|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On March 31 2017 04:37 Big J wrote:
Can someone link data about the Soviet GDP and stuff? Maybe Western estimations of that time versus Soviet publications?
Nope. Economic productivity wasn't really calculated the same way as it is in Western economies so it's kind of not an easy direct comparison. Estimates I've heard would put the effective GDP of the USSR at about the level of the US though - which, to be fair, was somewhat worse considering the USSR had more people in it.
Edit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Soviet_Union
But the numbers here are hard to estimate in a useful way simply because the economy was largely undocumented.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On March 31 2017 04:36 opisska wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2017 04:27 LegalLord wrote:On March 31 2017 04:19 opisska wrote:
Shame it doesn't hold up when you look into the actual details. I don't know the exact situation in the USSR from more than hearsay and anecdotes Same as usual. Should I rather pretend that everything I say is the immutable truth, as you do it? I prefer to comment on things I have first hand experience with and let the reader do the extrapolation. Surely, we were repeatedly told for forty years that everything is so much better in the USSR than in Czechoslovakia, so by that logic, our experience is irrelevant. Although it's then a little surprising that after those forty years of having Soviet experts here present and trying to implement their methods, things were getting worse, not better. But nah, that's probably just because we are naturally inferior to the Russian people and thus we just couldn't make it worse. What are your reputable sources for all that claims of things working well in the USSR, anyway?
I could certainly get into a lot of the post-Soviet revisionist history that has sought to create the narrative of a fight against the oppression of the Soviets. And it wouldn't be too hard to mention how that narrative compares to the reality I had a chance to see. I could. But I don't see much point in feeding what is essentially a "rusha was mean to me, i didn't see it happen but its still true" pissing session.
Another time, perhaps.
|
Well the time to rewrite that history has come. Most of the people who suffered under the Soviet government are dead, so it’s time to re-invent that history.
|
I don't really care about your willingness to discuss it. I am just gonna keep calling you out every time you present another peek into your twisted version of the history. I don't see any reason to let you have free reign with blatant misinformation, regardless of how much you like it. However I must admit that I am pretty curious what would you present as "revisionist history" and how did it all happen in your little world of Soviet rainbows and unicorns.
As for "didn't see it happen" - sure, I was just seven when we the regime fell, so my eye-witnessing capacities aren't that great. But it really wasn't that hard to get a pretty detailed picture of the era, while having direct access to the whole nation of people who lived through it, the whole culture, all the propagandistic movies, papers and books ...
|
USSR did great job having most deaths during WW2, not sure if that's a thing to be proud of.
Since 1917 the whole country was growing in a weird way, tons of factories (logistics were made my some murican specialist) and call it barracks. During revolution lots of generals and officers were executed so Soviets had much less experienced army during WW2 which was one of the main reason of such death count.
Even Soviet pride of tank industry T-34 was made on american lenticular machines with american tractor engine, optics and aim engine from british MK4, tank's body somehow also related to the US.
Although cultural aspect was times better then now, much better movies, theatres etc, as well as sports was mainstream.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On March 31 2017 04:54 opisska wrote:
I don't really care about your willingness to discuss it. I am just gonna keep calling you out every time you present another peek into your twisted version of the history. I don't see any reason to let you have free reign with blatant misinformation, regardless of how much you like it.
I on the other hand don't particularly have any deeply ingrained desire to make people believe some certain clearly cherry-picked - and notably whiny - narrative about the past. So if you want to go ahead and rationalize a hatred based on a very specific narrative - go for it. I see no reason to stoop so low myself, so I guess I'll just take the moral high ground and end the "rusha was mean to me" circlejerk (or my participation therein) here. The original question - regarding the protests - was answered long ago anyhow.
|
On March 31 2017 04:40 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2017 04:37 Big J wrote:
Can someone link data about the Soviet GDP and stuff? Maybe Western estimations of that time versus Soviet publications? Nope. Economic productivity wasn't really calculated the same way as it is in Western economies so it's kind of not an easy direct comparison. Estimates I've heard would put the effective GDP of the USSR at about the level of the US though - which, to be fair, was somewhat worse considering the USSR had more people in it. Edit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Soviet_UnionBut the numbers here are hard to estimate in a useful way simply because the economy was largely undocumented.
I'd like to see those estimates of gdp parity with the US because everything I've seen puts the Soviet economy way below the US, includingthe link you posted:
"according to CIA estimates by 1989 the size of the Soviet economy was roughly half that in the United States of America.[10] According to the European Comparison Program, administered by the U.N, the size of the Soviet Economy was 36% of that in the United States in 1990"
|
Hatred based narrative for some is a well documented history of Soviet Russia for others.
|
On March 31 2017 04:27 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2017 04:19 opisska wrote:
Shame it doesn't hold up when you look into the actual details. I don't know the exact situation in the USSR from more than hearsay and anecdotes Same as usual.
Ironic coming from someone who usually pulls "facts" out of his ass. Remember how you said the output of the Baltic states and Poland is mostly agricultural? You never cared to back that up with actual evidence (because you made that up).
