The real reason for the collapse of the Soviet Union: inefficency/Cold War/ideology?? (army, USA)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not sure about that one; I've noticed that Churchill for example was not all that cheerful on this matter on his memoirs, and American loans to German military machine is not widely discussed as you can understand, since it doesn't look too good. On top of that, anti-American sentiment is sure growing in Europe - it's noticeable even in international sections on this forum. Why is that, I wonder?
It's still weaker than anti-Russian sentiment. Why is that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure
And the allies were considering the possibility of attacking Russia BEFORE any act of aggression towards the West. So what does it tell you about the state of affairs between Russia and the West back in those times?
Russia, even before the end of war, before 1945, renegged on its agreements with the allies and installed communist puppet regimes in all Central European countries under its control. It also started massive repressions against the patriots there. Were you not aware of this? Do you think this was anything that act of agression against the Allies?
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure
I am talking about the ideas behind the social structure of Russian "mir", the way they lived for centuries. Collecting and redistributing the goods among the villagers, Russians were originally communists in their nature, long before Marx told them anything. It's in their blood and veins.
Spare me the stories about ancient Russians and show me Russian democratic traditions in the past 500 years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure
That's why Russia is the European country with original left train of thought, unlike the most of Europe.
Are you for real? What are Russian experiences that can be compared to French Revolution or British Magna Carta?
In 1914 Russia was an absolute monarchy, centuries behind the countrries of Western Europe with respect to social development. You live in delusions, erasure...
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure
As I've already said earlier, it's not a "competitor" in a true sense of the word; since this "competitor" is nothing else but Frankenstein creation of American corporations.
Those evil Americans, they even created the might of Chinese economy to the enjoyment of the Chinese themlseves. LOL. Chinese economy is not controlled from Washinhton or New York although many would like it this way. You operating in cliches and half-truths.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure
What "the same"? If you think that "hundreds of other nations" are doing much better with Russia being gone, go and visit Central Asia and see how they fair in their newly-found paradise.
Or check out what bloody mess became of Caucasus without their oppressive captors.
Georgia with their proud heritage suffocated by Russians? But without Russia their "proud heritage" would have been long gone, because as Christian nation they would have been raped by Ottomans and gulped up by Islam long time ago. Armenia barely survived this fate with Russia's help, and for Georgia there would have been no more claims for "European connection" through that Christian culture of theirs, if not for barbaric Russia. There is more to the story than meets the eye, particularly if to take in consideration that none of the "natives" were even placed in reservations as somewhere else, so don't paint everything with the same brush, as convenient as you find it. That's number one, and number two - Finns, Georgians, Poles, Ukrainians - all of them survived and retained their ethnic identity under Russian domination, however Western drive "Nach Osten" starting with the Teutonic Order had one purpose in mind - the removal of that stubborn nation that was thorn in their sight, because being thorn in Western sight IS big part of Russian identity. As the saying goes "trust but verify," in the same manner Russia was meant to keep the West in check, as much as the West indeed was keeping Russia in check.
Poles, Czechs, Lithuanians or Hungarians have always been a part of the Western Civilization are now are a part of the European Union.... We can clearly see their choice - they don't seem to seek Russian protection?
As a matter of fact they seek American protection against Russia.... What are you talking about???
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure
Because while the scary boogie-man Soviet Union was out there, the upper class in the West was far more generous with its lower class; welfare check? not a problem, SSI? - by all means, and sure enough green light to Unions and their activities. It's better to negotiate and cave in, showing the "better, gentler side of capitalism," than to end up losing everything.
But lo and behold, after the fall of the Soviet Union the welfare reforms, the "tightening of the belt" came in; and after that - "austerity," the fast disintegration of middle class and chocking power of corporations everywhere. You think coincidence? Think twice.
But the Soviet Union, sorry Russia, and Communist China is still there?
What has changed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure
Again you are lumping everything together and your slanted way of thinking makes you to arrive to wrong conclusions as usual.
Russia was never supposed to be "European mainstream," because it was the offshoot of European thought extended to a relatively new nation with its own particular qualities, and its own heredity. Therefore it's only natural that in many ways Russia felt foreign and unfamiliar to old, small European family, however classical Russian art, philosophy, literature and science were undeniably European in its nature and because you are obviously missing the whole cultural layer unifying the two of them, you are missing the essence of connection between Russia and Europe.
