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

starman

Ad Honorem
Jan 2014
4,118
Connecticut
Industrialization needs money, a lot of money. Collectivization was a way to get as much income, as possible from the agricultural sector in a short time.

Churchill was a perfect diplomat, and never said anything, what the allies might not like.

Human resources are not only soldiers, but also industrial workers, peasants to feed the army during the war and so on.
So collectivization had a redeeming feature after all. I think Churchill was being ingenuous. Being careful not to offend allies didn’t mean he had to endorse the ‘39 Pact as “realistic in a high degree.” Despite the loss of life Stalin got the best of both worlds, eliminating potential opposition while retaining enough soldiers and workers to win.

Stalin had more tanks than all other countries in Europe taken together,
Which says much about the efficacy of Stalinist industrialization and militarization.

but the repressed commanders of the army destroyed this advantage gained at the cost of millions of lives.
Early defeats owed much to greater German expertise in mobile warfare. The Reich was the would-be hegemon, so it was first to develop the techniques of blitzkrieg. Under the circumstances high losses were inevitable. The democracies didn’t purge their officers nor were their tanks inferior in quantity and quality but in 1940 they were still outclassed and beaten. By building vast forces, Stalin enabled Russia to survive initial high losses and gain time to learn to be proficient at the new type of warfare with excellent results even before bagratian.
 
Jun 2019
61
St.Petersburg
Which says much about the efficacy of Stalinist industrialization and militarization.
If the willingness to pay for a weapon with millions of lives and at the same time to destroy those who know how to use this weapon is efficiency, then no doubt, Stalin is really an "effective manager".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

starman

Ad Honorem
Jan 2014
4,118
Connecticut
If the willingness to pay for a weapon with millions of lives and at the same time to destroy those who know how to use this weapon is efficiency, then no doubt, Stalin is really an "effective manager".
I didn’t say he was a good general just that his policies were basically correct. Again high losses were inevitable because the Germans, the would-be conquerors, had made the greatest initial effort preparing and training for mobile, armored warfare. But the Soviets learned in time. Perhaps to an even greater degree than bagaratian, August Storm attested to that. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Devdas

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
4,981
India
Russia would have prospered better without communism.we can see West Germany was better than East and South Korea is far better than North.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,327
SoCal
I didn’t say he was a good general just that his policies were basically correct. Again high losses were inevitable because the Germans, the would-be conquerors, had made the greatest initial effort preparing and training for mobile, armored warfare. But the Soviets learned in time. Perhaps to an even greater degree than bagaratian, August Storm attested to that. :)
Starman, how much more successful do you think that the Soviets would have been had they not purged their officer corps in 1937-1938?
 

starman

Ad Honorem
Jan 2014
4,118
Connecticut
Starman, how much more successful do you think that the Soviets would have been had they not purged their officer corps in 1937-1938?
Had the purged officers all been innocent much better. Otherwise things could’ve been utterly catastrophic. I have long suggested a possible parallel—third century Rome. Legions battling for the various rivals for emperor were unable to guard the frontiers. Barbarians poured in and caused enormous destruction. The purges may have claimed many innocent men. But it was wise and prudent to preempt any threat of internal power struggles when an invasion was coming, threatening to destroy everything.
Btw even with the purges the Soviets retained excellent officers—Zhukov, Konev, Vatutin etc. People view the purges as the utter ruination of the Red army. I wonder how it won the war, lol.
 

starman

Ad Honorem
Jan 2014
4,118
Connecticut
Russia would have prospered better without communism.we can see West Germany was better than East and South Korea is far better than North.
Generally that may be true. A strong state however was instrumental in overseeing crash industrialization—the key to survival.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist
Jun 2019
61
St.Petersburg
Generally that may be true. A strong state however was instrumental in overseeing crash industrialization—the key to survival.
2-3 decades before WW1 Russia had the fastest industrial growth among all large countries. In 1881-1885 Russian industry was estimated as 13% of GB and 24% of Germany.
30 years later (1913) - 38% and 34% respectively. So there is no reason to believe that without Stalin the country would remain de-industrialized.
 

starman

Ad Honorem
Jan 2014
4,118
Connecticut
2-3 decades before WW1 Russia had the fastest industrial growth among all large countries. In 1881-1885 Russian industry was estimated as 13% of GB and 24% of Germany.
30 years later (1913) - 38% and 34% respectively. So there is no reason to believe that without Stalin the country would remain de-industrialized.
After 30 years the tsarist regime couldn’t do better than a third of Germany, despite the obvious potential threat, a situation that contributed to defeat and humiliation. Of course some progress would’ve occurred without Stalin but in light of the dismal record of previous governments, I wouldn’t be optimistic that sufficient progress would’ve been made, to the point where Russia actually outproduced the Reich in some areas.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist