Nitpick: the Arctic route is the best remembered lend-lease route, largely because it was so dangerous, but it was actually the least used route. Per wiki:
And to nitpick my own nitpick, I find that “only non-military goods could be transported” via the Pacific Route statement highly suspect; it isn’t even stated at the source cited and is in fact contradicted there:
This couldnt be farther from the truth. The Soviets were unprepared for war in 1939…as the Finnish war demonstrated. Stalin murdered most of the upper leadership of the red army. Also, the Soviets undermined their defenses by not reenforcing their conquered land pre 6-22-41 allowing the Germans to encircle millions of soldiers.
Cite, please. The Soviets needed the great help of many kidnapped German scientists and all the espionage they could get their hands on.
For me the answer can be summed up by quoting Stalin himself, “Quantity has a quality all of it’s own.” (albeit he was not referring to the State but his army and why it would eventually beat down the Germans).
The USSR in 1950 had about 1/3 the GDP per capita of the US. Economically it was never a great power. However, it had conquered all of Eastern Europe, had a huge army, nuclear weapons, and spies in every important government in the world. This is what made it a superpower. A great army and a willingness to use it.
They were clearly prepared for a war, since they deliberately started one! The fact that their preparations turned out to be pretty pathetic is neither here nor there, since everyone was in the same boat. The British and French were unprepared for war in 1940, and the US were unprepared for war in 1941, as demonstrated by Pearl Harbour. Compare the first experiences of modern war of each nation - all equally shambolic (although the Soviets at last managed a horribly costly victory as compared to a crushing defeat). The only people who were prepared were the Germans and Japanese, and they were the ones who ended up ground to hamburger in 1945.
Indeed. And despite this criminal level of incompetence and self-decapitation the Red Army crushed the germans because the USSR was so very powerful. The british army in 1939 had approximately 1,100 fairly crap tanks. The Germans had a mixed bag of ~3,500 tanks and the french had an equally mixed bag of ~4,200. The Soviet tanks were mostly crap but they had ~20,000 of them! In 1941 the germans wreaked havoc on an unimaginable scale in Russia but STILL couldn’t keep up with the growth in the Soviet military machine. This is what you can do if you are a superpower - bury your mistakes beside your enemies, under a mountain of war material.
Cites for counter-factuals are rather thin on the ground, by definition. It’s equally impossible to find cites for the US developing nuclear weapons, cavity magnetrons or jet engines without british help, yet those are all 100% plausible as well. If you have the resources, determination and the scientists/engineers available you can eventually duplicate anything.
:dubious:
Many times I read about reports of the anti-aircraft batteries being put into action as fast as 5 minutes after the attack began, but by that time a lot of the damage was done, and as part of the surprise a lot of men and equipment were off, in training or working in maintenance after a week of preparation exercises.
The point here is that if they had been on alert before hand it would had been bad for the Japanese and looking at the photos of the incident it is clear to me that indeed the surprise was complete but unlike many reports that claimed that in 5 minutes anti aircraft batteries were active, by the time the Arizona and other battleships were hit the images show a virtual lack of flack bursts in the air, it is only after the damage is done that images that finally looks like a deadly area for attacking planes like this ones (around the middle of the page) were recorded:
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/events/wwii-pac/pearlhbr/ph-oa.htm
Facing that it would had made the Japanese think twice about continuing the attack, however most of the histories report the Japanese calling off a third wave of bombers off because of the American Aircraft carries were not found and could be ready to attack them.
There is also the observation by Yamamoto that was one of the reasons for the attack, he knew that if it was not completely successful he could only run wild for a few months and then it would be bad for Japan as the USA had more resources available. He confirmed that in Midway.
As noted above, the British were in bad shape after WWII. I read somewhere that life was worse than during the Great Depression for many Brits, even up to the 1960s.
Keep in mind that Britain also lost its Empire after the war, sort-of voluntarily. And because of the antipathy to Britain, many of those new states turned to the USSR as a patron, thus making their resources available to the Soviets. It wasn’t a colonial setup, but it brought those states into the economic orbit of the USSR.
In what ways was the USSR a global power?
They exported military aide to nations resisting colonialism and imperialism.
They had scientific advances in a handful of military and civilian fields that kept them up with the US. Mostly military or ‘pissing contest’ fields. Were the Soviets ever world leaders in research in fields like medicine, communications, consumer products, etc?
Due to their military aide to foreign nations they had diplomatic power.
But were they a power aside from that? I don’t recall the USSR being a world leader in civilian science, or consumer products or anything other than their military.
The US’s economy was 3x bigger, and a big reason the USSR was a military threat was because they spend 1/5 of their GDP on military.
Doesn’t south America have a GDP about 1/3 the size of the US? Nobody would consider latin america a global superpower.
Sorry, I honestly don’t understand your point.
I would assume by being able to menace any country on the planet with immediate nuclear annihilation, and many/most countries with political overthrow and/or conventional invasion. To me “superpower” as in the OP is explicitly a term of relative military capability unless it has some qualifier like ‘sporting’, ‘cultural’, ‘musical’ or whatever.
Given that the USA framed its entire foreign policy for half a century or more in terms of opposing the USSR from Argentina to Zaire it was clearly regarded as a very serious rival, regardless of its economic shortcomings.
Here’s an old Cold War joke:
In Soviet Russia one year there was a census, and they include a few questions about migration patterns. Here are one old woman’s answers:
I would guess this sums it up. Say what you (dis)like about communism, they did among other things make a concerted effort to drag a peasant population into the 20th century - education and literacy, industrialization, building the infrastructure… whatever the cost. With the “quantity” to throw massive resources at the problem, they kick-started an economy that could accomplish the necessary tasks. They created a high-volume production machine, they created a high-tech industry that could build tanks, aircraft, munitions, etc.
Like Japan in 1900’s, like China in the 1970’s, Like Taiwan or South Korea, they transformed themselves into an industrialized self-sufficient nation. The big difference is the Russians, like the Chinese today, had the quantity of resources and manpower (and the single-minded authoritarianism) to accomplish many of the tasks that a superpower would need to do. they could field a large army, they could supply it, they could develop and build newer tech equipment, they had the navy to project into many areas of the globe…
Keep in mind, that while the USA and Russia were engaged in an arms race in the 60’s through the 80’s, what it really meant is that the second tier nuclear (non-super)powers were hopelessly outclassed in quantity and delivery options of nuclear weapons, of quality and quantity of aircraft, ships, etc. Note how Britain, for example, had to scramble to assemble enough resources for a minor war in the Falklands.