The German Destruction Of The Soviet Union

[Rakhmetov]

It is a miracle that the Soviets managed to become a superpower after all this destruction. Take a look at this article by D. F. Fleming. This is the truth, this is what's real. Socialism does work.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/442512?seq=2

[Red Commissar]

That's a database that requires a subscription- can't read the whole thing without it. I do have a subscription to this database through my university though, so I can supply the pdf of the article to who ever wants it.

As for the article itself, it does show what the Soviet Union goes through- this is something we all know, but the article doesn't concern itself with the recovery of the Soviet Union (so we can't really make the assertion in the OP) as much as how the experience of such a war has been imprinted in the psyche of the Soviet people, as it was with the Chinese. He uses this as a way to explain the foreign activities of PRC and the USSR (this article was written in 1950, with the Korean War wrapped up and the Cold War becoming more dominant), saying that much of their actions is being supported and carried out by their people out of the fear that another devastating war would occur to them, and so they must secure buffers and their sphere of influence.

He says that Americans, for the most part, have no experience with a war that deeply affected the countries in such a way that affected European nations in WW I and WW II. Most he can create a comparison to is to the feelings of Atlanta citizens towards General Sherman and the March to the Sea. He also reminds the readers of the US's own intent to secure its sphere of influence, highlighting (and foreshadowing, in a way) its actions in the hemisphere, such as the US intervention in the Mexican Civil War, and as we'd see later in the course of the century, in Latin American dictatorships, to assert and maintain its sphere of influence.

Relevant selection:

Of course it is not possible for the people of an unbombed, uninvaded nation really to understand what happened to the Russians. The Nazis and their allies occupied Soviet territory in which 88,000,000 people had lived. They destroyed, completely or partially, fifteen large cities, 1,710 towns, and 70,000 villages. They burned or demolished 6,000,000 buildings and deprived 25,000,000 people of shelter.

They demolished 31,850 industrial enterprises, 65,000 kilometers of railway track and 4,100 railway stations; 36,000 postal, telegraph and telephone offices; 56,000 miles of main highway, 90,000 bridges and 10,000 power stations. The Germans ruined 1,135 coal mines and 3,000 oil wells, carrying off to Germany 14,000 steam boilers, 1,400 turbines and 11,300 electric generators.

Any reflection on these figures by American city dwellers will undermine the idea that Russia can have no motive in the world except aggression. Farm people, too, will see another possibility when they think of the meaning of 98,000 collective farms and 2,890 machine and tractor stations sacked and the following numbers of livestock slaughtered by the Germans or carried away by them: 7,000,000 horses, 17,000,000 cattle, 20,000,000 hogs, 27,000,000 sheep and goats, 110,000,000 poultry. What would the American countryside be like if this kind of scourge had passed over it? And what feelings would be left behind?

The Germans and their satellites were no more tender with Soviet cultural institutions. They looted and destroyed 40,000 hospitals and medical centers, 84,000 schools and colleges, and 43,000 public libraries with 110,000,000 volumes. Some 44,000 theaters were destroyed, and 427 museums. Even the churches did not escape, more than 2,800 being wrecked.

In this country these figures do not burn holes in the page, but in Russia what they represent has been burned so deeply into the minds of the people that generations of safe living would be required even partially to eradicate them. There are between Nashville and Atlanta some people who still feel deeply about what General Sherman did on his march to the sea nearly a hundred years ago. What would our feelings be if the United States had been ravaged, as Russia was, from the Atlantic to the Mississippi, with 15,000,000 people killed, twice as many made homeless, and 60,000,000 treated to every degrading and brutalizing experience that the fascist mind could invent? Only then could we really know how the Russians feel about their security from future attack through East Europe

[Red Future]

Was always amazed at how the Soviet Union survived and I am now with those statistics even more so.

[Tomhet]

It is important to NEVER forget the just and heroism of the Soviet people against Facist Imperialism, the feats of these people are truly remarkable..

[Sir Comradical]

That's a database that requires a subscription- can't read the whole thing without it. I do have a subscription to this database through my university though, so I can supply the pdf of the article to who ever wants it.

As for the article itself, it does show what the Soviet Union goes through- this is something we all know, but the article doesn't concern itself with the recovery of the Soviet Union (so we can't really make the assertion in the OP) as much as how the experience of such a war has been imprinted in the psyche of the Soviet people, as it was with the Chinese. He uses this as a way to explain the foreign activities of PRC and the USSR (this article was written in 1950, with the Korean War wrapped up and the Cold War becoming more dominant), saying that much of their actions is being supported and carried out by their people out of the fear that another devastating war would occur to them, and so they must secure buffers and their sphere of influence.

