Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[Sindain]

That's the point in having nukes: enough (500+) of them coupled with intercontinental ballistic missiles as the delivery method make you a superpower by definition (a better definition of superpower would be a country which can destroy all other countries simultaneously).

Of course, by that definition no one was a super power in 1920s, cause ya know, they didn't have nukes.

[Helgoland]

How about this: A superpower is a power that cannot be defeated. It's a definition that appears to hold, but it means that the Soviet Union pre-1945 was not a superpower.

[Sergarr]

I've never claimed about anyone being a superpower in 1920s, only about there being two superpowers after the second world war: USA and USSR. It's the others that have made these erroneous claims that Russia in 1920s was somehow "The strongest nation in the world by the long shot", while also conveniently forgetting just how weak the USSR was at the moment (losing to Poland, out of all things).

How about this: A superpower is a power that cannot be defeated. It's a definition that appears to hold, but it means that the Soviet Union pre-1945 was not a superpower.

It doesn't hold if you remember that MAD: Mutually Assured Destruction was in full force during the height of the Cold War.

According to your definition, the USSR and USA at the height of the Cold War weren't superpowers, because they could both defeat each other simultaneously.

[Helgoland]

That would be a draw, though, not a defeat. Potato, potato, you know what I mean. See what I did there?

[Wolfhunter107]

The Trans-Siberia's route is flat. That of the Transcontinental Railroad... isn't. It has to cross at least two mountain ranges-the Rockies and the Seirra Nevadas. The latter was crossed IN THE WINTER. We did this in the 1800s, the Trans-Siberian was built in the 1920s.

[GreatJustice]

When I said "the Soviet Union of the 20s and 30s", I thought it was clear that I mostly meant the latter part of the 20s (after the Poland-Soviet war) and the earlier part of the 30s (before Stalin purged the best military minds of the time). Regardless, the Poland-USSR war took place almost immediately after/during the Civil War, with the Red Army being in the midst of reorganization and many of the White forces either not integrated or still fighting against the Soviets. Anyhow, the Soviet military advantage peaked around 1934 or so, when it's new designs were state of the art and it's military structure was functional. After that, Stalin screwed things up in a variety of ways:

-His purges wiped out the bulk of his officer corps, with the result being that the Red Army of 1941 was horrifically understaffed, with those few officers still around being inexperienced and often incompetent
-He removed the territorial army of the Soviet Union and put it into the regular forces, depriving the USSR of extra competent manpower when it was needed most
-He appeased Hitler by providing him raw materials even when it was obvious Hitler was planning an attack. He also had anyone who pointed out the obvious imminent invasion arrested.
-When Hitler attacked, he required his officers throw their forces into bloody meatgrinders rather than fall back, resulting in massive losses for basically no gains.
-He was sufficiently tyrannical that the Nazis were able to recruit many Russians into anti-Soviet forces (an impressive feat considering how the Nazis treated those in the East)

Industrialization may have been slower without the Bolsheviks and, to some degree, Stalin, but its worth mentioning that Russia was already on that road as of the 1890s, and likely would have had a fairly strong industrial base by the 30s anyway, and probably with less unnecessary deaths too. Anyhow, even if you really like the Bolsheviks for whatever reason, Stalin was easily the worst of the bunch. He had pretty much every other Communist from his time executed for some reason or another.

[martinuzz]

The Trans-Siberia's route is flat. That of the Transcontinental Railroad... isn't. It has to cross at least two mountain ranges-the Rockies and the Seirra Nevadas. The latter was crossed IN THE WINTER. We did this in the 1800s, the Trans-Siberian was built in the 1920s.

We have been making Gouda cheese since 1300

[LordSlowpoke]

The Trans-Siberia's route is flat. That of the Transcontinental Railroad... isn't. It has to cross at least two mountain ranges-the Rockies and the Seirra Nevadas. The latter was crossed IN THE WINTER. We did this in the 1800s, the Trans-Siberian was built in the 1920s.

