• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
For my home country Sweden it could be claimed the threat of a communist revolt forced the leaders to accept universal suffrage (it was introduced in 1919 two years after the bolshevik revolt in Czarist Russia) even though both the conservatives, liberals and even social democrats where initially opposed to the idea.

Other then that I would say the utter failure of the Soviet Union have damaged the idea of socialism then any propaganda from capitalist leaders could have ever achieved on their own.
 
Last edited:
For my home country Sweden it could be claimed the threat of a communist revolt forced the leaders to accept universal suffrage (it was introduced in 1919 one year after the bolshevik revolt in Czarist Russia) even though both the conservatives, liberals and even social democrats where initially opposed to the idea.

Other then that I would say the utter failure of the Soviet Union have damaged the idea of socialism then any propaganda from capitalist leaders could have ever achieved on their own.
It's not like the Soviet Union is the only failed socialist utopia. There's also, you know, all other attempts at it.
 
It's not like the Soviet Union is the only failed socialist utopia. There's also, you know, all other attempts at it.

The Soviet Union was for all intents and purposes the communist experiment. Everyone else who managed to get things started was pretty much following Lenins tracks.
 
Soviet system did not care about nature or ecology. Nature was meant to be conqured and subdued. Nature was just another challenge, an obstacle. I will never forget that piece of "kinokhronika" (newsreel), boasting about how hundreds of dolphins were killed in Black Sea because they were eating fish and messing with fish production. Dolphins were exterminated like they were bugs or what.

True, but that was not much different to any other major country at the time. Environmentalism on government level is a fairly recent thing. As for dolphins specifically, google "drive hunting", which is practised to the day.
 
The Germans didn't advance in WW1 as much as they did in WW2 until the Russian government collapse. How can you say the Czarist government was doing worse militarily compared to the USSR?
That's easy to explain.

"Not advanced as much" is not an argument. The first 3 years of WW1 were dominated trenches, whereas in WW2, motorisation allowed mobile operations.

Also in WW1 Russia only had to face a part of German army, with more battles against the weaker Turkish, Bulgarian and Austro-Hungarian Armies. You may remember that 1914 Tannenberg, the Germans won, despite 1 on their corps being reserve, and another being Landwehr (aka 3rd line troops). Again, as opposed to WW2, where the vast majority of the German land forces and the bomber force was on the Eastern Front. The fact the Germans advanced as far as they did in WW1 was pretty damning.

Both in WW1 and WW2 the Allies were giving aid to Russia. However, in WW1 the aid had to include literally everything, from Arisaka rifles to aircraft and spare parts for the navy.
 
True, but that was not much different to any other major country at the time. Environmentalism on government level is a fairly recent thing. As for dolphins specifically, google "drive hunting", which is practised to the day.

Compare the Warsaw Pact's environmental record with that of the West. There was a clear difference.
 
That's easy to explain.

"Not advanced as much" is not an argument. The first 3 years of WW1 were dominated trenches, whereas in WW2, motorisation allowed mobile operations.

Also in WW1 Russia only had to face a part of German army, with more battles against the weaker Turkish, Bulgarian and Austro-Hungarian Armies. You may remember that 1914 Tannenberg, the Germans won, despite 1 on their corps being reserve, and another being Landwehr (aka 3rd line troops). Again, as opposed to WW2, where the vast majority of the German land forces and the bomber force was on the Eastern Front. The fact the Germans advanced as far as they did in WW1 was pretty damning.

Both in WW1 and WW2 the Allies were giving aid to Russia. However, in WW1 the aid had to include literally everything, from Arisaka rifles to aircraft and spare parts for the navy.

The Eastern front was not dominated by trenches. Offensives on the eastern front managed to make significant advances unlike in the western front.

The Germans took 3 years to advance as far as they did (and it was less than they did in several months in 41) and suffered repeated reverses. It is hardly damning.

As for the numbers, that is the part that makes it not comparable. The Russians did not face the majority of the German military in 14 (although they did have to face the Austrians and Ottomans as well; those would be roughly comparable to Germany's allies in WW2). Of course you can't use that to say the Czarist government did worse militarily- you'd actually have to show that more soldiers would help (as one of the issues was Russia had almost no infrastructure).
 
Compare the Warsaw Pact's environmental record with that of the West. There was a clear difference.

Well the among the biggest cold war era environmental screw ups were DDT and CFCs (because these affected, not just a particular region, bu the whole planet). The "west" (whatever you mean by that) is no less responsible for this than the eastern bloc.
 