He says that Americans, for the most part, have no experience with a war that deeply affected the countries in such a way that affected European nations in WW I and WW II. Most he can create a comparison to is to the feelings of Atlanta citizens towards General Sherman and the March to the Sea. He also reminds the readers of the US's own intent to secure its sphere of influence, highlighting (and foreshadowing, in a way) its actions in the hemisphere, such as the US intervention in the Mexican Civil War, and as we'd see later in the course of the century, in Latin American dictatorships, to assert and maintain its sphere of influence.

Relevant selection:

Can you send me the pdf? Using yousendit or something.

[Red Commissar]

I went ahead and attached the PDF in my last post for those of you who want to take a look at it. I forgot this forum had an option for that.

[Sir Comradical]

I went ahead and attached the PDF in my last post for those of you who want to take a look at it. I forgot this forum had an option for that.

Ohh right, didn't see it. Thanks.

[The Author]

This is the reason why the Soviets in their foreign policy in the immediate postwar years were nervous about potential future warfare with the United States- their infrastructure was damaged while the American infrastructure remained intact. That was why the recovery was a quick one, why foreign policy was geared towards not provoking the United States into waging war (until the late 1950s, then it became the "peaceful coexistence/competition" phase) because their defense would not be ready to resist the onslaught of Western imperialist strikes.

[Tommy4ever]

If I remember correctly, the Russian need to rebuild drove them to then strip Eastern Germany of much of its industry to rebuild its own.

On one hand, I can understand why they'd react like that. On the other, I wonder if it prevented E Germany from rebuilding as fast after WWII, furthering the gap between it and W Germany.

Anyways, I'm deeply anti-Stalin, both for his persecution of communists and ethnic groups, but I've always been impressed with the fact that the Soviet leadership (including but not limited to stalin) managed to beat back the Germans and rebuild afterwards.

It explains the existence of the Warsaw Pact as well. The USSR feared American invasion, irrationally I think because a war of aggression against another superpower was politically impossible and the existence of atomic warfare ensured that the buffer zone was obsolete. And the collapse of all those governments at the same time to mass movements indicates to me that forcing Socialism on a community from the outside in the manner that Stalin did (there might be an appropriate manner in doing it) is counterproductive, because they will view it through the lens of imperialism instead of class liberation.

The Soviets did indeed strip East Germany and areas like Silesia (at the time one of the most industrial areas of Germany) of their industries to hepl rebuild. This of course gave the West a head start - but don't forget that many industries in the West were also stripped.

If you look at the raw stats of GDP growth most of the Eastern Bloc nations grew at truly appalling slow rates during the Communist era, whilst the DDR did quite well. Still growth in the West vastly outstripped even the more successful of the European communist states.

The Warsaw Pact was a pretty obvious policy to create a buffer zone. Don't forget about how many devestating invasions Russia had suffered over the past two and a half centuries:

Napoleon's invasion
Crimean War
Russo-Japanese War
World War One
The Civil War - including British, French, Japanese, American, Finnish, German and Polish invasions during that time
Second World War

A recent history like that would make anyone paranoid.

Also, don't underestimate the very real threat of a western attack on the Soviet Union in the post-war era.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

It would be silly to underestimate the threat of an American-W European attack on the Soviet psyche. But on the other hand, it was highly improbable that the US and Western Europe would have united to attack; the nature of bourgeoise democracy made it possible to bully little countries like Vietnam, but i think the horrors of ww2 meant both voters and business lobbies didn't want to deal with or fight any major powers.

Say what you will about Mao, I think his policy of "people's war" was in the long term more strategically beneficial than the creation of the warsaw pact, which came to be viewed as a sort of paradoxical anti-imperialt imperialism. But I doubt the Soviet government viewed "people's war" as very appealing, considering they had just suffered from it for 4 and a half years.

Of course, there were a few nutty generals on both sides who advocated for offensive war, but I think the government leadership tended to dismiss their views as hotheaded (hence why WWIII never became bloody).

I think the defense of Russian paranoia as having stemmed from repeated invasions is a good one, although it is also important to note the severity of the invasions.

[psgchisolm]

Relevant selection:
They demolished 31,850 industrial enterprises, 65,000 kilometers of railway track and 4,100 railway stations; 36,000 postal, telegraph and telephone offices; 56,000 miles of main highway, 90,000 bridges and 10,000 power stations. The Germans ruined 1,135 coal mines and 3,000 oil wells, carrying off to Germany 14,000 steam boilers, 1,400 turbines and 11,300 electric generators.