We have been making Gouda cheese since 1300

greeks had cheese before 800 bc

step up

[Sergarr]

When I said "the Soviet Union of the 20s and 30s", I thought it was clear that I mostly meant the latter part of the 20s (after the Poland-Soviet war) and the earlier part of the 30s (before Stalin purged the best military minds of the time). Regardless, the Poland-USSR war took place almost immediately after/during the Civil War, with the Red Army being in the midst of reorganization and many of the White forces either not integrated or still fighting against the Soviets. Anyhow, the Soviet military advantage peaked around 1934 or so, when it's new designs were state of the art and it's military structure was functional. After that, Stalin screwed things up in a variety of ways:

-His purges wiped out the bulk of his officer corps, with the result being that the Red Army of 1941 was horrifically understaffed, with those few officers still around being inexperienced and often incompetent
-He removed the territorial army of the Soviet Union and put it into the regular forces, depriving the USSR of extra competent manpower when it was needed most
-He appeased Hitler by providing him raw materials even when it was obvious Hitler was planning an attack. He also had anyone who pointed out the obvious imminent invasion arrested.
-When Hitler attacked, he required his officers throw their forces into bloody meatgrinders rather than fall back, resulting in massive losses for basically no gains.
-He was sufficiently tyrannical that the Nazis were able to recruit many Russians into anti-Soviet forces (an impressive feat considering how the Nazis treated those in the East)

Industrialization may have been slower without the Bolsheviks and, to some degree, Stalin, but its worth mentioning that Russia was already on that road as of the 1890s, and likely would have had a fairly strong industrial base by the 30s anyway, and probably with less unnecessary deaths too. Anyhow, even if you really like the Bolsheviks for whatever reason, Stalin was easily the worst of the bunch. He had pretty much every other Communist from his time executed for some reason or another.

1) The officer corps had a lot of Old Guard, which was basically those people who made the revolution in the first place. These people have argued at the time that Russia must be used as a launching platform for a massive bloody attack on Europe. These people should not have been in a USSR.
2) Territorial army is not functional, it's corruption hell. I'm not sure why you're so praising it, when it is obvious that the very idea of territorial army is wrong. It's like if States in USA has their own private armies. It's ineffective at defending against a competent attacking army, because it's practically immobile. You know what happened to French army when Germans attacked? Yeah.
3) Dude, Churchill appeased Hitler much more than Stalin, and yet I don't see you blaming him for that. Also, if not for that appeasement policy, the Hitler might have decided to attack earlier than he did in real life, and that would have ended pretty badly for Soviet Union (Moscow, Leningrad taken in the initial push)
4) And yet enough people survived to fall back and form the front in the end, anyway. And the german forces were delayed enough. As many of high german command people show in their memoirs, they were behind the plan since day 1.
5) People like that would have joined Nazis regardless.

It seems that you somehow think that USSR had won the war not because, but despite the Stalin's efforts. I wonder what have you read to make that weird opinion.

[GrizzlyAdamz]

The Trans-Siberia's route is flat. That of the Transcontinental Railroad... isn't. It has to cross at least two mountain ranges-the Rockies and the Seirra Nevadas. The latter was crossed IN THE WINTER. We did this in the 1800s, the Trans-Siberian was built in the 1920s.

We have been making Gouda cheese since 1300

greeks had cheese before 800 bc

step up

70000 years ago, my great²⁸⁰⁰ grand pappy Ogg slew a female woolly mammoth by dropping a big rock on her and, upon splitting what would come to be called the 'udder' with his *sharpened rock* the following day, he found curdled milk in the gland's ducts!

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[scrdest]

When I said "the Soviet Union of the 20s and 30s", I thought it was clear that I mostly meant the latter part of the 20s (after the Poland-Soviet war) and the earlier part of the 30s (before Stalin purged the best military minds of the time). Regardless, the Poland-USSR war took place almost immediately after/during the Civil War, with the Red Army being in the midst of reorganization and many of the White forces either not integrated or still fighting against the Soviets. Anyhow, the Soviet military advantage peaked around 1934 or so, when it's new designs were state of the art and it's military structure was functional. After that, Stalin screwed things up in a variety of ways:

-His purges wiped out the bulk of his officer corps, with the result being that the Red Army of 1941 was horrifically understaffed, with those few officers still around being inexperienced and often incompetent
-He removed the territorial army of the Soviet Union and put it into the regular forces, depriving the USSR of extra competent manpower when it was needed most
-He appeased Hitler by providing him raw materials even when it was obvious Hitler was planning an attack. He also had anyone who pointed out the obvious imminent invasion arrested.
-When Hitler attacked, he required his officers throw their forces into bloody meatgrinders rather than fall back, resulting in massive losses for basically no gains.
-He was sufficiently tyrannical that the Nazis were able to recruit many Russians into anti-Soviet forces (an impressive feat considering how the Nazis treated those in the East)

Industrialization may have been slower without the Bolsheviks and, to some degree, Stalin, but its worth mentioning that Russia was already on that road as of the 1890s, and likely would have had a fairly strong industrial base by the 30s anyway, and probably with less unnecessary deaths too. Anyhow, even if you really like the Bolsheviks for whatever reason, Stalin was easily the worst of the bunch. He had pretty much every other Communist from his time executed for some reason or another.

