Implications that the GDP of Russia is equivalent of that of Guangdong, China

Sep 2012
199
Ich bin ein Stettiner
yeah, just like this 'kill & exploit' but lest you forget this is a history forum; as for history fiction, look elsewhere.
This half exploit half kill was a figure of speech, but ok I exaggerated. But that doesn't change that Russia had really bad luck for it's rulers/goverment. You can't deny how bloody lot of tzars were, and that one of main victims of USSR were mainly citizens of USSR. And considering that in USSR mainly lived Russians(biggest ethnic group) then the biggest victims were common Russians. Of course I don't mean 80's or 70's or even 60's, but Stalin era and before. Jelcyn was a 'only' a failure, and that's why Putin is liked in Russia. He is strong, but do not want to exploit his own people. Or it just seems like that


read the article before posting, it merely speculates what may happen, not what happened; still you present it as a fact... speaks volumes of the methods anti-Russian campaigners employ to badmouth the country.
You are partially right, I just wanted to show that quantity it's NOT the only things that matter. I would even say that quality is more important. There were problems in other countries recently with grains too. But why I posted only about RUssia? Well because topic is about Russia.


Rubbish they had to queue for hours for everyday items, go onto decade long waiting lists to get a car and if their grandparents put down for an apartment they might got it by the time they turned 30.
That's just half true... queing for hours was only in good day, because in bad day like I said there was only vinegar on shops shelfs haha. And that's in Poland, situation in USSR was worse(although ok USSR was even bigger than Russia today, so situation in Talin, Moscow or Petersburg was much different than in siberia interior let's say), and in some eastern countries better(like in Hungary). The rest is pretty much spot on, people waited for cars for a long, long time but it had it upsides too... You could buy brand new car, and sell it right next day for a 3x as much as you payed.



That is interesting theme by the way.

It was a real war between Lamarkists (Lysenko supported by Stalin) and Weismann-Morganists (Vavilov/Rapoport supported by Zhdanov).

There were three clashes between them:

1. In 30's. Most prominent scientists were repressed including Vavilov who died in prison. However many scientists kept on conducting researches.
2. After WWII Rapoport undertook another attempt to reabilitate genetics and failed. 100 scientists including Rapoport were fired. Their labs were closed.
3. In 60's due to international recognising Rapoport's works on chemical mutagenesis and soviet physics in radiation genetics Lysenko finaly lost.
That's interesting, Lysenko science ended in Poland in 1956 or year later, and "normal" genetics after 1956 was taught. I didn't know that lysenko science survived till 60's
 
Last edited:
Apr 2016
462
RU
That's interesting, Lysenko science ended in Poland in 1956 or year later, and "normal" genetics after 1956 was taught. I didn't know that lysenko science survived till 60's
Khruschev favoured him too. You know, two Ukrainians...
After Khruschev's fall Lysenko was dismissed

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"One of the joys of travel is visiting new towns and meeting new people" - Genghis Khan
 

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,756
San Antonio, Tx
it was not 'so bad' and the USSR was just about to provide enough goods for the demand, but Gorbatchov began with his 'perestroyka' and failed to secure the control over political matters; the West then moved in with its saboteurs and they destroyed what was left of the country to present it as Soviet system failure, which of course it was not.
Ah yes, of course. I forgot about the western plots and saboteurs. The fault somehow never lies with the Soviets themselves and always with those evil westerners who spent all their time and resources plotting to destroy the SU. But then you had more than 40 years after WW2 to deliver the goods and did a really, really poor job of it. Why is that?
 

At Each Kilometer

Ad Honorem
Sep 2012
4,054
Bulgaria
Do you remember guys the situation in the 80's? Watching the sky, waiting americans to drop the bomb any minute. I was kid back then and remember how everybody was absolutely convinced that evil capitalists slash imperialists will strike first, because of their hatred towards our way of life. Answer to your question royal, the life was harsh especially during glasnost era, but what kept us going was the utmost belief that you want to eat us alive. Give the man an enemy and he can bear everyhing.
 

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,756
San Antonio, Tx
Do you remember guys the situation in the 80's? Watching the sky, waiting americans to drop the bomb any minute. I was kid back then and remember how everybody was absolutely convinced that evil capitalists slash imperialists will strike first, because of their hatred towards our way of life. Answer to your question royal, the life was harsh especially during glasnost era, but what kept us going was the utmost belief that you want to eat us alive. Give the man an enemy and he can bear everyhing.
I guess that's what Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) is all about: it actually prevented war. No one in America that I know of ever thought we would start a war with the SU, but we thought the SU might start one with us. During th 80s, I don't remember ever thinking about an attack from the SU. I was way too busy working, buying a house, etc. It was back n the 60s when schools routinely conducted nuclear attack drills but these stopped sometime in the mis to late 60s. The biggest scare, of course, occurred in the early 60s with the Cuban Missile Crisis when, we discovered later, we came very close to nuclear Armageddon.