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On March 31 2017 05:25 warding wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2017 04:40 LegalLord wrote:On March 31 2017 04:37 Big J wrote:
Can someone link data about the Soviet GDP and stuff? Maybe Western estimations of that time versus Soviet publications? Nope. Economic productivity wasn't really calculated the same way as it is in Western economies so it's kind of not an easy direct comparison. Estimates I've heard would put the effective GDP of the USSR at about the level of the US though - which, to be fair, was somewhat worse considering the USSR had more people in it. Edit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Soviet_UnionBut the numbers here are hard to estimate in a useful way simply because the economy was largely undocumented. I'd like to see those estimates of gdp parity with the US because everything I've seen puts the Soviet economy way below the US, includingthe link you posted: "according to CIA estimates by 1989 the size of the Soviet economy was roughly half that in the United States of America.[10] According to the European Comparison Program, administered by the U.N, the size of the Soviet Economy was 36% of that in the United States in 1990"
The issue is that a very large part of the Soviet economy was deals made "under the table" without any form of documentation. Probably more than half. But there's no good way to estimate that.
It's been 26 years and we still don't have any consensus on what the GDP was. The CIA estimate is widely cited but also highly controversial.
Some detailed analysis: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/article/Comparative-Economic-Studies/19730261.html
I really wouldn't be too comfortable making a specific value judgment beyond that the GDP was lower than in the US, but not by 50%. I can't think of a good way to make the comparison. Don't think most others have had all that much luck either. I have seen numbers ranging from 35% to 90%. That's basically an indication that no one really knows.
|
On March 31 2017 05:14 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2017 04:54 opisska wrote:
I don't really care about your willingness to discuss it. I am just gonna keep calling you out every time you present another peek into your twisted version of the history. I don't see any reason to let you have free reign with blatant misinformation, regardless of how much you like it. I on the other hand don't particularly have any deeply ingrained desire to make people believe some certain clearly cherry-picked - and notably whiny - narrative about the past. So if you want to go ahead and rationalize a hatred based on a very specific narrative - go for it. I see no reason to stoop so low myself, so I guess I'll just take the moral high ground and end the "rusha was mean to me" circlejerk (or my participation therein) here. The original question - regarding the protests - was answered long ago anyhow.
Poll: Has LegalLord "take[n] the moral high ground"?No (16) 73% Yes (6) 27% 22 total votes Your vote: Has LegalLord "take[n] the moral high ground"? (Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
|
when legallord is actutally the most reasonable poster for more than one page of discussion, you know that the thread is doing bad.
|
On March 31 2017 06:02 Paljas wrote:
when legallord is actutally the most reasonable poster for more than one page of discussion, you know that the thread is doing bad.
He is only moments away from saying "Look Stalin wasn't that bad. He got a lot of things right."
|
Plansix is the dumbest person on this planet. Every single of his posts is an explosion of barbarism
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?36919 Posts
Are you boys playing nice in here or do I have to step in?
|
On March 31 2017 06:02 Paljas wrote:
when legallord is actutally the most reasonable poster for more than one page of discussion, you know that the thread is doing bad.
You have a very odd way of interpreting most reasonable.
|
On March 31 2017 06:15 Seeker wrote:
Are you boys playing nice in here or do I have to step in?
I think barbarism is an evocative insult, so I’m fine. Creativity goes a long way.
|
On March 31 2017 06:08 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2017 06:02 Paljas wrote:
when legallord is actutally the most reasonable poster for more than one page of discussion, you know that the thread is doing bad.
He is only moments away from saying "Look Stalin wasn't that bad. He got a lot of things right."
He did. His measures were cruel and barbaric and I would never want those costs to justify the outcome, but as Friedman said, you can't put an infinite value on life. You want extraordinary industrial growth and independence starting with a shitty economy? You gotta make some sacrifices. You want to do that before, during and after war times when you are the last bastion against Hitler, well shit's gonna pile up. Given that the alternative would have probably been a Blitzkrieg defeat in WW2, Stalin may as well have saved the world from Hitler.
But as "another cruel" leader put it: We have slaughtered the wrong pig!
|
On March 31 2017 06:27 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2017 06:08 Plansix wrote:On March 31 2017 06:02 Paljas wrote:
when legallord is actutally the most reasonable poster for more than one page of discussion, you know that the thread is doing bad.
He is only moments away from saying "Look Stalin wasn't that bad. He got a lot of things right." He did. His measures were cruel and barbaric and I would never want those costs to justify the outcome, but as Friedman said, you can't put an infinite value on life. You want extraordinary industrial growth and independence starting with a shitty economy? You gotta make some sacrifices. You want to do that before, during and after war times when you are the last bastion against Hitler, well shit's gonna pile up. Given that the alternative would have probably been a Blitzkrieg defeat in WW2, Stalin may as well have saved the world from Hitler. But as "another cruel" leader put it: We have slaughtered the wrong pig!
You are not wrong that he saved likely saved the Russia from Nazi Germany and brought Russia into the modern era kicking and screaming. No historian will argue against that, because it is true. But that assessment is through the detached view of the historian who is attempting understand the era and how it impacted the era’s that followed. It is not through an attempt to apply Stalin or other dictators to the modern era, or champion them as great leaders that we should follow. And this is a politics thread, not a history thread. When someone says "Stalin wasn't all bad", that context matters a lot.
|
Zurich15310 Posts
OK guys since we went full WW2 in astonishing speed, can we get back on topic please.
And stay civil.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
