5 ms·

The West contributed more than you think. The famines in the USSR were partially caused by US trade embargoes on the USSR preventing them from buying modern fa

The West contributed more than you think. The famines in the USSR were partially caused by US trade embargoes on the USSR preventing them from buying modern farming equipment and grain supplies. That's not to say the USSR itself bore no blame. They definitely did, but the US did everything it could to ensure that system would collapse.

bubblewrap 7y ago
That doesn't sound very convincing - after all people didn't starve before Russia had modern farming equipment. Something else must have changed. The invention of modern farming equipment is unlikely to have caused existing farming methods to become less effective. Also, it seems unlikely to me that Soviet planning relied on buying farming equipment from the USA. Weren't they rather too proud for that? Did the USA also deny to sell them food? Edit, since YC doesn't allow me to write more comments: yeah ok maybe people were starving before that, the point was, the US did not cause that. Maybe their superior technology could have helped, but that is not the same as blaming them for causing the famine. If the US hadn't invented those machines, Russians would have starved all the same, and there would have been no US to blame for it. That is what I meant. As for trade embargoes, I am not a fan. But I can also not blame the US for wanting to curb the spread of communism, which is decidedly not a harmless ideology. So I guess trade embargoes tend to be a first step, preferred to actual war. Also not convinced that communists would have loved to trade. Wasn't everything Western frowned upon? You could get into jail for listening to Jazz music? That doesn't sound very open minded to me, and not a good basis for trade. I think they wanted to show that they could do better than capitalism, and to rely on capitalist products would have been an admittance of failure.
- ionised 7y ago
  > after all people didn't starve before Russia had modern farming equipment. Yes, they did. You don't know your history or are deliberately ignoring parts of it. Russia and the Russian Empire was always struggling to produce enough food due to the nature of its landscape. Barely any of it is suitable for farming. This is the main reason Russia always tries to expand westward (that and its lack of warm-water ports for trade). It's simple self-preservation. I'm not excusing some or all of the horrible shit they've done to pursue this goal either, but it is understandable. The US did exactly the same when it swarmed over North America wiping out or subjugating every Native tribe it encountered. The arable land in Russia is incredibly slim and was mostly situated on its western countries bordering Europe. Most of Russia and many of its satellite states during the USSR is and were unsuitable for farming. On the subject of US/NATO trade embargoes, the US did a similar thing to Cuba and some South American states for decades for no good reason other than 'communism bad!'. Trade embargoes used as a tool to fight an ideological war by weakening the target country's economy, thereby discrediting its economic model by artificially limiting supplies of grain and efficient farming equipment. All they ended up doing was hurting the regular people who probably couldn't have cared less what system they were under. They were too busy trying to live their lives. There was nothing in the Soviet system that prevented it from trading with the west from an ideological standpoint either. The refusal to trade came from the west; and the only reason trade with the west was hindered was because the US wanted to fight an ideological war by undermining its enemies economies. The reality is, the so-called free-market champion that is the United States engages in market distortion to eliminate rivals all the time. The best example recently was the Iraq War. That was a response to Saddam Hussein's plan to stop trading oil in dollars and switch to Euros instead. I feel like you are deliberately ignoring information that doesn't satisfy your world view. I cannot help you with that. Some more info on Russia's motives: https://www.businessinsider.com/10-maps-that-explain-russias-strategy-2016-1?r=US&IR=T#-9 https://www.businessinsider.com/10-maps-that-explain-russias...
  - kmlx 7y ago
    “There was nothing in the Soviet system that prevented it from trading with the west from an ideological standpoint either.” this is so false it’s crazy.
