Why did communism tend towards having massive retards running the country? Only examples I can think of that didn't were Tito and arguably Castro

>>17805003 (OP)
Castro was absolutely a retard. Took an economically prosperous country and turned into an absolute shithole.

>>17805003 (OP)
inb4 people defend increased literacy rates when they sent people to prison camps for reading things deemed counterrevolutionary

>>17805004
It's hard to really tell with the embargo honestly.

>>17805003 (OP)
people have historically pretty restarted no matter what idiology they believed in.

>>17805003 (OP)
>Communists
>Smart

>>17805003 (OP)
Stalin and Mao turned feudal shitholes stuck in the dark ages into modernized industrial powerhouses

>>17805009
If you think about it the embargo was also his fault. He nationalized American companies in Cuba despite knowing that it would result in economically damaging sanctions from the United States. With that decision Castro single-handedly destroyed Cuba.

Stalin wasn't a retard
He was a 'great man'
Read Kotkin
Mao was a retard

>>17805003 (OP)
Stalin was an S tier dictator. It’s not his fault that the absolute circus that came after him fumbled the bag.
>but muh human rights
Yeah the USSR was shit obviously, Stalin was still the biggest galaxy brain in the history of communist dictators
>>17805058
Mao literally did the exact opposite of that. It was the guys from Deng onwards who did that. At every stage of Mao’s leadership the Chinese economy was Africa tier.

>>17805058
>Imperial Russia
>"feudal shithole"
What you don't know about Russia pre-1917 could fill an ocean

>>17805003 (OP)
Lenin was a legitimate intellectual and Mao an accomplished general, and both of them are still read today
Problem is that those skills don't necessarily translate to being a good politician once in power

>>17805093
>galaxy brain
He retardedly ignored warnings of an imminent German invasion and was responsible for the huge gains that the Germans made in the initial stage of Barbarossa.

>>17805098
That’s because he was too busy purging his internal opposition, with great success. Plus he still won anyway. This is just another usual Stalin W

>>17805095
I don't understand why you'd have real GDP with PPP
It should be Per Capita GDP with PPP
Also I doubt purchasing power parity is relevant for the advanced types of machines that Russia desperately needed which would have needed to be imported, only for domestic consumption

>>17805058
Deng saved China from Maoist retardation

>>17805095
>I don't understand why you'd have real GDP with PPP
What?
>It should be Per Capita GDP with PPP
Are you retarded?
>advanced types of machines that Russia desperately needed
What are you talking about?

>>17805126
Basically the metrics you have chosen are not good for comparing industrialised nations with industrialising and still overwhelmingly agricultural nations especially when their populations are so different

>>17805078
the entire point of spic communism is stealing american property

>>17805145
>Basically the metrics you have chosen are not good for comparing industrialised nations with industrialising and still overwhelmingly agricultural nations
I have an economics degree
You have no idea what you're talking about
Imperial Russia was the fourth largest economy on Earth in 1914
Imperial Russia was a highly industrialized society that had the ability to produce massive amounts of shells, locomotives, rifles, clothing etc
The reason economists use PPP is because comparing different economies is very difficult because of the oceans of data we are dealing with
In this insane world you have created in your mind, Russia before WWI was a pre-historic, agrarian society with no industry, if that were the case, in the chart I posted here
>>17805095
The lines representing the French and German economies would be where they are, and the Russian line would be essentially a flat line on the x axis
>per capita
You didnt know what this meant before googling it
>Read GDP
You didnt know what this meant before googling it
Never talk again

>>17805093
>Mao literally did the exact opposite of that. It was the guys from Deng onwards who did that. At every stage of Mao’s leadership the Chinese economy was Africa tier.
There's no difference in gdp growth between China in the 70s during Mao's era and China in the 80s during Deng's era. It just seems like growth accelerated because gdp growth at a static rate is necessarily exponential. The only difference is that Deng also brought debt and inflation along with the growth.

