4 ms·

> They did nothing and just ate through the resources until they were no more. Those resources they ate through -- when were they accumulated? I find it hard t

> They did nothing and just ate through the resources until they were no more. Those resources they ate through -- when were they accumulated? I find it hard to believe that they became a superpower by just coasting on the wealth that existed in 1917.

worik 6y ago
In 1917 they were in ruins. in 1940 they went toe to toe with the worlds greatest industrial super power (or second greatest - depending how you count) in war and won. The economic development achieved by the Soviet Union in the first half of its reign was incredible. They made the best rockets, fighter planes, super computers.... But they never made a TV with a remote control.
- baybal2 6y ago
  > The economic development achieved by the Soviet Union in the first half of its reign was incredible. That's a regurgitation of a great lie. Krusev indicated in his memoire that economic data of Stalin's years was defying kindergarden level arithmetics, was utter garbage, and he gave few convincing examples of that, and here, I would believe him. Union's economy saw few ups, and downs during its existence, and those under Stalin, and Breznev were not ups by any extend of imagination.
  - worik 6y ago
    The German army at the gates of Moscow, Stalingrad/Volgagrad, and Lenningrad/St Petersburg found it was no lie. Do not rely on state propaganda, look at the results
    - baybal2 6y ago
      German army mostly found that Union had more soldiers than they had bullets, and that wehrmacht got to Moscow on the fumes. The "massive industrial advantage" was nothing not to be expected from the most resource rich country on the planet. Yet, the country was, by all accounts, from both most staunch communist party sources, and contemporary anticommunists, completely incapable of running during the crisis, and "all in" strategy of manufacturing one gun, one tank, one shell, one plane in massive amounts was a result of desperation, not industrial might.
      - worik 6y ago
        Very odd. How is making more tanks, guns, and aeroplanes done on desperation and not industrial might? I think ideology has gotten in the way of reason!
    - hardlianotion 6y ago
      Up to 40% of the tanks that fought on the Russian side in these battles were supplied by the British. UK provided a huge amount of war material to the USSR that helped keep it in the war.
      - worik 6y ago
        I do not think that is true. Maybe 40% of the types of tank. Some facts from Wikipedia: At the opening of operation Barbarosa the Red Army had four to one advantage over the Nazis in tank numbers. By 1941 lend lease tanks were 6.5% of Soviet tanks, about a quarter of medium and heavy tanks. Where do you get "up to 40%" from? Even if true my point still stands. According t Alex Nove in 1900 there was not a metal lathe in all of Russia. They could de clinker locomotives, but not make a gear box. By 1941 they were out stripping the Germans. That is the greatest economic achievement of the twentieth century. (IMO the Bolsheviks were sadistic psychopaths, but credit where credit is due)
        baybal2 6y ago
        > According t Alex Nove in 1900 there was not a metal lathe in all of Russia. They could de clinker locomotives, but not make a gear box. By 1941 they were out stripping the Germans. Again, you are regurgitating a myth. I would not doubt the 4 to 1 outgunning of USSR vs. Germany. Indeed Union's army was incomparably materially superior due to decades long total dedication to military buildup, but that does not preclude the fact the industry was still barely going, and that this material advantage melted like butter within first months of war.
        worik 6y ago
        How about some evidence? "probably" does not cut it. The lie is the Soviets were bad economic managers. They pulled off the most incredible feat in industrialising their economy in less than fifty years, more liek twenty five useful years. The millions of starved peasants, slaughtered "class enemies", exiled dissidents.... They were there too. Not pretty, not moral, not desirable, but incredible achievement nonetheless. I am not sure, how in the context of such a system "efficiency" can be measured. But in raw capacity there has never been anything like it until the Chinese in the nineties and naughties with their own millions of starved peasants, slaughtered "class enemies", exiled dissidents....
- CamperBob2 6y ago
  in 1940 they went toe to toe with the worlds greatest industrial super power (or second greatest - depending how you count) in war and won. Yes, by throwing ten million of their own citizens at the problem. They won because Hitler ran out of bullets before Stalin ran out of targets.
  - f6v 6y ago
    And what was the alternative? The German’s objective was to literally clear the land out for German settlers. By killing everyone inhabiting those lands. For soviets it was a matter of giving at least some chance of survival to women and children they were trying to protect. Imagine all those soldiers who knew they had to sacrifice their lives. And you try to reduce their bravery to being “Stalin’s targets”.
    - ladyanita22 6y ago
      We're not talking about what should have been done, but at how efficient the USSR was. It. was. not at all.
      - f6v 6y ago
        I mean, how do you quantify that? I’d love to see the study measuring USSR efficiency.
        worik 6y ago
        They were incredibly efficient at big industry But never could make consumer goods. When the economy had to pivot to a consumer lead one, they found that all the economists with different ideas had been shot....
- ladyanita22 6y ago
  You seem to forget that oil became an increasingly important resource. And the USSR had a LOT of oil. Look at how Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Norway developed, and then look at the USSR.

