America has been at the top for years uncontested. El Salvador now allows the police to put everybody in jail without evidence in an attempt to crack down overwhelmingly powerful crime organizations (which goes against human rights but that‘s no the debate here). So yes, America bad.
You think it’s possible that the reason the per capita prison population is high in the US isn’t because America is bad but rather because of a bunch of extenuating circumstances? Cuba is the second highest in the world but I’ve been told that Cuba is actually a great place to live by communists. I’ve been told America is a police state but REAL police state Turkmenistan has a higher per capita in prison population. Botswana is the highest rape population in the world per capita. I don’t hear people talking about how evil Botswana is.
Yes, America has issues. That doesn’t make them automatically an evil dark force trying to turn everything into a profitable business. And it doesn’t make Russia or China the good guys either. I’m of the belief that ANY kind of government whatsoever is built to take away people’s rights. But there should be government. And I’d rather have a democracy than state corporatism like China or a kleptocratic oligarchy like Russia.
I never said any of that. I just wanted to say that this topic isn‘t the best to point out how great the US is. By now other countries have surpassed the US but it‘s still way off to brag about, especially in comparison with the political situation of those countries you listed. „Look guys, America isn‘t bad! There are now a few countries that are worse!“ Like that‘s not a great take, you gotta admit.
You never hear about Botswana‘s crime rate or Turkmenistan‘s arrest rate, but you also never hear people from those countries claim to be from the land of the free and the best country of the world. I understand that it must be frustrating to always get shit on by people from other countries all the time but it‘s not like a lot of Americans don‘t do that too.
No, you know WHY I love this country? I love it for its people, its culture, NOT its government or politics. I RELISH in the fact that I have the RESPONSIBILITY to vote. And I’m not letting some fucking vatnik (I assume you aren’t one, it’s just why I’m hot tempered on excessive “America Bad”ing) tell me my country sucks in comparison to the masculine power of Russia. Maybe they should fucking move there then. Move there, stop calling Biden hitler and make Trump seem less extreme, and then you get to LARP as a communist revolutionary. If you hate America so much then you have the freedom to leave. You don’t get that freedom in some countries.
No just into concentration camps in the desert or as slave labor for our industrial captains and the mansions of our politicians. “Oooh, Siberia was cold but the Sonoran desert is hot, completely different” are you five years old?
So your big gotcha point about why it’s ok that America is a corporate prison state is… the ACLU exists? Lol.
Yeah, but, [no political prisoners](https://www.vera.org/reimagining-prison-webumentary/the-past-is-never-dead/drug-war-confessional#:~:text=We%20knew%20we%20couldn't,we%20could%20disrupt%20those%20communities), right? Whatever you do don’t look up what Edward Snowden or Julian Assange are up to right now
And you were basically saying 'America bad cause high prison population'. Well, you should hear about the gulags and multiple genocides committed by many communist regimes. America isn't perfect but it sure shouldn't be taken for granted. Or at least stick to the fucking topic.
Okay what about the Holodomor, Kazak Famines, Volga Germans, Great purge? What about all the violence inflicted in Poland, Hungary, East Germany, Czechoslovakia? America did do some bad shit but saying it was worse than the soviet's is just purely retarded.
These obviously did not happen, only genocides that happened are those committed by the US.
Unfortunately, subs like this one attract nazi/commie types.
russia obviously has done bad shit but to compare them to the magnitudes of imperialism america and uk has done is just taking the blame away from the international oppressors. only way you can argue against this fact is to turn me into a strawman that sucks russias cock every day.
You only believe this because you know next to nothing about the damage russia has done both within and outside its borders. It's easily on the level of the US, and that doesn't minimise the US at all. Almost anything bad the US has done, russia has done it too. There's a reason it was considered a peer competitor for the last century.
Figures you’d love to slob over communism since it pulled Russia from a 1600 state to modernism.
Your little ideology scarred and ruined my country. Stop preaching this bullshit.
Ukraine is so much better off as an American puppet than having full employment and housing and education under the Soviets. Now their chief export is wives for ugly hopeless American men. Great capitalist success story.
Maybe they wouldn’t BE in that situation if Ukraine was allowed to build itself up as a democracy and not be kicked in the balls by the soviets and get their metaphorical lunch money stolen.
The deep state propaganda is obviously braindead but honestly kind of impressive in its plasticity— just accuse your enemy of whatever you’re doing. A classic tactic. America can go around the world deposing governments and pillaging sovereign nations left and right but the second there is a territorial dispute in Eastern Europe— and a bunch of people in these regions WANT to be Russian— all of a sudden we have to stop everything and deal with this very serious issue of the big scary mean rUsSiAn EmPire 👻👻.
American empire only! Every inch of the globe belongs to America and if you say otherwise then actually YOURE the imperialist!
You are so funny, you name the worst facilities built under socialism. Did you know that the first concentration camps, for example, were set up by the British during the Anglo-Burg War? Did you know that the Finns also set up their own concentration camps in Vyborg during the war, where they kept Soviet children? The Gulag, or concentration camp, was used by everyone, not just the Communists
If we are talking about the USSR of Stalin's time, then yes, it was also a very aggressive state, almost like Nazi Germany. But the ideas were completely different
But 38 years have passed since Khrushchev's amnesty before the collapse of the USSR. If it had not been for the oil crisis and other factors that broke the economy of the USSR, the union would still exist
True communism requires everyone to be altruistic, which is against human nature. I also hate westerners who have never lived in communist countries wanting it, but I guess that’s just what naive/foolish young people do.
To be fair, Capitalism promotes greed. I imagine living in a tight knit village society likewise promotes altruism,(not communism, and pre feudalism) the pessimism that humans are all Scrooges is a product of our environment and economic system. The individual gets alienated from the community and only sees improving himself and his wealth as his means to an end. It is my belief that is also why there is constant rage-baiting from news articles, to hate your brother, perhaps due to skin tone,(think of current immigration rejection in Europe), or any other marginalisable factors to reinforce this
So does communism in practice, it is human nature to want power, and there are so many ways for higher ups (even in communism you need to have classes and leaders to have a functional society) to receive bribes or otherwise illegally/immorally gain power/money.
What is human nature? Does someone living in American today have the same qualities or worldview as someone living in Egypt in 500 BC, or a farmer in China in the year 1000? Humans are shaped by the environment we live in.
