Was Tsarist Russia really faster industrializing than the USSR? Or at the very least...

Was Tsarist Russia really faster industrializing than the USSR? Or at the very least, would it industrialize faster than it before the end of the first world war if it did not enter it? Was the revolution necessary?

Attached: a-russian-view-of-monarchy-russia-under-nicholas-ll-with-1725611.png (500x350, 104K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=6FgaL0xIazk&list=PLB2vhKMBjSxO1lsrC98VOyOzfW0Gn8Tga
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnitogorsk
press-files.anu.edu.au/downloads/press/p223611/pdf/ch056.pdf
sovietinfo.tripod.com/WCR-Ukraine_Famine.pdf
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

No. That's just /pol/ memes, I love how you tend to cite economists but ignore the actual data that prove otherwise.

The Russian Empire was a declining power and the revolution was needed.

Attached: soviet-usa-gdp-history-600x414.jpg (600x414, 64K)

>Was Tsarist Russia really faster industrializing than the USSR?
no, except if you are referencing the time of the civil war. The soviets really did take Russia from beeing an country with an rather marginal industrial sector to the first space power.

>Or at the very least, would it industrialize faster than it before the end of the first world war if it did not enter it?
Sorry, I do not understand what this phrase is supposed to mean.

>Was the revolution necessary?
Which one do you mean? October revolution was basically a coup by the bolshevics. The February revolution was basically unavoidable and overdue. Russians where tired of the downright contradictory and sometimes downright nonesensical policies of the czar. Pic very related.

Attached: Russian_Constituent_Assembly_Election_1917.png (702x667, 51K)

No, Russia by the time of the 20th Century was a declining power. It was getting so bad, it managed to lose a war to still fairly weak at the time Japan of all people.

Revolution was definitely needed considering it uplifted it to becoming a secondary superpower and surviving a war of extermination the Germans forced upon them while still managing to rival the US for several decades.

If the Tsar kept power and things stayed the same, Russia would've become literally Africa tier.

t. kulak

>so many communists on Veeky Forums

GIT

Attached: 1486315292885.jpg (1919x1285, 653K)

>No wonder many Russians look back at Tsarist Russia as a paradise lost

Kek, nope. Stalin is regarded as the most well-liked historical leader of Russia, Nicholas II doesn't even factor into any list. He's seen as a failure. Most people look back fondly to SOVIET times, including nationalists, not to Tsarist ones.

>recognising a thing that happened in history
>must mean you're a communist

/pol/fags are so fucking cringeworthy

Yes. The soviets pushed back the rate of industrialization by decades

How? Proof?

Attached: irony.jpg (640x480, 39K)

You gonna cite some sources or rant on about muh gommies?

>It was in decline, tragedy was bound to occur!
>Therefore tragedy was necessary to avert it
lol commies

>If the Tsar kept power and things stayed the same, Russia would've become literally Africa tier.

Attached: brainletmarx.jpg (992x898, 146K)

What was the tragedy, again? Liberation from feudal-tier oppression?

Gonna try and refute this /pol/tard?

The massive civil war and purging of people,
The mass killing of people (need people to work in factories)
The fact that they lost 90% of their industry twice (in 1918 and then in WW2 when Stalin moved the remaining industry to the Urals)

Germany pushed for war with Russia in 1914 because they knew that Russia was industrializing so rapidly that by 1917 the rail system in Russia would be equal to Germany's.

Russia's problem was social and political repression due to people like Lenin's brother who helped kill the one tzar that was going to reform Russia into a constitutional monarchy

>Liberation
Don't throw the rod in with the bait

Attached: 1519257399089.jpg (645x968, 153K)

Hey guys, I'm OP, seriously now, if you have something of merit to point out I'd be glad to hear.

No!

Nicholas II was an utter failure.

Attached: 1520272701791.jpg (514x604, 56K)

Cursed image

Any sources?

Yeah a history book. Nicky might have been week but how ministers weren't.

Give us something please... At least a book name.

Literally any book on Russian History.

