Soviet Union's Possible Success

[Saras]

Originally posted by Kamrat X
I´m surpprised the Soviet Union lasted as long as it did... But eventually all dictatorships fall, you can only opress people for so long...

1. Plagues in 17-18th centuries
2. Total, unending war between Russia-Sweden-Poland/Lithuania and others for about 100 years

These two factors wiped out a significant portion of our population, but in fact now we're pretty much where our ethnic borders should have been - says a lot about the romping & stomping, raping & pillaging armies of Lithuania in 14-15 century, when our lands stretched to the Black sea

[Luk]

It is true... You have to agree that you don't remember Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealt so well like we do...

And stop speaking about Poland-Lithuania like it is a fully equal members of union. During XV, XVI, XVII century your noblemen spoke Polish language, were influenced by Polish culture, polish tradition etc... I do not recognize Lithuania as a nation. Lithuanians are part of Polish Nation, they are one of our ethnic groups, like Silesians, Pomeranians, Ukrainians, Belarussians. You try now to separate your culture from polish influence, but you see that if you do that you have no cultural heritage, because you heritage is a part of Polish culture and civilization.

It is fact, that you became a part of our Nation because of Commonwealth with us. In XVII and XVIII century Polish language was the first language of noblemen in all Central and East Europe.

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Saras


1. Plagues in 17-18th centuries
2. Total, unending war between Russia-Sweden-Poland/Lithuania and others for about 100 years

These two factors wiped out a significant portion of our population, but in fact now we're pretty much where our ethnic borders should have been - says a lot about the romping & stomping, raping & pillaging armies of Lithuania in 14-15 century, when our lands stretched to the Black sea

Ehrr? And what has this to do with the Soviet Union 1917-1991? Or have I stumbled into a another discussion here?

[Arrian]

I actually think the question UberKruX originally posed is interesting.

At the outset, let me say that I despise dictatorship, and believe communism to be an ideal which - due to human nature - cannot be realized. Important things to remember: The USSR was a brutal dictatorship which had a communistic economic system. Communism is not a political system - it's an economic system. Communism, in the ideal sense, should have been democratic. Then again, I seriously doubt a democratic political system would maintain a communistic economic system (people, voting out of self-interest... perhaps even misguided self-interest, would end up reverting to some form of capitalism).

But I digress. It is most assuredly true that the birth of the Soviet Union was greeted with open hostility by the Western powers. It was in many ways similar to the reaction of the rest of Europe's leaders to the French Revolution (oh my GOD, they did WHAT? They cut off the King's head?!?!?!? We can't have peasants running around thinking they can do that to Kings!!!!).

Then again, the Soviet Union wasn't exactly a shining beacon of freedom and equality, either. The Soviet leadership, particularly Stalin of course, oppressed the people just as much as the Czars had. Oppression does not a healthy nation make. Further, the centralized economic structure was inefficient.

The Cold War was born of mutual distrust. No one action began it, though many do use Churchill's speech as the starting point. Churchill's speech, however, was a reaction to the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe & their refusal to allow elections. Funny, Che, that you accuse the USA of influencing elections in Italy, France and Germany, but ignore the fact that the USSR wouldn't even allow elections in the Eastern Bloc. I don't know about (in other words have not heard of before) your allegations, but I wouldn't be all that surprised, unfortunately.

In any event, let's suppose for a moment that there was no cold war. That there was no animosity whatsoever between the Western democracies and the Soviet Union. That is hard to imagine, given that communism and capitalism are opposites, and that communist doctrine was "workers of the world unite!" (in other words, "overthrow your governments, and become communists like us!"). Damn, I keep digressing. One more try...

I think the USSR would have either collapsed or underwent a revolution at some point, regardless of Western attitudes. The political system was tyranical, brutal and corrupt, and the economic system was inefficient and contrary to human nature (clearly, this is my opinion w/regards to communism, not somethign I assert as holy writ... then again, I don't buy into holy writ either...). However, it is probable that without the animosity of the Cold War, the member states of the USSR would have emerged from the Soviet system in better shape than they did. The wouldn't have had the strain of a massive arms race, and the KGB wouldn't have had such a convenient excuse for its practices.

