Hypothetical: would the USSR have done better against Germany without Stalin?

[Saras]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Also remember that Stalin brutally industrialized the country. Without him, would the USSR been at the same level of industrialization? It's hard to tell, but it usually is easier to progress if the crack of the whip makes you.

Free markets would have done a better job.

[Bosh]

Originally posted by Saras


Free markets would have done a better job.

Right better economically, but it would've done more light industry which would've been of less use to a wartime economy.

The Red Army would have probably fared better had they not been forced to deal with Ukrainian partisans,

Right, it was only the absolute idiocy of the Russians which allowed them to alienate the slavs so badly that even Stalin looked better.

[Saras]

Originally posted by Boshko

Right better economically, but it would've done more light industry which would've been of less use to a wartime economy.

Heavy industry would have boomed as well; a country like Russia cannot live without heavy industry, therefore, it would have happenened.

[Arrian]

Depends. Stalin was bad, no doubt. The question is, if not Stalin, then who? And, following up on that, what would this hypothetical leader of the USSR have done in the run-up to the war and then the war itself - would the USSR have been roughly similar to the one we know? Or maybe this not-Stalin fellow would have been much more liberal/democratic minded, and the country might've been a weaker confederacy, or even split up? Better for the people during peacetime, but possibly worse when the Nazis came calling.

My gut says just about anyone would've been better than Stalin. But considering the crop of potential leaders would have been a bunch of revolutionary communists, hardened by a nasty civil war... who knows?

-Arrian

[Imran Siddiqui]

Free markets would have done a better job.

Not as quick, IMO. Russia didn't have the infrastructure and institutions for a speedy build up.

[Arrian]

Yeah, for short-term industrialization, central planning + a willingness to use force to get it done > free market. I can't PROVE that, of course, but it's certainly my impression.

-Arrian

[TheStinger]

The USA, France,Germany and the UK managed to aquire heavy industry without having a homicidal maniac in charge

[Bosh]

Originally posted by Saras


Heavy industry would have boomed as well; a country like Russia cannot live without heavy industry, therefore, it would have happenened.

Well capitalist economies tend to start with fairly simple processing of agricultural materials (textiles and suchlikes) and build from there, which commies have tended to have a steel fetish and massively over-invest in heavy industry which isn't of much use except at wartime.
This isn't to say that Russia would've had more industry in 1941 if Russia had been spared the dislocation of the Civil War, but I don't think that the NEP or something similar would've been able to deliver the same amout of heavy industry despite resulting in greater overall economic performance.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The USA, France,Germany and the UK managed to aquire heavy industry without having a homicidal maniac in charge

How quickly?

[GePap]

Originally posted by TheStinger
The USA, France,Germany and the UK managed to aquire heavy industry without having a homicidal maniac in charge

Yes, in about 50 years.

In about 9 (1932-1941) years Stalin built huge amounts of heavy industry, power plants, so forth. The free market would not have taken Russia from a broken country recoevring from bloody civil war in 1922 to an industrial powerhouse able to outproduce Germany by 1943.

[TheStinger]

Fair point about the time scale, although Japan did it in about 15 years following ww2

[GePap]

Originally posted by TheStinger
Fair point about the time scale, although Japan did it in about 15 years following ww2

One, Japan was rebuilding party-while Stalin was building from nothing.

2.If you think Japan's massive growth after 1952 was all market driven.... there was masisve government involvement, control, subsidies.

[TheStinger]

I konw it wasn't market driven I'm trying to distinguish Maniac driven from other forms of growth

[GePap]

Stalin was a paranoid monster-but if insane, he had the sort of insanity that makes one an effective leader in terms of organization and mobilization.

[Arrian]

Dunno if I'd say effective, at least not on the whole. Effective at rapid industrialization? Yeah, ok. Effective leadership overall? Hmm, killed a bunch of Ukrainian farmers, "purged" some of his best military officers, killed goodness knows how many other people for political reasons, picked a fight with Finland and damn near lost...

-Arrian