worik 6y ago

In 1917 they were in ruins. in 1940 they went toe to toe with the worlds greatest industrial super power (or second greatest - depending how you count) in war and won. The economic development achieved by the Soviet Union in the first half of its reign was incredible. They made the best rockets, fighter planes, super computers.... But they never made a TV with a remote control.

baybal2 6y ago
> The economic development achieved by the Soviet Union in the first half of its reign was incredible. That's a regurgitation of a great lie. Krusev indicated in his memoire that economic data of Stalin's years was defying kindergarden level arithmetics, was utter garbage, and he gave few convincing examples of that, and here, I would believe him. Union's economy saw few ups, and downs during its existence, and those under Stalin, and Breznev were not ups by any extend of imagination.
- worik 6y ago
  The German army at the gates of Moscow, Stalingrad/Volgagrad, and Lenningrad/St Petersburg found it was no lie. Do not rely on state propaganda, look at the results
  - baybal2 6y ago
    German army mostly found that Union had more soldiers than they had bullets, and that wehrmacht got to Moscow on the fumes. The "massive industrial advantage" was nothing not to be expected from the most resource rich country on the planet. Yet, the country was, by all accounts, from both most staunch communist party sources, and contemporary anticommunists, completely incapable of running during the crisis, and "all in" strategy of manufacturing one gun, one tank, one shell, one plane in massive amounts was a result of desperation, not industrial might.
    - worik 6y ago
      Very odd. How is making more tanks, guns, and aeroplanes done on desperation and not industrial might? I think ideology has gotten in the way of reason!
  - hardlianotion 6y ago
    Up to 40% of the tanks that fought on the Russian side in these battles were supplied by the British. UK provided a huge amount of war material to the USSR that helped keep it in the war.
    - worik 6y ago
      I do not think that is true. Maybe 40% of the types of tank. Some facts from Wikipedia: At the opening of operation Barbarosa the Red Army had four to one advantage over the Nazis in tank numbers. By 1941 lend lease tanks were 6.5% of Soviet tanks, about a quarter of medium and heavy tanks. Where do you get "up to 40%" from? Even if true my point still stands. According t Alex Nove in 1900 there was not a metal lathe in all of Russia. They could de clinker locomotives, but not make a gear box. By 1941 they were out stripping the Germans. That is the greatest economic achievement of the twentieth century. (IMO the Bolsheviks were sadistic psychopaths, but credit where credit is due)
      - baybal2 6y ago
        > According t Alex Nove in 1900 there was not a metal lathe in all of Russia. They could de clinker locomotives, but not make a gear box. By 1941 they were out stripping the Germans. Again, you are regurgitating a myth. I would not doubt the 4 to 1 outgunning of USSR vs. Germany. Indeed Union's army was incomparably materially superior due to decades long total dedication to military buildup, but that does not preclude the fact the industry was still barely going, and that this material advantage melted like butter within first months of war.
        worik 6y ago
        How about some evidence? "probably" does not cut it. The lie is the Soviets were bad economic managers. They pulled off the most incredible feat in industrialising their economy in less than fifty years, more liek twenty five useful years. The millions of starved peasants, slaughtered "class enemies", exiled dissidents.... They were there too. Not pretty, not moral, not desirable, but incredible achievement nonetheless. I am not sure, how in the context of such a system "efficiency" can be measured. But in raw capacity there has never been anything like it until the Chinese in the nineties and naughties with their own millions of starved peasants, slaughtered "class enemies", exiled dissidents....
CamperBob2 6y ago
in 1940 they went toe to toe with the worlds greatest industrial super power (or second greatest - depending how you count) in war and won. Yes, by throwing ten million of their own citizens at the problem. They won because Hitler ran out of bullets before Stalin ran out of targets.
- f6v 6y ago
  And what was the alternative? The German’s objective was to literally clear the land out for German settlers. By killing everyone inhabiting those lands. For soviets it was a matter of giving at least some chance of survival to women and children they were trying to protect. Imagine all those soldiers who knew they had to sacrifice their lives. And you try to reduce their bravery to being “Stalin’s targets”.
  - ladyanita22 6y ago
    We're not talking about what should have been done, but at how efficient the USSR was. It. was. not at all.
    - f6v 6y ago
      I mean, how do you quantify that? I’d love to see the study measuring USSR efficiency.
      - worik 6y ago
        They were incredibly efficient at big industry But never could make consumer goods. When the economy had to pivot to a consumer lead one, they found that all the economists with different ideas had been shot....
ladyanita22 6y ago
You seem to forget that oil became an increasingly important resource. And the USSR had a LOT of oil. Look at how Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Norway developed, and then look at the USSR.