Why were East European countries historically such shitholes?

Why were East European countries historically such shitholes?

>inb4 muh communism
They were poor before communism too

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarmatism
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

PLC wasn't a shithole. Neither was the Russian Empire.
Not to mention Kiev Rus.

You're just cherrypicking.

>(((Bairoch))) instead of Angus Maddison
Fuck off this second.

Getting their shit consistently pushed in whenever a group tried to invade Europe while Western Europe was generally safe and comfy behind their Eastern European buffer zone.

They weren't bad, the west was just better, because colonialism, industrialism etc

basic history

Central/Eastern European history is more interesting than Western European one.

England for example was an irrelevant backwater prior to industrialization. It just so happens "pro-western" narrative started being pushed because Western Europe gained significant relevancy during colonization period.

>They were poor before communism too
As for Poland - 100 years of non-existence with the partitioning powers never investing in it. 3 judicial systems, 3 currencies and literally no industry.

>1938 $351/$1000
That's a significant difference. Which one would be closer to the truth?
Also:
>People's Republic of Poland
>1938
>1990
w e w

>1960 dollars vs 1990 dollars
>what is inflation
Is written text too difficult for you?

>Connection to Eurasia and local nomads
>Limited access to sea

Why do we treat Eastern Europe like it's a single homogenous region? Bohemia has nothing to do with Albania or Macedonia.

DUDE COLD WAR LMAO

Because plebs can't be bothered to distinguish them. The same way they bunch all the Slavic nations together.

Orthodox christianity, no access to the Atlantic or Mediterranean, and the persistence of serfdom.

praha was one of the largest and most developed cities in europe for a huge period of time. only paris rivaled it.

most of it can be described away by geography, europe was in an excellent position of dominance. eastern europe constantly had to worry about winters, nomadic invasions, and shifting allegiances.

Ottoman legacy.

first map shows GDP PPP, second shows GDP nominal.

First serfdom wich lasted until like 19th century, then communism. Also lack of Protestant influence, but either vatican pedo or orthodox drunkard degeneracy.

Western Europe created capitalism, while Eastern Europe squirmed under feudal regimes and foreign rule.
The better question is why are Spain and Portugal shitholes?

Moorish blood.

whoops, wrong pic

>1930s ireland and greece were literally richer than shitaly
LMAO

Mediterranean world is crippled because it birthed manorialism as well as the onset of desertification (southern italy, spain, and greece were significantly wetter and forested in the archaic period).

It's simple
>Western Europe
>quick urbanization, short travel distances, trading goods
>Eastern Europe
>rural, agriculture based economy, long travel distances

I mean, historically low population density areas roughly east of Elbe developed a feudal system that enriched the nobility through exploitation of serfs, leaving little room for economic investment or growth. The predominant way a Prussian noble would increase their annual income in 1670s was to buy out more land, not improve the existing.

>red representing good
>green representing bad
This is hurting my autism

>money
>good

>They were poor before communism too

Yes but the gap was much smaller.

The original development of W Europe (especially Britain) came from high population density, large amounts of easily accessible natural resources in close proximity to population centres, and the influx of global trade into NW Euro ports, then dominated by these countries.

Most E Euro countries had few to none of these advantages.

HOWEVER, since the industrial revolution became more widespread, at the beginning of the 20th c., many non NW Euro countries began adopting the tenets of industrialist capitalism. Such countries include the USA, Japan, Argentina, even Turkey tried. The massive deficit noted in this post's pic is entirely down to the USSR's utterly retarded and literally self-destructive economic policies.

A very good example is Bohemia.

For centuries, Bohemia was one of the richest parts of Europe, they dominated HRE politics for much of the middle ages, under Habsburg dominion, it was one of (if not THE) richest part of the empire. Prague was one of the most important cities in all of Europe, on a par with Paris, Rome, Milan, London, Venice, Frankfurt etc. They did not industrialise as fast as some of the NW Euro countries, but up until WW1, the Austro-Hungarian empire was making significant steps towards modernisation, and in Bohemia, the enterprise was paying off, as it continued to be one of the heartlands of the empire, and was wealthy on a par with many NW Euro countries.

Then came the USSR.

Czechia today is still trying to haul itself up to be simply on par with the poorest W Euro countries (and doing an admirable job at that). Even its neighbour and once economic equal in the empire, Austria, is leagues ahead of it. Not because it is poorly situated (it's at the heart of Central Europe), not because it's corrupt (it's one of the least corrupt countries in Europe), not because it was always poor (it clearly wasn't), but simply because of the USSR.

Czechia is not a very populous country, they will never have that relevance again. Numbers matter more now.

Also it's not that bad

>Czechia is not a very populous country, they will never have that relevance again.

Oh of course.

My point wasn't that they would be relevant, simply that they were well developed and wealthy for much of their history (pretty much all of it until the mid 20th c).

