What made SovietRussia a superpower

[Drakim]

Knowing that that half the responses newgrounds gives on communism is "works in theory but fails in reality", I'm asking this:

What made Soviet Russia a super power?

Fairly simple question that's been puzzling me quite a bit. I'm especially interested in hearing why from free market capitalism people. Soviet Russia is about as anti free market capitalism as you can get, and yet it turned into a super power. What were the causes? What conditions changed so greatly that Russia isn't instantly rising to be a superpower today? I mean, from what I know from history class, old Russia wasn't exactly exploding with potencial when the communistic revolution began. Industrialism was way behind complared to other countries, and most of the country lived on farming.

We all know the Soviet union collapsed eventually, but why didn't it collapse instantly? How was the Soviet Union able to survive even a month, yet alone become a super power?

[Xavierthewarlord]

Likley because of their size. They take up half of fucking Mainland Europe and Asia, and used to be even bigger before the smaller countries begin to eject themselves from the USSR.

[Xavierthewarlord]

Duble Post Lol

It was also because they Ruthleslly silenced anyone who spoke against them.
Stalin was about as Ruthless as Hitler- They simply covered it up better.

[Warforger]

They were a super power in the sense that they were able to compete with the US, winning influence in Europe (during the Cold War Russia kept getting deeper into Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia) Asia and in the America's. They also still have a bigger nuclear stockpile then the US, and were beating the US in space travel until the US landed on the moon, along with better or equal/nearly equal to equipment to the US equivalent. If they were to wage a war, if it wasn't against the US they had a high chance of wining against a country. Currently they still have some of it left, they can influence our enemies Iran and North Korea, and they aren't anti-US at all anymore, without them we'd be entirely fucked into a war.

[Warforger]

At 10/17/09 11:42 AM, Xavierthewarlord wrote: Likley because of their size. They take up half of fucking Mainland Europe and Asia, and used to be even bigger before the smaller countries begin to eject themselves from the USSR.

No. Size has nothing to do with it, going by your logic, Europe would be weak and Africa is fucking rich.

[Der-Lowe]

At 10/17/09 11:37 AM, Drakim wrote: Knowing that that half the responses newgrounds gives on communism is "works in theory but fails in reality", I'm asking this:

What made Soviet Russia a super power?

The same thing that made the US a superpower, capital accumulation. Instead of channeling its resources to produce consumption goods, it sacrificed them to build machinery that in turn would create more goods, and machinery, repeating the cycle.
Another point could be made about the educational system, since it was a communist country, there were equal opportunities, no person was discriminated against receiving education because of its socioeconomic level. That way, it could create a highly educated workforce.

[Freedomblades]

I believe they became a superpower because of stalin. He wasnt a bad dictator at all. Also his 5 year plan massivly boosted the soviet economy. It put a factory area in almost every city and made it so the number of things produced there was massive. Tell you the truth i imagine the soviet union would still be around if it werent for the cold war. After all they were so busy trying to figure out US intelegence and to make new weapons that they poured all there money into that.

[ImaSmartass2]

I think it was a Legalist Philosophy similar to that of the Qin Dynasty that made Russia a superpower. Very efficient, but very brutal.

[SolInvictus]

At 10/17/09 11:49 AM, Warforger wrote: No. Size has nothing to do with it, going by your logic, Europe would be weak and Africa is fucking rich.

but neither of those are or were countries or (forcibly) united in the same way the USSR was.

[TDwizBang]

after Russia claimed Berlin Germany to end WW2 in Europe they got a large chunk of the spoils of war... as it seems to be that russia and the allies split the wealth and top secret tech that later fueled the arms race to be called "the cold war"

also when your government runs on the idea that the state owns damn near everything it is very easy to regulate the money for a fair amount of time PLUS you get the perk of building whatever you want without the public having a say...

now about the citizens... you must remember that Stalin made it very clear that if you were able bodied and your nation called you answered or you died... you cant say after damn near loosing there country to Nazi Germany they will soon forget what there families did to save there country. (not so much now after the Berlin wall fell and the eastern bloc showed the citizens of russia what they are really capable of)

there is seriously so much that made Soviet Russia a super power i dont see how it could be overlooked... first to put a mammal into orbit, highly advanced military equipment, silver, gold, diamonds up the wazoo, shipyards, second to discover nuclear science, first to create the hydrogen bomb, sold surplus equipment to anyone who wanted it (mind you they made ALOT of surplus that is still being sold today)... i feel like i forget something... oh yeah, there own SPACE STATION!!!!

i feel like i could go on for hours about what makes Soviet Russia a super power...

