I guess he means that Eastern Europe was basically economically enslaved by Western Europe to produce raw materials for their economy.
EDIT: Although I would not agree with that part very much, at least in Russian case it was the Russian aristocracy physically enslaving 90% of Russian populace. And after the Nikolai II has shot a multi-thousand peace procession, the people of Russia has seen that they cannot rely on a tzar to protect them from corrupt aristocracy. Thus, the Great October Socialistic Revolution.
The USSR may have been the first to launch a satellite, but as Ukrainian Ranger correctly judged it's only really good for dick waving nationalism. The USSR could have spent some of that money on improving living standards in a few of the many oblasts and Republics that had people living in medieval conditions. Tajikistan is an example.
Of course, USSR may have spend all those money on peaceful applications! And it would get bombed into the ground around 50s-60s by NATO aggressors, because they really wanted to do that. End result: much, much worse than in real life.
And:
Again: It happened in the ending days of Russian Empire, where 90% of population were forever locked in a class of "serfs" and part of them were even worse, forced to work at factories in a country with no anti-capitalistic forces in play.
Consider that, and then consider the fact that in 30-35 years after that, the Russia became one of only two world's superpowers and were the first country to launch a satellite into space. The first!
Yep. Russia was first to launch satellite (thank another Ukrainian, Korolyov) so what? It was never used in a proper way, It had close to zero commercial use, unlike Western countries that used it for wellbeing of its citizens (and profit, but that is how market economy works)
If Russia have had the kind of resources the USA have access to, we would do that too. Alas, the USA has never seen a real war on it's territory and thus, had a gigantic head-start on Russia.
For all the problems the Tsars caused, they were never anywhere near as damaging to their nation as Stalin. I mean, the USSR in the 1920s and 30s was easily the strongest nation in the world by a long shot, with the world's most advanced military equipment, some very excellent generals (eg. Tukhachevsky), a massive population, and lots of natural resources. Under pretty much anyone else, the USSR should have rolled over Germany without too much problem, but under Stalin many, many people died because he purged the best commanders the USSR had and many more died because from 1941-43 he refused to believe that the Red Army needed to fight defensively.
Anyhow, the USSR was certainly a superpower after WW2, and after Stalin wasn't a terrible place to be, but the fact is that Russia was pretty much the only country capable of Communism at all, and it only barely functioned under such a system. I mean, under a capitalistic system from 1917 onwards (and the Tsars were basically irrelevant after that point anyway, they weren't going to retake power after the disaster of Nicholas II), Russia would have easily been capable of rivaling the US in nearly every field, if what was achieved in the brief periods of relative freedom demonstrated. Instead, Russia received 35 years of terror followed by 35 years of stagnation in everything except military hardware.
Poll
Author
Topic: Sheb's European Megathread: Remove Feta! (Read 1749854 times)