Question about USSR

[unmerged(5627)]

How did the levels of autonomy differ in the different Soviet Republics?

I know of the Warsaw Pact, but why did the USSR's Republics have to make pacts with each other? Unless I'm mistaken. Was it only mostly the Asian republics that were completely controlled republics with some Eastern European nations being puppets of of the USSR?

I have now managed confuse myself.... Hopefully someone will understand what I'm trying to get across.

 

[Krasnaya Strela]

The 15 constituant "republics" making up the USSR were legal fictions. They had no real powers etc until they grabbed them during the breakup. They were mostly organized on loose ethinic basis. Ukraine was actually recognized by the UN and had a vote (subsevient to the USSR of course). The fact that the organization of these enties was so haphazard and didnt follow the actual ethnic boundaries was one of the reasons for the recent wars etc in Nagano-Karabakh, Armenia, Georgia, Abkhazia, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzistan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan to name a few.

The nations that were "liberated" at the end of the Great Patriotic War were allowed to be seperate entities since they preexisted and were already ethnically grouped (and their indepenence also alllwed them additional votes in the UN), but in pratice thier economy, military and police, judicial and political systems were tied to/controlled by Moscow. That being said, Yugoslavia did manage to break itself away, based primarily on the personality-cult of Tito, Albania drifted away because it had nothing anyone wanted (it finally ended up in the PRCs camp). and Romania was given a little more freedom as its leaders started following a weird North Korean type of model. Soviet apologists often crow the fact that the Warsaw pact and Comecon weren't set up until after NATO was, but in reality it wasn't needed before that time as only the USSR called the shots.

 

[unmerged(4783)]

I would generally agree to your assessment, General. But I think that you exaggerate the degree of subservience of Eastern European countries liberated (without quotation marks) from the Nazi tyranny. After all, the Soviet Union had to intervene militarily in Hungary in 1956 and in Czechoslovakia in 1968. In the first case the Soviets could reasonably argue that a "counterrevolution" was in place, but in the latter case it was obviously not true.

Also, local leadership managed to resolve local crises without the intervention of the Soviet Union, sometimes in frank defiance to the Soviet Union, as in Poland in 1956 with the crisis over Gomulka's return.

 

[unmerged(7225)]

it's been alluded to earlier, but it stands to be expanded upon:

The relationship between Russia and other republics "within" the USSR differed slightly from those countries in the Warsaw Pact, that is "allied" with the USSR...

Of the modern nations that were at one way or another behind the Iron Curtain until the 1980's, they fall into 2 basic groups:

Satellite Nations:
Poland
Hungary
Czechoslovakia
East Germany
Romania (communist but largely independant)
Yugoslavia (communist but largely independant and west-friendly)
Albania (communist but no one gave a rat's ass)
Mongolia

Constituent Republics wholly goverened from Moscow
Belarus
Ukraine
Moldova
Georgia
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Kazakhstan
Uzbekistan
Turkmenistan
Tadjikistan
Kyrgyzstan
Lithuania
Latvia
Estonia

To debate whether the so-called "independant" nations were really independant is left to others, but the UN recognized this break down. Officially, the 15 constituent republics constituted a single sovereign state, the USSR, while the half dozen or so "Satellite Nations" were recognized internationally as seperate sovereign states, even if their governments in reality wouldn't take a dump without Moscow's permission...

 

[Krasnaya Strela]

Dear Mr. Scum, sir;
Agreed, the local managers did have the ability to solve local problems without thier bosses in Moskva being involved. But only with a view to solving problems in line with what the boss wanted. When they fumbled the ball, management stepped in (with hobnails).
cheers
Gen Zimoi.

 

[unmerged(4783)]

Originally posted by General Winter
Dear Mr. Scum, sir;
Agreed, the local managers did have the ability to solve local problems without thier bosses in Moskva being involved. But only with a view to solving problems in line with what the boss wanted. When they fumbled the ball, management stepped in (with hobnails).
cheers
Gen Zimoi.

So, you agree that Poland's relationship to Moscow was of a different quality from the relationship of, say, Azerbaijan to Moscow?

 

[unmerged(5627)]

Thanks for all the information guys. It's a great help and makes more sense now. Also, another question:

What was the total population of the USSR? And the USSr with its satelite nations?

Also, would all of the USSR and the satelite nations have sent in troops during a prolonged war?

 

[Krasnaya Strela]

Originally posted by Pirate Scum


So, you agree that Poland's relationship to Moscow was of a different quality from the relationship of, say, Azerbaijan to Moscow?

Kanesh'nya. Poland's leader were able to make small decisons about irrelevant local issues on their own. The Azeri's were of course not able to do that (plus the power was held by ethnic Russia settlers rather than native Azeris).

 

[Dark Knight]

Originally posted by Lord xEnderx

What was the total population of the USSR? And the USSR with its satelite nations?

At what point in time?

 

[unmerged(4783)]

Originally posted by General Winter


Kanesh'nya. Poland's leader were able to make small decisons about irrelevant local issues on their own. The Azeri's were of course not able to do that (plus the power was held by ethnic Russia settlers rather than native Azeris).

You're slipping to the sides here.

So you're saying that most of the important internal decisions in Poland and all the foreign policy decisions were taken by the Soviet leadership? I don't think that Mr. Zbigniew Brzezinski would have agreed with you.


Ok, what about Ukraine vs. Poland?

 

[Krasnaya Strela]

Poland vs Ukraine its the same. My position does not change, and I'm not sure where you are trying to go wiith this.

The Ukrainian SSR was owned lock stock and barrel by the Soviet Government. Its ecomony, legal system etc was completely tied to the Soviet system, it did not produce its own independent 5 year plan. The politician/bureaucrats in charge were symbolic appointees.