Then tell me what you have read, I will check it out, I have to actually

If you want an actual source read the peoples tragedy by orlando figes, its like the most well known/respected work.

don't buy into the Pol hype, tasrist russia was industralising pretty fast with french loans but only because it had nothing to begin with, starting with 1 factory and having 10 is a 90% increase, they could have done better but the tsar fired anyone competent and was going to fire witte or stolypin (cant remember) but they died just before

Look man, you basically give to reasons: The civil war and Stalin. With respects of the civil war one has to take into acount, that there was more than one party involved, and that such a war obviously would be decremantal to industrialization. And whilst stalin was a massive asshole and mass murderer, he did (quite ruthlessly) force industrialization upon the SU. The relocation of the industry behind the Urals actually saved soviet industry instead of destroying it. I really don´t follow you there.Thats why they could fly the first rocket into space 10 years after the biggest war in human history swept threw their territorry.

>Pol
newfag

I think that a Russia that wasn't saddled with Stalin's repressive policies probably would have industrialized more quickly and with less bloodshed. Especially since Russia would have actually benefited from post-WW1 reparations from Germany if the Bolsheviks hadn't taken them out of the war.

Go to your library, I'm not doing to homework for you. All the books except for the ones that are blatant Communist propaganda will tell you the same things. That the first 10 years of Nicky's reign were great then 1905 happened and socially things went down hill. Look up any book about how WW1 got started and you'll find that Germany was terrified of Russia because of how fast it was industrializing. etc, etc...


The Soviets started the civil war after they took over Petersburg and Moscow. You can argue that they should've been destroyed in 1917 after it became public knowledge that Germany was funding them but that point is moot now.

My point about the Urals is that he had to rebuild it because he and his predecessors destroyed what was there

absolutely not. the soviets accomplished a faster industrialization, starting with less resources, then any other civilization in history. Albeit many people died because the Stalinists purged everybody who knew how to properly run a planned economy, namely the left opposition.

I don't know if it was faster, but Russia did have a brief spurt of industrialization during the 1880-90s. That was when the trans siberian railway was built. Witte oversaw these projects, trying to build foreign confidence in the Russian economy because industrialization was basically paid for with foreign loans and credit. But since the Russian economy was still predominantly agrarian, everything could easily go to shit after a bad harvest, which it did.
Nicky fired Witte because Witte convinced the Tsar to create a Duma, which ended up being really hostile to the imperial cabinet. Stolypin was killed because he kept dissolving the duma to fill it with monarchists.

>The soviets really did take Russia from beeing an country with an rather marginal industrial sector to the first space power.
>Muh soviets convert Russia in a super power XDDDDDDD

Attached: ojHzveY.png (248x459, 249K)

Νice refutation retard.

Russia industrialized as much as France, England, and other western european countries wanted them to. All of their industry was reliant on investments from other countries because the Tsar spent all of the countries finances on buying weapons and military expertise.

>with, starting with 1 factory and having 10 is a 90% increase
Veeky Forums education

Stalin literally starved tens of thousands of peasants so he could sell grains to the US in order to get funding for the developement of heavy industry. Also, just look at the numbers man...

I have never considered the reparation though. Afaik it didn´t have much of an effect on french and British industrialisation though, or did it?

>It's in a book
>Oh cool not the ones I've read, what books have you read
>Not telling you
Faggot

> sell grains to the US
Could i have a source for that? I'd be extremely grateful.

Foreign investment is a good thing.

Tsarist didn't really industrialize, it did it a lot like Norway and a lot of lesser fiefdoms: Somewhat in trade cities, and somewhat in areas around that, like mining towns.
But not outside of that.
Soviet lead to the entire soil of Russia getting industrialized, and Stalinism did it further for pragmatic reasons. It also increased the industrialization of countries that ended up in Soviet for one reason or another.
Things didn't get shitty until the 80s either, where Soviet lost the will to keep its socialist experiment going, and it then collapsed into a bunch of reasonable nations and the failed state of Russia.
Called Perestroika for "decentralization" is like calling a bumblebee for a bird.

