Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-02-2022, 08:40 PM
 
3,573 posts, read 1,152,860 times
Reputation: 374

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by kovert View Post
Yes, I have often made the point in many a debate, that the Soviet bloc would've have been annihilated without the Stalinist strong arming.
German invasion of 1941 could have ended USSR in August 1941... because Germans occupied 80% of pre-Stalin Russian steel production. Thanks to Stalin building Magnitogorsk -Kuzbass system...

Last edited by G.Duval; 06-02-2022 at 08:52 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-09-2022, 02:37 PM
bu2
 
23,856 posts, read 14,640,066 times
Reputation: 12644
Quote:
Originally Posted by TXRunner View Post
I think this is the inescapable reality of any socialist system. It’s thought out by the smart people who do not understand human nature. Inevitably, a socialist system always favors the rise of a brutish dictator to enact its policies. The means of production being in the hands of the state, and the state deciding the needs of the people is ideal for a totalitarian government.

For their time and place, I suppose Lenin and Trotsky appear to have more goodwill and intelligence than a Stalin, but they were also brutish monsters.

“Comrades! The kulak uprising in your five districts must be crushed without pity ... You must make example of these people.

(1) Hang (I mean hang publicly, so that people see it) at least 100 kulaks, rich bastards, and known bloodsuckers.
(2) Publish their names.
(3) Seize all their grain.
(4) Single out the hostages per my instructions in yesterday's telegram.
Do all this so that for miles around people see it all, understand it, tremble, and tell themselves that we are killing the bloodthirsty kulaks and that we will continue to do so ...

Yours, Lenin.

Lenin: "It is necessary – secretly and urgently to prepare the terror."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Terror

Trotsky also wrote justifications for the Red Terror.
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. USSR was doomed to fail and its people were doomed to suffer under Communism. Leaders just made things better or worse, but had no effect on the ultimate outcome.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2022, 03:14 PM
 
3,238 posts, read 2,365,874 times
Reputation: 1387
Yes, I agree with the op's opinion that if Andropov had been in better health when he came to power, the Gorbachev era would not have happened. I got the impression from reading about him that Andropov was a hard-line, almost stalinist conservative and he would have used harsher methods if necessary, not glasnost.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2022, 03:36 PM
 
Location: Prepperland
18,830 posts, read 14,019,304 times
Reputation: 16489
It is the nature of any collectivist system (one that denies absolute ownership of private property) to impose compulsory labor for the benefit of another (slavery) and confiscation of surplus (theft).
This results in a totalitarian police state, complete with secret police and anonymous enforcers.

There is no other way to deal with human nature.

When you confiscate surplus from the hard working (m)asses, you discourage generating surplus.
Why work harder? The State will just take it from you. This results in ever greater poverty - equitably distributed (excepting the party hierarchy, of course).

And when you realize that being a professional taker (recipient) if far better than being the donor, you wind up with a society that seeks to take as much as it can get, without equitable value given in return. It has a good role model - the thieving State.

Any means to become eligible for public charity (as the deserving poor) will be tried, over and over. This creates a division and animosity between the donors (the undeserving poor) and the recipients.

There are other unpleasant side effects - such as population reduction as the birthrate plummets. When socialist taxes generate inflation, and drive women into the workforce, what else can you expect? "Career" women don't have the time nor resources for motherhood. And as the recipient population grows faster than the new taxpayers, the taxpayers will revolt or the recipients will riot, each certain they are right, and the other is wrong.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2022, 04:44 PM
 
135 posts, read 67,042 times
Reputation: 890
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anhityk View Post
Yes, I agree with the op's opinion that if Andropov had been in better health when he came to power, the Gorbachev era would not have happened. I got the impression from reading about him that Andropov was a hard-line, almost stalinist conservative and he would have used harsher methods if necessary, not glasnost.
Andropov was Gorbachev's patron.

In 1969, Gorbachev was First Secretary of the regional Komsomol in Stavropol. Andropov travelled there for kidney treatment, and he and Gorbachev became close, a friendship that would endure through the years (Andropov would be back to Stavropol for repeated treatments - it was kidney failure that would ultimately kill him). The KGB Chairman was the one who brought Gorbachev to Moscow in 1978 to join the Central Committee, and put him in charge of agriculture. In time, he came to essentially oversee the economy itself on a de facto basis (while still officially having only agriculture in his portfolio).

Gorbachev was a true believer, and seen as uncorruptible. Andropov was acutely aware of the problem of corruption as a major cause of Soviet economic malaise, and thought of Gorbachev as a man of the future. To that end, Andropov began to move Gorbachev allies into position around him, such as Nikolai Rhyzhkov and Yegor Ligachev. He was grooming Gorbachev to take his own place one day. The Chernenko clique managed to hold Gorbachev at arm's length, but the whole bunch was elderly and Gorbachev was able to establish himself then as the heir apparent and then become General Secretary without too much trouble when the seat opened up again. Given that Andropov was 17 years older than Gorbachev, it is likely that a healthier Andropov would still have given way to the latter in the long run. That would delay glasnost/perestroika, not circumvent them.

