Law0 min ago
The USSR - why did they surrender?
14 Answers
They beat the Nazis, they reached Hitler's bunker before the Yanks and Brits, they beat the Americans into space, they were a world superpower. But they waved a white flag and gave it all up, allowing the USA to dominate the planet and seeing their own country disintegrate into petty states. And what have the Russians got now? MacDonald's, Burger King, KFC, unemployment, pornography, prostitution, beggars, gangsters, crime. Is that progress?
Answers
1 to 14 of 14
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by JockSporran. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
During the first Iraq war, Russians saw the pictures transmitted from a cruise missile, launched from hundreds of miles away, as it headed straight for a specified window in a specified building in Bagdad. Russian scientists were dumbstruck, and told their president ''We have no way of doing that!''.
You'd struggle to get a full answer on these pages due to the length required.
Your imprssion of modern Russia is a little dated but it has indeed changed considerably from the Soviet era and not entirely for the better.
Those missile pictures are very misleading many (most) of our ordinance missed their targets.
Ask the Chinese, twice.
Your imprssion of modern Russia is a little dated but it has indeed changed considerably from the Soviet era and not entirely for the better.
Those missile pictures are very misleading many (most) of our ordinance missed their targets.
Ask the Chinese, twice.
>seeing their own country disintegrate into petty states
You have to differentiate between Russia and the USSR.
The USSR included Russia and all these "petty states", brought together as one union (Union of Soviet Republics).
Many of these "petty states" had no choice but to be part of the USSR and most were grabbed after the second world war (where they had no choice) and "ruled" by Russia.
These states gradually became unhappy at being controlled by Russia and began to rebel.
The cost in time and money to keep them under control was draining the Russian economy and it was easier in the long run to let them go and have their independence.
You have to differentiate between Russia and the USSR.
The USSR included Russia and all these "petty states", brought together as one union (Union of Soviet Republics).
Many of these "petty states" had no choice but to be part of the USSR and most were grabbed after the second world war (where they had no choice) and "ruled" by Russia.
These states gradually became unhappy at being controlled by Russia and began to rebel.
The cost in time and money to keep them under control was draining the Russian economy and it was easier in the long run to let them go and have their independence.
I also think it showed the difference between capitalism and communism.
Whether we like it or not, what drives people to create businesses, to make them better, and to run them well, is MONEY (mostly) and power.
Capatilism encourages that, competition between different companies encourages them to improve, offer better products, better prices, better deals.
Communism, where the state owns everything, only encourages mediocraty, lack of growth, and no reason to make anything better.
It is well known that during the period of communism places like hotels and restaurants in Russia were awful.
They were state owned, and nobody had any incentive to make their hotel any better than anyone elses. No point in spending money doing it up, or offering better food, as the people that worked there gained nothing.
Whereas in the west we have hundreds of hotel companies competing with one another. If you go to a Hilton and it is awful next time you go to a Holiday inn.
In Russia they were all as bad as each other so you had no choice.
While capitism is not perfect at least it encourages enterprise, communism just stifles it.
This I think was the long term problem in the USSR and in the end it imploded.
It is a bit like the benefits system in the UK. At first it was for those that really needed it, and the rest of the population had to get off their backside and work.
Then people found it was easy to get benefits without going to work, so people began to live off benefits and now we have a huge number of the population who dont need to go out to work because they can get everyting they need while living on benefits.
Take away the incentive to work and you breed lazinees, mediocraty and lower standards.
Whether we like it or not, what drives people to create businesses, to make them better, and to run them well, is MONEY (mostly) and power.
Capatilism encourages that, competition between different companies encourages them to improve, offer better products, better prices, better deals.
Communism, where the state owns everything, only encourages mediocraty, lack of growth, and no reason to make anything better.
It is well known that during the period of communism places like hotels and restaurants in Russia were awful.
They were state owned, and nobody had any incentive to make their hotel any better than anyone elses. No point in spending money doing it up, or offering better food, as the people that worked there gained nothing.
Whereas in the west we have hundreds of hotel companies competing with one another. If you go to a Hilton and it is awful next time you go to a Holiday inn.
In Russia they were all as bad as each other so you had no choice.
While capitism is not perfect at least it encourages enterprise, communism just stifles it.
This I think was the long term problem in the USSR and in the end it imploded.
It is a bit like the benefits system in the UK. At first it was for those that really needed it, and the rest of the population had to get off their backside and work.
Then people found it was easy to get benefits without going to work, so people began to live off benefits and now we have a huge number of the population who dont need to go out to work because they can get everyting they need while living on benefits.
Take away the incentive to work and you breed lazinees, mediocraty and lower standards.
Also remember that those in charge in the USSR ruled by FEAR.
A huge number of people worked for the spy organization the KGB and people were paid to spy on each other and report those doing anti communism activities.
They had to build a wall in Berlin to keep the people in the "east" from defecting in droves to the west.
You had lunatics like Stalin in charge who killed his own army generals, locked thousands up in camps, destroyed whole areas of the USSR because he did not like the people in that area.
He was an absolute nutter. People go on about Hitler but Stalin was FAR worse. Stalin killed millions of his own people for no reason at all.
But the thing is, you can only rule by fear for so long. After a while people get fed up with being ruled by fear and society begins to break down.
I think in the end society in the USSR began to crumble and the only option you had was to start again.
A huge number of people worked for the spy organization the KGB and people were paid to spy on each other and report those doing anti communism activities.