>>17805003 (OP)
Your photo seems to be out-of-date there, comrade.

>>17805147
ironic lol
american capitalism truly rots the brain

>>17805029
/thread
Honestly just not worth the effort debating communists they just give you the flouride stare while you dismantle their 'thought'

>>17805009
>remove le gringo imperialist LoL
>NOOOOOOOOO! YOU MUST TRADE WITH US RUSIA SAVE MEEE!!!!
Literally what’s the point

>>17805003 (OP)
Tito built the least bad commie country to live in but the economic system was completely unsustainable

>>17805003 (OP)
Not retarded
>Lenin, Stalin, Andropov
Retarded
>The rest
Simple as

>>17805318
Stalin was the greatest social scientist of the 20th century.

>>17805119
Mao was heavily tard wrangled by Zhou Enlai, doesn't get enough credit in western spheres for being able to tow the line of "dedicated maoist" and "critic wielding power"

>>17805361
Wait so how did Mao tard wrangle the nationalists, the Japanese, and eventually America?

>>17805095
Most of the population were illiterate serfs and Russia had virtually no industry.

Why does everybody forget him?

>>17805363
Mao was a pretty good military leader on the first 2
Mao was getting tard wrangled hard by Zhou Enlai when Nixon normalized relations. Zhou saved Mao's ass after the Shanghai situation got out of control during the cultural revolution and he had the pull to force Mao and the Party to stop having an internal conflict and start actually thinking of the PRC as a country that could survive long enough that people won't remember living under the ROC. Mao was kinda war-brained and was always thinking about how China could unify or how China will survive a nuclear exchange that he made several key longterm policy mistakes. One of the ones they live with currently is that there was a lot of early PRC leaders who saw the population doubling in the 19th century Qing as being a cause of a lot of civil unrest and famine and wanted to avoid it. As early as 1949 top party officials proposed a 2 child policy to try and prevent China from going above 400 million population. Mao decried that as reactionary and encouraged a population boom for his war plans, something which ended up causing the food scarcity planners worried about, leading to the "voluntary" collectivization becoming mandatory in 1956 with rural workers being put on the work points system instead of being paid as well as other restrictive policies such as the internal passports which make rural workers not able to get education for children if they move to cities and not having worker's protections in urban areas to discourage a rural migration to urban areas to keep food supply stable. The commune system which China implemented still has lasting effects and causes a lot of problems economically with the "seasonal" factory workers at such places like FOXCONN where in between harvests a flow of rural workers live at the factory to produce apple products at extremely low wages with almost no protections due to the legal gray area of their worker status.

>>17805159
>The reason economists use PPP is because comparing different economies is very difficult because of the oceans of data we are dealing with
Nigger you'd use per capita, not ppp you absolute buffoon

>>17805058
Mao's greatest contribution was showing how NOT to run a country to the point where people got sick of ideologist retards and became more pragmatic, so in a way he was an important gollum

>>17805003 (OP)
Both turned their countries into a prison camps. Thats not communism, but they used it as a pretty advert/psyop to gain advantage. They were nothing more than collectivist assholes that could not recover from that one time when mongols raped them.

>>17805920
>Mao's greatest contribution was showing how NOT to run a country
Exactly, he showed us that dismantling feudalism, unifying the country and ending warlordism, increasing literacy rates, promoting women’s right and industrializing the nation is actually le bad

>>17805930
He was good at setting up the foundations and abusing incompetency of royalists but there's reason why hardcore idealist communism pretty much died by the time Deng took over
And his attempt at industrialization was a massive fucking disaster that lead to worlds greatest famine, his successors had to shit that fix up by opening markets
>women's rights
yes sending women to work at sweatshops instead of raising kids is so progressive lmao

>>17805193
Can you name a single communist spic movement that wasn't based around the thievery of American industry?

