Communist North America vs Capitalist Soviets

Great post, I agree. I just think if they tried it in the cold war it would've been too late to make a difference. It depends on when the US goes communist too. The earlier and more Christian our society, the more brutal the communists would've been on repressing the other side of the population. By the early 70's that repression wouldn't have needed to be so thorough in order to stamp them out.

North america every time

The soviets inherited a country fucked by war and headed straight into a civil war and then world war 2, also they had nationalism to deal with

North america was pretty much entierly peaceful during this period

The winner was always obvious if you think about it

>North america every time
Uhhhh no.

>The soviets inherited a country fucked by war

Civil war mostly, purges, famines, and permastagnation mostly.

>North america was pretty much entierly peaceful during this period

That wouldn't have been true if communist invasion broke out from within.

We'll use two timelines to demonstrate this starting with a Russian timeline where the gommies never took over. Schiff never transported Trotsky to Switzerland, Warburg defunded Lenin, and they both commit suicide in their homes in this timeline.

In this non-civil war timeline:
>The civil war never happens, Russia never loses WW1.
This is important because the Russian army knew it wasn't going to be ready until 1917, according to Brusilov's autobiography, and according to the same autobiography Prikaz no.1 sabotaged Russia's ability to fight the war structurally(the commies tried to unionize the army before they formally held absolute power). 7-12 million never die as a result of the civil war, and instead hundreds of thousands die holding off Germans before their final exhaustion. Unlikely Germany would've continued as long as it did if Russia remained as a solid belligerent.

>Since Russia never lost WW1, they aren't invaded in WW2.

This sounds crazy at first, but it's based on German doctrine and especially Hitler's personal view of Russia. He thought that since Russia was so blown out in the first WW, that they would be easily conquered in the second. They knew Soviet economics weren't up to par and tens of millions had died, so it seemed logical they would lose hard in the next war. Hitler was quoted as saying to his generals that they "need only kick open the door and the whole rotten structure would fall down". If Russia never lost WW1 due to the civil war or communist sabotage, then Russia would be never had looked like an obvious target. German living space would had to have come from somewhere else. PT 2 to follow...

PT 2 of Russia without the damn dirty commies

>The Soviets never invade former Russian held lands

In the aftermath of WW1, the Soviets immediately invaded eastern Europe. Here:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_westward_offensive_of_1918–19

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish–Soviet_War

Losing hundreds of thousands of men here as well, plus the equipment production they lost out on that could've been redirected elsewhere. This caused problems because in 1921-1922...

>The First Great Famine

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_famine_of_1921–22

Kills another 3-5 million. Some speculation of more than that, but it's hard to know given sourcing at the time makes that claim hard to prove.

>Repression

The USSR imprisoned people for distributing holy books or holding service. Religion was banned. Private property was banned. The means of production are now sponsored by the government, so there's no amateur creativity going on in this period. By the government seizing the means of production and maintaining their control, it means individuals don't have freedom to produce for themselves or innovate/tinker. Private businesses post NEP and early Stalin era are banned and collectivized. Which sucks because...

>HOLODOMOR & Collectivism

They seized the means of production from the 5% of kulaks that were outproducing the other 95% of agricultural workers. The kulaks wanted more means and control of their tools and marketing ability, but instead of making everyone more productive the USSR killed them and stole their land. This sucks because
1)Russia tried collectivism before with "obshchinas" and they were inefficient so the imperial Stolypin reform created a better environment to assist farmers with taxes, subsidies, co ops, and information distribution. The Soviets destroyed all that, reinstituted the collective, and removed personal incentive.

IIRC GDP/capita and economic growth up until the 60s was surprisingly not that much higher in the capitalist countries.
The communist countries are just really bad at handling crisis situations. Or in other word, if things don't go as planned. So had the eastern bloc had a system more flexible and pragmatic, like capitalism, it would probably still be alive and kicking. And had the western bloc a more static and ideologic system, like communism, it probably wouldn't have survived the first oil crisis, let alone the financial crisis 2008.

(...cont)
Later when the USSR goes to China to figure out how to farm, the Chinese secret as personal incentive.

2)Russia under the Stolypin reform would've made them an agricultural superpower. Without Ukraine, Russia today has become a top producer of a number of agricultural products. No reason they wouldn't have far exceeded that if the commies had never come to tyranny.