    - ionised 7y ago
      You're breaking the site guidelines.
      - kmlx 7y ago
        you are promoting falsehoods, and now accuse me of breaking site guidelines. i suggest you read a bit about what you’re writing about. wikipedia is a good start, but it’s just a start: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_trade_of_the_Soviet_Union https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_trade_of_the_Soviet_...
        ionised 7y ago
        Thankfully, I don't get my information on world history from Wikipedia. I read history textbooks written by actual historians and on this particular subject, I speak with people who lived through it on a regular basis and spend time in former Soviet states; they are my extended family through my partner. You, clearly, have spent no time in any former soviet states and I'd wager you've never spoken to an Eastern European native. I have no wish to continue talking to someone who can't post anything substantial.
kmlx 7y ago
> The famines in the USSR were partially caused by US trade embargoes on the USSR preventing them from buying modern farming equipment and grain supplies what are writing about? pre 1947? the USSR wanted nothing from the “filthy capitalists”. “There were no major famines after 1947. The drought of 1963 caused panic slaughtering of livestock, but there was no risk of famine. After that year the Soviet Union started importing feed grains for its livestock in increasing amounts.”
kmlx 7y ago
> but the US did everything it could to ensure that system would collapse. a system that killed as many people as the nazis deserved a lot more than just a revolution and some oligarchs. i don’t think you truly understand the long term damage the soviets did in eastern europe. it’s been literally apocalyptic. and the effects are still felt today.
- ionised 7y ago
  My partner grew up in Poland and Ukraine and lived there through the collapse of the USSR and I've spent plenty of time in both countries. Believe, me I know how much they fucked up. That doesn't change the fact the US engaged in market distortion and economic coercion on ideological grounds. If that fact makes you uncomfortable, I suggest you inform your representatives, because they are still doing it to weaker nations that don't dance to the American tune today. It might surprise you to hear as well that there are quite a few things people in Eastern Europe miss from the Soviet days. The heavy focus on community, childcare, free healthcare and and quality education in the trades and higher professions for example. My partner and her family hate how individualistic and self-serving people can be in the west. There's basically no solidarity that compares to what they had in that system. That doesn't mean they want to go back to it, it just means there are lessons that we can learn from that system to improve our own. Make no mistake, the USSR did some things right. It's mistakes do not erase them. Don't hold them to a standard you are not willing to hold your own country to, because the failings of capitalism and the lives lost due to those failings each year are legion. To think otherwise is nothing short of ideological fundamentalism. Posting something more substantial than "they deserved it" would be appreciated. Otherwise don't bother.
  - bubblewrap 7y ago
    "there are quite a few things people in Eastern Europe miss from the Soviet days." The people who were lucky not to end up in jail, Gulags, banned from good jobs or made to work in the coal mines, you mean. Who were lucky to be allowed to go to university and take on an interesting job. Survivor bias might play a huge part here. Of course there were people who benefited from the system. You mention "quality education in the trades and higher professions for example." - what percentage of the population got to enjoy that? Community - as long as you didn't dissent, I guess? What if you didn't approve of everything the government did? Then community turned into people spying to you and ratting you out to the secret police? Childcare and healthcare are available in non-communist countries, too. Besides, childcare meant being forced to give up your children at three months, so that you could go back to working and doing your part for the common good. "the USSR did some things right." Can you give some specific examples?
Sommer_Son 7y ago
Famines in USSR were caused by Soviet politics. Period. US did sent major aid for Famine in '20s, but famines in 30's and 40's were covered up by Moscow so nobody knew about them for a while.