1) The officer corps had a lot of Old Guard, which was basically those people who made the revolution in the first place. These people have argued at the time that Russia must be used as a launching platform for a massive bloody attack on Europe. These people should not have been in a USSR.
2) Territorial army is not functional, it's corruption hell. I'm not sure why you're so praising it, when it is obvious that the very idea of territorial army is wrong. It's like if States in USA has their own private armies. It's ineffective at defending against a competent attacking army, because it's practically immobile. You know what happened to French army when Germans attacked? Yeah.
3) Dude, Churchill appeased Hitler much more than Stalin, and yet I don't see you blaming him for that. Also, if not for that appeasement policy, the Hitler might have decided to attack earlier than he did in real life, and that would have ended pretty badly for Soviet Union (Moscow, Leningrad taken in the initial push)
4) And yet enough people survived to fall back and form the front in the end, anyway. And the german forces were delayed enough. As many of high german command people show in their memoirs, they were behind the plan since day 1.
5) People like that would have joined Nazis regardless.

It seems that you somehow think that USSR had won the war not because, but despite the Stalin's efforts. I wonder what have you read to make that weird opinion.

1) People responsible for a revolution that spawned USSR do not belong in the USSR?

2) Do your research.

3) Remind me when did the UK ally with Nazis. Ribbentrop-Molotov pact didn't exist?

4) Only for the reasons of 5)

5) No. Let me put that in perspective for you: until, basically, the end of WWII, public opinion did not believe in Nazi death camps and what-have-you. Mostly because of WWI propaganda being overblown. So, to average J. Random Russian Peasant, they were just Those Germans Who Don't Like Jews Much (and anti-semitism was hardly confined to Nazi Germany at the time). Initially, when Nazis entered Russian villages, people would cheer for them. Of course, it wasn't long before the Nazis showed themselves to be, well, Nazis, but that serves to show that Stalin was bad enough that only full-on Naziing managed to set J. Random Peasant against them.

[scrdest]

On point 3 I think he may be meaning Neville Chamberlain. The guy that, in my mind, was pretty naive.

Yeah, that too, but I didn't have the time to research if Churchill did anything like that.

Also, the Stalin discussion reminded me of an old, Soviet-era joke here:

A propaganda film is being shot in the Soviet Union.

A little girl comes to Stalin and says:
'Uncle Stalin, please give me some candy!'
'Fuck off' he replies.

Spoiler: A caption pops up: (click to show/hide)

And he could have killed her!

[WarRoot]

Anyhow, even if you really like the Bolsheviks for whatever reason, Stalin was easily the worst of the bunch. He had pretty much every other Communist from his time executed for some reason or another.

But if you don't like Bolsheviks that makes him the best of the bunch!

A little girl comes to Stalin and says:
'Uncle Stalin, please give me some candy!'
'Fuck off' he replies.

Spoiler: A caption pops up: (click to show/hide)

And he could have killed her!

I heard that joke too but a slightly milder version. With comrade Lenin giving back the ball to the kids.

[Sergarr]

1) People responsible for revolution generally don't belong in the state they spawned due to their destructive nature.

2) Ahh, so that's why stuff like Ferguson likes to happen.

3) Churchill gave Nazis Sudets for free. He also didn't do anything to defend Poland and for three months after that did not do anything meaningful against Nazis. I say he was a Nazi ally at that moment de-facto.

5) And how do you know about the public opinion of Russian citizens better than the Russians themselves do?

[Wolfhunter107]

3) Churchill gave Nazis Sudets for free. He also didn't do anything to defend Poland and for three months after that did not do anything meaningful against Nazis. I say he was a Nazi ally at that moment de-facto.

5) And how do you know about the public opinion of Russian citizens better than the Russians themselves do?

3. The Soviets helped invade Poland.

5. He's slightly incorrect here. That mostly happened in the Ukraine, not Russia.