I recall B-47 bombers flying over Houston in the late 50s making simulated bomb runs on the city for practice. There were "sonic booms" from these simulations daily that rattled our windows. In 1963-64 I worked for an architect who had a federal contract to survey buildings for possible use as nuclear fallout shelters. The ones that qualified were stocked with surplus food and barrels of water. I wonder what happened to those millions of tons of "stuff" that was never used.

My point is that as far as I remember, the 80s in the US were not at all concerned with nuclear war, nor were the 70s. Of course the military was very concerned about it, but not the people. We were too busy with disco and nightclubs, eating takeout pizza and, in the late 60s and early 70s, protesting against the war in Vietnam.
 
Last edited:
Aug 2016
960
moscow, russia.
Russia had really bad luck for it's rulers/goverment.
like any other country, with the Russia share in it being Gorbatchov and Yeltsyn, who managed to break the back of the country, sabotaged its demography and industry, while the rest of Russia rulers only brought her glory and prosperity.
 
Aug 2016
960
moscow, russia.
The fault somehow never lies with the Soviets themselves and always with those evil westerners who spent all their time and resources plotting to destroy the SU.
i never denied that the West won the Cold War, but this is politics and has nothing to do with economic matters.
 

Guaporense

Ad Honorem
Mar 2011
5,050
Brazil
Geopolitics tends to follow GDP with a long lag. Russia is an important great power because it's a huge 17 million square kilometers country with enormous strategic resources and a large population (146 million) and with a decent level of per capita income (25,000 dollars PPP).

China is smaller than Russia in natural resources and territory but has 1.38 billion people and a per capita income of 16,000 dollars which indicates a moderate level of industrialization. China already is the most powerful country in the world in terms of "warmaking potential" even if international politics do not reflect this reality yet (it usually takes decades for international politics to reflect underlying warmaking potential, the US for example only surpassed the UK and France in international politics in the 1940's but surpassed those countries in terms of warmaking potential 50 years earlier).

But if a large scale conventional war broke out China would defeat the US quite easily. Given the vast disparity in manpower (Chinese labor force is 5 times bigger) and heavy industry (Chinese industry buys 4 times more metal working machines than US's industry, so China's capacity to produce weapons and equipment is vastly superior to the US's). China has 10 times the labor force of Russia and about 8 times the industrial output of Russia. So in a conventional war with Russia, China would defeat it: in terms of size its like Germany vs Belgium back in 1940.

However, nuclear weapon stocks change everything. But anyway, in terms of capacity for waging conventional war the 3 main determining factors are:

1) labor force size
2) stock of industrial metal working machines
3) access to raw materials

In 1 and 2 China holds a tremendous superiority over any other country in the world (including the US).
 
Last edited:

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,756
San Antonio, Tx
Geopolitics tends to follow GDP with a long lag. Russia is an important great power because it's a huge 17 million square kilometers country with enormous strategic resources and a large population (146 million) and with a decent level of per capita income (25,000 dollars PPP).

China is smaller than Russia in natural resources and territory but has 1.38 billion people and a per capita income of 16,000 dollars which indicates a moderate level of industrialization. China already is the most powerful country in the world in terms of "warmaking potential" even if international politics do not reflect this reality yet (it usually takes decades for international politics to reflect underlying warmaking potential, the US for example only surpassed the UK and France in international politics in the 1940's but surpassed those countries in terms of warmaking potential 50 years earlier).

But if a large scale conventional war broke out China would defeat the US quite easily. Given the vast disparity in manpower (Chinese labor force is 5 times bigger) and heavy industry (Chinese industry buys 4 times more metal working machines than US's industry, so China's capacity to produce weapons and equipment is vastly superior to the US's). China has 10 times the labor force of Russia and about 8 times the industrial output of Russia. So in a conventional war with Russia, China would defeat it: in terms of size its like Germany vs Belgium back in 1940.

However, nuclear weapon stocks change everything. But anyway, in terms of capacity for waging conventional war the 3 main determining factors are:

1) labor force size
2) stock of industrial metal working machines
3) access to raw materials

In 1 and 2 China holds a tremendous superiority over any other country in the world (including the US).
All this is probably irrelevant. In the first place, there will never be a ground war between the US and China since the US will never invade China and China has no ability to invade the US - not now, not in the foreseeable future. So this manpower disparity means nothing.

Any serious war between the US and China will be nuclear and if that happens, there will be no winners on either side. So 1 & 2 don't matter.