>>17806014
Sendero Luminoso?
I don't think there's any US assets to steal in Peru

>>17805003 (OP)
To be fair, Stalin's methods were brutal but it worked. The Soviets became a major industrial power by the 30s.

Mao's problem was that he wanted to copy that, but do it faster. So he came up with stupid policies that didn't accomplish the same feats, and when called out doubled down.

>>17805159
Didn't read, summarize next time egghead

>>17805003 (OP)
It justifies the violent taking of power by force, so it's gonna attract violent people who seek power.

>>17805159
>Imperial Russia was a highly industrialized society that had the ability to produce massive amounts of shells, locomotives, rifles, clothing etc
and still the majority of it's population was illiterate and lived in rural poverty.

>>17806304
Opposed to rule of the mighty sword?

Face it anon, the real reason is the democratic ways, it rewards loyalty to the cause, what smart dude with mouths to feed and problems to solve can't do while being persecuted by the fascists

>>17805159
100 million illiterate bumfuck peasants produce twice as much as 50 million illiterate bumfuck peasants. The economy technically doubled in size, sure, but that doesn't mean the country is actually prosperous.

>>17806338
as opposed to ruling at the pleasure of the citizenry, you dolt. Getting voted in, peaceful transition of power.

>>17805003 (OP)
Look at all these coping retards defending Stalin ITT. Look. You would not want to live under retard like stalin. He deserved to die in puddle of his own piss and alone. And his great empire lasted LESS than 40 years. Only to collapse literally in the most pathetic way possible without a single war, only to re emerge as another shithole that would make him spin in the grave since modern russia is antithesis of his shit ideology (richfags holding retarded poor masses in check). Hes a failure with no legacy whatsoever. The only good thing he did was not pussying out when germans were coming as one of his few based retard moments.
To every single monkey defending him. Ask yourself. Would you want to live under stalin? Under dogshit low trust society that disgusted even the person that contributed to all of it when he realized kids are snitching on their parents? The answer is no, you wouldn't.

>>17806287
>Mao's problem was that he wanted to copy that, but do it faster. So he came up with stupid policies that didn't accomplish the same feats, and when called out doubled down.
No, Mao specifically said that the Soviet model would never work in China and that they had to develop their own way. He thought that society should be organized down-top, rather than top-down as it was under Stalin.

>>17806354
maybe they didn't teach him that at the university lol

>>17806365
look at the butthurt belter. I would live under Stalin btw.

>>17805003 (OP)
Mao was a genius revolutionary.
He was a terrible national leader though.

>>17806365
American seether here. I'd live under Stalin. :)

>>17805119
No he didn't. Under Mao, Chinese growth was already skyrocketing. There is no drastic increase in Chinese growth under Deng.
China's growth numbers only started massively improving in the mid 2000s. Most of the Maoist period outside of the GLF had much higher growth numbers than later Chinese periods.

>>17805327
>Stalin was the greatest social scientist of the 20th century.
They would actually call him that.
https://youtu.be/VersLJjqRGY

>>17805960
>He was good at setting up the foundations and abusing incompetency of royalists but there's reason why hardcore idealist communism pretty much died by the time Deng took over
I think more than anything communism was very 20th century. Like "high" 20th century or High Modernism. It's all about how society can be engineered through a plan with blueprints and technological control. Rule by engineers, planners, and ideologues. Uniform housing blocs, collectivized farms. I see this remaining somewhat in China and also with various tech lords in Western countries, but reading old communist stuff is like looking at a whole different mentality or philosophy. Just the way they talked was different.

>>17806365
Stalin's only major mistake was going too hard against factional true believer Communists, while letting ass kissing liberals biding their time like Khrushchev and Beria to rise to the top.
Stalin isn't really responsible for the collapse of the USSR. the USSR was given it's deathknell with Khrushchev going full counter-revolutionary anti-Communist with his retarded bullshit speech.
>Would you want to live under stalin?
Would happily choose to live under Stalin than industrialization in say the West where kids were thrown into textile machinery and coal mines.