They had to build a wall in Berlin to keep the people in the "east" from defecting in droves to the west.
You had lunatics like Stalin in charge who killed his own army generals, locked thousands up in camps, destroyed whole areas of the USSR because he did not like the people in that area.
He was an absolute nutter. People go on about Hitler but Stalin was FAR worse. Stalin killed millions of his own people for no reason at all.
But the thing is, you can only rule by fear for so long. After a while people get fed up with being ruled by fear and society begins to break down.
I think in the end society in the USSR began to crumble and the only option you had was to start again.
And I think the main reason they beat the Nazis is because Hitler started a totally unwinnable war against the USSR.
The weather was against him, the distances were huge, and Stalin was willing to allow millions of Russian soldiers to die fighting against Hitler.
It could almost be said Stalin sacrificed them, he made them stay their ground even when they were getting slaughtered.
They beat Hitler by being willing to lose millions of their own people.
And the reason they were so keen to get to Hitler's bunker first was to get as far west as they could as their aim was to keep the land after the war.
This is partly why the USA dropped the atom bomb on Japan.
The war in the west was over and Russia offered to "help" the USA beat Japan.
The last thing the USA wanted was Russia to sweep down into Asia into countries like Korea, Vietnam and so on.
The USA knew that Russia would not leave these countries after the war so they dopped the atom bomb quickly to end the war quickly and stop Russia "helping" them.
(There were other reasons to drop the atom bomb, to justify its huge cost for example)
The weather was against him, the distances were huge, and Stalin was willing to allow millions of Russian soldiers to die fighting against Hitler.
It could almost be said Stalin sacrificed them, he made them stay their ground even when they were getting slaughtered.
They beat Hitler by being willing to lose millions of their own people.
And the reason they were so keen to get to Hitler's bunker first was to get as far west as they could as their aim was to keep the land after the war.
This is partly why the USA dropped the atom bomb on Japan.
The war in the west was over and Russia offered to "help" the USA beat Japan.
The last thing the USA wanted was Russia to sweep down into Asia into countries like Korea, Vietnam and so on.
The USA knew that Russia would not leave these countries after the war so they dopped the atom bomb quickly to end the war quickly and stop Russia "helping" them.
(There were other reasons to drop the atom bomb, to justify its huge cost for example)
Unfettered capitalism doesn't encourage all that much competition it mostly favours existing wealth and power.
The majority of the world's great companies have their roots in the 19th Century - Even IBM.
And if Communism is so disasterous economically how do you China's growing economic dominance? mixing communism and capitalism seems to be working very well in the Far East!
Oh Jock you forgot some other thing the Russians have now.
Huge supplies og Gas that Western Europe is becoming increasingly dependant on.
Some Russians would call that progress!
Think of it this way:
Russia had a powerful dictatorship exploiting those below it.
We had that in the Tudors Henry VIII and all that.
Now they have a number of powerful Industrial Barons and still a very poor working population
We had that in Victorian times
It took us 300 years to move between those stages
It's taken them a few decades
The majority of the world's great companies have their roots in the 19th Century - Even IBM.
And if Communism is so disasterous economically how do you China's growing economic dominance? mixing communism and capitalism seems to be working very well in the Far East!
Oh Jock you forgot some other thing the Russians have now.
Huge supplies og Gas that Western Europe is becoming increasingly dependant on.
Some Russians would call that progress!
Think of it this way:
Russia had a powerful dictatorship exploiting those below it.
We had that in the Tudors Henry VIII and all that.
Now they have a number of powerful Industrial Barons and still a very poor working population
We had that in Victorian times
It took us 300 years to move between those stages
It's taken them a few decades
VHG offers a very good analysis of the fall of Communism in Russia up to the point were he talks about WW2, Germany's failure in the East was based on it's own poor planning and the fundamental flaw in Blitzkrieg (no plan B, they'd attack in the same old way, and you'd defeat them in the same old way) Stalin did what Hitler did'nt he began by deploying troops and issuing stand and fight orders but ended by allowing his Generals to control battles.
The atom bomb was dropped to save Aliied lives, Japan was still fighting hard so the baomb was droped to show that they were facing total destruction, cost did'nt come into it, cold war policies were a later bonus, but yes te Allies did'nt want Russian assistance in east to prevent territorial claims.
It did'nt however succeed in preventing Soviet interest in Korea, Vietnam, Laos etc.
The atom bomb was dropped to save Aliied lives, Japan was still fighting hard so the baomb was droped to show that they were facing total destruction, cost did'nt come into it, cold war policies were a later bonus, but yes te Allies did'nt want Russian assistance in east to prevent territorial claims.
It did'nt however succeed in preventing Soviet interest in Korea, Vietnam, Laos etc.
The British Empire was very costly to administer after the war Britain was near bankrupt, we no longer had the political or the means to govern dominion terriitories added to that many of the pacts we signed with the U.S during the war compelled us to let their people go.
It is one of life's great imponderables if Maynard Keynes had been able to wait (we were literally broke) until the onset of (I think) the Korean war he could've secured the aid we required without reparation or convertability.
If this had happened we may well have remained one of the industrial power houses of the world.
It is one of life's great imponderables if Maynard Keynes had been able to wait (we were literally broke) until the onset of (I think) the Korean war he could've secured the aid we required without reparation or convertability.
If this had happened we may well have remained one of the industrial power houses of the world.
1 to 14 of 14
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.