Soviet Collapse: Was it Possible ?

[wm]

Yes I agree and this makes the possibility of a Soviet collapse even more unlikely. Even if Hitler's Wehrmacht was more like the Kaiser's Army a generation earlier I do not see these populations revolting deciding the outcome on the Eastern Front. The Ukraine had a rather large population in 1941 (I think around 40 million) which perhaps can alter the course of the war but neither the Soviet Union or Germany desired to grant the Ukrainians more autonomy. Had Germany invaded more humanely (like in World War One) I do not see the Ukrainians doing much except being spectators or resisting both the Germans and Russians.

But the Germans invaded Ukraine humanely, they were giving children candies and taking pictures with the natives not killing them.
The problem was the territory was exceedingly poor, extracting any usable wealth from Ukraine couldn't be done without making them even poorer or killing them all. Stalin tried that in the thirties and they died by millions because of that.
A humanly exploitation of Ukraine wasn't really possible and even desirable. It would make Germany poorer not richer.

Paradoxically in the end the existence of the Soviet Union was beneficial for Ukraine, as many of the Soviet leaders were Ukrainians, half-Ukrainians, were born in Ukraine (the Stalinist Russia was a wonderful place for upward social mobility) or simply Ukrainian huggers (like Khrushchev who gave them Crimea for free) - so the "pork" was flowing into Ukraine all the time.

The Antonov Aeronautical Scientific-Technical Complex, Ukroboronprom (nice cheap weapons), Yuzhmash (space launch systems) are just a few examples, Ukraine left to its own devices in the forties wouldn't create that kind of industries ever.

[BDV]

But the Germans invaded Ukraine humanely, they were giving children candies and taking pictures with the natives not killing them.

Not quite. The Abwehr-groomed nationalists tried to declare a Ukrainean anti-bolshevik Republic, just to be arrested by Wehrmacht and sent to spend the war in KZ. Mutatis-mutandis for the Baltic Countries, ditto, without the KZ part.

The problem was the territory was exceedingly poor, extracting any usable wealth from Ukraine couldn't be done without making them even poorer or killing them all. Stalin tried that in the thirties and they died by millions because of that.
A humanly exploitation of Ukraine wasn't really possible and even desirable. It would make Germany poorer not richer.

Nonsense. Western Ukraine (Galicia) was a rich province of KuK Empire, still is a key economic leader in Ukraine. Eastern Ukraine is home to the Donbass. The fertile agricultural lands in between gave Ukraine name of breadbasket of Europe..

Nazi inability to extract value from Ukraine, (and Poland, and White Russia, and the Baltic Countries) had more to do with Nazi propensity to "shoot all jews and bolshevik" when they entered a new locale. Hence removing a key component (i.e. most of the goods/resources exchange facilitators) without which the local economy simply ground to a halt.

The Antonov Aeronautical Scientific-Technical Complex, Ukroboronprom (nice cheap weapons), Yuzhmash (space launch systems) are just a few examples, Ukraine left to its own devices in the forties wouldn't create that kind of industries ever.

Because ukraineans are a bunch of stupid that need to be led by hand by their betters, the wise Rus to the East?

[ljadw]

The Ukraine as breadbasket of Europe was an illusion :in 1913,the Ukraine had a grain harvest of 25 million tons,even more than theGerman grain harvests during the war .This was giving the Germans the illusion that with the Ukraine,they would not starve as in WWI.

BUT:in 1942 the grain harvest in the Ukraine was only 7.5 million tons (due to the war conditions):the minimum that was needed for the population was 5.2 million,and 2 million for fodder,with a surplus of only 0.3 million.

OTOH,the Ostheer demanded (and got) 0.6 million ,and the same amount was exported to Germany,with as result starvation in the Ukraine .

ONLY 600000 ton was exported to Germany,less than 3% of the German harvest ! That was the Ukraine as breadbasket of Europe .

Between 1939/1941,Germany was buying 1.6 million ton grain from the SU .

[alltoes]

Because ukraineans are a bunch of stupid that need to be led by hand by their betters, the wise Rus to the East?[/quote]

BDV, I take offense to your statement. I have family in Lugansk. I visited in the early 1990's after the SU collapse. The area is rich in farmland and Coal. I was given a tour of one of the underground coal mines.
The problem is Ukraine has been occupied by different tyrrants over the past 150+ years.
As you previously stated, Ukraine has a number of assets. If democracy could truly flourish, I am sure it will gain in GDP like its Western European neighbors.

