened under Mikhail Gorbachev in the late 1980s, the illusion of acceptance evaporated. Hundreds of thousands of East Germans took to the streets in the autumn of 1989, not to reform the socialist state, but to dismantle it.

More than 100,000 people gather in Leipzig on October 23, 1989, during the Monday demonstrations that precipitated the fall of the East German government. Photo by Friedrich Gahlbeck is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 de.

Monday, October 19, 2026

Monday Music "Ah Leah" by Donnie Iris

 


  This song is also loaded on my scheduler thingie.   

 I heard this song on the way to work this morning, the 80's channel on my Sirius/XM was playing the top 40 from February 10, 1981.  It was an interesting time for 80's music, there still was disco on the chart, a lot of what is called "Yacht Rock", Think Christopher Cross for example.    I couldn't get a whole lot of stuff on this video or the song.  That happens with older songs, before MTV became popular, a lot of groups didn't make music video's or explain what the song was about leaving people to make up their own reasons for the song....Well This is my opinion what prompted the song.   And remember what she looked like in the 3rd installment in the movie on Jabbah the Hutts Barge.   Remember this was the early 1980's.

"Change my Mind..."
"LeahIt's been a long, long timeYou're such a sightYou're looking better than a body has a right toDon't you know we're playing with the fireBut we can't stop this burning desireLeah..."
Beginning lyrics
to the song

"Ah! Leah!" is a song by Mark Avsec and American rock musician Donnie Iris from his 1980 album Back on the Streets. The song was released as a single in late 1980 and reached number 29 on the US Billboard Hot 100, 22 on the Cash Box Top 100, and 19 on the US Billboard Top Tracks chart. The song is widely considered to be Iris' signature song and was most popular in Canada, where it became a Top 10 hit. 

 
A full complement of eight musicians appeared in the early live performances of the song, including lead singer Iris, a drummer, three guitar players, one keyboardist and at least two backing vocalists, one female and one male.
The title of the song has been referenced in the form of puns on a few of Iris's later albums—the 2009 live album Ah! Live! and the 2010 Christmas album Ah! Leluiah!.

Back on the Streets is the debut album by American rock singer/guitarist Donnie Iris, released in 1980. The single "Ah! Leah!" was a hit for Iris, reaching #29 on the U.S. Billboard Hot 100 chart and #19 on the U.S. Billboard Top Tracks chart. 

Friday, October 16, 2026

"The New Luxury, Why Private Jet Providers are opening exclusive terminals"

 



I had snagged this article from "Aviation Week" and as I was reading it, I kept adding certain words like "TSA" and 3rd world or carnival cruise behavior at the airports where manners and high trust behavior was expected but now it is what I see when I go into a democrat run city.  I can understand why the well heeled individual would want to avoid "The Great Unwashed".  I loved the word like "Frictionless" basically meaning where the passenger ain't hassled by TSA and having to worry about their stuff getting either physically stolen by either TSA or another passenger or some scammer digically skimming their information.  So yeah I can understand the attraction.   Alas, I'm too cheap, even if I was "loaded" I don't know if I would do this to me being invisible is better than flashing the wealth.   Still to me it is a good business model and will fill a niche.


concept art of NetJets private terminal


With demand for private jet travel surging, providers such as NetJets, Flexjet and Magellan Jets are making multimillion-dollar investments in their own branded private terminals that mirror the premium service found onboard their aircraft.

At the same time, fixed-base operators (FBO) are investing in passenger lounges, crew rest areas and concierge services, transforming their private aviation facilities from simple refueling stops into luxury venues featuring white-glove amenities, such as hotel-inspired lounges, private meeting rooms, fully stocked bars, concierge services and other features.

For private jet providers, it is about controlling the journey from curb to cabin as they build networks defining their future. For customers, the services eliminate stress and provide peace of mind. For operators, the private terminals offer operational efficiencies—a critical factor, especially during peak travel seasons.

“What’s important is providing as much privacy and discretion as possible but as much of a friction-free environment as we possibly can,” Flexjet Global CEO Andrew Collins tells BCA. “We’re investing at this scale because our owners deserve a consistent, world-class experience no matter where they travel.”

Flexjet has been building up its footprint since opening its first facility in Naples, Florida, in 2016. The fractional ownership provider now operates branded terminals in six U.S. locations. Expansion plans are underway at five additional sites and across Europe— including a nearly 22,600-ft.2 European headquarters in Farnborough, England. Flexjet also partners with FBOs and airports in other locations. For example, it plans to open a private lounge in the main terminal at Milan Linate Airport in Italy. Flexjet makes its selections based on two criteria—it is either a popular traffic spot in a geographic region, or it is a strategic location for clients, Collins says.

At NetJets, the largest fractional ownership provider operates more than 10 exclusive-use private terminals in the U.S. alongside dedicated spaces at more than a dozen other terminals nationwide. Globally, the company maintains more than 50 locations, including 15 NetJets Service Hubs paired with private terminals. Projects are under development in Augusta, Georgia, and Austin, Texas, among other locations. It also is transforming its dedicated terminal at NetJets’ singe busiest airport in Teterboro, New Jersey.

In the days surrounding the annual Masters Tournament in Augusta this year, for example, NetJets operated more than 720 flights to and from the area, up 25% compared to a year ago, the company says.