Do you disagree?
Russia isn't a centralized power and under the noble rule of Danefaggot the Third Danesaxon the Fourth, nothing outside of the capital and the major fiefdoms would have gotten industrialization.
Without it Japan would have taken most of the eastern side it could reach from sea, simply from fact.
Hitler would have succeeded in its summer/spring offense.

Thats one of the big dangers of not really bordering anybody, and having a lot of soil to burn in case of wars, is that you don't develop it.
If USA had settled the midwest before industrializatio rolled properly around, it would most likely have done the same blunder, and not properly developed its superpower status.

Attached: Russian_Soviet_Invasion_polandball.png (600x694, 110K)

For one the only faggot here is you for only reading communist bs.

Two it's very common knowledge.

Here's astarting point for you youtube.com/watch?v=6FgaL0xIazk&list=PLB2vhKMBjSxO1lsrC98VOyOzfW0Gn8Tga

Didn't even bother reading what ever shit you posted as your picture is complete bs

>I have never considered the reparation though.
Obviously it would be better to avoid WW1 completely if at all possible, but since Russia did get involved, it would have been best to stick it out to the end. Then Russia would have actually been able to demand things from Germany at the end of the war, things like reparations and/or territorial concessions.

MAGNITOGORSK THE SOVIET MIGHT
MAGNITOGORSK THE MAN OF STEEL'S HEART
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnitogorsk

Attached: magnitogorsk-112.jpg (1000x562, 89K)

Also
>had opposition parties, independent trade unions and newspapers, a rather radical parliament
Russia only had those because Nicky begrudgingly had to accept them after 1905. And even then, he and his cabinet continued to undermine all of them. In fact, those things are the reason the empire collapsed in the first place since all those groups hated the tsar.

I do not renember the original book where I read it, I did a quick googel, and found these two sources, where it is mentioned en passant:

press-files.anu.edu.au/downloads/press/p223611/pdf/ch056.pdf

sovietinfo.tripod.com/WCR-Ukraine_Famine.pdf

Also pic related.

Attached: Screen Shot 2018-03-16 at 21.33.55.png (1304x1068, 106K)

For tsarist russia which was trying to maintain a backwards feudal empire, sure it was since they could build their own weapons, transport their troops to rebellions, and maintain the status quo. Any goals other than those were not attainable though since the Tsar wouldn't allow the bourgeoisie to become more powerful than himself. Even liberal reforms were impossible, unlike England, France, and the US which managed to somewhat raise the standard of living while maintaining a capitalist economy.

See pic related for the structural change of the Russian economy in brief. GDP figures can be impressive, but as shown here most of that was due to agriculture while industrial growth was "glacial". It certainly wasn't rapidly approaching Western European levels, especially considering those countries no longer had agriculture as the largest sector of their economies while 3/4 of Russia's population in 1913 were still peasant farmers.

Attached: 1514442655500.png (772x2092, 541K)

The Soviets inherited an empire already done. They did not make it.
Stfo idiot.

What ''feudal empire''?
Serfs were emancipated in 1861. And while land redistribution was certainly lacking, they also certainly didn't have any sort of feudalism in place in early 20th century.
I do however agree industrialization was quite slow.
Communists did do some good things. Problem is all the bad things they did often tended to outweigh the good things.

I never understood just how far Imperial Russia was behind the rest of Europe until somebody posted this chart the other day. In particular, look at yearly coal output and yearly steel production. Russia is dead last in both categories compared to the other European powers. To be fair, France isn't much better.

Attached: 1521134500202.jpg (532x1133, 156K)

I think he was talking about the "space" part, not the empire part...

Well France lost a lot of it's coal reserves when they lost Alsace-Lorraine.

On a side note: I have always found it weird, that Russias Territories, especially the ones in the far and middle east, seem not to be considered colonies by most.

if it wasn't de jure feudalism, most peasants still lived on the same land their ancestors did in basically the same conditions. illiteracy and a general backwards culture was dominant and there was basically no headway since the peasants were emancipated. they were free to leave but would have ended up starving if they did since the cities weren't expanding.