[alltoes]

ljdaw,
Again you make statements teetering on the absurd. Have you ever been to the Ukraine? What do you believe happened in 1941? Ever heard of Stalin's scorch earth policy???? Aren't you the same idiot who in previous posts stated the Holodomor was nonsense?????
I compare Ukraine's rich soil to the U.S. midwest. The Ukraine steppes in the East are filled with endless seas of wheat.
As stated before, it is the tyrrants from the east who have created the conditions of old up to this very day.

[wm]

Not quite. The Abwehr-groomed nationalists tried to declare a Ukrainean anti-bolshevik Republic, just to be arrested by Wehrmacht and sent to spend the war in KZ. Mutatis-mutandis for the Baltic Countries, ditto, without the KZ part.

Well, those were the tiny Ukrainian elites, the mass of peasants didn't care much about those things.

Nonsense. Western Ukraine (Galicia) was a rich province of KuK Empire, still is a key economic leader in Ukraine. Eastern Ukraine is home to the Donbass. The fertile agricultural lands in between gave Ukraine name of breadbasket of Europe..

Galicia - the Polish Ukraine and Czechoslovak Ukraine were the poorest parts of those countries. You would really hate to be the poorest in a already poor country. The territory was so poor that semi-serfdom conditions survived in some parts.
It was a breadbasket but the prices of foodstuffs were so severely depressed before the WW2 in Poland it was not enough to live on but a little too much to die there.
Almost every East European country had its own "Donbass": Poland, Roumania - it didn't do them much good...

Because ukraineans are a bunch of stupid that need to be led by hand by their betters, the wise Rus to the East?

Rus was poor but huge so they could spare a few coins on those things, the poor and small Central and Eastern European countries like Ukraine, Poland, Romania couldn't.

[ljadw]

ljdaw,
Again you make statements teetering on the absurd. Have you ever been to the Ukraine? What do you believe happened in 1941? Ever heard of Stalin's scorch earth policy???? Aren't you the same idiot who in previous posts stated the Holodomor was nonsense?????
I compare Ukraine's rich soil to the U.S. midwest. The Ukraine steppes in the East are filled with endless seas of wheat.
As stated before, it is the tyrrants from the east who have created the conditions of old up to this very day.

1)The Ukrainian claim about the Holodomor=that it was an artificial created famine,created by the communists,is something that never has been proved,and thus can be debunked as propaganda .If you still are falling for the debunked claims of Conquest, well,that's your business,not the mine .

2) You need to buy new reading glasses as you are replying to something I did not write .I did write that the German assumptions that the Ukraine ,because before the war,it was considered as one of the breadbaskets of Europe (there were a lot of such things),during the war also would be a breadbasket,was an illusion .Because of the war, the Ukrainian grain harvest was only 30 % of the harvest of 1913 .
The German agriculture,although compared to the agriculture of the US and the UK being inefficient,was doing better in WWII than in WWI,and was not dependant on the Ukraine (the exports from the Ukraine were only 3 % of the German harvest),and the shortages were neutralized by imports from Western Europe .

[ljadw]

The problem is Ukraine has been occupied by different tyrrants over the past 150+ years.
As you previously stated, Ukraine has a number of assets. If democracy could truly flourish, I am sure it will gain in GDP like its Western European neighbors.

Which is totally meaningless for the fact that the Germans did not get from the Ukraine what they expected .

[wm]

Well the Holodomor happened. The Soviet Ukrainians were dying in thousands, the Polish Ukrainians just a few hundred meters to the West were not, despite the fact Poland was in the midst of the severest economic crisis ever.

It doesn't matter it was intentional, or it was Stalin's arithmetic error in the 1933 Soviet budget and his unwillingness to backtrack.
It wasn't because of the weather or some other SHTF disaster - in the twentieth century Europe disasters made people poor but not killed them - the Soviets did it, intentionally or not but it was their work.
Anyway the very essence of Stalinism was that it was nothing wrong with sacrificing some people today for the sake of the future paradise. Many people really believed in that there.

[ljadw]

Famines are not caused by economic crises.

There was nothing special on the fact that there was a famine in the SU in 1931/32(which was not limited to the Ukraine),there had been famines before and there were famines later .

There has been no proof that Stalin ordered the famine,besides,if Stalin was responsible for the famine,which was created by bad harvests,he also could claim the credit for the good harvests.

No one said that the czar was responsible when there was a famine in the 19th century,thus,why would Stalin be responsible in 1931?