-Arrian

[Serb]

Originally posted by Saras
Ahem.

If I may, it was the Lithuanian part of the Lithuanian - Polish Commonwealth (NOT a Polish empire), and before the treaty of Lublin, the armies of the Lithuanian Grand Duchy, that caused the largest troubles for Russian territories and later, the Muscovite state.

Learn your history, big guys

When I said Polish Empire, I've mean "Rech Pospolitaya". I don't know how it called on English, so I used "Polish Empire"- word.

Well, we won almost all wars with Russia...

Yeah, Yeah, Yeah
Examples, please.You may win battles, but not wars. Well, in 1920 yes, you took some territory (don't forget about civil war and intervention of other 13 foreign countries), but Stalin returned those territories in 1939.

Luk, if that's what they teach at your high schools, then the writers should stops smoking whatever they are smoking.

Poilsh we are better then you are, we don't smoke everyday like you do.

[steelehc]

Excuse me, may be I'm not understand something, but what route between India and Australia has common with route between USSR and USA?
Alaska? May be, I suppose all planes come frome this route, because there was no railroad connection between our Far East and our European part at that time. So, only planes could flew by this route, any other cargo couldn't be sent by this way because of lack of railroads.
So I'm still absolutely sure that Nothern route was the only efficient way wich connect our countries during war. And absolutely sure that majority of cargo was delivered by this route.

India and Australia manufactured many things for the UK. Believe it or not, the US was not the only country participating in Lend-Lease. The UK shipped quite a bit of stuff the the USSR. No railroad connection? What about the Trans-Siberian Railorad?

But you are right about tone thing. The majority of cargo did come via the Northern Route, to Archangelsk.

No, it didn't.

Well, I'm sorry. I'll try again.

It's just sounds like another round- 'Russians stole everything from west.'
Are you trying to convince me that US government shared technology with USSR during war?
Planes? Are you trying to say that on Soviet factories were constructed planes of an American design? There was no a single plane of US design constructed in SU during war. Not a single plane. We have a lot of exelent planes of our own design and there was no any need for construction of US designed planes on Soviet factories. And it was simply impossible. For construction of planes of foreign design you need- equipment of the same design, you need spare parts of the same design, you need foreign engineeres, you should know all technological process from beggining to the end. So, not a single plane of foreign design was constructed in SU during war, the same for anything else.
Soviet government indeed asked for examples of American jet planes, but all requests were denied.

Guns and rockets? Soviet union have much superior rocket technology before the war then US, I wounder if US have any example of such technology before the war. We have RS- "reaktivnie snaryady"- Air to Air missiles wich were succesfully used against Japanese in 1939. Even before the war we had the first mobile rocket launchers known as "Katusha" , not as prototypes by as fully artilery regiments. In 1941 we have hundreds of those Surface to Surface mobile rocket launchers, at the end of war we have tousands of them.

Refrigerators? I'm not sure what are you talking about.

Ammunition? American and soviet ammunition has different calibers. How Americans could have better desighned ammunition for soviet weapons then Soviets itself?

Sorry, but thing that "30% of Soviet technology comes from America" sounds even more nonsece for me then "30% of all raw materials."

The US and UK did share technology with the USSR during the war. Large amounts of it.

There were American planes manufactured in a Russian plant. A Bell P-39 Aircobra from Lend-Lease was reverse-engineered in Magnitogorsk, and then several new versions were built. Actually, plans for these new versions were shipped back to Bell, who incorporated a number of the design features into the P-63 Kingcobra.

The P-59 Airacomet was the first American jet fighter. A prototype of this aircraft was sent to Russia in June of 1945.

The USSR did have SSM dummy-rockets, but these were not particulary useful except in large numbers. The US gave Russia the formula for a more efficient rocket-fuel, a kind which is much more stable, and provides more thrust per kilogram of mass. As for these Air-to-air missiles, are you referring to non-guided rockets, or actual missiles? Every combatant in WW2 had rockets on planes, but only Germany had actual missiles.

