Without Communism, is Russia likely to experience a suburban boom in the late 20th and 21st centuries like the US experienced?

Jun 2017
2,879
Connecticut
#21
Without Communism as Russia practiced it, yes. The population is increasing, if only slightly, and people have to have a place to live.
Didn't the UN study(or some concurrent study) say Russia's population is declining? Don't remember all the details but remember by 2100 Russia's population was set to hit 96 or 97 million(it's possible I'm confusing them with Japan don't think I am though). If Russia's population increased at any point it was due to acquiring additional territory and was only a brief bump that is likely gone by now.
 

Shtajerc

Ad Honorem
Jul 2014
6,597
Lower Styria, Slovenia
#22
More like rural Russia.
Actually not. That's a dača, which can be anything from a garden shed to almost a luxus villa, but usually it's a sort of small weekend house with surrounding garden and orchard somewhere just beyond the city limits. You go there to work the garden a bit, relax a bit and get away from the stress and noise of urban life.
 
Likes: Futurist
Jun 2017
2,879
Connecticut
#23
It's interesting to consider Russia's development had the November Revolution not occurred. First we would be taking about Russia, not the USSR. Given the economic recovery under the New Economic Plan (NEP) it's fair to say the the economy would have prospered during the 1920's but be harder hit by the Great Depression than it actually was. Also there's no reason why Russia would not still be invaded in WWII but relations with the West would have been better perhaps mitigating Russia's loses. There would be no Cold War and Russia would be a leading economic power with some kind of republican government. It's postwar landscape would be more European than American so it would rely more on rail than cars and be slower to suburbanize. but it would happen IMO.
Honestly perplexes me how people cite Lenin and Stalin interchangeably when Lenin never ran a country in peacetime(which is really relevant when calling someone a mass murderer as people often do with Lenin). No proof his plans would have worked(much to the contrary) but none to say they would have been anything like Stalin's or even objectively bad. There's a reason Lenin's corpse has been lying in state for almost a century while Stalin was denounced the moment his corpse got cold.
 

starman

Ad Honorem
Jan 2014
4,025
Connecticut
#24
First without communism, or someone like Stalin, Russia would’ve been eaten alive in WWII. No Stalin would’ve meant no crash industrialization and militarization, enabling Russia to rise from a second or third rate power to one able to do what the democracies failed so miserably at in May-June 1940–contain and repel the Nazis.
For Russia to survive it had to emphasize guns over butter so even without communism it’s more likely there’d be an apartment boom than a suburban one like in the US after WWII.
 
Jun 2017
2,879
Connecticut
#25
First without communism, or someone like Stalin, Russia would’ve been eaten alive in WWII. No Stalin would’ve meant no crash industrialization and militarization, enabling Russia to rise from a second or third rate power to one able to do what the democracies failed so miserably at in May-June 1940–contain and repel the Nazis.
For Russia to survive it had to emphasize guns over butter so even without communism it’s more likely there’d be an apartment boom than a suburban one like in the US after WWII.
Tbh hate to defend the Tsar here but think the Soviet resistance had more to do with the fact the Nazi's goal was to kill everyone than Stalin being a better leader. Also Stalin came with a list of things that made defeat more likely. There's the 1937 purge and the fact Stalin ignored warnings of attack which was crucial to Barbarossa being as overwhelmingly successful as it was in the early phases. Defense against Barbarossa probably went worse than the Battle of France did as a defense of one's country but the Soviets had a lot more room to fall back to and a lot more people(The Soviet losses were about three quarters of France's total population never mind adult population). Hitler also wasn't trying to kill most of the French population and surrendering was an actual choice. I think if you substitute any other leader into Hitler's role(who isn't a Nazi), the outcome changes and any other leader into Stalin's role and the outcome stays the same.
 