Between 1845/48 the harvests failed in several European countries(not only in Ireland),with as result famines in several countries,especially in Ireland,but ,no one has been able to prove that the governments of these countries were responsible .

What was unusual in 1931/32,was the number of victims,which was high,and,the ONLY thing one can discuss is: was the Soviet government not reacting to late/to slow ?

All the rest is the usual blaming of humans for a natural catastrophe .

[ljadw]

[quote="wm"in the twentieth century Europe disasters made people poor but not killed them - .[/quote]

There was a famine in 1921/22 in the SU with between 1 and 5 million victims .

[LWD]

"The forces that landed in NA could have landed in France " : you are the first to claim this : now : PROOF IT .

??? You want me to prove the obvious? In any case it is well known that the US was pushing for an invasion of the continent in late 42 or 43 Britain preferred North Africa. However it is very clear that the ships that landed the troops in North Africa could have done so in France. Now how successful it would have been is another question but there is little question that the attempt could have been made.

... You are making the LWD mistake : you are building a house of cards in quick-sands with an assumption as foundation ,and,when some one is questioning this,your argument is :unless some one can prove the opposite,one must assume that my assumption is concrete.

Actually that seems to be your area of expertise.

You are making the following mistake :1)" there was discontent in the SU,which means willingness to join the German invaders to fight against Stalin ."2) "The Germans failed to use this willingness" (which was an obvious blunder) 3" IF they had used this willingness,they could have won the war ."

That is an interesting mismash of things. There are some truths in their but on the whole it's also a strawman.
[qutoe]... There was discontent in the USSR,but no willingness to fight with the Germans(with some exceptions)[/quote]
Which means of course that there was some willingness to fight with the Germans does it not?

/also no unwillingness to fight for the regime .

That is rather questionable. Indeed some of the rather severe Soviet measures seemed to be aimed at countering this do they not.

[LWD]

Those people weren't interested in Hitler's aims, they had their own, and totally incompatible. They wanted independence, but Hitler wanted/badly needed their territory.

The great majority of the Soviet population accepted the regime of Stalin .

Those two aren't mutually exclusive. Indeed depending on just how you define "accepted" there can be quite a bit of overlap, there could also be a serious question as to the accuracy of it being "the great majority" as well.

[wm]

Examples from the nineteenth century, or the results of the Great War and then the country wide civil war are not quite useful here.
The USSR had been at peace for ten years, and recovered quite nicely thanks to the NEP.
So the question is why there was a famine in center of a European breadbasket in a poor but stable country.

And more importantly why didn't a Ukrainian peasant suffering from that calamity simply hop on a train or bus and buy/borrow/get for free some bread in the nearest town, oblast, or even from his brethren in Poland. After all they had buses and trains there.
Or why couldn't he or his sons go to work for a bauer in Germany and help his family that way, as the Polish peasants were doing all the time.
Why there were no multitude of grassroots organizations distributing food in Ukraine.

The answer is simple, the Stalinist USSR was a country wide concentration camp, divided into smaller concentration camps called villages. The peasants were supposed to work and deliver or die. The weren't allowed to fend for themselves or even save themselves - like cattle in a cattle shed. And that killed them. A famine in the 1933 Russia was as possible as famine there today. It wasn't nineteenth century anymore. Those people would have had the means to recover themselves - if had been left alone.

[BDV]

in 1942 the grain harvest in the Ukraine was only 7.5 million tons (due to the war conditions):the minimum that was needed for the population was 5.2 million,and 2 million for fodder,with a surplus of only 0.3 million.

"Due to the war conditions" - there lies the rub.

These "war conditions" were secondary to Nazi actions in Ukraine.

Ukraine was conquered relatively quickly, in 4 months. There was no massive collateral destruction and killing of civilians during frontline military actions. However "war conditions" created by the Wehrmacht, by shooting "all jews and bolshevik" had dispatched all sovhoz-kolhoz administrations across Ukraine - that is everyone with some knowledge of modern agriculture and with knowledge of what the locale needed from outside to achieve productivity. Kulaks had been "taken care of" by Stalin. So who was left to produce, the lumpen-peasants? They were poor for a number of reasons, including ability and motivation.

Now should behind the wave of civilian purges be followed by an army of Reich and Poland agro-economic "supervisors", that would could maybe qulify as a (murderous and criminal) attempt to do "everything". Leave it to Nazis to pour crass negligence atop straightforward large-scale crime.

To quote an old communist joke, Nazis cut the fleas' feet, ordered it to jump, and discovered "after you cut the fleas' feet the flea becomes disobedient".