Well the among the biggest cold war era environmental screw ups were DDT and CFCs (because these affected, not just a particular region, bu the whole planet). The "west" (whatever you mean by that) is no less responsible for this than the eastern bloc.

These were both developed and put in use before WWII. The effects of DDT were discovered during the cold war. The effects of CFC's weren't discovered until after the cold war was already over.
 
The Eastern front was not dominated by trenches. Offensives on the eastern front managed to make significant advances unlike in the western front.

The eastern front advances were possible due to
1. A much wider frontline (which could not be manned with the same density as the western front)
2. The abundance of weaker less well equipped armies, which could buckle and be driven back.

However, the overall combat was still the same trenches slow slogging battles. Like the Siege of Przemyzl, which was a mini Verdun.

The Germans took 3 years to advance as far as they did (and it was less than they did in several months in 41) and suffered repeated reverses. It is hardly damning.
If you look in detail, you will notice that the Germans did not suffer "reverses" on the Eastern Front. Their allies did, on more than one occasion. But the Germans were not dealt a single strategic level defeat during the whole existence of the Eastern Front, despite only committing a part of their force there .

Compare with WW2, where the Germans suffered a disastrous defeat within half a year on their best forces.

As for the numbers, that is the part that makes it not comparable. The Russians did not face the majority of the German military in 14 (although they did have to face the Austrians and Ottomans as well; those would be roughly comparable to Germany's allies in WW2). Of course you can't use that to say the Czarist government did worse militarily- you'd actually have to show that more soldiers would help (as one of the issues was Russia had almost no infrastructure).

This makes no logical sense. Of course the Tzarist government did worse militarily. It's not about numbers of soldiers, it's about outcomes.
Situation 1. Country A struggles against the 2nd and 3rd line units of Country B and fails to inflict a single major defeat on Country B. Country A can't even equip their army with key military goods.
Situation 2. Country C, faces the bulk of the armed force of Country D, and fights on a par, dealing the huge strategic defeat to them in 6 months, and having complete complete initiative in just over 2 years. Country C supplies its army with most military goods.
 
These were both developed and put in use before WWII. The effects of DDT were discovered during the cold war. The effects of CFC's weren't discovered until after the cold war was already over.

The dates of development are not point (although with CFCs, you are mistaken with both dates, they became widespread in 1960-s, and were discovered to be a threat in mid 80s, hence the Montreal Protocol).

The point is that Much of the Cold War era thing was about "conquering" nature with various appliances, chemicals, techniques. "environmental testing", environmental surveys" or anything like that. were just not done, whether in the East or the West. Just like the usage of defoliants in the Vietnam War, the lax-to-nonexistent safety regulation by western companies in the third world (Bhopal is the obvious example).

Even now, for all our environmentalism, we prefer not to think too hard about how exactly many of the goods we use are produced in SE Asia, about the corners companies cut to ensure the cost are minimal.
 
The dates of development are not point (although with CFCs, you are mistaken with both dates, they became widespread in 1960-s, and were discovered to be a threat in mid 80s, hence the Montreal Protocol).

The point is that Much of the Cold War era thing was about "conquering" nature with various appliances, chemicals, techniques. "environmental testing", environmental surveys" or anything like that. were just not done, whether in the East or the West. Just like the usage of defoliants in the Vietnam War, the lax-to-nonexistent safety regulation by western companies in the third world (Bhopal is the obvious example).

Even now, for all our environmentalism, we prefer not to think too hard about how exactly many of the goods we use are produced in SE Asia, about the corners companies cut to ensure the cost are minimal.
As far as I remember it was actually discovered in the late 60s that they cased holes in the ozone layer---but those holes initially only were in the Southern Hemisphere, so nobody cared; then in the mid 80s holes were found to be developing in the Northern Hemisphere and more specifically they would hit both Europe, the US and the USSR---people got busy then.
 
Well the among the biggest cold war era environmental screw ups were DDT and CFCs (because these affected, not just a particular region, bu the whole planet). The "west" (whatever you mean by that) is no less responsible for this than the eastern bloc.

Also, leaded gasoline.

Interesting fact: both CFCs and leaded gas were invented by the same guy, Thomas Midgley, Jr. He is considered to "had more impact on the atmosphere than any other single organism in Earth's history." :)

Just like gagenater stated, they were discovered in the 20s and 30s but the environmental effects weren't well know until mid/late cold war.
 
As far as I remember it was actually discovered in the late 60s that they cased holes in the ozone layer---but those holes initially only were in the Southern Hemisphere, so nobody cared; then in the mid 80s holes were found to be developing in the Northern Hemisphere and more specifically they would hit both Europe, the US and the USSR---people got busy then.