>>17806490
>Also reminder that the average westoid lost 8cm in height over Western Industrialization, while the average person gained 5 cm over Soviet industrialization.

>>17805699
This wasn't true by 1914. Russia had a huge industry, they just hadn't built the logistics to use it yet. It took the Soviet until 1930 to reach Russia's pre-war GNP in 1914

>>17806490
>Stalin's only major mistake was going too hard against factional true believer Communists, while letting ass kissing liberals biding their time like Khrushchev and Beria to rise to the top.
The fundamental issue is that the communists had a theory and interpretation of history which granted them the right to control everything and change society. There was no theoretical upper limit to their power other than material obstacles. But there was nothing actually standing in the way of Stalin eventually becoming a total leader with an inner circle of ass kissers. The anti-revisionist types want Stalin without Khrushchev or Beria but I don't think it's possible :-/

>>17806365
>To every single monkey defending him. Ask yourself. Would you want to live under stalin? Under dogshit low trust society that disgusted even the person that contributed to all of it when he realized kids are snitching on their parents? The answer is no, you wouldn't.


COVID-19
Immunity of police, secret service officers.
Immunity of magistrates.
Immunity of prison chief wardens.

All while colluding with organized crime, to use it against civilian dissent, and businesses to blackmail them (lower pay, longer hours, arbitrary quotas, utility bills inflated...).


I could go on... The same inhuman cynicism that infected totalitarian shitholes in the 20th century have metastasized into the global system, just as Fukuyama predicted with financial powers alone.

>>17805003 (OP)
In case of Russia: it always has retards in charge no matter the system, cant fix that country
In case of China: They stopped being hardcore commies after mao, communism is basically just aesthetics and virtue signalling and this point and leadership has been consistently good

>>17805909
>Nigger you'd use per capita, not ppp you absolute buffoon
What are you talking about?

>>17805699
I get it now
This is socialist cope
You have to believe that Tsarist Russia was like some pre historic "kingdom" in Africa c 2000 BC and the soviets took control and "modernized" the Russian economy
When the reality is too much to bear you idiots just start screeching PER CAPITA PER CAPITA PER CAPITA
>>17806501
>Russia had a huge industry, they just hadn't built the logistics to use it yet. It took the Soviet until 1930 to reach Russia's pre-war GNP in 1914
The truth hurts

>>17806693
>In case of Russia: it always has retards in charge no matter the system
they defeated Napoleon and Hitler and outlived the British Empire though

>>17806788
>they defeated Napoleon
They ran away
Napoleon marched an army of 600,000 from the Rhine to Moscow, burned Moscow to the ground and then left
The only generals of quality under Alexander were French
In the 6th and 7th coalitions the only troops of quality to combat the French were Prussian, English and Austrian

>>17806798
cope

>>17805003 (OP)
Stalin literally is one of the greatest leaders in history, Tito was a retard

>>17806857
Ten cents have been deposited into your account.

>>17805095
Most of the Russian tsarist population couldn’t read and lived in straw house with no electricity

The army was an outdated shit pile

>>17805098
He was so intelligent and rational that he didn’t believe the Germans would do such a retarded irrational thing

>>17806501
>>17806735
You guys are historical revisionists.Russia's industry was so weak that during ww1 they had to resort to importing outdated 19th century French rifles to equip their men because they didn't have enough for everyone. Meanwhile, The USSR in ww2 had the second largest production in the entire world, despite losing all of their best land temporarily to the Germans. It's pretty obvious that there was an enormous gap in industry between both societies, especially if we look at it relative to other countries of their respective times.

>>17805003 (OP)
>communism
>picture of 2 liberals
???

>>17806798
>Napoleon marched an army of 600,000 from the Rhine to Moscow, burned Moscow to the ground and then left
And what happened after that? The Russians made it to Paris and Napoleon was sent to exile.