The only real fly in the ointment would be the crash in oil prices in 1986.

Massive oil deposits were discovered in the USSR in the 1960s. The Soviets went from importing oil to exporting it on a massive scale. It drove the economy, and when the price of oil shot up in 1973 (due to OPEC production cuts after the Tom Kippur War) it literally saved the USSR, overcoming the stagnation that had by that time set it. It's no coincidence that the Soviet arms buildup began in the mid-70s - they were flush with cash. But by the early 1980s the best (ie, cheapest to recover/process) Siberian oil had already been tapped, and the global price was falling. Then it cratered in 1986.

What does a healthy Andropov do about that? Beats me, but being a hard-ass wasn't going to make up the catastrophic revenue shortfall. And he had already established his belief not only in Gorbachev in general but specifically as managing the Soviet economy.

Gorbachev was never going to save the USSR, but Andropov didn't know that. And at least, unlike his predecessors, he had bold ideas. How much leash does Andropov give him when things go bad? As far as glasnost goes, it's easy to surmise that Andropov wouldn't have allowed much there. But perestroika? He knew things weren't working and that something had to be done. He might've been willing to try whatever Gorbachev suggested. Taking glasnost off the table keeps the ethnic sentiments tamped down for a little while longer, but the cash crunch is still going to ruin the whole Soviet social contract of "We'll feed/clothe/house you, and you'll keep quiet and not do anything that contradicts the official party line".

In short, doing nothing and staying the course was not a long-term option.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-15-2022, 10:59 PM
 
Location: Southwest
2,589 posts, read 2,281,321 times
Reputation: 1973
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flavius Lugo View Post
Andropov was Gorbachev's patron.

In 1969, Gorbachev was First Secretary of the regional Komsomol in Stavropol. Andropov travelled there for kidney treatment, and he and Gorbachev became close, a friendship that would endure through the years (Andropov would be back to Stavropol for repeated treatments - it was kidney failure that would ultimately kill him). The KGB Chairman was the one who brought Gorbachev to Moscow in 1978 to join the Central Committee, and put him in charge of agriculture. In time, he came to essentially oversee the economy itself on a de facto basis (while still officially having only agriculture in his portfolio).

Gorbachev was a true believer, and seen as uncorruptible. Andropov was acutely aware of the problem of corruption as a major cause of Soviet economic malaise, and thought of Gorbachev as a man of the future. To that end, Andropov began to move Gorbachev allies into position around him, such as Nikolai Rhyzhkov and Yegor Ligachev. He was grooming Gorbachev to take his own place one day. The Chernenko clique managed to hold Gorbachev at arm's length, but the whole bunch was elderly and Gorbachev was able to establish himself then as the heir apparent and then become General Secretary without too much trouble when the seat opened up again. Given that Andropov was 17 years older than Gorbachev, it is likely that a healthier Andropov would still have given way to the latter in the long run. That would delay glasnost/perestroika, not circumvent them.

The only real fly in the ointment would be the crash in oil prices in 1986.

Massive oil deposits were discovered in the USSR in the 1960s. The Soviets went from importing oil to exporting it on a massive scale. It drove the economy, and when the price of oil shot up in 1973 (due to OPEC production cuts after the Tom Kippur War) it literally saved the USSR, overcoming the stagnation that had by that time set it. It's no coincidence that the Soviet arms buildup began in the mid-70s - they were flush with cash. But by the early 1980s the best (ie, cheapest to recover/process) Siberian oil had already been tapped, and the global price was falling. Then it cratered in 1986.

What does a healthy Andropov do about that? Beats me, but being a hard-ass wasn't going to make up the catastrophic revenue shortfall. And he had already established his belief not only in Gorbachev in general but specifically as managing the Soviet economy.

Gorbachev was never going to save the USSR, but Andropov didn't know that. And at least, unlike his predecessors, he had bold ideas. How much leash does Andropov give him when things go bad? As far as glasnost goes, it's easy to surmise that Andropov wouldn't have allowed much there. But perestroika? He knew things weren't working and that something had to be done. He might've been willing to try whatever Gorbachev suggested. Taking glasnost off the table keeps the ethnic sentiments tamped down for a little while longer, but the cash crunch is still going to ruin the whole Soviet social contract of "We'll feed/clothe/house you, and you'll keep quiet and not do anything that contradicts the official party line".

In short, doing nothing and staying the course was not a long-term option.

Referring to the bolded part above, I guess Andropov living another 10 years would delay glasnost/perestroika but not avoid it. OTOH, it is hard to say what exactly another 10 years of Andropov would have done for the Soviet Union. He was the most intelligent of the politburo members, though he governed under Marxism/Leninism while alive. That isn't to say he wouldn't try Perestroika, however. If it didn't work, he could always revert to a more hardline approach, like Brezhnev did when Khrushchev was disposed. Andropov had that power to revert back, if needed.

