Yes because this is how geopolitics work. The USSR basically entirely in Europe. The living standards should be comparable to what europe was like. And not what africa was like. Or Mars.
It was comparable to Western Europe even without the Marshall Plan, what are you talking about lol. This is 1950 we’re talking about, much of Europe was still in ruins thanks to Nazism.
Like honestly, I won’t comment on any of this anymore. But where are you guys from? Because you are either Russian, and sucking the dicks of a failed dictator, or you are from several continents away, with no context to any of this, and then you just are a bunch of useful idiots to a failed dictator. Answer this one honestly. Either to me or to yourselves…
I hardly think the guy who beat the nazis and raised standards of living in the USSR from borderline starvation to comparable with western Europe in a couple decades a failure. There were regular famines before Stalin; after Stalin there were none until capitalism reversed all that progress, immiserated the populace, and decreased all measurements of human development by similar numbers to WWII.
I don’t care what the CIA thinks of stalin. Like how is the fucking CIA an authority on europe in the 60-s. Also Stalin didn’t beat the nazis. The british did.
nazi germany and british empire taking each other out would’ve been the best possible outcome. Yeah I know anglo island was severely weakened by the war but still
The living standards should be comparable to what europe was like. And not what africa was like. Or Mars.
I don’t think geographic location is as significant as a country’s, you know, history. Just because they were in Europe doesn’t mean that they were starting out on equal footing. If you compare the state of Russia under the tsar to somewhere like Britain or France, then it’s clear that the Soviets were starting from a disadvantage. Moreover, they were under constant economic and military threats from most of the developed world. In spite of all of that, they were able to develop quickly enough to defeat the Nazis and become a global superpower.
So a backwoods country full of starving and dying peasants cannot be compared to a backwoods colony full of starving and dying peasants in another continent? Lmao. I suppose the only thing you can’t really compare is the military since Russian/soviet soldiers were experienced from imperialist wars during the empire.
Yes because this is how geopolitics work. The USSR basically entirely in Europe. The living standards should be comparable to what europe was like. And not what africa was like. Or Mars.
It was comparable to Western Europe even without the Marshall Plan, what are you talking about lol. This is 1950 we’re talking about, much of Europe was still in ruins thanks to Nazism.
Like honestly, I won’t comment on any of this anymore. But where are you guys from? Because you are either Russian, and sucking the dicks of a failed dictator, or you are from several continents away, with no context to any of this, and then you just are a bunch of useful idiots to a failed dictator. Answer this one honestly. Either to me or to yourselves…
man got owned so hard he dropped the mask, went straight for homophobia, then dropped the dorkiest line i’ve ever read on lemmy lmao
Damn I gotta check the mod log for this
I hardly think the guy who beat the nazis and raised standards of living in the USSR from borderline starvation to comparable with western Europe in a couple decades a failure. There were regular famines before Stalin; after Stalin there were none until capitalism reversed all that progress, immiserated the populace, and decreased all measurements of human development by similar numbers to WWII.
The CIA admits he wasn’t a dictator, merely representing the dictatorship of the proletariat.
I don’t care what the CIA thinks of stalin. Like how is the fucking CIA an authority on europe in the 60-s. Also Stalin didn’t beat the nazis. The british did.
The British?
Lol good bit
the British very nearly got wiped off the map. what are you talking about. it was the Eastern front that saved Britain, by their own admission.
nazi germany and british empire taking each other out would’ve been the best possible outcome. Yeah I know anglo island was severely weakened by the war but still
I don’t think geographic location is as significant as a country’s, you know, history. Just because they were in Europe doesn’t mean that they were starting out on equal footing. If you compare the state of Russia under the tsar to somewhere like Britain or France, then it’s clear that the Soviets were starting from a disadvantage. Moreover, they were under constant economic and military threats from most of the developed world. In spite of all of that, they were able to develop quickly enough to defeat the Nazis and become a global superpower.
I’m curious, what do you mean by low living standards?
What do you think people were lacking?
Jeans, pizza, Gucci hand bags, and the Beatles
This is a child’s understanding of how development works.
paradox map painter brain
So a backwoods country full of starving and dying peasants cannot be compared to a backwoods colony full of starving and dying peasants in another continent? Lmao. I suppose the only thing you can’t really compare is the military since Russian/soviet soldiers were experienced from imperialist wars during the empire.