The Antonov AN-124 and AN-225 heavy transports. In general, they excelled in large aerospace structures (“Big, dumb boosters”).
They also make great trucks like the URAL-4320 and all the trucks made by KAMAZ.
[/QUOTE]
Is Stalinism automatically equal to state socialism/capitalism? After all India was state socialist at least until recently and South Korea and Taiwan were definitiely state capitalist but neither had massively high body counts like Stalin’s Russia. I think your post generally meant state socialism rather than Stalinism.
There still was no freedom of religion or speech, there still were gulags, the average Soviet had their goods rationed and consumer goods like cars were owned by a tiny minority.
Well the Soviet transition to capitalism was too abrupt unlike what the Chinese are doing but this is a lesser evil IMO than gulags and suppression of basic rights.
I didn’t say that. I didn’t say all homeless people did so as a choice/
Most German conservatives were to say the least more pragmatic. Many of them favoured for example a German-Soviet alliance directed against the West-after all Bismarck had tried to ally Russia and Austria with Germany in a sort of reactionary alliance.
What strikes me when I read any of the in-depth histories of the Eastern Front is just how quickly Stalin and his cronies unf***ed themselves of any and all practices which were inefficient and bogged down by bureaucratic inertia (well, once Stalin himself got over the 17 stab wounds to his ego after June 22, 1941, which took about a month). The simple, pat, answer is that they had to do so to be able to survive, but a system more rigidly wedded to idealogy than it was would have stuck to its guns to the bitter end; to its credit the USSR clearheadedly and soberly did what it needed to do to fight and win the total war which it found itself in. Indeed it was the Germans and Hitler who stuck to their idealogical guns far past their sell-by date, whether you are talking about strategy, production, weapons procurement, or what have you (the Germans had zillions of incompatible designs in just about every arena, as contrasted with the Russians who stuck with a few tested and practical designs). I’m not sure you can lay all that at the altar of Communism per se, like I said.
Not totally. The Soviet leadership’s fundamental cruelty and paranoia continued to manifest itself in destructive ways throughout the war. Rushing ill-equipped and poorly supplied conscripts into battle made it “necessary” to post political officers to armies to combat cowardice and desertion through courts martial and summary executions (over 13,000 of their own troops at Stalingrad). Untrained pilots had low morale and considered themselves condemned men before they even got off the ground. Nonsensical orders would be carried out, resulting in great loss of life, because a culture of fear prevented commanders from displaying initiative. An utter lack of fairness and due process convinced many Red Army soldiers to take their chances as POWs rather than facing Soviet military justice, and even soldiers who stood their ground and fought bravely before being captured were distrusted and faced discrimination after the war.
To me, the most remarkable lunacy was that the operational concept of Deep Operations, which represented the state-of-the-art in terms of Soviet ground strategy and bore similarities to Blitzkrieg, was not utilized effectively until the middle of the war because the concept was closely associated with Marshal Tukhachevsky, who had been executed during the purges. But certain brave front commanders began to apply the principles again because they knew it worked. That fear of their own government could forestall use of such a well developed military concept is amazing to me.
So while the Wehrmacht was certainly a deadly opponent, I’d say that the incompetence and brutality that ran throughout the Soviet hierarchy made just as much of a contribution to the horrific casualties that the Red Army and the civilian population suffered.
Joe Stalin ran his prison system at a profit to the state. We spend a vast amount of money on our prison system. If we would adopt Uncle Joe’s methods we could reduce voter reluctance to expand the prison system and turn criminals into economic resources.
Do you have any data to support that? It’s not that I doubt you, I’d genuinely like to know. A novel I read that the author asserted had been thoroughly researched put forward the premise that in the final analysis the camps actually cost the Union more than it gave them. I don’t know, hence why I’m asking (I googled for some answers but couldn’t find anything myself).
Thinking on the OP, the USSR produced Shostakovich, Prokofiev and Kachaturian. Each of whom had to monitor his creative impulses or end up imprisoned or dead like many of their friends and colleagues.