“Private terminals offer several advantages,” NetJets officials say. Among them, the company says, are “greater privacy and discretion for owners; faster, more effortless arrivals and departures; direct access from vehicle to aircraft; reduced congestion and fewer touchpoints; enhanced operational efficiency and aircraft availability; and, in our exclusive-use terminals specifically, dedicated facilities designed around the NetJets travel experience, accessible only to our owners and their guests.”

two people sitting in chairs in Magellan Jets private terminal
Magellan Jets operates a dedicated private terminal at its headquarters in Laurence G. Hanscom Field near Boston. Credit: Magellan Jets

On a smaller scale, Magellan Jets, a private aviation company and broker offering on-demand charter, jet cards and other services, opened a dedicated private terminal in 2024 at Laurence G. Hanscom Field near Boston and has plans to grow elsewhere. Magellan also partners with other operators with terminals to create a consistent experience.

“It’s a differentiator for us,” says Anthony Tivnan, founder and president of Magellan Jets. “It’s a way for us to take away the tension and take away the anxiety and the stress from the second they step foot on the airfield.”

The investments follow concentrated, growing demand at high-traffic destinations.

Las Vegas exemplifies the trend, where flight activity for NetJets grew nearly 45% between 2022 and the end of 2025. Flexjet is also targeting Las Vegas—but the company notes that it is “interested in partnering with somebody preexisting there, knows the market, has the right real estate and is on the right side of the strip,” Collins says.

Private terminals differ from a typical FBO.

Unlike traditional FBOs, private terminals focus exclusively on client experience rather than fuel sales, eliminating the chaos clients face hunting for crews on high travel days like Dec. 26. “It’s chaos on some of those peak days,” Tivnan says.

Dual-Purpose Strategy

Private terminal investments offer operational advantages. NetJets and Flexjet each pair their facilities with maintenance and service capabilities to enhance fleet efficiency. Flexjet’s terminals include satellite maintenance hangars for climate-controlled overnight positioning and scheduled maintenance. NetJets employs a similar approach, pairing many of its terminals with service hubs that perform aircraft detailing, stocking and proactive maintenance at the same complex.

“Everything in our business, especially in the back half of the year, it’s just so important to have as much of your fleet available as possible,” Collins says. Flexjet operates 350-360 aircraft and aims to exceed 400 by 2027. The company saw a 20% increase in flying in the first half of 2026.

Jet Aviation FBO in Miami
Jet Aviation opened its 12th U.S. FBO at Miami-Opa Locka Executive Airport in July. Credit: Jet Aviation

Evolving Expectations

Client expectations are changing, driven by demographic shifts as the average age drops due in part to the transfer of generational wealth and wealth creation in artificial intelligence and technology.

“We’re seeing more people evolving around experiences as opposed to things and material things,” Collins says. Younger clients and others expect seamless technology integration, prompting Flexjet to equip its fleet with Starlink connectivity.

Magellan’s personalized service extends to unexpected details—one customer praised staff for greeting, walking and onboarding his dog, noting the difference from traditional FBOs where “passengers are not actually known.”

FlexJet terminal interior
Flexjet celebrated the grand opening of its new $34 million 22,600-ft.2 private terminal at Farnborough Airport in England in September. The terminal includes a Gulfstream G700 Fuselage Lounge, a full-size recreation of the G700 cabin. Credit: Flexjet

What’s Inside

Flexjet’s facilities feature familiar personnel, complimentary food and beverages, meeting spaces and conference rooms. Flexjet’s new Farnborough location includes a Gulfstream G700 Fuselage Lounge—a recreation of its flagship aircraft, an owners bar and lounge, bespoke sculpture, security screening and other amenities. It also includes a training center, control center and acts as Flexjet’s European headquarters. Its Scottsdale project, a $36 million investment, will feature a 9,000-ft.² terminal with first-of-its-kind private underground parking, a welcome feature in the Arizona heat.

NetJets’ terminals offer on-site personnel, premium interiors, direct ramp access and dedicated planeside parking.

Magellan Jets recently launched a greeting service where representatives meet clients at its terminal and targeted high-traffic FBOs.

“As much as we’re an aviation company, we’re a hospitality company,” says Miranda Hlaing, Magellan Jets director of integrated marketing. It is more than flying a client from Point A to Point B. “We really pride ourselves in offering an end-to-end experience,” Hlaing says. “The service starts before the flight ... We hope it feels a little bit like a safe sanctuary where we can provide, just like our flights, custom catering to our clients.”

FBOs and Upgrades

Major FBO chains are upgrading and adding facilities to meet rising demand, supported by a rise in demand and in high-net-worth travelers used to premium amenities.

Atlantic Aviation is investing $40 million in a four-story terminal renovation at Boca Raton, Florida. In July, Jet Aviation opened its 12th U.S. FBO at Miami-Opa Locka Executive Airport. “We continue to look at our sites and services to ensure we meet the changing requirements of our customers,” says David Best, Jet Aviation senior vice president of regional operations for the Americas.

Challenges

The biggest challenge is deciding how best to serve a given market, Collins says, including the size of space, delivering on expectations and whether to partner or invest alone in the next terminal.

“That’s probably the things that require the most thought,” he said.

Magellan’s Tivnan agrees.

It is a major investment in the brand and client experience, he says. “The investment is solely for what’s in the best interest of the client and how do we create that personalized service. Every journey is personal.”