Jan 2019
53
Eastern Europe
#26
Tbh hate to defend the Tsar here but think the Soviet resistance had more to do with the fact the Nazi's goal was to kill everyone than Stalin being a better leader. Also Stalin came with a list of things that made defeat more likely. There's the 1937 purge and the fact Stalin ignored warnings of attack which was crucial to Barbarossa being as overwhelmingly successful as it was in the early phases. Defense against Barbarossa probably went worse than the Battle of France did as a defense of one's country but the Soviets had a lot more room to fall back to and a lot more people(The Soviet losses were about three quarters of France's total population never mind adult population). Hitler also wasn't trying to kill most of the French population and surrendering was an actual choice. I think if you substitute any other leader into Hitler's role(who isn't a Nazi), the outcome changes and any other leader into Stalin's role and the outcome stays the same.
Well, if not for genocides a lot of people would side with nazis during the invasion because they hate soviets. Hell, some people even welcomed german military.

Regarding purges...Well, sometimes dead are better than traitors. Who guaranteed that those guys won't betray the central or sabotage something? Trading loyalty is nothing new.
 
Likes: starman
Jun 2017
276
maine
#27
Didn't the UN study(or some concurrent study) say Russia's population is declining? Don't remember all the details but remember by 2100 Russia's population was set to hit 96 or 97 million(it's possible I'm confusing them with Japan don't think I am though). If Russia's population increased at any point it was due to acquiring additional territory and was only a brief bump that is likely gone by now.
You are most likely correct. The statistics I used were for 2016/2017 which showed a tiny increase--which, as you say, may have been only a passing bump.
 

stevev

Ad Honorem
Apr 2017
3,163
Las Vegas, NV USA
#28
It's not the November but the October Revolution.
Well I'm a New Style kind of guy. The Old Style was just wrong. That's why the calendar was shifting through the seasons. Most of the world had made the change by the 18th century. The present calendar isn't perfect but the error is about 1 day in 3000 years or so. Corrections are made by international agreement in terms adding a second every few years.
 

starman

Ad Honorem
Jan 2014
4,025
Connecticut
#29
Tbh hate to defend the Tsar here but think the Soviet resistance had more to do with the fact the Nazi's goal was to kill everyone than Stalin being a better leader. Also Stalin came with a list of things that made defeat more likely. There's the 1937 purge and the fact Stalin ignored warnings of attack which was crucial to Barbarossa being as overwhelmingly successful as it was in the early phases. Defense against Barbarossa probably went worse than the Battle of France did as a defense of one's country but the Soviets had a lot more room to fall back to and a lot more people(The Soviet losses were about three quarters of France's total population never mind adult population). Hitler also wasn't trying to kill most of the French population and surrendering was an actual choice. I think if you substitute any other leader into Hitler's role(who isn't a Nazi), the outcome changes and any other leader into Stalin's role and the outcome stays the same.
Stalin may not have been a good general and many of those purged were innocent. But his policies were still fundamentally correct. I very much doubt a democratic Russia would’ve industrialized so fast or built such enormous forces in peacetime. That required enormous sacrifices—no way to appeal to voters. The purges and suppression of independence movements were also basically right and required authoritarianism. Mistakes were made of course but by eliminating internal opposition, Stalin made the USSR more of a disciplined monolith, avoiding the potentially catastrophic situation of power struggles even civil war when invasion loomed.
Claims that the purges ruined Russia’s leadership always struck me as absurd given the successes of Zhukov, Konev, Vatuttin etc. The Nazis didn’t publicize their plans and claimed to liberate the people from Bolshevism. As one SS officer noted the Russians were far better motivated to fight than the poles or western democracies. They weren’t demoralized under Stalin.
Compare Russia’s performance under the tsar with its performance under Stalin. The former was humiliated by Japan and Germany—the latter beat Russia with one hand tied behind its back as it was still fighting France. Stalin beat Japan at kalkhin Gol and then contained and mauled the Reich in an essentially one front War.
 