I do miss it: for the past 60 years and until now, Europe required American protection from... Russia. What kind of conncetion are talking here?
Russians still need visas to even visit European Union, Americans do not.
Does that tell you something or not? LOL I don't think you are welcomed in Europe at all...
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure
The way you logically built the second part of your statement is faulty again; Soviet Union was relevant only for seventy years or so out of 1,000 years of Russian history, and during this history Europe initially didn't have any "strong democratic traditions" that you are trying to shove in every part of conversation; in fact Europe used to be every bit as absolutist and conservative as Russia, with its own monarchs, empires, revolutions and oppressive states ( not to mention inquisition,) and it was the Age of Enlightenment when Europe and Russia really parted their ways in this respect, with democracy paving its way in Europe and with Russia clinging to its old absolutist ways. So if I straighten out you faulty logic, then you can probably see the connection better, and your initial "wow-wow" becomes irrelevant.
Yes, it parted way and while Europe had Magna Carta and French Revolution you had nothing of that.
At the beginning of the first war none of the monarchies involved were as absolutist as Russian one. Russia has always based its politics on the Bisantine tradition or "samodherzhavie" while Europe has much diferent traditions. That was my point. Thank you for agreeing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure
Let's go again over it again, slowly ( although it really becomes tiresome to comment on your obvious blunders.)
Let's separate again what you are ( once again ) lumping up together and where exactly you are making a mistake.
You can't put North Korea and Soviet Union in one sentence in this context, because as we all know the third world countries can be as "technologically advanced" as the first world countries allow them to be, and that means that North Korea received its nuclear reactor from Russia and the rest ( whatever was necessary for development of nuclear weapon) from Pakistan, which in its turn was supplied with it by the US. That took place in the 90ies, and this process hypothetically could have been controlled, had the US not supplied Pakistan with the know-how.
In case of Russia however the US couldn't really control anything, because
unlike the third world countries, Russia could develop her own nuclear weapons. Why? Because Russia belongs to the same European family of culture and science, in spite of certain differences with "main stream" Europe.
There is nothing logical about your conclusions, you are simply repeating the same old Soviet propganda stories. Very quick: Russians simply stole nuclear technology from the US. Russian are not a part of European family. Most of this century Europe need protection from Russia and even today require Russians to apply for visas to even visit European Union countries.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure
So now when we are clear on that, we can proceed to the next logical conclusion, why it was essential for the US to eliminate Russia as potential competitor once and for all, when the US saw its chance. It was not because "Russia couldn't produce any good machinery cars or computers" comparably to the US, but precisely because it was capable of producing the kind of military technology that mattered in geopolitical struggle, and because it was a country that clearly pursued its own geopolitical interests and politics, independently from the US.
I have no idea what you are talking about. Yes, Soviet Union pursued its own interests, yes Soviet Union had some of the largest armies in the world. So does North Korea. In the same time Soviet Russia became incredible retarded with rescpect to electronics or computer technologies, technologies that pushed the West into XXI century and global economy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure
I don' think that Russia was ever meant to be in European Union; it's a separate entity and always meant to be, in the same manner probably as the United states were never meant to be part of European Union, in spite of the fact that America was founded by Europeans. The big proponent of of "European unification" is actually no one else but Putin himself. So far Europeans are wise enough to keep him at arm's lenght, however this rejection is putting yet a new spin on events.
Nobody wants Russia in EU. Different traditions, diffrent size. Can't happen
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure
However in the reality Russians were picking and choosing the best pieces of European culture, that they saw fit for their own likes and needs; be that Italian school of painting, French ballet or German system of education. Scandinavian countries, Holland and Germany initially were Peter's first picks, but European influence didn't stop there. The only country whose culture affected Russians the least was probably England, and that's how it was suposed to be, since English national character and Russian national character are probably lying on the opposite sides of a specter when it comes to European family, as much as their respective languages.
I hope this helps your education, and while I am at that, why don't I re-post these links, that you would see the classics of Russian culture; expand your horizons on what European art can offer.
Absolutely. Russia has a great culture. Terrible what Communist did to Russian culture. Russia however never resembled any European country.
