3 ms·

Let's be clear, there was no private property at the time in the Soviet Union. Moreover, what was called "personal" property, was very limited. For instance, th

Let's be clear, there was no private property at the time in the Soviet Union. Moreover, what was called "personal" property, was very limited. For instance, the ownership of pretty much any gun was prohibited (maybe with the exception of hunting rifles). Therefore, the word "bought" is highly misleading. Even if she could buy a tank, let's do the numbers. Based on the following page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34 the tank cost would be at least 135,000 1943 rubbles. Making a comparison to M4 Sherman, which was about $45,000 1941 dollars, we will come to about 3 rubles to 1 dollar hypothetical exchange rate. Therefore the donation to mother-Russia of 50,000 1943-rubles is an equivalent of about $17,000 1945-dollars, or about $214,000 in 2017-dollars. Now we finally can understand what piece of KGB-knitted propaganda this article is. I lived during the soviet times, and the median salary was barely covering food and clothing. Even today, the median income in Russia is less than $1000 per month. Did she work all her adult life without spending anything? Please keep in mind that productivity today is much higher.

avodonosov 9y ago
> Let's be clear, there was no private property at the time in the Soviet Union You don't know what you are talking about. The same about the rest of your post. Do a 5 minutes research to verify the Oktyabrskaya's story.
- thrw_pa1 9y ago
  > You don't know what you are talking about. Yes, he does. There was no way to buy a tank for a Soviet citizen. There was a way for a citizen to "buy" (massive quotes) a tank for a government, but that would be a pure propaganda feat. > Do a 5 minutes research to verify the Oktyabrskaya's story. And let me guess: I need to use Soviet sources which are absolutely biased in describing WW2?
  - owebmaster 9y ago
    > And let me guess: I need to use Soviet sources which are absolutely biased in describing WW2? Talk about propaganda to me, please. Do you recommend me to watch some Hollywood movies to get the "real" picture?
    - thrw_pa1 9y ago
      Yes, please. They will hold more truth than Soviet sources.
deepsun 9y ago
Obviously, State Defense Committee subsidized the tank for her, "realizing the publicity opportunities", as Wikipedia says. So yes, that was propaganda, and the story is true at the same time.

avodonosov 9y ago

> Let's be clear, there was no private property at the time in the Soviet Union You don't know what you are talking about. The same about the rest of your post. Do a 5 minutes research to verify the Oktyabrskaya's story.

thrw_pa1 9y ago
> You don't know what you are talking about. Yes, he does. There was no way to buy a tank for a Soviet citizen. There was a way for a citizen to "buy" (massive quotes) a tank for a government, but that would be a pure propaganda feat. > Do a 5 minutes research to verify the Oktyabrskaya's story. And let me guess: I need to use Soviet sources which are absolutely biased in describing WW2?
- owebmaster 9y ago
  > And let me guess: I need to use Soviet sources which are absolutely biased in describing WW2? Talk about propaganda to me, please. Do you recommend me to watch some Hollywood movies to get the "real" picture?
  - thrw_pa1 9y ago
    Yes, please. They will hold more truth than Soviet sources.

deepsun 9y ago

Obviously, State Defense Committee subsidized the tank for her, "realizing the publicity opportunities", as Wikipedia says. So yes, that was propaganda, and the story is true at the same time.