Good post

The eternal steppenigger. Tatar nomads were burning down Moscow as late as the 17th century.

cuz the most relevant thing any of those countries are to them are that they use to be communist and are significantly more poor than Western and Northern Europe

Somehow i find Russian feudalism fascinating. Russia was essentailly a feudalist country all the way until 1917. Liberation of serfs in 1861 did jack shit as nobility was untouched with their lands and privileges. The contrast between Russian aristocracy and peasantry also fascianates me. On one side you have families freezing in medieval-tier wooden huts, in medieval-tier conditions. On the other you have a wealthy, opulent class doing absolutely nothing but lying around, collecting their rents, travelling around Europe and attending balls. I suggest reading Goncharov's Oblomov to everyone, there ain't a a book that describes better the mindset, lifestlye and decadence of Russian aristocracy.

Other countries like Austria and Germany too had great empires at the time, Austria even had some semi-feudal system until 1918, but nowhere was this contrast so visible as in Russia. In Russia the citizenry, middle class never had a similar amount of influence and wealth as German and Austrian Bürger had. By the time WW! started they were only beginning to come out of the shadow of aristocracy. The reason why democratic bourgeois revolution of February 1917 failed was because Russian citizenry was still too weak, insecure and had no idea what to do at all.

Most innovation happened in Germany France and Italy, and it takes time for ideas to travel, especially over land.
So east Europe was always even years behind European colonies, which made them poor by west European standards, but still well off compared to the rest of the world.

low iq

russia

>inb4 communism
>they were poor before communism too

Carniola and Bohemia were pretty much comparable to East Austria in terms of wealth and industrialisation by end of A-H. So it's a really good study case of how it was actually communism, at least for the """""central"""""" european nations.
You can also take into account the still present disparity between east and west Germany to supplement that argument.

Germany pressured Austria-Hungary into fucking with Serbia and inevitably kickstarting the Great War only because they were terrified of Russian potential if left unchecked.

Finland really prospered for the first time ever after Russia defeated Sweden and added it to its own sphere of influence.

Russia also won almost every single war it was involved in against the Ottoman Empire, saving southern Europe from an even more hopeless future under Islamic subjugation. They were winning so bigly that Britain and France felt the need to ally the mohammedans in the Crimean War and stop Russian potential before it eclipsed them (noticing a trend?).

So simplifying pre-communist history like that makes no sense at all

THIS RIGHT HERE

tatars, turks, russians

>scratch a russian...

irishfag here, i know literally nobody who makes over 50k a year, never understood how its so high in ireland.

The magic of averages is that there is that no one makes less than 0 per year, but there's no real upper bound.

>every russian peasant was a serf
What tankies don't tell you is that there was a big proportion of wealthy pesants in pre-1917 Russia. Reds just bombed and stole their shit during civil war and collectivization and then invented the meme that every peasant was a slave under the tsar

i realise that, it really goes to show the devide between ordinary and super rich though

during 17 century there was a middle class polish noble who made diplomatic mission to rome and he made such an impression that pope he said that he never saw one person posses so much wealth and splendor
"[...] the horse under him of incomparable beauty
and garments, trotted along,
glittering with expensive jewellery
and forsterite; gown embroidered
with gold scales and button loops
decorated with diamonds,
pearls and bloody rubies [...]".
and rich magnates were much more wealthy than that

>WE WUZ MAGNATES AND SHIET

ottomans whose wars sovereignty depleted manpower, cost a lot of money and resources and encouraged corruption and instability
weak monarchs coupled strong aristocracy which kept serfdom, high illiteracy rate
strong church
different ethnicities between rural and urban populations
late industrial revolution
a lot of these could have been solved by increased social movement

Constant meddling of Commie Russia, and Turks throughout history

Western Europe happens to have access to the Atlantic ocean and didn't have to deal with those two rapist

WE WUZ HETMANS N SHIT

Really? Got some sources on that? I'm not doubting on you, but I was also under that impression, but thinking about it, it's somewhat hard to believe no form off capitalist middle class existed at least in commercial hubs like cities or ports.

Kulaks sprang into existence after the serf liberation, you can look them up if care to. But they engendered quite a bit of enmity from the peasants who did not have what the kulaks had, and thusly they were designated enemies of the proletariat in the eyes of Stalin and killed/otherwise BTFO

Finland is on par with Western Europe and has none of those, especially short travel distances. It's the least densely populated nation in Europe and it's also practically an island making importing and exporting (elsewhere than Russia) very expensive.

Aaaand just like that it goes back to the reason:
commies. Lack of them.

>literally hitler youth + beard
fucker was so ahead of time

Poles were ahead of Germans in term of "Aryan race" larping.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarmatism

git gud germans

Delete this, or their inferiority complex will kick in again.

slavs are always ending up as dysfunctional civilziation one way or another
>plc/imperial russia
>awful monarchies, serfdom, super late industrialization or noone at all and only privileged elite of nobility has good life
>balkan kangdoms
>petty and keen on backstabbing others, often even working with turks
then you have communism because only the slavs were naive to fall for muh "paradise on earth, everyone will be equal, muh brotherhood" memes to actually try to make it work

Speak for yourself jeez

I hope OP takes note of these two posts. Strange how he started a thread with a question whilst refusing to hear a certain answer.

most of countries have some kind of national myth

But only Germs and Polacks claimed they descend from Aryans.