Diferent Byzantine traditions.
Germany and France benefitted from the Marshall Plan, Stalin turned it down. Russia also had to maintain a military, while Germany and Japan didn't. Forced collectivization, and a leader who cannibalized his own people, sending them to forced labor camps didn't help build a strong economy for Russia, either, though a great leap forward was made in heavy industry, in spite of everything. I wonder how well the US would have bounced back from ruin with no outside aid if it had been invaded and had major cities bombed out, and lost a large percentage of its male population.
I can't believe this thread is still lurching and staggering forward.
Nobody forced Stalin to sign Ribbentropp-Molotov and invade Europe in 1939... Soviet Union was not a victim of WWII, it started it...
Ha ha ha. There was a progess in Russia between 1945 and 1980 but nowhere near the progress experienced by Germany, France or Japan during the same time. Soviet economy, like any other economy not based on free market was wasteful and inefficient.
In 1945 half of USSR consisted of very undeveloped 3rd world nations, and another half lied in ruins. Not even the kind of ruins Europe was in - you couldn't go to bar or a barber... because virtually all people, including kids, worked for war effort. It was a total Total War, and it resulted in total devastation. Luxuries of the time included a loaf of bread, and a can of American stewed meat.
Dare to name any other country in such position?
But almost overnight the "wasteful and inefficient" economy had turned this:
into this:
While spending great fortunes aiding friends and allies, and maintaining this:
Quote:
Even today Italy has higher GDP than Russia
Mr Goebbels-wannabe, you forgot one of the most important things - for such propaganda to work, there should be NO opponent present. Because it can be broken by a simple fact or two, or even by using reversed Goebbels-style BS:
GDP:
Italy - 1,219,000,000,000
Russia - 54,586,000,000,000
What kind of seed will be planted inside folks, who read your propaganda and my response? That Russia is dirt poor? Nope - it will be "Russia is richer than some of the nicest countries". Just a few keystrokes, and your anti-Russian propaganda was turned into a pro-Russian one.
There is a reason, why Washington went great lengths to avoid Americans knowing the truth about "communism".
Goebbels-style propaganda is extremely effective ONLY when there is nothing else.
Quote:
Nobody forced Stalin to sign Ribbentropp-Molotov and invade Europe in 1939...
Stalin invaded territories that were taken from Russia just years before that. There was no aggression in his actions.
Quote:
Soviet Union was not a victim of WWII, it started it...
Aint gonna work, Goebbels. It won't be too much of the exagerration to say that WW2 was started to destroy USSR.
I've heard about it - I'm pretty sure there were some strings attached?
Marshal's Plan was anti-communist and couldn't possibly aid USSR. Stalin refused to join the Plan (i.e. to provide aid to European countries), because it would be simply ridiculous, as it was primarily a weapon against USSR.
Mr Goebbels-wannabe, you forgot one of the most important things - for such propaganda to work, there should be NO opponent present. Because it can be broken by a simple fact or two, or even by using reversed Goebbels-style BS:
GDP:
Italy - 1,219,000,000,000
Russia - 54,586,000,000,000
Nice. What is it, number of stray cats in Russia? Russia's GDP in 2011 was $1.8T.
Where's your data from? Pravda? Lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by russiaonline
What kind of seed will be planted inside folks, who read your propaganda and my response? That Russia is dirt poor? Nope - it will be "Russia is richer than some of the nicest countries". Just a few keystrokes, and your anti-Russian propaganda was turned into a pro-Russian one.
Russia is dirt poor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by russiaonline
There is a reason, why Washington went great lengths to avoid Americans knowing the truth about "communism".
What truths? Lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by russiaonline
Stalin invaded territories that were taken from Russia just years before that. There was no aggression in his actions.
.
Sure. Poland has always been a part of Russia. Rotfl.
Marshal's Plan was anti-communist and couldn't possibly aid USSR. Stalin refused to join the Plan (i.e. to provide aid to European countries), because it would be simply ridiculous, as it was primarily a weapon against USSR.
Stalin wanted Central European countries to have puppet Communist governments. It took these countries over 50 years to become free.