bubblewrap 7y ago

That doesn't sound very convincing - after all people didn't starve before Russia had modern farming equipment. Something else must have changed. The invention of modern farming equipment is unlikely to have caused existing farming methods to become less effective. Also, it seems unlikely to me that Soviet planning relied on buying farming equipment from the USA. Weren't they rather too proud for that? Did the USA also deny to sell them food? Edit, since YC doesn't allow me to write more comments: yeah ok maybe people were starving before that, the point was, the US did not cause that. Maybe their superior technology could have helped, but that is not the same as blaming them for causing the famine. If the US hadn't invented those machines, Russians would have starved all the same, and there would have been no US to blame for it. That is what I meant. As for trade embargoes, I am not a fan. But I can also not blame the US for wanting to curb the spread of communism, which is decidedly not a harmless ideology. So I guess trade embargoes tend to be a first step, preferred to actual war. Also not convinced that communists would have loved to trade. Wasn't everything Western frowned upon? You could get into jail for listening to Jazz music? That doesn't sound very open minded to me, and not a good basis for trade. I think they wanted to show that they could do better than capitalism, and to rely on capitalist products would have been an admittance of failure.

ionised 7y ago
> after all people didn't starve before Russia had modern farming equipment. Yes, they did. You don't know your history or are deliberately ignoring parts of it. Russia and the Russian Empire was always struggling to produce enough food due to the nature of its landscape. Barely any of it is suitable for farming. This is the main reason Russia always tries to expand westward (that and its lack of warm-water ports for trade). It's simple self-preservation. I'm not excusing some or all of the horrible shit they've done to pursue this goal either, but it is understandable. The US did exactly the same when it swarmed over North America wiping out or subjugating every Native tribe it encountered. The arable land in Russia is incredibly slim and was mostly situated on its western countries bordering Europe. Most of Russia and many of its satellite states during the USSR is and were unsuitable for farming. On the subject of US/NATO trade embargoes, the US did a similar thing to Cuba and some South American states for decades for no good reason other than 'communism bad!'. Trade embargoes used as a tool to fight an ideological war by weakening the target country's economy, thereby discrediting its economic model by artificially limiting supplies of grain and efficient farming equipment. All they ended up doing was hurting the regular people who probably couldn't have cared less what system they were under. They were too busy trying to live their lives. There was nothing in the Soviet system that prevented it from trading with the west from an ideological standpoint either. The refusal to trade came from the west; and the only reason trade with the west was hindered was because the US wanted to fight an ideological war by undermining its enemies economies. The reality is, the so-called free-market champion that is the United States engages in market distortion to eliminate rivals all the time. The best example recently was the Iraq War. That was a response to Saddam Hussein's plan to stop trading oil in dollars and switch to Euros instead. I feel like you are deliberately ignoring information that doesn't satisfy your world view. I cannot help you with that. Some more info on Russia's motives: https://www.businessinsider.com/10-maps-that-explain-russias-strategy-2016-1?r=US&IR=T#-9 https://www.businessinsider.com/10-maps-that-explain-russias...
- kmlx 7y ago
  “There was nothing in the Soviet system that prevented it from trading with the west from an ideological standpoint either.” this is so false it’s crazy.
  - ionised 7y ago
    You're breaking the site guidelines.
    - kmlx 7y ago
      you are promoting falsehoods, and now accuse me of breaking site guidelines. i suggest you read a bit about what you’re writing about. wikipedia is a good start, but it’s just a start: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_trade_of_the_Soviet_Union https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_trade_of_the_Soviet_...
      - ionised 7y ago
        Thankfully, I don't get my information on world history from Wikipedia. I read history textbooks written by actual historians and on this particular subject, I speak with people who lived through it on a regular basis and spend time in former Soviet states; they are my extended family through my partner. You, clearly, have spent no time in any former soviet states and I'd wager you've never spoken to an Eastern European native. I have no wish to continue talking to someone who can't post anything substantial.

kmlx 7y ago

> The famines in the USSR were partially caused by US trade embargoes on the USSR preventing them from buying modern farming equipment and grain supplies what are writing about? pre 1947? the USSR wanted nothing from the “filthy capitalists”. “There were no major famines after 1947. The drought of 1963 caused panic slaughtering of livestock, but there was no risk of famine. After that year the Soviet Union started importing feed grains for its livestock in increasing amounts.”

kmlx 7y ago

> but the US did everything it could to ensure that system would collapse. a system that killed as many people as the nazis deserved a lot more than just a revolution and some oligarchs. i don’t think you truly understand the long term damage the soviets did in eastern europe. it’s been literally apocalyptic. and the effects are still felt today.

ionised 7y ago
My partner grew up in Poland and Ukraine and lived there through the collapse of the USSR and I've spent plenty of time in both countries. Believe, me I know how much they fucked up. That doesn't change the fact the US engaged in market distortion and economic coercion on ideological grounds. If that fact makes you uncomfortable, I suggest you inform your representatives, because they are still doing it to weaker nations that don't dance to the American tune today. It might surprise you to hear as well that there are quite a few things people in Eastern Europe miss from the Soviet days. The heavy focus on community, childcare, free healthcare and and quality education in the trades and higher professions for example. My partner and her family hate how individualistic and self-serving people can be in the west. There's basically no solidarity that compares to what they had in that system. That doesn't mean they want to go back to it, it just means there are lessons that we can learn from that system to improve our own. Make no mistake, the USSR did some things right. It's mistakes do not erase them. Don't hold them to a standard you are not willing to hold your own country to, because the failings of capitalism and the lives lost due to those failings each year are legion. To think otherwise is nothing short of ideological fundamentalism. Posting something more substantial than "they deserved it" would be appreciated. Otherwise don't bother.
- bubblewrap 7y ago
  "there are quite a few things people in Eastern Europe miss from the Soviet days." The people who were lucky not to end up in jail, Gulags, banned from good jobs or made to work in the coal mines, you mean. Who were lucky to be allowed to go to university and take on an interesting job. Survivor bias might play a huge part here. Of course there were people who benefited from the system. You mention "quality education in the trades and higher professions for example." - what percentage of the population got to enjoy that? Community - as long as you didn't dissent, I guess? What if you didn't approve of everything the government did? Then community turned into people spying to you and ratting you out to the secret police? Childcare and healthcare are available in non-communist countries, too. Besides, childcare meant being forced to give up your children at three months, so that you could go back to working and doing your part for the common good. "the USSR did some things right." Can you give some specific examples?

Sommer_Son 7y ago

Famines in USSR were caused by Soviet politics. Period. US did sent major aid for Famine in '20s, but famines in 30's and 40's were covered up by Moscow so nobody knew about them for a while.