[ZJ]

They were the only country besides the U.S. not to heave their economy completely destroyed by the war, and as such, they rose and became a Super Power.

[ubermanng]

At 10/17/09 11:49 AM, Warforger wrote:

At 10/17/09 11:42 AM, Xavierthewarlord wrote:

No. Size has nothing to do with it, going by your logic, Europe would be weak and Africa is fucking rich.

thats not true considering the fact that by the first winter nazi germany was seriously over extended there supply lines were to long. they had soviet rebels and citzen be hind the lines considering the barley reached the Urals size had a big part in it. the the decide that they need the oil and that happened to be in the caucuses, and along that route hitler seen stalingrad and and he sent half the invasion force after it with nothing to show

[TDwizBang]

At 10/17/09 05:57 PM, ubermanng wrote:

At 10/17/09 11:49 AM, Warforger wrote:

At 10/17/09 11:42 AM, Xavierthewarlord wrote:

No. Size has nothing to do with it, going by your logic, Europe would be weak and Africa is fucking rich.

thats not true considering the fact that by the first winter nazi germany was seriously over extended there supply lines were to long. they had soviet rebels and citzen be hind the lines considering the barley reached the Urals size had a big part in it. the the decide that they need the oil and that happened to be in the caucuses, and along that route hitler seen stalingrad and and he sent half the invasion force after it with nothing to show

kudos on knowing your Stalingrad history but seriously you have to remember that this subject goes from 1917 all the way to 1989 or 91 when soviet Russia fell... being that population is a factor in being a superpower it is only a small part (plus the Russian population has been falling since the nazi invasion)... i think resources and political grip hold way higher on the superpower charts...

i guess what im trying to say is that your argument is only true in the context that you present it in.

also i think hitler wanted to take Stalingrad so he didnt have to worry about holding the caucuses oil fields from constant attack... the "how hitler could have won the war" theories should be looked at with a grain of salt... i have the book and i think its trash...

[Warforger]

At 10/17/09 03:14 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 10/17/09 11:49 AM, Warforger wrote: No. Size has nothing to do with it, going by your logic, Europe would be weak and Africa is fucking rich.

but neither of those are or were countries or (forcibly) united in the same way the USSR (and the USA, check: United States Civil War) was.

Africa has alot of big countries, Europe has the world's smallest countries (the smallest being Gibraltar) going by the logic that there powerful because of the amount of land that they owned Europe should be very poor and weak, but countries like Luxembourg have some of the highest GDP's in the world and Africa is very chaotic and poor.

[SolInvictus]

At 10/17/09 08:55 PM, Warforger wrote: Africa has alot of big countries, Europe has the world's smallest countries (the smallest being Gibraltar) going by the logic that there powerful because of the amount of land that they owned Europe should be very poor and weak, but countries like Luxembourg have some of the highest GDP's in the world and Africa is very chaotic and poor.

while i agree that size alone was not what made the USSR powerful, saying that it had nothing to do with it is ridiculous. Stalin and others ruthlessly utilized size and population to their advantage (and when one thing failed, the death of thousands was not an obstacle to starting a new project).

[Warforger]

At 10/17/09 05:57 PM, ubermanng wrote:

At 10/17/09 11:49 AM, Warforger wrote:

At 10/17/09 11:42 AM, Xavierthewarlord wrote:

No. Size has nothing to do with it, going by your logic, Europe would be weak and Africa is fucking rich.

thats not true considering the fact that by the first winter nazi germany was seriously over extended there supply lines were to long. they had soviet rebels and citzen be hind the lines considering the barley reached the Urals size had a big part in it. the the decide that they need the oil and that happened to be in the caucuses, and along that route hitler seen stalingrad and and he sent half the invasion force after it with nothing to show

No, there is a difference between a tactical advantage and being powerful, Mongolia is pretty big, along with Zimbabwe and Niger, but all these countries are weak and poor, hell Niger was rated as the absolute worst place to live in, worse then Afghanistan ,by the UN. Now the only real advantage from this is having more farmland, this is what made territory so much more important in the past, land was much more important, but when countries started industrializing the focus came from getting land to sell, which the land was often sold by the owners because it was starting to get not very profitable, they moved towards the City, where there are more opportunities, to taking the land, enslaving the local inhabitance and extract all the resources from that area. In a world economy this is largely pointless, since about all countries have industrialized by now and are willing to sell there products.