Poland had more leeway, but not much. Its economic system was a little looser than the Soviet one (and thats why Polish products were so much in demand here before the breakup and why its managed to come out of the break-up quite a bit faster than the CIS countries). But in terms of important decisions, the Polish authorities could be sure that they really had only one choice, at the end of the day, despite local elections, their stay in power was (with a few exceptions) only with the acceptance of Moscow, heck its one of the reasons that fraternal brothers such as Poutin and Andropov were stationed in WarPac countries during that period.

Polands subservience is also remembered bitterly among many poles and its one of the reasons that my cousin asked me not to speak Russian on the streets when I was visiting her in Zakopane a couple of weeks ago.

 

[unmerged(4783)]

Originally posted by General Winter
Poland vs Ukraine its the same. My position does not change, and I'm not sure where you are trying to go wiith this.

The Ukrainian SSR was owned lock stock and barrel by the Soviet Government. Its ecomony, legal system etc was completely tied to the Soviet system, it did not produce its own independent 5 year plan. The politician/bureaucrats in charge were symbolic appointees.

Poland had more leeway, but not much. Its economic system was a little looser than the Soviet one (and thats why Polish products were so much in demand here before the breakup and why its managed to come out of the break-up quite a bit faster than the CIS countries). But in terms of important decisions, the Polish authorities could be sure that they really had only one choice, at the end of the day, despite local elections, their stay in power was (with a few exceptions) only with the acceptance of Moscow, heck its one of the reasons that fraternal brothers such as Poutin and Andropov were stationed in WarPac countries during that period.

Polands subservience is also remembered bitterly among many poles and its one of the reasons that my cousin asked me not to speak Russian on the streets when I was visiting her in Zakopane a couple of weeks ago.

Where I'm trying to go is crystal clear. I don't think that Ukraine and Poland were the same. You would appear to disagree, although you first say "its the same", then in the third paragraph say "Poland had more leeway", so what is it?

 

[Jools]

Originally posted by General Winter
Poland vs Ukraine its the same. My position does not change, and I'm not sure where you are trying to go wiith this.

The Ukrainian SSR was owned lock stock and barrel by the Soviet Government. Its ecomony, legal system etc was completely tied to the Soviet system, it did not produce its own independent 5 year plan. The politician/bureaucrats in charge were symbolic appointees.

Poland had more leeway, but not much. Its economic system was a little looser than the Soviet one (and thats why Polish products were so much in demand here before the breakup and why its managed to come out of the break-up quite a bit faster than the CIS countries). But in terms of important decisions, the Polish authorities could be sure that they really had only one choice, at the end of the day, despite local elections, their stay in power was (with a few exceptions) only with the acceptance of Moscow, heck its one of the reasons that fraternal brothers such as Poutin and Andropov were stationed in WarPac countries during that period.

Polands subservience is also remembered bitterly among many poles and its one of the reasons that my cousin asked me not to speak Russian on the streets when I was visiting her in Zakopane a couple of weeks ago.

I understand you. I lived abroad for over 10 years and wherever we spoke polish the locals (especially indians) took us for russians and started treating us like shit. They usually asked if we were russian and then of course we replied NO, We're Polish and then they started apologising... Sheesh... Though it's not that bad in Poland.

 

[unmerged(5627)]

Dark Knight,the population of the USSR, and the USSR+satelite nations from the 60's to the breakup would be much appreciated. Also, about the question on whether all of the USSR and its satelite nations would have provided manpower in case of a prolonged war, does anyone have any information?

 

[Dark Knight]

Population in Millions. Data from World Bank (I think )

Country 1960 1970 1980 1990

Satellites
Albania 1.61 2.14 2.67 3.28
Bulgaria 7.87 8.49 8.86 8.72
Cz-Sl 13.5 14.3 15.2 15.6
Hungary 9.98 10.3 10.7 10.4
Poland 29.6 32.5 35.6 38.1
Romania 18.4 20.3 22.2 23.2
Yuglosavia17.1 20.4 22.3 23.7
Total 98.1 108 117 123

USSR 214 243 266 290

Total 313 351 383 413

 

[Richard Hakluyt]

BTW Yugoslavia should not be counted as a Soviet satellite, IIRC Tito made a stand back in 1948 and managed to face Stalin down. The country was communist but of an interesting local variety. It was a country that was very easy to visit and had a sensible currency and shops full of goods that were accesible to all.

 

[Dark Knight]

Originally posted by Richard Hakluyt
BTW Yugoslavia should not be counted as a Soviet satellite, IIRC Tito made a stand back in 1948 and managed to face Stalin down.

Yes, I know; I just thought I'd include all the communist European countries.

Leaving out Yugoslavia and Albania yields:

Satellites 79.4 85.9 92.6 96.1
USSR+Above 294 329 358 386

Note that I don't have population data for the former East Germany.

 

[celedhring]

What's Russia's population nowadays?

 

[unmerged(528)]

Originally posted by Pirate Scum


Where I'm trying to go is crystal clear. I don't think that Ukraine and Poland were the same. You would appear to disagree, although you first say "its the same", then in the third paragraph say "Poland had more leeway", so what is it?

Poland had a significant degree of leeway, but always within the strictly defined limits of the Soviet system - outright democratization or wideranging reforms were not acceptable (and disregard of these limits meant Soviet tanks rolling into capitals).

The 1981 martial law was necessary in order to avoid Soviet invasion - however Poland did manage a more open and free society than most of the east block countries (probably minus Yugoslavia and Hungary).

 

[Dark Knight]

Originally posted by celedhring
What's Russia's population nowadays?

145,470,197 (July 2001 est.)