Okay, I agree with that.

All i see is post Soviet butthurt.
Reply with more than one line, or attack the argument.
What part do you disagree with?
1. Russia's a fiefdoms not industrializing?
2. Leninism and Stalinism's massive industrialization?
3. How Soviet as a state changed its relationship with its far out border?
4. How Soviet collapsed?
5. What Russia currently is?

Thats successful Soviet politics user.
And little else.
Going from literal tribute fiefdoms to somewhere with massive industrial mining(at cost of human life), to even bordering Japan enough to invade it in 1945.

Attached: Spurdo_warveteran.png (640x1613, 1.74M)

There's also the fact that former serfs were expected to make redemption payments for their new lands. Since most of them couldn't afford it, a lot of them got stuck working in peasant communes, which generally prevented individual peasants from selling their land to emigrate to the cities. If I remember correctly, those who did move to the cities actually continued sending payments back to their communes

>Tsar spent all of the countries finances on buying weapons and military expertise.
Wouldn't you? You've got German and Austria-Hungary to your west, Ottomans to your south, and Japan right off your eastern coast. You bet your ass you're going to be spending most of your money on expanding your army.

The problem was that the Russian Bourgeoisie had no independent growth. Selling grain and wheat, farmed by destitute peasants, indefinitely in order to purchase inflated military hardware isn't a viable economic model.

thanks for the info user

The discussion of Russia's industrialization boils down to "proportions". People need to remember to take proportions into account. Russia had basically double Gremany's population but was still getting fucked over by it in some production numbers. Secondly we need to look at the actual modernization OF Russia and what was it exporting exactly. Over 60% of Russia's exports consisted of foodstuffs and raw materials and the majority of its imports were manufactured goods and goods needed for its industry to work in the first place (Russia imported 50% of its Machine parts needed for factories). I will post a few photos because it seems no one saves them and I've posted them roughly 3 times now in Russian industrialization threads.
Production numbers don't give us the whole picture, especially when looking at national income, population consumption, main exports, railway system etc. Hell, USA had ten times the railway size of Russia by 1913 or 1910 was it.

Attached: production.jpg (2519x1517, 1.32M)

I would argue proportionally wise Russia was somewhere at the level of Austria-Hungary. Germans being concerned about Russia's industrialization is true, but we have the benefit of hindsight, they didn't. If the Germans had 100% sources and primary documents showcasing Russia's situation I think their mentality would have changed, how much I can't tell, speculating at this point.

Attached: chrome_2018-01-31_16-29-02.png (1057x512, 942K)

Secondly one must remember that some of Russia's largest factories were founded by foreign investors and investments (this isn't unique to Russia, but it heavily relied on investments to actually start growing). The most infamous one would be Ludwig Knoop. If you are in Russian economic history but have no clue who Ludwig Knoop is then I'd say that's pretty embarrassing. Another important one would be John Hughes who founded a metalworks company in Russia, Donetsk to be precise.

Attached: horsepower.jpg (1467x805, 384K)

Attached: bolsheviks.png (1600x1332, 469K)

This is the statement on how Russia's boom when investments stopped (again not entirely unique to Russia to rely on investments). I have no info on USSR's investments so I can't say much about the USSR, what I seem to have found is that the USSR "aggressive" industrialization by *forcing* people to comply rather than trying to encourage/nudge them after serfdom is what helped Russia to reindustrialize rapidly after the ravages of the civil war.

Attached: depression.png (1025x624, 1.16M)

>second largest source of Petroleum
This is correct however the Russian petroleum industry was kickstarted by the Swedish Nobel family, not criticising or anything but adding additional info.

Attached: Petroleum.jpg (877x702, 359K)

Furthermore the national income of Russia was FAR from being able to compete with the West. Hell it was just a quarter of Britain's and half of Germany's. Keep in mind I am not saying Russia was backwards, but I also do not agree it was an industrial behemoth about to assravage absolutely everyone in the world.