[Warforger]

At 10/17/09 08:59 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 10/17/09 08:55 PM, Warforger wrote: Africa has alot of big countries, Europe has the world's smallest countries (the smallest being Gibraltar) going by the logic that there powerful because of the amount of land that they owned Europe should be very poor and weak, but countries like Luxembourg have some of the highest GDP's in the world and Africa is very chaotic and poor.

while i agree that size alone was not what made the USSR powerful, saying that it had nothing to do with it is ridiculous. Stalin and others ruthlessly utilized size and population to their advantage (and when one thing failed, the death of thousands was not an obstacle to starting a new project).

Again, land has nothing to do with population, but its more of the quality and opportunity of the land which factors in. Thats not to mention the only really populated area's in Russia is around Moscow, thats where most of the population is today, the rest including Siberia, is very rural and empty.

[SolInvictus]

At 10/17/09 09:04 PM, Warforger wrote: Again, land has nothing to do with population, but its more of the quality and opportunity of the land which factors in. Thats not to mention the only really populated area's in Russia is around Moscow, thats where most of the population is today, the rest including Siberia, is very rural and empty.

when did i say size directly related to population? size provided its own advantages (and disadvantages), for one, making Russia almost unconquerable; Napoleon and the Nazis learnt this the hard way. sure they had made it to Moscow, but the Russians could do whatever they wanted in the far east.

[lapis]

And when the Russians fought at Kursk they had yada yada tanks and after that there was a yada yada counteroffensive and then in 1944 there was a yada yada.

Could someone who is summing up the strategic/geopolitical strengths of the Soviet Union perhaps argue that these advantages determine the success of a nation more than its economic (Communist versus Capitalist) policies? Or perhaps argue that if the Soviet Union had been led by a market liberal like Reagan they would have even been better at beating the Germans? Please? Because then you'd actually be on topic and it would make this thread a lot more interesting. The posts about capital accumulation and Legalism are among the few interesting posts and it's a shame that no one is responding to them. I would, but I'm drunk and lazy.

On an unrelated note, the mountain range between Turkey and Russia is called the Caucasus and Gibraltar isn't a country.

[SolInvictus]

At 10/17/09 09:38 PM, lapis wrote: And when the Russians fought at Kursk they had yada yada tanks and after that there was a yada yada counteroffensive and then in 1944 there was a yada yada.

boff; i figured comments about being able to exploit land and people without fear of self-harm were on point. the only real plan i can see with the Soviets is work them 'til they die and if it hasn't made us richer, try some variation of that and send people to the gulags for failing.

[animehater]

The question shouldn't be how did the USSR become a super power even though it was Communist but rather how it was able to become a superpower after all the destruction that occurred throughout the second world war and all the chaos of the preceding years.

[Warforger]

At 10/17/09 09:18 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 10/17/09 09:04 PM, Warforger wrote: Again, land has nothing to do with population, but its more of the quality and opportunity of the land which factors in. Thats not to mention the only really populated area's in Russia is around Moscow, thats where most of the population is today, the rest including Siberia, is very rural and empty.

when did i say size directly related to population? size provided its own advantages (and disadvantages), for one, making Russia almost unconquerable; Napoleon and the Nazis learnt this the hard way. sure they had made it to Moscow, but the Russians could do whatever they wanted in the far east.

....You said that Stalin was able to utilize the population clearly in the post I quoted. Yes size provided some advantages, but both Napeloan and Hitler never captured the Capital of Russia (During Napeloans time the capital of Russia was St. Petersburg, or during Hitler's time Leningrad) thus were not able too just cut the head off, and thats ignoring the fact that Napeloans army had not enough suffiecent healthcare to take care of all the patients and was always on the move, thus were very weak, exhausted and dying, for Hitler, the most unexpected happened, the worst winter in centuries hit and the Soviet Military which he thought was horrible was pushing him back, both had terrible conditions and they were fighting on multiple fronts. So you can't say it was because Russia was big that they lost.

[jonnyrules935]

If USSR is commonly considered as communist, it was in fact as fascist as Mussolini.

Yet this is only true to their political structure, they were about as communists as you can get on the economical point of view.

Now, like any dictatorship, they invested massivly on their military, which was the anvil on which their whole society evolved (the hammer and scickle, ha !). When half of your workers work on building tanks and ICBMs, people get wary of your actions, and you eventually swing a lot of political influence, since the neighboring weaker countries start to fear you, especially when you just kicked the tar out of the Third Reich.

This is why they were, and still relatively is, a superpower : They had guns and soldiers, and lots of em.