>>17806891
>>17806897
See
>>17806735
Cope and seethe

>>17806897
In the past I have defended imperial Russia's industry by mentioning that their tank prototype had more than twice as much horsepower as the British design and a fly with the wingspan of a 747. After years of consideration and claims in line with your thoughtful post, I admit that you are unswervingly correct. The Soviets created scaled industry that had meaningful impact in every area of life. Just recently I also heard that the Soviets produced 29 times the artillery of that of the imperial period. Hence, why again they relied on French companies to produce their artillery like Schneider.

>>17806905
Ukraine, Poland, and the Baltic states all seceded. Obviously number goes down. But also... Number go up.

>create a system that rewards brutality and demagoguery
>can't understand why the most brutal demagogues get to power
Leftists really are something else

>>17806938
>>create a system that rewards brutality and demagoguery

Every single time it was a liberal-capitalist state that crashed and communism had to pick up the pieces.

>>17806941
>Every single time it was a liberal-capitalist state that crashed
Holy shit
You people actually believe this stuff
Wild

>>17806950
I'm just stating facts. Looks like you were unprepared to defend your ideology, you bum.

>>17805163
This is very common with retards. They see someone making big reforms that take time to pay off and whine the economy wasn't immediately growing. Usually when those reforms start to pay off some time has passed and there's someone else at the helm, but the retards are completely incapable to out two and two together.

>>17806969
>I'm just stating facts. Looks like you were unprepared to defend your ideology, you bum.
You're in a cult
You got called out for referring to Tsarist Russia and China under the Qing dynasty and Chiang Kai-shek as "liberal capitalist"
And in response you wrote "I'm just stating facts"
Are you okay?

>>17805003 (OP)
You post a picture of two of the most ingenious statesmen of the 20th century to make your point?

>>17806950
>colonial empires collapsed
>fascist countries were obliterated
>US were only kept afloat by FDR's quasi socialist reforms

>>17805163
>gdp growth at a static rate is necessarily exponential.
This is complete nonsense.

>>17806978
>You're in a cult
You're projecting. You couldn't defend the liberal cult so now you're lashing out at everyone else.

>You got called out for referring to Tsarist Russia and China under the Qing dynasty and Chiang Kai-shek as "liberal capitalist"

Hold up right there bucko! Let's fix your history:
>Imperial Russia saw the tsar step down, the government that failed to fix the war or the situation was a liberalist government that collapsed resulting in communism
>China was split by nationalist-capitalists who had a preference for liberal republicanism and a myriad of bandit chiefs, warlords, and cliques.

So now that we've got that outta the way, yes, communism took up the mantle after liberal-capitalism failed everywhere.

>>17806983
>colonial empires collapsed
Yeah like the United Kingdom
>fascist countries were obliterated
??????
Yeah, after WWI there weren't any fascist dictatorships on Earth
XD
>US were only kept afloat by FDR's quasi socialist reforms
This is pop history nonsense, I have an Econ BA and know much more about the economic history of the US than you do
Youre regurgitating things you learned about the Great Depression in high school
The New Deal programs effect on the US economy have been wildly overstated by (mostly lefty) historians
In the final analysis the FDR stimulus programs of the 30s had little to no effect on the recovery from the Great Depression
The thing that finally got the US out of the second half of the Great Depression was the buildup in response to the German and Japanese threats in the late 30s

>>17805003 (OP)
I can't really think of any retarded communist state leaders besides Pol Pot and Gorbachev. They were all either amazing leaders (like the two in op) or pretty solid.