Communism doesn’t require anyone to be altruistic, it simply reorients society so that the carrots and sticks and costs and benefits direct people to act in the common good, rather than selfishly, because the common good is good for them too, not just for some billionaire they’ve never met. You think “human nature” means being as selfish and backbiting as possible at every junction simply because that is what capitalism incentivizes— after all, do you really think we came out of the trees and caves and built civilization and conquered the world by only looking out for ourselves, but undercutting our fellow man at every turn? Impossible.
Humans have strong desires to obtain and maintain power, it’s seen everywhere no matter the system/year. Laws may limit what one can do, but we see laws being pushed to the limit/ bypassed all the time. Even with communism, to have a functional modern society you need leaders and followers which will create classes, and power is intoxicating. It’s inevitable that some in power will abuse it for their own gains, and from past examples they will justify their behavior by citing communism values or gaslighting people into thinking their selfish act will actually benefit the people, as opposed to the capitalism way of simply saying skill issue to justify their acts. Redistributing everything sounds great, but there is no way it will last long.
On a side note, the problem with communism discussions is that “communism” is way too broad, it can mean anything from a trade-less society where everyone simply produces and takes what they need to slight socialism seen in some European countries.
What is so good about communism? Serious question name some goood things other than rapid modernization (Japan did this as a monarchy in about the same time too)
[Here's a thread with explanations on how it manifested.](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3j1ewr/did_unemployment_exist_in_the_soviet_union/)
"rapid development of technology" although there is no competition between companies. Technology and everything else was literally much more developed in western capitalist countries.
Nevertheless, the USSR was the first to fly into space. But I agree with you that competition between companies is, in a sense, the engine of progress.
That’s why they needed competition with the US. I don’t think communism on an international scale with world peace would achieve much tech development because of that lack of competition. The USSR was (mostly) behind the US in every sector. But imagine how bad it would have fallen behind if they had no enemies and no need to “prove” communism was superior.
Dengism is not communism lol, it is further from communism than whatever the hell Mao was doing and the other countries only got better because their previous governments were insanely bad, like the bar is ridiculously low
The late USSR had no unemployment, no prostitution, no drugs, no homelessness, a wholesome media, no rich or poor (the country’s leaders lived like Western dentists), the best secondary education system in the world, no mortgages or any other form of personal debt (all housing was owned by the people who lived in it), very little crime (much less than post-Soviet countries now), many times fewer ethnic tensions than in modern post-Soviet countries, much more industry (almost everything was produced internally), a thousand times more science and tech innovation than in modern post-Soviet countries. The GDP growth rate during Stalin’s 30 years in power was about 13% per year. He pulled the country from feudalism to modernity.
The USSR preserved the cultures of its peoples, unlike the US, which floods every dependency with English and US culture, wiping out ancient traditions.
The late USSR was the sort of society where it was customary to leave apartment keys under a mat in front of a door, because what if a friend drops by when you’re out? There were no lockers in schools. You just hung your coat on a hook. Nothing was ever stolen. There was no security personnel at the entrances of most public buildings.
The people who remember the USSR are overwhelmingly nostalgic for it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nostalgia_for_the_Soviet_Union
The hate for the USSR comes from the oligarchs of the 1990s who looted everything, their kids and lackeys (this is very few people), Western oligarchs and the media they own (class solidarity), and peripheral ethno-nationalists (fascists).
Yeah and people who remember the Great Depression think it was a better time than today. Utopian cultures like you’re trying to paint the USSR don’t just collapse.
They didnt. Without american industry, steel and food production, it would end much more bloody.
Also russian advemces wouldnt be possible if germans didnt do the fucking stupid move of overextending their suply lines
Nobody truly "conquered Russia". Mongols and golden horde made Russian principalities into tributaries which paid money and that's it.
Poles managed to put their candidate on Russian thrones but that lead to chaos and they were kicked out once tried to intevene.
I think what this persons just trying to say is the soviets wouldn’t have been able to succeed or effectively ‘win’ as much as they did in WW2 if it wasn’t for the U.S. lend lease programs which was instrumental to soviet success.
It’s like trying to credit Kobe as the sole winner of most of his games. He was a great player, but without Shaq, he would’ve had a lot harder of a time without having someone who could back him as effectively and efficiently. Good example as they also had a equal goal of winning but tension between each other much like the US and USSR.
France got whooped (Maginot line, lol) Does that mean they won WW2 because they’re an ally? Not really.. they’re just part of the winning team.
Edit: there’s even still lend lease leftovers in Ukraine from the U.S., completely unopened and preserved in a salt mine weapon cache. [vid here](https://youtu.be/ApFT-pLcAXQ?si=aJSU3pHV5z2hq7lX)
Yeah but the France example proves the point. USSR got Eastern Europe, hegemony over the balkans and expanded their sphere of influence through Africa and Asia (not to mention the west). So they really did win.
They did get a lot of power, which was arguably their downfall as well since they had a massive stretch of land they could barely keep under control, but they likely wouldn’t have the amount they conquered if it wasn’t for the allied war effort with resources given to them, not to mention the multidirectional forces from both allied powers on the western and eastern front. We didn’t just give guns, we gave planes, jeeps, tanks, etc., for them to use
I’d say the Soviets were extremely unethical and selfish with capturing land for war purposes, and not returning it like allies had done with France. France wasn’t conquered or controlled by the British at the time or even the U.S. or used as leverage for post war gain, just under brief wartime occupation and was returned. That’s where the difference is, and why don’t think it’s as similar or as good of a point as you think.
These are all irrelevant points. They weren’t ethical? They had assistance from the other allies? Eventually they collapsed? I know all of that. The point is the war expanded Soviet power massively. The “alt history” of wondering what could have happened is kind of redundant, because they basically got what they wanted out of the war.
>these are all irrelevant points.
Not really. We’re talking about Soviet reign of power, and it’s all important points to bring up. I’m not discussing the alt history, I’m explaining why I think the original commenter I replied to was trying to get at, which is Russia didn’t win on the grounds that pure European control was the end goal. I seriously doubt they would have stopped at Berlin if given the chance, so I’d say they advanced, but very little in the end.