None of them wants to have anythingbto do with Russia today ROTFL
In 1945 half of USSR consisted of very undeveloped 3rd world nations, and another half lied in ruins. Not even the kind of ruins Europe was in - you couldn't go to bar or a barber... because virtually all people, including kids, worked for war effort. It was a total Total War, and it resulted in total devastation. Luxuries of the time included a loaf of bread, and a can of American stewed meat.
Dare to name any other country in such position?
But almost overnight the "wasteful and inefficient" economy had turned this:
into this:
While spending great fortunes aiding friends and allies, and maintaining this:
Mr Goebbels-wannabe, you forgot one of the most important things - for such propaganda to work, there should be NO opponent present. Because it can be broken by a simple fact or two, or even by using reversed Goebbels-style BS:
GDP:
Italy - 1,219,000,000,000
Russia - 54,586,000,000,000
What kind of seed will be planted inside folks, who read your propaganda and my response? That Russia is dirt poor? Nope - it will be "Russia is richer than some of the nicest countries". Just a few keystrokes, and your anti-Russian propaganda was turned into a pro-Russian one.
There is a reason, why Washington went great lengths to avoid Americans knowing the truth about "communism".
Goebbels-style propaganda is extremely effective ONLY when there is nothing else.
Stalin invaded territories that were taken from Russia just years before that. There was no aggression in his actions.
Aint gonna work, Goebbels. It won't be too much of the exagerration to say that WW2 was started to destroy USSR.
No, Comrade, Russia started the war together with Germany by invading Poland. Ever heard of Ribbentrop-Molotov pact?
Marshal's Plan was anti-communist and couldn't possibly aid USSR. Stalin refused to join the Plan (i.e. to provide aid to European countries), because it would be simply ridiculous, as it was primarily a weapon against USSR.
It was intended as a weapon against the USSR but the Americans forgot to attach strings to it.
Indeed, Stalin forcing the Eastern Bloc not to accept Marshall Aid was a crucial mistake that allowed Western Europe to pull ahead of Eastern Europe permanently. Without accepting Marshall Aid, it's remarkable that the Eastern Bloc was able to rebound as well as it did -- but it could never quite compete with the West after that. That made it look like Capitalism was what was helping the West recover so quickly, when really we don't know if it truly was Capitalism or Marshall Aid that helped the West pull ahead.
I think you do a disservice to your own arguments by not admitting that the refusal of Marshall Aid was a tactical error.
It was intended as a weapon against the USSR but the Americans forgot to attach strings to it.
Right. So they didn't forget to attach strings in Europe ( ever heard of Truman's doctrine?) but they somehow miraculously have forgotten to attach them in case with the USSR. Funny, really...
"The use of Marshall aid to pacify the working class was quite explicit. Following the announcement of the Marshall Plan, Communist Party members were excluded from the government in both Italy and France. The World Bank announced a loan to France a few hours after the sacking of the CP members from Cabinet in May 1947, making it crystal clear that Europe had to choose between having Communists in the government or receiving Marshall Aid"
"The US approached the problem of Germany in the same way: 'the political direction which 66 million Germans went might have a decisive effect on European future' said US State Department official in Germany Robert Murphy. British Labour Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin was told in no uncertain terms that if Britain wanted Marshall Aid, then he should back off with his ideas of “socialism” for Germany. In fact the entire political system in Germany was reconstructed according to US requirements. In June 1947, the Military Governor of the British occupation zone, General Robertson, established the German Zonal Trade Union Federation, and British trade union officials assisted in organising sixteen unions."
"In June, 1947, Truman and his new Secretary of State, George Marshall, began pushing what was called the European Recovery Program, which would become known as the Marshall Plan. The purpose of the plan was to create economic cooperation among the states of Europe and to stimulate economic growth in Europe. And there was some hope that creating hope and relieving misery would diminish the appeal of Marxist arguments and the appeal of communism among Europeans."
Indeed, Stalin forcing the Eastern Bloc not to accept Marshall Aid was a crucial mistake that allowed Western Europe to pull ahead of Eastern Europe permanently. Without accepting Marshall Aid, it's remarkable that the Eastern Bloc was able to rebound as well as it did -- but it could never quite compete with the West after that.
Sorry, the whole Europe couldn't be sold to the US $$$ and American ideas and neither it was meant to be.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Because it can be broken by a simple fact or two, or even by using reversed Goebbels-style BS:
