Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > European History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

European History European History Forum - Western and Eastern Europe including the British Isles, Scandinavia, Russia


Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 24th, 2012, 04:38 PM   #271

RusEvo's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,392

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guaporense View Post
I have already explained him the fact that Germany inflicted 5 times the casualties on the Red Army and still the Red Army grew in size while the German forces in the eastern front declined in size. Further discussion is futile.

Also the fact that Germany, a country of 80 million, was at war with the United States, UK and the USSR, countries with a combined population of 390 million (200 million USSR, 50 million UK and 140 million US). This is the correct standard of comparison. One should never ignore the fact that WW2 was a global war involving, on a fundamental level, Germany versus the entire rest of the world.

If you wish to include the population of Germany's allies you would also have to include the allies of the three main allied countries, including France, Canada, Australia, India, China, Brazil, Mexico and others (that's about 1.5 billion people).
I think your population figures are rather up the creek.

EDIT: And dont forget the populations of Japan, Italy, Romania, Hungary etc (but use the correct ones).
RusEvo is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 24th, 2012, 04:59 PM   #272

Koba's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 172

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guaporense View Post
Ludicrous assertion.

That's like saying that the development of the internet and the personal computer had similar effects over the makers of typewriter machines than the holocaust had over the jews.

The process of economic growth in the UK in the late 18th century onwards reduced the proportion of the population in the countryside as a normal outcome of economic development. That's fundamentally because the income elasticity of food is very small, which means that as people become richer their consumption of agricultural products tend to decrease in proportion of income and as a result the proportion of the working population employed in agriculture tends to decrease.

In Soviet Russia what happened was that the government confiscated the land of agricultural workers who starved to death as result. A completely different process.
Yeah, all of them- Stalin came and stole the land up from under them, and then every farmer starved. The End.

This is an extremely stupid and worthless assertion. It is clear you know next to nothing about collectivization.

The government didn't "confiscate" land- it created collective farms, or Kolkhozes, which were now mechanized and produced 11x more food output by 1940 than before collectivization.

Also, even though life was hard, the peasants received healthcare and education, decreasing rates of disease drastically and halving child mortality.

Peasants only starved in 1932-1933, when 1931 saw an unusually cold spring, delaying the sowing, and unusually hot weather in May, June and July brought a drought and cut grain yields. 1932's March was even colder than 1931's, May and June even hotter.

This bad harvest combined with the fact that most peasants had still been getting used to the Kolkho made the famine much worse than it should have been.

Even so, after collectivization, there were no more famines in the USSR except for the small post-war one, while they were a common occurrence in the Russian Empire.
Koba is offline  
Old November 24th, 2012, 10:56 PM   #273
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,034

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guaporense View Post
I have already explained him the fact that Germany inflicted 5 times the casualties on the Red Army and still the Red Army grew in size while the German forces in the eastern front declined in size. Further discussion is futile.

Also the fact that Germany, a country of 80 million, was at war with the United States, UK and the USSR, countries with a combined population of 390 million (200 million USSR, 50 million UK and 140 million US). This is the correct standard of comparison. One should never ignore the fact that WW2 was a global war involving, on a fundamental level, Germany versus the entire rest of the world.

If you wish to include the population of Germany's allies you would also have to include the allies of the three main allied countries, including France, Canada, Australia, India, China, Brazil, Mexico and others (that's about 1.5 billion people).
And the USSR had divisions not only stationed in the far east region, they also stationed them in iran and in xinjiang province of china, and were forced out of xinjiang by the chinese government, which was fighting japan at the same time.

Your claim that the soviets faced no threat from the far east got blown out of the window on the other thread. The soviets would not have abandoned xinjiang id they did not feel threatened, since it contained natural resources, not only oil but materials for making nuclear weapons as well.

http://www.historum.com/war-military...ml#post1267387
deke is offline  
Old November 25th, 2012, 01:36 AM   #274
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 18

Quote:
Originally Posted by antonina View Post
Dorothea, be a lady or a good sport, admit your heart belongs to the USSR and stop masquerading as a Pole. You're not based in Poland but in the Russian Federation - whether by birth or choice no matter. It would be more and more glaringly obvious with each successive post if it hadn't been quite obvious from the first one. So for honesty's sake change the locaton on your avatar accordingly.
Antoshka, I really don't see a reason why I should lie about my location only because I don't share your typical Polish hatred towards Russia and other Poland's eastern neighbours. I don't feel obliged to confess in front of you where my heart belongs, but I assure you I am not masquerading, I'm just sincerely talking about my views.