Refrigerators. Miscellaneous stuff which might have been needed in Russia. One of the convoys to Archangelsk carried eighty refrigerators.

Same thing with the rocket fuel. Gunpowder is not all equal. It has different consistencies, and can be very unstable. The 7.62mm cartridge used in the Mosin-Nagant rifle was fired by a very unstable powder. If the cartridge was dropped, it could go off. Som etimes, it would not go off when fired. This powder was largely replaced with a formula from the UK by the war's end.

It seems you don't believe me. Thats too bad, and its your loss, as I have tried to proove my point. You can look it up, or not, but its true.

Steele

[Saras]

Originally posted by Luk
I do not recognize Lithuania as a nation. Lithuanians are part of Polish Nation, they are one of our ethnic groups, like Silesians, Pomeranians, Ukrainians, Belarussians.

If so, you should REALLY read more books.

[Saras]

Originally posted by Kamrat X


Ehrr? And what has this to do with the Soviet Union 1917-1991? Or have I stumbled into a another discussion here?

No, you asked why our country is so small, and I said (vaguely, I admit) that even though it stretched at a time from Baltic Sea to the Black Sea, the original Lithuanian ethnic territory is about all within current borders.

[Serb]

Originally posted by steelehc
India and Australia manufactured many things for the UK. Believe it or not, the US was not the only country participating in Lend-Lease. The UK shipped quite a bit of stuff the the USSR.

As well as USA shipped a lot of things to UK. The SU was not the only country wich recieved help from Lend-Lease.

No railroad connection? What about the Trans-Siberian Railorad?

So, what about it? It ended somewhere in Siberia, but major Far East ports was not connected with European Russia by railroads. That's why majority of cargo was delivered through Northern sea route.

But you are right about tone thing. The majority of cargo did come via the Northern Route, to Archangelsk.

Then again, tourn on the logic.
The amount of weaponry, ammunition and any other things produced by Soviet Union in war time was so huge, that for transportation of such amount of cargo the capacity of all cargo's ships of the World wouldn't enough. Entire country works for military purposes, every soviet plant worked for military purposes 24 hours a day. How can you claim that USA provided 30% of war material, weapons, tanks, planes etc. For transportation of 30% of all things that we produced during war, you'll need 100 times more ships then you actually used.

]There were American planes manufactured in a Russian plant.

There was no single US designed plane produced in Soviet plant during war. It's nonsence.
You said that USA provided SU with schemes, plans etc and Soviets build US designed planes on Soviets factories. It's nonsence. I already explained why. Just imagine: Soviet and USA factories had/have now absolutely differnt machinery, they used different tools and technologies. It is impossible to build a plane of foreign (American) designe on factory constructed for production of planes of absolutely different (Soviet) design. To do so you need a complete reconstruction of plant itself. The SU didn't had time for this and the most important, didn't had need for this- Why we need to destroy a conveyer wich produce our own modern planes, to make this conveyer able for production of US designed planes?
Again, there was no muss production of planes of foreign design in SU.

A Bell P-39 Aircobra from Lend-Lease was reverse-engineered in Magnitogorsk, and then several new versions were built. Actually, plans for these new versions were shipped back to Bell, who incorporated a number of the design features into the P-63 Kingcobra.

This is absolutely different thing.
Most of the planes recived by SU through Lend-Lease were MODIFIED for purposes of red army and for local war theater by Soviet mechanics. New guns, systems etc were installed. This is true.

The P-59 Airacomet was the first American jet fighter. A prototype of this aircraft was sent to Russia in June of 1945.

Never heard about this. All I heard that all Soviet's reqests for examples of US jets were denied. Can you provide a good link about this, please?

The USSR did have SSM dummy-rockets, but these were not particulary useful except in large numbers. The US gave Russia the formula for a more efficient rocket-fuel, a kind which is much more stable, and provides more thrust per kilogram of mass. As for these Air-to-air missiles, are you referring to non-guided rockets, or actual missiles? Every combatant in WW2 had rockets on planes, but only Germany had actual missiles.