Unlike some of the US’s greatest composers of the same era, Duke Ellington and Louis Armstrong; who could check into any hotel or use any drinking fountain they wished, without any trouble.
You are a man of wit. 
That German fellow got all of his stuff voted by a legally elected parliament, didn’t he? Freely and fairly, etc…
Actually it’s debatable that the votes were free and fair. Schiller in “Rise and fall of the third Reich” outlined how the Nazi party was able to track and punish people for voting incorrectly after they’d come to power. Furthermore Hitler was appointed chancellor by Hindenberg and his advisers thinking that they’d be able to try and contain him in that position - chancellor wasn’t then (and I don’t think it is now) a directly elected position, in the same way that the UK prime minister isn’t directly elected. So your Godwinning analogy doesn’t really work.
You know who else got all of his stuff voted on by a parliamentarian legally elected body and was himself freely and fairly elected, right? Ronald Reagan.
In other words, WTF has Hitler got to do with what BrainGlutton said?
I think that most of us aren’t really in a position to evaluate things from the USSR – we didn’t get to see or experience most of it. Certainly there were plenty of bad things and inferior products from them, but it’s not as if life there was inevitably awful and in all ways worse than the West.
– They produced a host of excellent scientists and decades worth of scientific and engineering utput to journals. Our university libraries are full of Soviet journals. There are far fewer, and with less material, from, say France, or Italy.
– From what I’ve seen, there was some excellent popular science material published in the USSR, sometimes covering topics that don’t sem to have interested writers of pop science in the West.
– Russian cinema and television came out with lots of things that are little known in the West. The Russian version of the Juiles Verne novel In Search of the Castaways/The Children of Captain Grant is supposed to be infinitely better than the Disney film, and the music from it continued to be popular for decades. Then they went and remade it, again better than what we have, The Russian version of War and Peace is longer than any version outside the USSR (except possibly the BBC serial – I’ve never seen that one), and has some spectacular pre-CGI batle scenes. There are the films of Tarkovsky. There must surely be many others, but I wouldn’t know. I do recall hearing that they also had a flourishing cartoon industry, as well, with some road-runner-esque cartoons. Ever seen them? Neither have I?
– and so on. You can argue that these are Russian, not Soviet things, but how do you draw the line and make the distinction? Many of these things were state-supported, and were done during the time of the Soviets. certainly their record is filled with the sort of authoritarian rule, short-sghted bad decisions, absurd sticking-to-the-system, and corrupt practices that can lead to disaster (You think Chernobyl was bad? look up Chelyabinsk some time.) But they must surely have produced examples where top-down autocratic procedures by motivated leaders produced better results in faster time than democratic procedures would have allowed, with no downsides. We would probably never have heard about them. Not only would they be unlikely to make it through the news filters (and be believed), but there would be no interest in trumpeting Soviet successes inthe US.
Why yes, AND we’d be a lot more like Stalin’s Russia! So … win … win?
And currently they are producing the very excellentAlyona Show on Russia TV.
Oh, probable the same F as Hugo Chavez does to the OP. Next question?
When it’s called ‘debatable’ that is usually a sign that it is debatable, which means improbable.
Punishing somebody for voting incorrectly means that the vote was fair; just the repercussions for voting were not good.
Yes, I and everybody who ever read about Hitler knows he was appointed by Hindenberg. I never said Hitler was freely elected, and I hope you didn’t take that from my post. The legally elected Hindenberg, did it constitutionally. So, my analogy works quite well, thank you.
Minor nitpick: Shirer, not Schiller.
Excuse me, aren’t we overdue for a ‘Soviet Russia’ joke, or did I miss it??
Unless you’re saying that Stalin himself achieved this, then you have a lot of explaining to do. In other words, Cite? Any leader of a nation could have done the same thing, with the resources at hand. And, the whole point was that they may not have needed to do all of this if STALIN HADNT GUTTED THE OFFICER CORP!
“In Soviet Russia, Soviet Russia evaluates YOU!”