Of course it is not possible for the people of an unbombed, uninvaded nation really to understand what happened to the Russians. The Nazis and their allies occupied Soviet territory in which 88,000,000 people had lived. They destroyed, completely or partially, fifteen large cities, 1,710 towns, and 70,000 villages. They burned or demolished 6,000,000 buildings and deprived 25,000,000 people of shelter.

They demolished 31,850 industrial enterprises, 65,000 kilometers of railway track and 4,100 railway stations; 36,000 postal, telegraph and telephone offices; 56,000 miles of main highway, 90,000 bridges and 10,000 power stations. The Germans ruined 1,135 coal mines and 3,000 oil wells, carrying off to Germany 14,000 steam boilers, 1,400 turbines and 11,300 electric generators.

Any reflection on these figures by American city dwellers will undermine the idea that Russia can have no motive in the world except aggression. Farm people, too, will see another possibility when they think of the meaning of 98,000 collective farms and 2,890 machine and tractor stations sacked and the following numbers of livestock slaughtered by the Germans or carried away by them: 7,000,000 horses, 17,000,000 cattle, 20,000,000 hogs, 27,000,000 sheep and goats, 110,000,000 poultry. What would the American countryside be like if this kind of scourge had passed over it? And what feelings would be left behind?

The Germans and their satellites were no more tender with Soviet cultural institutions. They looted and destroyed 40,000 hospitals and medical centers, 84,000 schools and colleges, and 43,000 public libraries with 110,000,000 volumes. Some 44,000 theaters were destroyed, and 427 museums. Even the churches did not escape, more than 2,800 being wrecked.

In this country these figures do not burn holes in the page, but in Russia what they represent has been burned so deeply into the minds of the people that generations of safe living would be required even partially to eradicate them. There are between Nashville and Atlanta some people who still feel deeply about what General Sherman did on his march to the sea nearly a hundred years ago. What would our feelings be if the United States had been ravaged, as Russia was, from the Atlantic to the Mississippi, with 15,000,000 people killed, twice as many made homeless, and 60,000,000 treated to every degrading and brutalizing experience that the fascist mind could invent? Only then could we really know how the Russians feel about their security from future attack through East EuropeOf course it is not possible for the people of an unbombed, uninvaded nation really to understand what happened to the Russians. The Nazis and their allies occupied Soviet territory in which 88,000,000 people had lived. They destroyed, completely or partially, fifteen large cities, 1,710 towns, and 70,000 villages. They burned or demolished 6,000,000 buildings and deprived 25,000,000 people of shelter.

They demolished 31,850 industrial enterprises, 65,000 kilometers of railway track and 4,100 railway stations; 36,000 postal, telegraph and telephone offices; 56,000 miles of main highway, 90,000 bridges and 10,000 power stations. The Germans ruined 1,135 coal mines and 3,000 oil wells, carrying off to Germany 14,000 steam boilers, 1,400 turbines and 11,300 electric generators.

Any reflection on these figures by American city dwellers will undermine the idea that Russia can have no motive in the world except aggression. Farm people, too, will see another possibility when they think of the meaning of 98,000 collective farms and 2,890 machine and tractor stations sacked and the following numbers of livestock slaughtered by the Germans or carried away by them: 7,000,000 horses, 17,000,000 cattle, 20,000,000 hogs, 27,000,000 sheep and goats, 110,000,000 poultry. What would the American countryside be like if this kind of scourge had passed over it? And what feelings would be left behind?

The Germans and their satellites were no more tender with Soviet cultural institutions. They looted and destroyed 40,000 hospitals and medical centers, 84,000 schools and colleges, and 43,000 public libraries with 110,000,000 volumes. Some 44,000 theaters were destroyed, and 427 museums. Even the churches did not escape, more than 2,800 being wrecked.

In this country these figures do not burn holes in the page, but in Russia what they represent has been burned so deeply into the minds of the people that generations of safe living would be required even partially to eradicate them. There are between Nashville and Atlanta some people who still feel deeply about what General Sherman did on his march to the sea nearly a hundred years ago. What would our feelings be if the United States had been ravaged, as Russia was, from the Atlantic to the Mississippi, with 15,000,000 people killed, twice as many made homeless, and 60,000,000 treated to every degrading and brutalizing experience that the fascist mind could invent? Only then could we really know how the Russians feel about their security from future attack through East Europe
They intentionally ruined 3,000 oil wells? Was this during the invasion or after it?

Napoleon's invasion
Crimean War
Russo-Japanese War
World War One
The Civil War - including British, French, Japanese, American, Finnish, German and Polish invasions during that time
Second World War

A recent history like that would make anyone paranoid.