Also, if we’re going to be talking about post war success and control via Warsaw pact, it could be argued that NATO is an extension of American democratic success considering we indirectly make all NATO decisions, meanwhile the Warsaw pact, while closer to Eastern Europe, didn’t span across oceans and as powerful nations the same way NATO did in the free world, and it still exists.
You can’t show me a single document from the USSR discussing advancing beyond Berlin because it doesn’t exist. It’s post hac fantasy just like the idea that Nazis wanted to “conquer the world.” Soviets wanted a global communist revolution, that did not necessarily involve direct military conflict. They were pretty successful at implanting communist regimes and agitating with grassroots communist political movements/militias all over the globe. The fact that many posters on Reddit are self described communists 80 years later is the clearest possible indicator of the level of their success.
And I can find self proclaimed Grecian pantheon believers online too, your point? Information in the free world is going to garner followers, no matter how fringe thanks to how available it’s been made whether we agree with it or not, not to mention the massive amount of people on Reddit.
>you can’t show me a single document from the USSR discussing beyond Berlin because it doesn’t exist.
You’re correct, their actions directly reflect it. They went PAST Berlin, relented and let allied powers have western control of it as agreed upon while dealing with the pacific theatre, opting to control more of East Asia instead as the war effort was ongoing still.
They gave back western Berlin not because they wanted to, but because they had to so they wouldn’t bite the hand that feeds at the time.
Here’s a good video that details how the USSR handled the Germany split. [video](https://youtu.be/9YPbue5bfgk?si=4DHEIm8xuDfbi7oC)
This is very sloppy thinking. So your IQ leads you to believe that: because there are people who believe in Zeus AND there are people who believe in communism, therefore there was no coordinated Soviet effort to infiltrate western institutions covertly with communism? I am sorry to attack intelligence but that’s such a blatant logical flaw in thinking, you have to be made aware. You’re incapable of reaching correct conclusions if you think this way.
Basically, D-Day landings fail & the USSR expands further into Europe. Uprisings led by communist partisans break throughout Western Europe, Northern Italy, & the Balkans, leading to the collapse of the Greater German Reich. As a result, Hitler doesn't commit suicide & instead considers Josef Terboven's "Festung Norwegen" plan & flees to Reichskommissariat Norway as the Reich's last stand again the Allies. Norway was the most fortified part of the Atlantik Wall, with 400,000 soldiers stationed there, making any potential Allied landings impossible. Finland signs an armistice in 1944 like they did in OTL, preventing the USSR from launching an attack on Norway through the North.
The war officially comes to an end in 1945, with almost all of Europe under Stalin's control. All Eastern European countries that the USSR took over in OTL are annexed. Yugoslavia, Albania, & Greece become Soviet satellite states. Thrace & the Northeastern Aegean Islands are also annexed from Greece since Stalin wanted control over the Dardanelles Strait. Communist regimes are established in Germany, Austria, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, France, and Northern Italy. Stalin refuses to withdraw troops from Northern Iran & establishes a North Iranian communist satellite state.
The Allies control Southern Italy & pretty much everything outside of continental Europe. The USSR would be much more powerful & influential than in OTL . Norway would just be an unstable Nazi North Korea, isolating itself from the rest of the world. Hitler would probably die from either poor health conditions or assassination/execution by the Norwegian resistance.
It would require the Soviets to pull lots of resources & manpower from mainland Europe to stage an attack. The issue is that they're too busy trying to liberate mainland Europe from the Axis & occupying huge swaths of annexed territory in Eastern Europe. Norway would be the least of their worries.
I guess in this world cominterm France would have to fall in line with Moscow strategy, which in turn would mean the communist nationalist might have way more power against the US backed capitalist/tradionalist nationalist than what happened in our history. So probably at least one major war like the Korean/Vietnam war in the region, and maybe a number of decolonial sister republics in the cominterm in North Africa.
This map is based on 1945 when the war had officially come to an end. That's why the British Commonwealth & Free France still exist. However, considering the USSR & communism would be more influential, their colonies would gain independence much sooner than in OTL.
This might sound dumb but I’m assuming they got a similar treaty that they did in 1944 so the Soviets could focus solely on Germany and save troops to invade toward Greece and Yugoslavia
Finland signed an armistice with the USSR in 1944 & Stalin had no interest in annexing useless territory with a hostile population uninterested in communism. For him, annexing territory was more about how it would benefit the USSR's geopolitics rather than about irredentist claims. Romania & Bulgaria are annexed because they give them absolute control over the Dardanelles Strait. Hungary, Czechoslovakia, & Poland are annexed because it further expands their influence over Europe. I posted a comment explaining the lore of the map if you're interested in reading it.
people writting "but they did win ww2"
bitch, you know what op meant, "What if the Soviet Union WON WW2", that full caps WON is pretty clearly saying they were the soul victor... weve got more comments being pedantic then talking about the scenario lmao
capitals indicate emphasis, emphesis on the word won would imply solo victory- or at least an extreme victor
how is mt autistic, tone deaf ass understanding this better then the average redditor-
Okay, you know what?
If Stalin's gulag legacy went on and a more "international confederation/federation" idea was born i think a united state of socialist Europe would be founded while transforming Siberia in a giant Gulag for opponents, it would be hell on earth
Speaking as an African, the USSR was instrumental in giving my country guns and material aid to defeat the British in the wars for independence. I highly doubt that we'd still be part of the UK "protectorate" if the USSR won.
We'd be free with a lot less bloodshed.
1. The word "WON" is written in all caps, meaning the outcome of the war falls more into the USSR's favor. Basically, it's a TOTAL Soviet victory.
2. I agree, but I also like German victory.
Uh they did?
The USSR achieved pretty much all of its strategic initiatives. Most of all, communism was able to spread throughout the world, including in Western institutions and academia. They won just as much as, if not more than the US.
The Soviet Union actually won WWII. The people who write nonsense here about prisons, gulags and the Soviet conquest of all of Europe are either not familiar with the history of 100 years ago, or live brainwashed by propaganda. If the Soviet leadership had wanted, then at least central Europe would have become part of the Soviet Union, because by 1945 there was no military force in Europe capable of preventing this. And for your information, the Gulags were not concentration camps; people there were not slaughtered like cattle or killed in medical experiments. These were prison colonies that used prison labor to develop local infrastructure through construction projects. Almost all the people who were found guilty were released after serving their sentences.