This thread is a bunch of americans with historical knowledge not extending beyond 20th century or knowledge of PLC and Kievian Rus, trying to explain how did a enormous and incredibly diverse region (that wasn't even considered a single region up until Cold War) work in one or two sentences, just to sound smart or funny.


this guy gets closest to truth which isn't that we (or any part of the world) were shitholes, West just had the best position to advance (relatively peaceful edge of civilization, and access to sea)

>n one side you have families freezing in medieval-tier wooden huts, in medieval-tier conditions.
You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. Do you know who the kulaks were?
>Austria even had some semi-feudal system until 1918
Now you're reaching peak retardation. Austria abolished serfdom in 1780 and Hungary in 1848.

Most of the communist countries didn't exist in 1938 or 1990.

Actually pretty much all of them existed in 1990 when that chart got created. Only Romania changed its name in 1989 right after the revolution.

Retarded.

>he thinks the Slavs wanted communism
Read a book nigger. In the USSR they had a bloody revolution over it, and it was exported to other Slavic nations by force by the Red Army.

>DDR
>1989
>Poland
>1989
>Hungary
>1989
>Romania
>1989
>Czechoslovakia
>1989

Poland, Hungary and the likes were never a part of the Soviet Union, they were just satellite states under Soviet influence. Most people don't seem to be aware of this.

Czechoslovakia was still called Czechoslovak socialist republic until april 1990.

>bloody revolution
started by slavs
>exported to other Slavic nations by force by the Red army
which was slavic

>Finland>France

lul

>started by slavs
Nope, started by non-Slavs. Trotsky was a Jew, Lenin was a Chuvash/Swede/Jew, Stalin was Georgian, Kaganovich was a Jew, Sverdlov a Jew, Mikoyan was Armenian, Zinoviev a Jew, Yagoda yet another Jew, Kamo was Armenian, Kamenev a Jew, Smilga a Latvian, you could continue all day. There wasn't a single drop of Slavic blood in these people, the only one who was ethnically Russian was Bukharin and he got fucked from the getgo.
Slavs like Denikin and Kolchak were actually the ones fighting against the Bolsheviks.

so you're telling me that all it takes for biggest nation of slavs to follow dumbest ideology ever is just a couple of jews?
that makes them look even worse, congratz

>Winter
>Huns
>Goths
>Mongols
>Russians
>Commies

Communism is just the most recent problem.

From your pic it's obvious that communism is to blame

eastern europe was richer than spain and portugal, and now look how it's the other way around post communism

>1861 did jack shit
except it started a rapid industrialization and urbanization of Russia

who do you think was doing all the protests and revolutions, enslaved serfs? it was the urban working class

>PLC wasn't a shithole
Not for long

>Neither was the Russian Empire
Lets be honest here, Russia was always a shithole, they only managed to become a great power because they were so fucking big

Even after the Deluge it was still rich as fuck. How do you think Prussia became a top player? They got Greater Poland and Polish monetary print, which doubled Prussian economy.

hey Sven, what if i...stop you right there

Stop with those mental gymnastics you weasely jew.

I love how westerners portray Eastern Europe as some permafucked place constantly wrecked by catastrophes, and self-pitying Pollacks with their victim complex only add fuel to that fire. Eastern Europe was pretty cozy for most of its history (pre-20th century).

>*gets killed by his own men*

And the fact that they were big is a completely exogenous factor, right?

They became big by conquering even less developed neighbours

The simple answer is corruption

*tips ottomans*
*tips mongols/tatars enslaving people as late as 18 century*
*tips oppressive as fuck nobility*
sure

>I love how westerners portray Eastern Europe as some permafucked place constantly wrecked by catastrophes
thats mostly americans who believe that history starts with ww2

>MUH TATARS
Shows how shitty your education is.
Wouldn't doubt it.

>Shows how shitty your education is.
>It is estimated that up to 75% of the Crimean population consisted of slaves or freed slaves
ill educate you instead

Not him but its a pretty big difference between freed slaves and actual slaves

>inb4 muh communism they were shitholes before
they all just got their independence right before the Great Depression, right after they would experience a soviet occupation

communism mixed with a shitty economic foundation doesnt give you a nice GDP

>all of Eastern Europe is Crimea
So your geography knowledge is even more fucked

Aside from the inflation, why is it comparing GDP PPP to GDP nominal?

Plus, Eastern Europe has significantly lower IQs, which explains their shit hole nature

?

You just proved my point, Vladowski.
Just accept the fact that Eastern Europe is poor because of their low af IQ. The sooner, the better.

Poland is higher than Western Europe

Are you braindead or just illiterate

Russia has the highest number of chess masters.