Attached: National income.jpg (1588x1176, 538K)

Coal wasn't in Alsace-Lorraine, Alsace-Lorraine was half of the French iron fields, the other half was on the other side of the French border. French coal was in the north, there was never as much as needed. Steel production did expand when Alsace-Lorraine was retaken though, I believe it peaked at 11 million tons in 1929.

>recognising a thing that happened in history
I wouldn't say that's /pol/'s strong suit.

Right now my screenshots are a mess but I'll try and find any more relevant info if I can from my Russian books.

Something I find impressive is how France managed to continue its war-effort despite losing over half of its coal production, I'd sya they were fairly lucky that they had the British and Yanks to supply them after all of that.

Attached: foodstuffs.png (1060x727, 1.12M)

Not entirely relevant but I mentioned population consumption, so I'll add what I can.

Attached: consumption.png (1114x442, 809K)

>mfw

Attached: mfw_barb.jpg (447x653, 45K)

yeah the modernization of Russian factories were pretty bad. Hell when Serfdom was still a thing, they essentially used forced labour to get metal from the Urals, forcing the serfs to settle there.
Anyways I found the stats on my exports statement with over 60% of Russia's exports making up non-manufactured goods.

Attached: exports.png (879x368, 562K)

So far this conclusion in the book I've read should sums it up nicely, think I'm running out of screenies.

Attached: economic change.png (1017x709, 1.06M)

>It's in a book
>Links youtube vid

> it managed to lose a war to still fairly weak at the time Japan
this is not as implausible as it looks at first glance. russia was many times stronger than japan but the problem was that most of these forces couldn't be brought to bear on the far east, where the balance of military power was about equal on the eve of the war. russian incompetence has more to account for the loss than anything else, and even then they fought the japanese to a stalemate on land and the japanese economy was weeks away from collapse at the end of the war.

And I'm empty, to end it here's a doodle on top of French investments I believe, although this could be debts owned by Russia to France.

Attached: blyaturod.png (567x1068, 954K)

Do you have anything on how the USSR compares?

Unfortunately I specifically focus on Russia's economic industrialization 1861-1913, so I don't have any screenies of comparing it to the USSR, sorry. Although I could recommend you this book, it has a lot of nice statistics on USSR:
"The soviet economic system, 2nd ed." by Alec Nove.
Don't mistake me for a Tsarist hating fag or Tankie, I just want to add info that Veeky Forums severely fucking lacks and I think statistics would be much better than constant baseless claims or people are looking at numbers improperly.

Attached: 1504282546848.jpg (429x408, 81K)

>they could have done better but the tsar fired anyone competent and was going to fire witte or stolypin (cant remember) but they died just before
he already fired witte in 1905. he was about to fire stolypin but then he got shot right in front of nicholas ii in kiev (the assasin could have killed nickie but didn't, possibly indicating the hit was an inside job)

more specifically Alec Nove starts off by showcasing what Russia was before WW1 and then it starts going what the Bolsheviks implemented and what were the consequences, very nice book, very cheap on Amazon as well, about $5 last I checked.

Attached: Timber.png (1178x709, 1012K)

The baltics were the best part of the tzardom and were better off with Independence than they were under communism

>that russian view of USSR
Complete bullshit t.russian(not even a commie)
A lot of russians love Soviet Union with pride and it's appeal to nostalgia, hell the second biggest party in our elections is commie larpers who in reality are just oligarchs scum. There are ofcourse manny who do recognize a lot of shit that it did, but mostly remember the good stuff.
But about Russian Empire is kind of truth, manny russians also see the times of Empire with optimism and see it as a great power even durring the times of Nicholas II all tho recognizing there was also manny bad shit that led to revolution.

You can say that common russian pleb thinks that Russia was always great, both under Monarchy and Marxism-Leninism, but say that revolution itself was bad and a mistake.

The Economic Transformation of the Soviet Union, 1913-1945 is also great.