Likes: Futurist
Jun 2017
2,879
Connecticut
#30
Stalin may not have been a good general and many of those purged were innocent. But his policies were still fundamentally correct. I very much doubt a democratic Russia would’ve industrialized so fast or built such enormous forces in peacetime. That required enormous sacrifices—no way to appeal to voters. The purges and suppression of independence movements were also basically right and required authoritarianism. Mistakes were made of course but by eliminating internal opposition, Stalin made the USSR more of a disciplined monolith, avoiding the potentially catastrophic situation of power struggles even civil war when invasion loomed.
Claims that the purges ruined Russia’s leadership always struck me as absurd given the successes of Zhukov, Konev, Vatuttin etc. The Nazis didn’t publicize their plans and claimed to liberate the people from Bolshevism. As one SS officer noted the Russians were far better motivated to fight than the poles or western democracies. They weren’t demoralized under Stalin.
Compare Russia’s performance under the tsar with its performance under Stalin. The former was humiliated by Japan and Germany—the latter beat Russia with one hand tied behind its back as it was still fighting France. Stalin beat Japan at kalkhin Gol and then contained and mauled the Reich in an essentially one front War.
His policies like Lenin's were informed by the fact he was doing a revolution(or at least used it as a backdrop for propaganda) where a key component was supposed to be having an industrialized society you've taken over not what is basically the real life equivalent of the minecraft world. They were not inherently right, you can industrialize other ways, then Central planning and the fact they not only did it themselves but made the model they pushed on the rest of their sphere of influence is sad. Lenin should be excused because he was fighting multiple existential civil wars at once and never got a chance to rule during peace. Stalin's worst atrocities came during peacetime when there was no justification for them.


Stalin was basically a more powerful version of what the Kim family became a tsar/King using leftist ideology to pretend they are not King's. If Hitler hadn't wanted to slaughter everyone Germany did enough to defeat Stalin by an infinite degree, Stalin didn't win on the merits, his people didn't have a choice. It's why the Russians rebelled to leave WWI and chased the Germans back into Europe because giving up wasn't an option. Most governments need to pretend their opponents are Satan to motivate the public, the fact Hitler took care of that for Stalin was a huge moral advantage almost no one else in history has been given(at least the same way). The West didn't have the same risk on the line(at least personally) and the Poles were trapped between the Germans and Soviets not exactly going to be enthusiastic going either way in that situation. If the SS officer wanted to know why the Soviets were so motivated he should have looked in the mirror.

And how does Russia having talented young officers mean the purge didn't hurt or wasn't a bad idea? Soviet Union's a large country they have a lot of people, purge doesn't mean they rid the country of every single capable officer and four years later none had reemerged.

Again if Hitler had invaded Tsarist Russia, the public would not have overthrown the Tsar to end the war, it wouldn't be an option. Those scenarios are not the same, most countries can't stomach war conditions if there's a slightly better alternative, if the alternative is to die, well you're pushing them into a corner. Compare the amount of soldiers and civilians the Russians lost in WWI compared to WWII? The Russian people in WWI were hungry and mad, they weren't scared, the Germans hadn't even hit Russia proper yet, furthest they got in terms of major Russian centers was Riga. Not saying the Soviets didn't have more competent people, when you get rid of a middle age military where jobs are given out based on lineage not merit things tend to get better, but that doesn't explain the difference in the outcome. Germany beat Russia up considerably worse in WWII a war they lost than WWI a war they won(on that front). It's not even close the only reason WWII is a more positive outcome is cause it's a loss and WWII is technically a win. In the East Hitler killed up to the aggregate of the population of Italy France(well over the adult populations of those places), it's not a matter of the Russians having more heart, other countries would just not exist anymore and Russia had more people.

Humiliation isn't good but if as a leader you're given the choice between the humiliation of Brest-LItovsk and the Russo-Japanese War versus the glorious victory in WWII, the former is still the objectively correct and responsible decision.
 

Similar History Discussions