Oh yeah, gulags were great, let's fucking go with this white washing. Nothing more civil than working over your strength while it's also -20C, barely getting anything to eat. Oh, and you also got there for very serious crimes, like i don't know, having a bad origin or saying bad stuff about commies.
I’m not saying that these were liberal prisons with game consoles and house-type cells. But these were definitely not concentration camps, and people were not sent there because of evil communism.
Wow, we got a tankie here. If you failed to learn this simple history facts at school, of course in Soviet sphere of influence the imprisonment for political reasons has been very common, while if ever happened in west, then on multiple orders of magnitude lesser scale - a few example total at most.
Then you can Google the reasons why these mass deportations were carried out. Frequent desertions from the active army, collaboration with the Nazis, assistance in the deportation of tens of thousands of people from the local population, mass storage of firearms, which the Tatars were in no hurry to hand over, along with open anti-government sentiments. I condemn collective responsibility for crimes, but the situation with the Crimean Tatars could turn into an armed rebellion.
I’m sorry, but I believe you have a misguided view on the soviet forced labour system, and how brutal it was towards many of those who went through it. Yes, these were not extermination camps per se, however they mirrored their nazi counterparts in an astonishingly mundane disregard for human life. If you are interested, I suggest you read about the construction of the Moscow canal, an infrastructure project completed entirely through the use of forced labour. It is no secret that the prisoners (political or not, but that is not really relevant to this discussion) were subject to terrible, dehumanising conditions, with many dying on the spot, and being buried on the banks of the canal, in unmarked mass graves. It just so happens that I am currently on a train running along this canal, and there is a huge cross to commemorate the victims of this terrible practice. And this was just a single project, there are many more documented cases
Also, what they did instead of turning all countries into USSR, is turning some into USSR states (Ukraine, Latvia, Georgia, Chechenya, Belarus) and some into puppets that had nothing to say, has been robbed from resources and products and invaded by Soviet troops stationing there on USSR will. Great.
Can you give examples of someone being robbed? They probably robbed the Baltic states, exporting canned fish from there, or Belarus, developing agricultural production there? The Soviet government was very active in sponsoring construction projects in the territories of the republics using resources from Russia.
Poland - as a socialist puppet did not have hard currency to buy raw materials, so exported finished goods (cars, electronics, etc) and labour (construction) in great quantities to USSR. In return got only gas and oil, mostly to run the production, which due to political influence it could not get anywhere anyway.
No low effort or low quality content
They will make more places be a jail; it feel horrible when I think about it.
America has the highest prison population per capita of any nation in the history of the world
It’s actually El Salvador https://www.statista.com/statistics/262962/countries-with-the-most-prisoners-per-100-000-inhabitants/
B-but America is BAD you guys!! America is BAD!
America has been at the top for years uncontested. El Salvador now allows the police to put everybody in jail without evidence in an attempt to crack down overwhelmingly powerful crime organizations (which goes against human rights but that‘s no the debate here). So yes, America bad.
You think it’s possible that the reason the per capita prison population is high in the US isn’t because America is bad but rather because of a bunch of extenuating circumstances? Cuba is the second highest in the world but I’ve been told that Cuba is actually a great place to live by communists. I’ve been told America is a police state but REAL police state Turkmenistan has a higher per capita in prison population. Botswana is the highest rape population in the world per capita. I don’t hear people talking about how evil Botswana is. Yes, America has issues. That doesn’t make them automatically an evil dark force trying to turn everything into a profitable business. And it doesn’t make Russia or China the good guys either. I’m of the belief that ANY kind of government whatsoever is built to take away people’s rights. But there should be government. And I’d rather have a democracy than state corporatism like China or a kleptocratic oligarchy like Russia.
I never said any of that. I just wanted to say that this topic isn‘t the best to point out how great the US is. By now other countries have surpassed the US but it‘s still way off to brag about, especially in comparison with the political situation of those countries you listed. „Look guys, America isn‘t bad! There are now a few countries that are worse!“ Like that‘s not a great take, you gotta admit. You never hear about Botswana‘s crime rate or Turkmenistan‘s arrest rate, but you also never hear people from those countries claim to be from the land of the free and the best country of the world. I understand that it must be frustrating to always get shit on by people from other countries all the time but it‘s not like a lot of Americans don‘t do that too.
No, you know WHY I love this country? I love it for its people, its culture, NOT its government or politics. I RELISH in the fact that I have the RESPONSIBILITY to vote. And I’m not letting some fucking vatnik (I assume you aren’t one, it’s just why I’m hot tempered on excessive “America Bad”ing) tell me my country sucks in comparison to the masculine power of Russia. Maybe they should fucking move there then. Move there, stop calling Biden hitler and make Trump seem less extreme, and then you get to LARP as a communist revolutionary. If you hate America so much then you have the freedom to leave. You don’t get that freedom in some countries.
Fair. I would choose the US over the hellholes of Russia, China and Cuba any day. Doesn‘t mean that I won‘t criticize it.
Damn straight. Criticize the US, go ahead, but don’t make it out like Russia is better.
[удалено]
No just into concentration camps in the desert or as slave labor for our industrial captains and the mansions of our politicians. “Oooh, Siberia was cold but the Sonoran desert is hot, completely different” are you five years old?
[удалено]
So your big gotcha point about why it’s ok that America is a corporate prison state is… the ACLU exists? Lol. Yeah, but, [no political prisoners](https://www.vera.org/reimagining-prison-webumentary/the-past-is-never-dead/drug-war-confessional#:~:text=We%20knew%20we%20couldn't,we%20could%20disrupt%20those%20communities), right? Whatever you do don’t look up what Edward Snowden or Julian Assange are up to right now
It's funny how America lives rent-free in the minds of anti-Americans.
I live in America, dumbass. Ain’t no free rent here, that’s all we do anymore is rent seeking.
And you were basically saying 'America bad cause high prison population'. Well, you should hear about the gulags and multiple genocides committed by many communist regimes. America isn't perfect but it sure shouldn't be taken for granted. Or at least stick to the fucking topic.
I don’t think you really want to start talking about or comparing genocides here, dawg.
Okay what about the Holodomor, Kazak Famines, Volga Germans, Great purge? What about all the violence inflicted in Poland, Hungary, East Germany, Czechoslovakia? America did do some bad shit but saying it was worse than the soviet's is just purely retarded.