>Deathcount...

So far we have
7-12 million dead in civil war
300k~ dead as a result of Soviet post-ww1 invasions
3-5 million dead in first famine
3-6 million dead in second famine
Untold killed as a result of repressions,purging, etc., likely in the couple millions to several millions. Highest count puts it at 20 million.
28~ million dead in WW2 given traditional Soviet count.

So that's 38.3 million dead without the purges/executions/gulaging to death. With those, it's somewhere just under 40 million on the conservative count with the high count being 71.3 million. If that sounds suspicious, the USSR is the same country that reported steady 2% GDP growth during the war they claimed killed almost 30 million people.

>The USSR Stifles culture

Banning religion and free expression meant Russians could not create their own culture. It was stifled. Any culture creator has to be financed by the government, which is also ones company and also their union. It creates a structure where leaders from different departments know one another and collaborate against any perceived threats or outgroup thinking by virtue of holding similar stations, ranks, and attending similar symposiums and having the same training/indoctrination.

This is all pre-1953 and doesn't include the fact that if Germany invaded Russia, Russia wouldn't have had the Great Purge or Yezhovshchina, the military establishment wouldn't have been uprooted, and they would've held Poland, creating a deep offensive salient.

And none of this includes the war economy the bolsheviks tried:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_communism

>A black market emerged in Russia, despite the threat of martial law against profiteering. The rouble collapsed and barter increasingly replaced money as a medium of exchange[9] and, by 1921, heavy industry output had fallen to 20% of 1913 levels. 90% of wages were paid with goods rather than money. 70% of locomotives were in need of repair, and food requisitioning, combined with the effects of seven years of war and a severe drought, contributed to a famine that caused between 3 and 10 million deaths.[10] Coal production decreased from 27.5 million tons (1913) to 7 million tons (1920), while overall factory production also declined from 10,000 million roubles to 1,000 million roubles. According to the noted historian David Christian, the grain harvest was also slashed from 80.1 million tons (1913) to 46.5 million tons (1920).

They lied about GDP growth rates on top of destroying their economies to begin with. The USSR reported 2% positive GDP growth even as they were hemorrhaging millions of fighting men and civilians and losing all of their resource rich areas in WW2. At it's height, the USSR in 1974 only reached 57% the GNP of the USA.

cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000497165.pdf

Not to mention Russia's position:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geographical_Pivot_of_History

...Communism. Hits harder than a hundred atom bombs.

It was very much capitalist.

>At it's height, the USSR in 1974 only reached 57% the GNP of the USA

Since the population sizes were roughly the same I assume the GDP/capita was also similar to these numbers.

That isn't that bad. That means they were relative to the US in 1974 as South Korea or Italy is relative to the US in 2017.

The GDP/capita in Russia is about 18% of that in the US in 2017. From 57% to 18% - thats quite an increase in the gap.

So, communism was not really destined to fail like that - they obviously did pretty well for some time. What failed them was them not being able to handle a real crisis. So if the systems swapped, probably the Soviet Union would have won, since the West would have been the one who gets blown out by the first crisis, while the Soviet Union would have overcome crisis after crisis.

>Since the population sizes were roughly the same I assume the GDP/capita was also similar to these numbers.

Population isn't a great corresponding metric GNP. Given the population, Russian geographic advantages, and it's sheer land mass it's half of what I'd expect.

USA population 1974: 214 million, given on google searching.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Soviet_Union

For this, in 1977 it puts the population at: 257 million. It doesn't make sense no matter how it's sliced.

To be clear, when I say sheer land mass and resources I mean the USSR, not including the lands it lost under communism.

Also, forgot to mention the "planting roots" communist doctrine that permanently destroyed Russia through balkanization.

Whoa, hey, why hasn't this thread been bumped yet?

Bump.

Bump

Capitalist Soviets.

Half of the world prefers capitalist over anything that'll bring down their elites.

>Religion was banned. Private property was banned.
Ain't you a retarded cookie?

I think inevitably you're going to have some kind of February revolution, just maybe not an October one

>Russia tried collectivism before with "obshchinas" and they were inefficient
That's not necessarily true, small holders had better yields under that system than under Stolypins reforms while Kulaks benefited enormously because they already had fuck huge fields anyway

Not to mention that a modern NA is almost impossible to invade due to its delicious geographic position.