>>17805003 (OP)
>Only examples I can think of that didn't were Tito and arguably Castro
Ironically two of the biggest retards, one with the genius strategy of taking out so much loans that Serbia still has to pay because surely the west will collapse, and the other with the genius strategy of bending over as a Soviet sugar plantation to remain one of the least industrialized ML countries to date, brutally mogged by fucking North Korea
In contrast to Stalin and Mao as your example of "retards" who actually accomplished giant feats, it's so obvious when people talk like this their measure of being a good leader is being a heckin good person smol bean which you perceive leaders of small shitholes to better encompass. Such a pathetic, feminized, pussy view of history.

>>17806986
>You're projecting.
xD

>>17807009
Yes, you are the one projecting. You assumed you were arguing with a communist in the first place so you lashed out about being in a cult while you're in an ideological cult.

>>17807011
You sure repeat communist ideals about psychology, is psychology who thinks I tried to walk there but slipped on the rocks, it will happen to you, is just a social construct

>>17807011
Also, I love
>communists took over and everything got better!!
Look
>>17806905
The Soviets took over and the Russian economy went back 100 years.
>I'm not in a cult, you are!
You'll be okay, it's not the end of the world.

>>17807017
You're not arguing with the person you think you're arguing with. It just so happens everyone is sick of lib bullshit being peddled everywhere.

>>17807018
>The Soviets took over and the Russian economy went back 100 years.
Or maybe ww1 followed by a civil war just took a temporary toll on the economy.

I think this is a pretty objective list of some of the more notable gommie statesmen

>>17807032
>No that's crazy I prefer my version where everything was sunshine and lollipops until the evil commies came along and trampled on all the flowers

>>17805004
Is this what they teach in mutt schools?

>>17807055
No,it's what they teach on Facebook.

>>17807057
Good, had me worried for a second there.

>>17807060
He still worries me.

>>17807068
Have you asked him, if Castro was such a retard, how come his regime survived throughout Castro's entire life, living to the ripe old age of 90, despite the fact that it existed just a few miles off the coast of the worlds foremost capitalist super power?

I mean if he made life so much worse for Cubans, surely it would've been easy to stage a coup, right?

>>17807076
It survived because it had a legitimate popular revolution, while the Warsaw Pact states, Mongolia, and Africongo shitholes were pretty much just Soviet funded blanquist coups. Yet Castro was still a retard that tried his hardest to twerk for his Soviet zaddies as much as the actual satellite states did instead of trying to establish a healthy degree of autonomy like Kim and Ho, which was a primary disagreement that Che had with him.

>>17807085
>solidarity for liberal-capitalists
>I sleep exploited

>unity for human rights
>REAL SHIT

>>17805003 (OP)
>Why did communism tend towards having massive retards running the country?
First of all this isn't necessarily true. It's an exaggeration in your head and a product of hostile state propaganda. Like Mao might have been erratic but he wasn't really a "massive retard." More like one of China's most successful warlords/Imperial Dynasty founders.

But anyway
1. "Communism," that is, governments in the fashion of the Soviet Union (often sponsored by) started out broken - thanks to Stalin. It was never supposed to be a dictatorship and he wasn't selected as a leader, let alone a supreme unquestioned one. He was just the trickiest of the power seekers. Stalin never defined himself as "King" or "President" nor set up coherent rules for a successor beyond himself, so the USSR ended up having no system of formal high leadership.

Most "Communist" states followed this and had one ill defined dictator and succession via internal coups, not democracy. Usually the revolutionary founder. It should be noted most "Communists" states were never in their history democratic and had no cultural experience with it. Anyway though: leadership to the "strongest" or those who desire it the most and manage to stab the competition in the back.

2. "Communism" is generally comes in a point of historical drama and also tends to be reinventing the wheel. Stable wealthy developed nations do not generally have radical socialist revolts. And there's no drawing on centuries of evolved stability from tradition. It's usually when a society is in a radical mass movement where something really bad or wild happens. E.g. the Great Leap Forward, The later phase of the French Revolution, Baron Ungern, the emptying of all cities by the Khmer Rouge. This is where individual dictator personalities really start to shine for good or ill, usually for ill.