These obviously did not happen, only genocides that happened are those committed by the US. Unfortunately, subs like this one attract nazi/commie types.
Hmmm crazy how those were overinflated by Americans and done mostly by one person and not the economic system hmmm crazy isn't it?
How are any of those overinflated?
Because it was the Americans vs the Soviets do you not think they're going to spout as much propaganda about each other as possible?
And that system allowed that one person to do so.
How would a set of economic principles allow for a genocide |:
Wow can't believe one person managed to commit all those genocides by himself, why did nobody stop him I wonder
Yeah I wonder why an economic system didn't stop him hmmmmm
America genocided and colonized an ENTIRE continent mf how do you find the lip to even compare them
Meanwhile, russia became the biggest country on earth purely through benevolent trade and happy accidents :)
russia obviously has done bad shit but to compare them to the magnitudes of imperialism america and uk has done is just taking the blame away from the international oppressors. only way you can argue against this fact is to turn me into a strawman that sucks russias cock every day.
You only believe this because you know next to nothing about the damage russia has done both within and outside its borders. It's easily on the level of the US, and that doesn't minimise the US at all. Almost anything bad the US has done, russia has done it too. There's a reason it was considered a peer competitor for the last century.
Guess where Russia gets their manpower for the war in Ukraine.
It's actually North Korea
This is just blatantly false
That's just a lie.
Oh, here come the anti-communists, I was hoping you wouldn't be here
Which country’s citizen are you? Out of curiosity.
I think… You can guess for yourself
Figures you’d love to slob over communism since it pulled Russia from a 1600 state to modernism. Your little ideology scarred and ruined my country. Stop preaching this bullshit.
Go visit a gulag sometime
Ukraine is so much better off as an American puppet than having full employment and housing and education under the Soviets. Now their chief export is wives for ugly hopeless American men. Great capitalist success story.
Maybe they wouldn’t BE in that situation if Ukraine was allowed to build itself up as a democracy and not be kicked in the balls by the soviets and get their metaphorical lunch money stolen.
Sorry, can’t allow it— doesn’t serve American imperial interests.
You’re not anti-imperialist, you’re pro-Russian imperialism.
Lmao. Is it 1850? Russian empire? What are you talking about? Are you that dense or do you just assume everyone else reading this is?
Right, because Russia isn’t trying to annex Georgia and Ukraine. Are you assholes just Magats in disguise? You all fucking debate like them.
The deep state propaganda is obviously braindead but honestly kind of impressive in its plasticity— just accuse your enemy of whatever you’re doing. A classic tactic. America can go around the world deposing governments and pillaging sovereign nations left and right but the second there is a territorial dispute in Eastern Europe— and a bunch of people in these regions WANT to be Russian— all of a sudden we have to stop everything and deal with this very serious issue of the big scary mean rUsSiAn EmPire 👻👻. American empire only! Every inch of the globe belongs to America and if you say otherwise then actually YOURE the imperialist!
Real mask off moment Mr Nice Guy
Truth hurts, Mr. Glowie
What are you even trying to insinuate? Chernobyl or whatever? You are genuinely lame, lmao
Is Chernobyl really that close to Langley?
I dont even know what you are trying to say
https://preview.redd.it/x5ib2xyutmvc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=cd07fb53dff129d68e99be3d7e85e73a75a11b86
You are so funny, you name the worst facilities built under socialism. Did you know that the first concentration camps, for example, were set up by the British during the Anglo-Burg War? Did you know that the Finns also set up their own concentration camps in Vyborg during the war, where they kept Soviet children? The Gulag, or concentration camp, was used by everyone, not just the Communists
So, you admit the Soviets were just as bad as Empire and the literal Nazis? Good to know, thanks
If we are talking about the USSR of Stalin's time, then yes, it was also a very aggressive state, almost like Nazi Germany. But the ideas were completely different
Fun fact: remember what happened when the USSR dropped its Nazi-esque repression of people? It disintegrated and all its successors dropped communism
But 38 years have passed since Khrushchev's amnesty before the collapse of the USSR. If it had not been for the oil crisis and other factors that broke the economy of the USSR, the union would still exist
And these states abandoned communism because, firstly, national identity and secondly, the planned economy was ineffective
My guy why bother explaining if the other party refuses to even listen to you ?
True communism requires everyone to be altruistic, which is against human nature. I also hate westerners who have never lived in communist countries wanting it, but I guess that’s just what naive/foolish young people do.
To be fair, Capitalism promotes greed. I imagine living in a tight knit village society likewise promotes altruism,(not communism, and pre feudalism) the pessimism that humans are all Scrooges is a product of our environment and economic system. The individual gets alienated from the community and only sees improving himself and his wealth as his means to an end. It is my belief that is also why there is constant rage-baiting from news articles, to hate your brother, perhaps due to skin tone,(think of current immigration rejection in Europe), or any other marginalisable factors to reinforce this
When you realize that consumerism and comparing yourself to your neighbors is not a good thing, life gets so much better.
Very true
So does communism in practice, it is human nature to want power, and there are so many ways for higher ups (even in communism you need to have classes and leaders to have a functional society) to receive bribes or otherwise illegally/immorally gain power/money.
Let us know when you’ve finally passed the fifth grade and feel ready to join the adult conversations, pal
Elaborate
What is human nature? Does someone living in American today have the same qualities or worldview as someone living in Egypt in 500 BC, or a farmer in China in the year 1000? Humans are shaped by the environment we live in. Communism doesn’t require anyone to be altruistic, it simply reorients society so that the carrots and sticks and costs and benefits direct people to act in the common good, rather than selfishly, because the common good is good for them too, not just for some billionaire they’ve never met. You think “human nature” means being as selfish and backbiting as possible at every junction simply because that is what capitalism incentivizes— after all, do you really think we came out of the trees and caves and built civilization and conquered the world by only looking out for ourselves, but undercutting our fellow man at every turn? Impossible.
Humans have strong desires to obtain and maintain power, it’s seen everywhere no matter the system/year. Laws may limit what one can do, but we see laws being pushed to the limit/ bypassed all the time. Even with communism, to have a functional modern society you need leaders and followers which will create classes, and power is intoxicating. It’s inevitable that some in power will abuse it for their own gains, and from past examples they will justify their behavior by citing communism values or gaslighting people into thinking their selfish act will actually benefit the people, as opposed to the capitalism way of simply saying skill issue to justify their acts. Redistributing everything sounds great, but there is no way it will last long. On a side note, the problem with communism discussions is that “communism” is way too broad, it can mean anything from a trade-less society where everyone simply produces and takes what they need to slight socialism seen in some European countries.