Also, don't underestimate the very real threat of a western attack on the Soviet Union in the post-war era.
Definately agree on the buffer zone part. Don't agree on a western attack after 1945-1950. Main reason being France and the UK were tired of war, they wanted to rebuild and be stable. US meh maaaaybe but at that time I don't think it was top priority.

[pranabjyoti]

Yes, I agree with MHM. Moreover, USSR rarely have supply of human resource from the third world countries. Old European imperial powers like UK, France and others had a supply of human resources from their colonies around the world. USA is the mostly benefited country in this regard. But, USSR had to depend on its own manpower, a dangerously low population level (lowered by WWII). So, the achievement of USSR is certainly greater in this regard.
If USSR would have received half the human resources like USA, it would certainly leave USA behind in scientific and technological development.

[Pavlov's House Party]

Yes, I agree with MHM. Moreover, USSR rarely have supply of human resource from the third world countries. Old European imperial powers like UK, France and others had a supply of human resources from their colonies around the world. USA is the mostly benefited country in this regard. But, USSR had to depend on its own manpower, a dangerously low population level (lowered by WWII). So, the achievement of USSR is certainly greater in this regard.
If USSR would have received half the human resources like USA, it would certainly leave USA behind in scientific and technological development.

Really? I'm pretty sure the Russian-dominated SU conscripted thousands of unwilling soldiers from its Central Asian and Far East "Republics". The attitude of the Communist Party towards the Turkic, Tartar and Mongol ethnic groups of the Soviet Union was certainly chauvinistic and took steps to "civilize" them. One of them was a form of "affirmative action" in the army, where ethnic soldiers would be appointed as Lieutenants or other officer positions, much to the chagrin of the Russian dominated military.

[pranabjyoti]

Really? I'm pretty sure the Russian-dominated SU conscripted thousands of unwilling soldiers from its Central Asian and Far East "Republics". The attitude of the Communist Party towards the Turkic, Tartar and Mongol ethnic groups of the Soviet Union was certainly chauvinistic and took steps to "civilize" them. One of them was a form of "affirmative action" in the army, where ethnic soldiers would be appointed as Lieutenants or other officer positions, much to the chagrin of the Russian dominated military.
Yeah, and probably for that reason in the time just before the destruction of fUSSR, the people of those Asian republics voted against the dissolution of the USSR. In that popular vote, 70% of voters were against dissolution of USSR.
At least I am pretty sure that the behavior of the Russians towards the people of those "colonies" was much better than the general European colonial powers behaved with the native population in their colonies in Asia, Africa and other parts.
You are deviating from the main point of my post. Can the population of the the Asian republics of USSR comparable to the population of colonies of other European powers. Just colonial India had 330 million population alone for British empire.

[Toppler]

The conditions in the Asian Soviet republics and Western colonies are incomparable. They got all the benefits of socialism, even through their republics started off developing from a far lower base. On the other hand, look at British India. Constant famine, literacy less than 15 percent etc., hell, it is a shithole even now, more than a half of century after liberation.

And while the growth in the Eastern Bloc was maybe slower than in the West, it did occur. Here in the CSSR - 1950s - horrible post-war poverty, rationing, meat was eaten only on the weekends, starvation rations in the boarding schools (my grandpa personally experienced this), 1960s - people ate meat everyday, started buying TVs, radios, modern stoves etc. And it got only better from then onwards, except for the 1968 Soviet invasion.

[pranabjyoti]

I want to add something in this regard. In India, the SUPERPOWER of South Asia, meat and protein is a luxurious delicacy to most Indians, specially the aboriginal Indians, the adivasis. They can have that just once a year.
Despite that facts, there are some f***ers who are blabbering about "terrible living conditions" in "communist" countries. I cant resist myself to kick on their ass.

[Toppler]

I want to add something in this regard. In India, the SUPERPOWER of South Asia, meat and protein is a luxurious delicacy to most Indians, specially the aboriginal Indians, the adivasis. They can have that just once a year.
Despite that facts, there are some f***ers who are blabbering about "terrible living conditions" in "communist" countries. I cant resist myself to kick on their ass.

Once a year? If that's true, then I have no words. No wonder malnutrition there is more prevalent than in the Sub-Saharan Africa.

[pranabjyoti]

Once a year? If that's true, then I have no words. No wonder malnutrition there is more prevalent than in the Sub-Saharan Africa.
It's true man. So far, the aboriginal people of India constitute just 22% of population, but for making industries, big dams and other "development" works, the people uprooted was more than 80%.
Due to recent Maoist activities, they had drawn attention to "mainstream" politics. Otherwise, they were taken as subhumans or something like a kind of talking Cattle.
Probably they were seen in the same way as in modern India, as the Asian ethnics were seen as in Tsarist Russia, maybe worse.