>>17807111
3. Most Communist states had revolutionary strongmen founders e.g. Tito or Castro. Or were selected by a patron soviet state from a stable of potentials e.g. Kim Il-sung.

4. Communism has a high pressure selection system for leadership. It's a wild filter. Look into the lives of most Communist founders and they have crazy dangerous life stories compared to some boring jagoff head of parliament.

- Stalin escaped prison/exile like 6 times, and infamously got his start in the party being a dirty bank robber where others were too onions, after quitting a life as a potential priest. If he had failed at anypoint we would never have heard much of him.
Mao got promoted by surviving a death march that had 10% survival rate. Pol

- Pot became leader of his party because it was under constant state surveillance and persecution as an illegal organization, and leaders tended to die. Pol Pot was one of the guys willing to take the job after the previous had been murdered, so I hear. And the Khmer Rouge rose to power because the country had been bombed to smithereens by the USA.

- Che Guevara's life is akin to an isekai protagonist. He was a straight up adventurer.

- Khrushchev
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDOIzK8NuoU

Anyway, the survivors tend to select for a certain type. Unambitious people with reasonable safe approaches to life and average everyman personalities is not it.

>>17807111
>1. "Communism," that is, governments in the fashion of the Soviet Union (often sponsored by) started out broken - thanks to Stalin. It was never supposed to be a dictatorship and he wasn't selected as a leader, let alone a supreme unquestioned one. He was just the trickiest of the power seekers. Stalin never defined himself as "King" or "President" nor set up coherent rules for a successor beyond himself, so the USSR ended up having no system of formal high leadership.
This was already solved by Lenin via democratic centralism, China and Vietnam don't really have succession crises anymore. What's wrong with a small politburo electing a leader as opposed to a swathe of retards that will only be in reach with enough oligarchic campaigning support?

>>17807111
>>17807115
Jesus christ
Tinpot dictatorships run by retards whose big ideas were abolish private property and starve people to death for reasons
Shut the fuck up you fucking moron
Lmao

>>17807115
>Mao got promoted by surviving a death march that had 10% survival rate.
Not totally accurate. Mao got promoted because the former leadership lost the trust of the rest of the party after failing to defend the Jiangxi Soviet during the last Encirclement Campaign. After Mao grabbed power at the Zunyi Conference, he launched the survivors of the Encirclement Campaign into the Long March to relocate in Shaanxi.

>>17806897
>You guys are historical revisionists.Russia's industry was so weak that during ww1 they had to resort to importing outdated 19th century French rifles to equip their men because they didn't have enough for everyone
This is oversimplification of the matter. Russia was facing a war on 3 fronts and lost less territory in 4 years than the Soviets lost in 1 month. Russia was rapidly industrializing but still lagging heavily behind the West, especially in terms of infrastructure. They had difficulty transporting the supplies to the front. The thing about WW1 is that it was the peak of the revolutionary fervor so a lot of Russia's (and later Germany, etc) abilities to mass produce were cut off by factory strikes and protests. It was just a war that happened at the worst time for Russia right in the middle of a huge nationwide transformation. The German high command basically predicted that in 4 years, if Russia was allowed to grow in the rate they were growing, they'd be an unstoppable juggernaut and Germany would have no chance of winning whatsoever in a future war. The reality is that the Soviets capped and destroyed much of Russia's progress, but they take credit for the industrialization despite it being mostly as a result of the late 19th and early 20th century reforms during the Czarist regime.

>>17807147
https://progressforum.org/posts/ihyzqydoudar92T5J/imperial-russia-was-doing-fine-without-the-soviets

>>17807147
>This is oversimplification of the matter. Russia was facing a war on 3 fronts
???????????????????????????????????

>>17807042
whos the ming the merciless looking fucker in the A tier?