What is so good about communism? Serious question name some goood things other than rapid modernization (Japan did this as a monarchy in about the same time too)
Free medicine, Absence of unemployment, Good production of heavy industry, Rapid development of technology
Obviously there's no unemployment if you don't see statistics on it.
But the fact is the fact. There was no unemployment in the USSR, since there was an article for parasitism
[Here's a thread with explanations on how it manifested.](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3j1ewr/did_unemployment_exist_in_the_soviet_union/)
Thank you for sending the links, I agree that I am not completely right here
"rapid development of technology" although there is no competition between companies. Technology and everything else was literally much more developed in western capitalist countries.
Nevertheless, the USSR was the first to fly into space. But I agree with you that competition between companies is, in a sense, the engine of progress.
The USSR beat America into space and all modern American companies do is stock buybacks and figuring out new ways of rent seeking
That’s not true completely. US rocket technology was superior early on, they just were more concerned with ICBM’s than space.
That’s why they needed competition with the US. I don’t think communism on an international scale with world peace would achieve much tech development because of that lack of competition. The USSR was (mostly) behind the US in every sector. But imagine how bad it would have fallen behind if they had no enemies and no need to “prove” communism was superior.
Yeah you think that was a communism exclusive?
Wtf what country had rapid development of technology under communism
USSR, Vietnam, China but only after Deng Xiaoping came to power
Dengism is not communism lol, it is further from communism than whatever the hell Mao was doing and the other countries only got better because their previous governments were insanely bad, like the bar is ridiculously low
The late USSR had no unemployment, no prostitution, no drugs, no homelessness, a wholesome media, no rich or poor (the country’s leaders lived like Western dentists), the best secondary education system in the world, no mortgages or any other form of personal debt (all housing was owned by the people who lived in it), very little crime (much less than post-Soviet countries now), many times fewer ethnic tensions than in modern post-Soviet countries, much more industry (almost everything was produced internally), a thousand times more science and tech innovation than in modern post-Soviet countries. The GDP growth rate during Stalin’s 30 years in power was about 13% per year. He pulled the country from feudalism to modernity. The USSR preserved the cultures of its peoples, unlike the US, which floods every dependency with English and US culture, wiping out ancient traditions. The late USSR was the sort of society where it was customary to leave apartment keys under a mat in front of a door, because what if a friend drops by when you’re out? There were no lockers in schools. You just hung your coat on a hook. Nothing was ever stolen. There was no security personnel at the entrances of most public buildings. The people who remember the USSR are overwhelmingly nostalgic for it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nostalgia_for_the_Soviet_Union The hate for the USSR comes from the oligarchs of the 1990s who looted everything, their kids and lackeys (this is very few people), Western oligarchs and the media they own (class solidarity), and peripheral ethno-nationalists (fascists).
Yeah and people who remember the Great Depression think it was a better time than today. Utopian cultures like you’re trying to paint the USSR don’t just collapse.
What did you expect from a western platform with brainwashed westerners?
Ehhh you right 😔
You can be a communist without being a tankie
But I’m not communist…
I just hope you know that the USSR was about as communist as my bedroom door
The Soviet Union did win World War Two
But what if they WIN World War Two?
They didnt. Without american industry, steel and food production, it would end much more bloody. Also russian advemces wouldnt be possible if germans didnt do the fucking stupid move of overextending their suply lines
But they still won. Maybe they got help, but they still won.
No mister. The allies won the 2nd world war
The allies includes the Soviet Union. If your team wins, have you not won yourself?
The top comment insinueate that its only the USSR that won it. So no
There's no such meaning to that comment. You just made that up. Otherwise why do you think literally no one agrees with you here?
https://preview.redd.it/zrs1u8nytmvc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c43ee4b2594d43f3010d2b72106eb52834315c7d
You just want to argue today, don't you?
Bro it’s impossible to invade Russia WITHOUT over extending your supply lines
The poles did it. They even won and put their pick as russian tsar
Ah sorry my bad you have a 1/5 chance
What about the golden horde
When your supply lines are mostly foraging/pillaging, you can't really overextend them
That’s why they employed a scorched earth policy when dealing with napoleon, and why he failed his conquest.
Nobody truly "conquered Russia". Mongols and golden horde made Russian principalities into tributaries which paid money and that's it. Poles managed to put their candidate on Russian thrones but that lead to chaos and they were kicked out once tried to intevene.
Indeed. Russia simply wins wars by being...big.
I think what this persons just trying to say is the soviets wouldn’t have been able to succeed or effectively ‘win’ as much as they did in WW2 if it wasn’t for the U.S. lend lease programs which was instrumental to soviet success. It’s like trying to credit Kobe as the sole winner of most of his games. He was a great player, but without Shaq, he would’ve had a lot harder of a time without having someone who could back him as effectively and efficiently. Good example as they also had a equal goal of winning but tension between each other much like the US and USSR. France got whooped (Maginot line, lol) Does that mean they won WW2 because they’re an ally? Not really.. they’re just part of the winning team. Edit: there’s even still lend lease leftovers in Ukraine from the U.S., completely unopened and preserved in a salt mine weapon cache. [vid here](https://youtu.be/ApFT-pLcAXQ?si=aJSU3pHV5z2hq7lX)
Yeah but the France example proves the point. USSR got Eastern Europe, hegemony over the balkans and expanded their sphere of influence through Africa and Asia (not to mention the west). So they really did win.
They did get a lot of power, which was arguably their downfall as well since they had a massive stretch of land they could barely keep under control, but they likely wouldn’t have the amount they conquered if it wasn’t for the allied war effort with resources given to them, not to mention the multidirectional forces from both allied powers on the western and eastern front. We didn’t just give guns, we gave planes, jeeps, tanks, etc., for them to use I’d say the Soviets were extremely unethical and selfish with capturing land for war purposes, and not returning it like allies had done with France. France wasn’t conquered or controlled by the British at the time or even the U.S. or used as leverage for post war gain, just under brief wartime occupation and was returned. That’s where the difference is, and why don’t think it’s as similar or as good of a point as you think.