Of course I reffered to non guided rockets, my mistake.( In Russian it's the same word). I've pointed that our rocket technology was very advanced even before the war. I curious, do you had non guided rockets before the war on your planes, in 1937-1939 for example. May be you had, I don't want to argue about this because I know little about this, but if yes, can you provide a link for me please. But I'm absolutely sure that you didn't have analogs of our "Katusha" before the war. The first mobile rocket artillery complex. The Germans created something like this only just before the end of war, if I'm not mistaken it called something like-" Nebelwieifer".

Refrigerators. Miscellaneous stuff which might have been needed in Russia. One of the convoys to Archangelsk carried eighty refrigerators.

Funny, I just can't understand what for red army could used them.

Same thing with the rocket fuel. Gunpowder is not all equal. It has different consistencies, and can be very unstable. The 7.62mm cartridge used in the Mosin-Nagant rifle was fired by a very unstable powder. If the cartridge was dropped, it could go off. Som etimes, it would not go off when fired. This powder was largely replaced with a formula from the UK by the war's end.

May be. I don't know much about this.

It seems you don't believe me. Thats too bad, and its your loss, as I have tried to proove my point. You can look it up, or not, but its true.

To believe in what?
You don't need to convince me that USA helped SU in WW2. This is meaning of alliance- to help each other in war against a common enemy. But your version of amount of this help is unaccpeptable for me. 30% is too many, it's unbeleiveable numbers.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Saras


If so, you should REALLY read more books.

This guy smoking to much.

Ukrainians, Belarussians are part of Polish nation?
We are all slavs (I mean Ukrainians, Belarussians Polish and Russians) that's true, but saying that Ukrainians and Belarussians are ethnic groups of Polish nation???
This guy is smoking to much and to often. With the same success some people could say that Polish are ethnic group of Russia.

[Saras]

Yea, and Lithuanians=Polish??! Where does this small penis complex come from? What kind of nutty revisionist freak was your history teacher? We're not even close culturally, and I'm not talking about language. We do share a lot of history, that's true, you helped educate our nobility (that's why they all spoke Polish), thank you very much, but the modern Lithuanian nation is NOT, I repeat, NOT a part of any other nation.

[Heresson]

In the past, Lithuaniania was not regarded as a separate land,
but as a part of Poland. And there were some reasons for that.
But to say that there was no Lithuanian nation isn't right, and to say that there is no Lithuanian nation today is a big mistake.
When it comes to Byelorussians, don't laugh, Serb. In XIX century their language was examined by scientist both from Poland and from Petersburg - and at first the results were the same, that it's a part of Polish language. Only later Russian scientists, under political pressure, got to the point it's a part of the Russian one. Anyway, up till now when I read some Russian press, I find that they consider Russians, Ukrainians and Byelorrussians one nation,

[Serb]

Originally posted by Heresson
Anyway, up till now when I read some Russian press, I find that they consider Russians, Ukrainians and Byelorrussians one nation,

Never heard about Kiev's Rus? All slavs lived in one state until Kiev's Rus collapsed before Mongol's invasion. We all have common roots. As for Belorussians, I don't know how it was in XIX century, but today I can clearly understand everything what any Belorussian say, aside from Polish language where I can understand only single words.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Serb
I don't know how it was in XIX century, but today I can clearly understand everything what any Belorussian say, aside from Polish languidge where I can understand only single words.

Where as to an outsider, it all sounds the same. Seriously though, so many Slavic words are identical that many of us who only learn Russian (which I did, at one time, long, long ago), we could understand Poles, Serbs, etc.

[Heresson]

Rus Kijowska? I co z tego?
O to wlasnie mi chodzilo; to jest rownie idiotyczne jak twierdzenie
ze Litwini sa czescia naszego narodu; p0rzeciez mysmy zyli w jednym kraju tez; i z Ukraiñcami, i z Bia³orusinami zreszta.
A jesli chodzi o rozumienie przez Ciebie jezyka bia³oruskiego, to by³ on przed wojna znacznie bardziej poslsko-podobny. Za ZSSR dokonano kilku reform jezykowych ktore zblizyly ten jezyk do rosyjskiego.