Your post is another good piece of evidence that Poles are literally sick whenever somebody says anything positive about Russia, Lithuania or Ukraine and I think Koba is right - it's high time to consult a good shrink.
Dorothea is offline  
Old November 25th, 2012, 02:51 AM   #275

arras's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: Slovakia
Posts: 14,210

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guaporense View Post
The process of economic growth in the UK in the late 18th century onwards reduced the proportion of the population in the countryside as a normal outcome of economic development.
I was not mentioning causes, did I? I was mentioning outcome. Which was similar. Bye the way causes were economic in both cases. Or rather socio-economic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guaporense View Post
In Soviet Russia what happened was that the government confiscated the land of agricultural workers who starved to death as result. A completely different process.
You just show you know nothing about subject. Government did not confiscated land of "agricultural workers". Land remained private. At last most of it (probably 90%). It is however true that government confiscated land of larger landowners and redistributed it among small ones or those who had no land.

What government did, was to force farmers in to collectives. That is all.
arras is offline  
Old November 25th, 2012, 02:33 PM   #276

Lord Lucan's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 543

Quote:
Originally Posted by arras View Post
I was not mentioning causes, did I? I was mentioning outcome. Which was similar. Bye the way causes were economic in both cases. Or rather socio-economic.


You just show you know nothing about subject. Government did not confiscated land of "agricultural workers". Land remained private. At last most of it (probably 90%). It is however true that government confiscated land of larger landowners and redistributed it among small ones or those who had no land.

What government did, was to force farmers in to collectives. That is all.
Define how you understand "private land" in that case. Because you sound rather absurd now.
AFAIK it was illegal and quite impossible to own real estate in Soviet Union. No matter if you were rich land baron or dirt poor pesant. Thats the whole point of collectivization - they take your land and now instead of being farmer you become extremely underpaid day laborer in Kolchoz.
Lord Lucan is offline  
Old November 25th, 2012, 04:06 PM   #277

Glowin's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 436

I don't think that they views Stalin with much sympathy. At least not most of the country. If that were the case, we would still have a city named Stalingrad on the map
Every single try to change back the name failed.

But while Stalin might be viewed as a positive figure in Russia, in most former Warsaw pact countries (or at least Bolshevik countries) he is viewed as barely better than Hitler. He was a great victor and a leader of socialism... but he was also an iron-willed dictator / psychopath without conscience.
He did a lot for USSR, but little for his its satellites.
Glowin is offline  
Old November 25th, 2012, 05:16 PM   #278

arras's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: Slovakia
Posts: 14,210

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Lucan View Post
Define how you understand "private land" in that case. Because you sound rather absurd now.
Check it out on wiki.
arras is offline  
Old November 25th, 2012, 09:03 PM   #279

Lors's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,704
Blog Entries: 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by arras View Post
Check it out on wiki.
I did it and the term "individual property" came up which clearly cannot be applied to what you're saying.
Lors is offline  
Old November 25th, 2012, 09:43 PM   #280

infestør's Avatar
Surprise pølse!
 
Joined: Jan 2012
From: Ẍ
Posts: 3,831
Blog Entries: 3

if i am not wrong in communist bulgaria you could own your land (at least 1 decare) where your house was built. any other land was public.
infestør is offline  
Closed Thread

  Historum > World History Forum > European History

Tags
modern, russia, stalin, view


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How does modern Germany view Hitler? lostmisfits European History 32 March 2nd, 2012 12:00 PM
Modern Egyptians and their view of ancient Egypt Thessalonian Middle Eastern and African History 61 February 18th, 2012 10:41 AM
Modern Russia-did it become a democracy? Historical Delusion European History 13 December 11th, 2011 05:04 AM
Russia admits Stalin ordered Katyn massacre of Poles diddyriddick War and Military History 6 December 1st, 2010 12:25 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.