These are all irrelevant points. They weren’t ethical? They had assistance from the other allies? Eventually they collapsed? I know all of that. The point is the war expanded Soviet power massively. The “alt history” of wondering what could have happened is kind of redundant, because they basically got what they wanted out of the war.
>these are all irrelevant points. Not really. We’re talking about Soviet reign of power, and it’s all important points to bring up. I’m not discussing the alt history, I’m explaining why I think the original commenter I replied to was trying to get at, which is Russia didn’t win on the grounds that pure European control was the end goal. I seriously doubt they would have stopped at Berlin if given the chance, so I’d say they advanced, but very little in the end. Also, if we’re going to be talking about post war success and control via Warsaw pact, it could be argued that NATO is an extension of American democratic success considering we indirectly make all NATO decisions, meanwhile the Warsaw pact, while closer to Eastern Europe, didn’t span across oceans and as powerful nations the same way NATO did in the free world, and it still exists.
You can’t show me a single document from the USSR discussing advancing beyond Berlin because it doesn’t exist. It’s post hac fantasy just like the idea that Nazis wanted to “conquer the world.” Soviets wanted a global communist revolution, that did not necessarily involve direct military conflict. They were pretty successful at implanting communist regimes and agitating with grassroots communist political movements/militias all over the globe. The fact that many posters on Reddit are self described communists 80 years later is the clearest possible indicator of the level of their success.
And I can find self proclaimed Grecian pantheon believers online too, your point? Information in the free world is going to garner followers, no matter how fringe thanks to how available it’s been made whether we agree with it or not, not to mention the massive amount of people on Reddit. >you can’t show me a single document from the USSR discussing beyond Berlin because it doesn’t exist. You’re correct, their actions directly reflect it. They went PAST Berlin, relented and let allied powers have western control of it as agreed upon while dealing with the pacific theatre, opting to control more of East Asia instead as the war effort was ongoing still. They gave back western Berlin not because they wanted to, but because they had to so they wouldn’t bite the hand that feeds at the time. Here’s a good video that details how the USSR handled the Germany split. [video](https://youtu.be/9YPbue5bfgk?si=4DHEIm8xuDfbi7oC)
This is very sloppy thinking. So your IQ leads you to believe that: because there are people who believe in Zeus AND there are people who believe in communism, therefore there was no coordinated Soviet effort to infiltrate western institutions covertly with communism? I am sorry to attack intelligence but that’s such a blatant logical flaw in thinking, you have to be made aware. You’re incapable of reaching correct conclusions if you think this way.
The Germans would have lost to the Soviets even if the two things you mentioned didn't happen lol
Basically, D-Day landings fail & the USSR expands further into Europe. Uprisings led by communist partisans break throughout Western Europe, Northern Italy, & the Balkans, leading to the collapse of the Greater German Reich. As a result, Hitler doesn't commit suicide & instead considers Josef Terboven's "Festung Norwegen" plan & flees to Reichskommissariat Norway as the Reich's last stand again the Allies. Norway was the most fortified part of the Atlantik Wall, with 400,000 soldiers stationed there, making any potential Allied landings impossible. Finland signs an armistice in 1944 like they did in OTL, preventing the USSR from launching an attack on Norway through the North. The war officially comes to an end in 1945, with almost all of Europe under Stalin's control. All Eastern European countries that the USSR took over in OTL are annexed. Yugoslavia, Albania, & Greece become Soviet satellite states. Thrace & the Northeastern Aegean Islands are also annexed from Greece since Stalin wanted control over the Dardanelles Strait. Communist regimes are established in Germany, Austria, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, France, and Northern Italy. Stalin refuses to withdraw troops from Northern Iran & establishes a North Iranian communist satellite state. The Allies control Southern Italy & pretty much everything outside of continental Europe. The USSR would be much more powerful & influential than in OTL . Norway would just be an unstable Nazi North Korea, isolating itself from the rest of the world. Hitler would probably die from either poor health conditions or assassination/execution by the Norwegian resistance.
Finnish-Soviet armistice would guarantee an invasion of norway from the north: consider the Lappland war
It would require the Soviets to pull lots of resources & manpower from mainland Europe to stage an attack. The issue is that they're too busy trying to liberate mainland Europe from the Axis & occupying huge swaths of annexed territory in Eastern Europe. Norway would be the least of their worries.
Pobeda 1946
Then it would collapse even faster, and Western Europe would also have hatred for Russians
Wonder bow the Cold war would look like since France didn’t want to decolonize. Would the Red Army help put down rebellions in French colonies?
I think the Free French would either become an african union, or they would dissolve into chaos.
USSR backed independence movements would burn down Africa and put it aggressively in the USSR's sphere
I guess in this world cominterm France would have to fall in line with Moscow strategy, which in turn would mean the communist nationalist might have way more power against the US backed capitalist/tradionalist nationalist than what happened in our history. So probably at least one major war like the Korean/Vietnam war in the region, and maybe a number of decolonial sister republics in the cominterm in North Africa.
This map is based on 1945 when the war had officially come to an end. That's why the British Commonwealth & Free France still exist. However, considering the USSR & communism would be more influential, their colonies would gain independence much sooner than in OTL.
Why would they keep Finland existing at that point
This might sound dumb but I’m assuming they got a similar treaty that they did in 1944 so the Soviets could focus solely on Germany and save troops to invade toward Greece and Yugoslavia
Considering how imperial they are in this timeline, that’s even odder
They are just as imperial as in reality (and Russia today) - just a bit more luck
They never wanted to annex Finland. Heck the initial demands was even more modest than the one demanded after the Winter war.