OK - I looked it up - we are both wrong.

The holes were discovered in the mid 1960's, but it was in 1979 that it was discovered what caused them.

http://www.maxfields.freeserve.co.uk/problem_with_cfcs.htm
The major breakthrough into the major causes of ozone destruction was in 1979. Molina and Rowland discovered that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), which were previously thought to be inert in the atmosphere, were potentially a major source of stratospheric chlorine that can destroy ozone.
 
The dates of development are not point (although with CFCs, you are mistaken with both dates, they became widespread in 1960-s, and were discovered to be a threat in mid 80s, hence the Montreal Protocol).

The point is that Much of the Cold War era thing was about "conquering" nature with various appliances, chemicals, techniques. "environmental testing", environmental surveys" or anything like that. were just not done, whether in the East or the West. Just like the usage of defoliants in the Vietnam War, the lax-to-nonexistent safety regulation by western companies in the third world (Bhopal is the obvious example).

Even now, for all our environmentalism, we prefer not to think too hard about how exactly many of the goods we use are produced in SE Asia, about the corners companies cut to ensure the cost are minimal.

Yes - I was wrong about the ozone hole discovery dates. However CFC's in general They didn't become widespread worldwide until during the cold war era, but they were invented, and used widely for industrial and air conditioning purposes in the U.S. well before WWII. Air conditioning in offices and major shopping areas started to become a thing in the U.S. starting in the 1930's. Home air conditioning didn't generally come until post war when scaled down air conditioning systems became practical and economical. CFC's were/are also used as solvents, in manufacturing high temperature elastomers, and plastics manufacturing. Except for plastics manufacturing these all were big businesses (again at least in the U.S.) well before WWII.

As for all the rest - yes, I agree.
 
For example now USSR is gone, in US labour movement is very weak and people are generally poorer than in 1998. Another good example is Finland. When Finland gained its independence it was one of poorest nations in Europe. After WW2 Finland was still relatively poor nation without industry and technical know-how and fell under influence of Soviet ideology that demanded better life for citizens. Today Finland is ranked close to top on every welfare, health, safety and happiness surveys.

The derelict towns of Karelia might hint a different opinion...

I'm sorry but your assertions are completely false. Finland gained the economical and civil freedom only and because it never was a part of CCCP. When Soviet Union collapsed the border between Finland and Russia projected the biggest gap of existing living standards in the whole world. Before the collapse people in Russia were only happy if they managed to run away from their totalitarist repressors (Berlin wall), all the Soviet products on the market had been of lousy quality, only things Finland ever imported from SU were weapons, energy and some raw materials. Soviet Union, yes, supported peace movements all over the world like it did promote workers rights, but in Soviet Union there was no talk of disarmament nor a possibility for a worker to go on strike.

Soviet influence on Finland was largely negative, all its interests were in supporting the extreme lefties, who hardly ever held important minister posts. Finnish workers mostly voted the Social Democrats, who had been the most popular party before the ww2, and they were the biggest party after the ww2 as well. The prominent leaders of SDP had been Väinö Tanner and later on Mauno Koivisto - both determate anti-Communists. And of course the longest presiding front figure of the state Urho K. Kekkonen, was of central party - anti-communist as well.

Finland was also about the get a UN Secretary General, Max Jacobsson, elected - but the Soviets of course vetoed it.

The most important influences to Finland came from Sweden and Scandinavia in general. That Swedes and Norwegians, even Icelanders, also rose in their living stadards is very difficult to explain as some Soviet influence.

I can go on...

Another example of the same phenomenon is the case of North Korea and South Korea. That would be another story, but here's an old television commercial that became symbolical for the collapse of Soviet Estonia:

[video=youtube;8Lh9IDb2_x8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Lh9IDb2_x8[/video]

In Soviet Estonia people were staring mostly empty shelves while queying to buy necessities, there hardly even were open markets! Black markets there were, however. And this commercial was of course just 'capitalist propaganda'.
 
Finland benefited enormously from its position halfway between the USSR and the West. It is not correct to compare Finland with Scandinavian countries, because Finland was much poorer to start with. Without the profitable trade with the USSR which was only possible because the Soviet Union wasn't a market economy, Finland could never catch up.
 
Finland was and is a carbon copy of Sweden. The selling of poor products to the Soviet Union was not really a boon, as it meant that the concerned Finnish industry didn't have to meet the same standards as ones operating on a global scale, meaning less competitiveness.