I am still surprised the Soviet Union dissolved when it did. I don't recall the exact year glasnost and perestroika was mentioned but I would think the Soviet people would be excited about it, and would be eager to see where it went. My opinion is with reform, the Soviet Union had as much chance as staying intact as it had dissolving, at least for the next 10 years from when glasnost and perestroika were first mentioned.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2022, 03:56 PM
 
3,238 posts, read 2,365,874 times
Reputation: 1387
If the reforms planned by Gorbachev had succeeded, the USSR would have become something like China: with a Communist Party in power, but essentially a market economy.
However, China and the USSR were different. China was and is predominantly a mono-ethnic country, but the USSR was a multi-ethnic country, where ethnic Russians were only half of the population. Minority nationalism destroyed the USSR. That was probably the main reason. Gorbachev's reforms did not succeed, but the glasnost, i.e. abolition of censorship, succeeded. This, in turn, enabled the growth of nationalisms.

Andropov, having been the chairman of the KGB for a long time, had a lot of information about the real situation in the USSR, and from this he understood the need for changes. What these changes would have been remains unclear, because Andropov was a sick and old man when he came to power and his time in power was very short. During that short time he was in power, he did not move in the direction of liberalism.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2022, 04:13 PM
 
14,304 posts, read 14,103,544 times
Reputation: 45436
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anhityk View Post
If the reforms planned by Gorbachev had succeeded, the USSR would have become something like China: with a Communist Party in power, but essentially a market economy.
However, China and the USSR were different. China was and is predominantly a mono-ethnic country, but the USSR was a multi-ethnic country, where ethnic Russians were only half of the population. Minority nationalism destroyed the USSR. That was probably the main reason. Gorbachev's reforms did not succeed, but the glasnost, i.e. abolition of censorship, succeeded. This, in turn, enabled the growth of nationalisms.

Andropov, having been the chairman of the KGB for a long time, had a lot of information about the real situation in the USSR, and from this he understood the need for changes. What these changes would have been remains unclear, because Andropov was a sick and old man when he came to power and his time in power was very short. During that short time he was in power, he did not move in the direction of liberalism.
I'm sure a lot of bad things can be said about Andropov. What I do remember though was the way he reacted to the letter sent him by the American girl, Samantha Smith, in Maine. There was a lot of "back and forth" between the USSR and the USA at the time. The Soviet Union had invaded and occupied Afghanistan and, as a result, the Cold War was in a place that seemed downright threatening. In the midst of this, Andropov received a letter from Samantha Smith wishing him well and asking why he and the Russian people seemed to want a war with the USA. Andropov sent Samantha a letter back that was very polite and conciliatory and more importantly invited her to visit the Soviet Union. Samantha did this and I believe the visit did at least a little bit to reduce tensions between the countries.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2022, 04:51 PM
 
3,238 posts, read 2,365,874 times
Reputation: 1387
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
I'm sure a lot of bad things can be said about Andropov. What I do remember though was the way he reacted to the letter sent him by the American girl, Samantha Smith, in Maine. There was a lot of "back and forth" between the USSR and the USA at the time. The Soviet Union had invaded and occupied Afghanistan and, as a result, the Cold War was in a place that seemed downright threatening. In the midst of this, Andropov received a letter from Samantha Smith wishing him well and asking why he and the Russian people seemed to want a war with the USA. Andropov sent Samantha a letter back that was very polite and conciliatory and more importantly invited her to visit the Soviet Union. Samantha did this and I believe the visit did at least a little bit to reduce tensions between the countries.
Andropov, of course, was not the same as Stalin. He tried to strengthen control within the USSR. For example, it was common that people, especially office workers, often did not stay in the office during official working hours, but did personal things, visited shops, went to the cinema, etc. Andropov sent controls whose task it was to catch those absent from the workplace. And more like that.
Samantha's episode is a bit touching, like everything about children who are at the age where they start to perceive the world of adults. Especially since she was only a few years older than me. I was also a schoolboy at that time, we were told about her at school. It is sad that she was given so few years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2022, 07:45 PM
 
Location: Southwest
2,589 posts, read 2,281,321 times
Reputation: 1973
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
I'm sure a lot of bad things can be said about Andropov. What I do remember though was the way he reacted to the letter sent him by the American girl, Samantha Smith, in Maine. There was a lot of "back and forth" between the USSR and the USA at the time. The Soviet Union had invaded and occupied Afghanistan and, as a result, the Cold War was in a place that seemed downright threatening. In the midst of this, Andropov received a letter from Samantha Smith wishing him well and asking why he and the Russian people seemed to want a war with the USA. Andropov sent Samantha a letter back that was very polite and conciliatory and more importantly invited her to visit the Soviet Union. Samantha did this and I believe the visit did at least a little bit to reduce tensions between the countries.
Samantha Smith was unfortunately killed in a plane crash. No foul play was suspected.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top