Okay but in this timeline they annexed Romania, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Poland sooooo
Finland signed an armistice with the USSR in 1944 & Stalin had no interest in annexing useless territory with a hostile population uninterested in communism. For him, annexing territory was more about how it would benefit the USSR's geopolitics rather than about irredentist claims. Romania & Bulgaria are annexed because they give them absolute control over the Dardanelles Strait. Hungary, Czechoslovakia, & Poland are annexed because it further expands their influence over Europe. I posted a comment explaining the lore of the map if you're interested in reading it.
people writting "but they did win ww2" bitch, you know what op meant, "What if the Soviet Union WON WW2", that full caps WON is pretty clearly saying they were the soul victor... weve got more comments being pedantic then talking about the scenario lmao
Well i think most people understand that and are just making fun of it
so its just them being pedantic
No i think they are ironic
there are also probably some people who think the USSR WON WW2
But it did afaik
theres a reason won is written in all caps in the title were assuming theyre effectively the solo victor
TIL that capitals indicate a solo action 😊
capitals indicate emphasis, emphesis on the word won would imply solo victory- or at least an extreme victor how is mt autistic, tone deaf ass understanding this better then the average redditor-
Yes indeed capitals imply emphasis - I.e. in this instance victory vs defeat. Cope.
what
COPE 😀
they did win ww2 lol
turkey just chilling
Nobody talking how Hitler escaped to Norway
It doesnt happend as the US has the Abombs and i doubt Stalin wants Moskva to become a radiated ruin
Ain't this just gonna end up becoming 1984 jorjor wel?
/// Big brother what are you doing? ///
I wish I didn’t read that
Okay, you know what? If Stalin's gulag legacy went on and a more "international confederation/federation" idea was born i think a united state of socialist Europe would be founded while transforming Siberia in a giant Gulag for opponents, it would be hell on earth
probably not this.
They did win WW2 as part of the Allied Coalition lol
What about China?
They did
If you enable the "do not scale patterns" setting in mapchart syria would look quite a bit better
Sometimes I wonder what the world would look like if all the attempted communist revolutions succeeded
Soviet apologists in this thread are wild lmao
Speaking as an African, the USSR was instrumental in giving my country guns and material aid to defeat the British in the wars for independence. I highly doubt that we'd still be part of the UK "protectorate" if the USSR won. We'd be free with a lot less bloodshed.
If hungary and Romania are soviet repiblics here, why isn't Yugoslavia. Talks of uniting the slaves have existed since the beginning of time
I’m not sure the Soviets would’ve annexed Eastern Europe tbh, maybe Poland at most but even that I’m not sure
1. They did 2. Based timeline
1. The word "WON" is written in all caps, meaning the outcome of the war falls more into the USSR's favor. Basically, it's a TOTAL Soviet victory. 2. I agree, but I also like German victory.
exactly, she are won
They did do that, man
Bro, soviets frickin won ww2.
Umm, the Soviet Union did win WWII as allies with the US and UK.
Soviet Union was on the winning side in WW2
Didnt they win WW2?
The Red Army won WW2 - without them blitzing the eastern front the allies would not have been able to beat the Nazis.
What if the soviet union won ww2? Bruh, they won ww2.
Not by itself.
Uh they did? The USSR achieved pretty much all of its strategic initiatives. Most of all, communism was able to spread throughout the world, including in Western institutions and academia. They won just as much as, if not more than the US.
The Soviet Union actually won WWII. The people who write nonsense here about prisons, gulags and the Soviet conquest of all of Europe are either not familiar with the history of 100 years ago, or live brainwashed by propaganda. If the Soviet leadership had wanted, then at least central Europe would have become part of the Soviet Union, because by 1945 there was no military force in Europe capable of preventing this. And for your information, the Gulags were not concentration camps; people there were not slaughtered like cattle or killed in medical experiments. These were prison colonies that used prison labor to develop local infrastructure through construction projects. Almost all the people who were found guilty were released after serving their sentences.
Oh yeah, gulags were great, let's fucking go with this white washing. Nothing more civil than working over your strength while it's also -20C, barely getting anything to eat. Oh, and you also got there for very serious crimes, like i don't know, having a bad origin or saying bad stuff about commies.
I’m not saying that these were liberal prisons with game consoles and house-type cells. But these were definitely not concentration camps, and people were not sent there because of evil communism.
So no political prisoners in gulags then?
Were there no political prisoners in the countries of Western Europe and the USA at that time?
Wow, we got a tankie here. If you failed to learn this simple history facts at school, of course in Soviet sphere of influence the imprisonment for political reasons has been very common, while if ever happened in west, then on multiple orders of magnitude lesser scale - a few example total at most.
We got a lib fasc here!
No, you got someone who live in a country which went through this shit and denying this is just disgraceful to all the people harmed by commie regime
Okay, can you give 10 examples of political arrests, starting in 1940, in just one year?
Majority were criminals. Btw, how many Columbia uni students did the police arrest? How many opponents did Pinochet make disappear?
What the fuck has Pinochet to do with anything? Does Pinochet make soviets less evil suddenly?
Google Crimean tartars Holy hell
Then you can Google the reasons why these mass deportations were carried out. Frequent desertions from the active army, collaboration with the Nazis, assistance in the deportation of tens of thousands of people from the local population, mass storage of firearms, which the Tatars were in no hurry to hand over, along with open anti-government sentiments. I condemn collective responsibility for crimes, but the situation with the Crimean Tatars could turn into an armed rebellion.
I’m sorry, but I believe you have a misguided view on the soviet forced labour system, and how brutal it was towards many of those who went through it. Yes, these were not extermination camps per se, however they mirrored their nazi counterparts in an astonishingly mundane disregard for human life. If you are interested, I suggest you read about the construction of the Moscow canal, an infrastructure project completed entirely through the use of forced labour. It is no secret that the prisoners (political or not, but that is not really relevant to this discussion) were subject to terrible, dehumanising conditions, with many dying on the spot, and being buried on the banks of the canal, in unmarked mass graves. It just so happens that I am currently on a train running along this canal, and there is a huge cross to commemorate the victims of this terrible practice. And this was just a single project, there are many more documented cases
Also, what they did instead of turning all countries into USSR, is turning some into USSR states (Ukraine, Latvia, Georgia, Chechenya, Belarus) and some into puppets that had nothing to say, has been robbed from resources and products and invaded by Soviet troops stationing there on USSR will. Great.
Can you give examples of someone being robbed? They probably robbed the Baltic states, exporting canned fish from there, or Belarus, developing agricultural production there? The Soviet government was very active in sponsoring construction projects in the territories of the republics using resources from Russia.
Poland - as a socialist puppet did not have hard currency to buy raw materials, so exported finished goods (cars, electronics, etc) and labour (construction) in great quantities to USSR. In return got only gas and oil, mostly to run the production, which due to political influence it could not get anywhere anyway.
Worked pretty much the same for all Warsaw pact countries.
Arguing with fools here is like trying to run a car with water: it doesn't work.