Attached: 1516165884894.png (677x841, 203K)

Doyou know wether congress poland is included in your statistics? I ask because of the massive industrialisatio undertaken there in the late 19th century. Considering that it wouldn´t be part of the statistics of the soviet union anymore, would make soviet growth sound even more impressive.

Pic is screenshot of coountries ranked by GDP PPP

Attached: Screen Shot 2018-03-17 at 00.00.16.png (2276x882, 383K)

>Doyou know wether congress poland is included in your statistics?
Yes most likely because last I read the books they mention whether they exclude specific areas of the empire or not. I think when I was reading up on Cotton they showcased seperate statistics on including and excluding Congress Poland (and Central Asia I believe). Congress Poland was one of the most modernised regions in Russia, also having the highest average literacy rate too I believe.

Attached: Cotton.jpg (955x537, 292K)

thanks for the reply. And the resource.

His sources are stated and the guy is a dumbass for only reading propaganda so a video is an easy starting point for him

No problem, usually I don't bother with these threads but I decided to just intervene again. If you have a lot of $$$, then I recommend this book:
"The Economic Development of Russia, 1905-1914: With Special Reference to Trade, Industry, and Finance" by Margaret Miller, will cost fucking fortune, though, however it's worth it cause it has like a billion information and statistics, definitely holy grail of Russian economic history in 19th-early 20th century.
If short on cash then try out
"Russia enters the twentieth century, 1894-1917", by George Katkov, has some nice clear information on Russian growth.

there's such thing as a library

There is, I just went under assumption it might not have it. Get it however you'd like it to.

yeah that's what I meant

how much of the growth in the 30's was because of superior policies, and how much was due to recovering of the failures of collectivization in the 20's?

.... user

collectivisaion was more a 30s thing

Definitely not. No country ever industrialized as extensively and in such a short period of time as Russia/USSR. It really was epic.

Now, Russia did see a bit of progress in that direction during the last decade of the Tsar, but it was mostly military-oriented, like building strategic railways, and it was also heavily reliant on foreign capitals.

Thing is, it's really impossible to modernize the economy if you're not really willing to change as well the social and cultural tissue of Tsarist Russia.

His reign is seen as chaotic but he's still worshiped as a saint.

plenty of countries did. Canada and Australia both went from agricultural economies to heavily industrialized countries in the duration of the second world war, and it didn't require the sacrifice of 15% of their population to get it done.

The social and cultural tissue were already gonna be changed since they went from an absolute monarchy to a liberal democracy before the reds started the civil war.

>Stralia
Bigger agriculture expansion was AFTER the modern period had entered the world, with ensuing levels of tech.
Starts building out colony railroad in the 1830s for fucks sake, meaning each new swat of railroad is another expansion.
And the outback is still extremely desolate, simply because industrialization is a long process.

Canada?
>The completion of Canada's first transcontinental railroad with the driving of the Last Spike at Craigellachie, British Columbia, on November 7, 1885
>Subsequently, two other transcontinental lines were built in Canada: the Canadian Northern Railway (CNoR) opened another line to the Pacific in 1912, and the combined Grand Trunk Pacific Railway (GTPR)/National Transcontinental Railway (NTR) system opened in 1917 following the completion of the Quebec Bridge
Canada was industrialized by railroad expansion.

>Norway
Started industrialization in the 1900s around its trade ports.
Greater inland lake areas got some industrialization in the 1930s.
Everything north of Tronderlag was industrialized partially by the Nazies(infastructure), and then later as a NATO strategy to have some land to burn in case of Soviet invasion.
So Norway spent at the least 60-70 years to industrialize.


Soviets started hardcore industrialization in the 1930s, and achieved all it wanted despite famines and social unrest.
What truly makes industrialization into what it is, is when it hits the countryside, and man-made machines powered by work horses or machines allows for unprecedented productivity, without needing 40-50 people to do a effective harvest.
Now, if these people have nothing to do, you can't industrialize properly because it creates massive social unrest.