>>17807147
>Russia was facing a war on 3 fronts and lost less territory in 4 years than the Soviets lost in 1 month.
Because armies in ww1 weren't as mobile as armies in ww2. Also, Germany in ww1 was fighting France while they were fighting Russia. In ww2, almost the entirety of Europe went against the USSR at the same time while.

>The thing about WW1 is that it was the peak of the revolutionary fervor so a lot of Russia's (and later Germany, etc) abilities to mass produce were cut off by factory strikes and protests.
Just an excuse. People starting protesting because their lives were so shit and they didn't want to go die fighting the Germans empty-handed until they reached a point where they decided that they were better-off risking their life fighting their own rulers. Stalin actually had popular support.

>The German high command basically predicted that in 4 years, if Russia was allowed to grow in the rate they were growing, they'd be an unstoppable juggernaut and Germany would have no chance of winning whatsoever in a future war.
They also predicted that they could just walk over France in a few months.

>The reality is that the Soviets capped and destroyed much of Russia's progress
Absolutely not. They accelerated it by every metrics.

>>17807156
Uncle Ho Chi Min.

>>17807165
>Because armies in ww1 weren't as mobile as armies in ww2.
Not true
>Also, Germany in ww1 was fighting France while they were fighting Russia. In ww2, almost the entirety of Europe went against the USSR at the same time while.
Barely. The second part is also completely wrong. Germany had to station forces in multiple countries as well as continue the fight in Africa and against Britain while they fought against the USSR. Meanwhile Russia was all alone for pretty much the entire duration of WW1 fighting Austria-Hungary, the Ottomans, Bulgaria and Germany at the same time.
>People starting protesting because their lives were so shit and they didn't want to go die fighting the Germans empty-handed until they reached a point where they decided that they were better-off risking their life fighting their own rulers
Not really. Widespread mutinies started in every GP in WW1. Russia was the first one to catch it hard becaus they were the most underdeveloped due to abolishing serfdom so late. Stalin never had 'popular' support prior to 1945, the Soviets didn't collapse because they were financed out of their ass by the USA and because it was seen as a war of survival against an invading force.
>They also predicted that they could just walk over France in a few months.
It was not just Germany that was scared of a resurgent Russia though.
>Absolutely not. They accelerated it by every metrics.
Name one.

>>17807076
>surely it would've been easy to stage a coup, right?
Not really. When you don’t allow anyone except for your loyal army to have guns it’s pretty easy to remain in power unthreatened.

>>17807203
>Germany had to station forces in multiple countries
A few thousands of men.

>as well as continue the fight in Africa
One division out of over one hundreds. Certainly not equivalent to half the German army being on the western front in ww1.

>Meanwhile Russia was all alone for pretty much the entire duration of WW1
How convenient that you forget all the other countries that A-H had to fight. The Central Powers were outnumbered on all fronts.

>Widespread mutinies started in every GP in WW1.
Correct, so it makes no sense to blame Russia's poor war industry on that.

>Russia was the first one to catch it hard becaus they were the most underdeveloped
Yeah, a backward shithole propped up by French and German investors looking for cheap labor (before the war).

>the Soviets didn't collapse because they were financed out of their ass by the USA
Every time with this crap. No amount of funds or help would have saved them if they didn't already have a massive industry and army. American help definitely contributed, but it was a tiny amount compared to their domestic production, and almost all of it arrived when the German offensive had already stalled. In fact, the Soviets received less help than the UK in total.

>It was not just Germany that was scared of a resurgent Russia though.
Any country with a huge amount of population and land is going to eventually scare people. People were already scared of a resurgent China during their "century of humiliation" period.

>Name one.
I already did, all the military production, which absolutely dwarfed Russian production. We could also talk about all the material required for it, like steel and coal. And the petrol required to fuel them. Electrification also massively accelerated, along with all the material, such as cement, needed for the massive infrastructure project.

>>17806389
You wouldn't had4py84w lived in that hotel you peasant

>>17806389
You wouldn't have lived there you fucking peasant