Comments by "James the Other One" (@jamestheotherone742) on "How close was the Soviet Union to Collapse in 1942-1943?" video.

They were emancipated from human rights and decency.
21
@pathocrat said, "The Soviets put a huge emphasis on science and technology..." Is not economic growth. And didn't do squat with it beside try (and fail) to keep up with the West. Even at the end they couldn't provide decent living standards because they were too busy making everyone (except the Party) equally poor and miserable. Zero-sum.
8
Soviet Socialist: We also get to decide what you deserve to receive, whenever we feel like you should receive it.
7
@pietersteenkamp5241 So you are saying you are old and dumb? Or just that you bought into the lie of Marx way back when and your ego (or something) won't let you admit that you were wrong? Well bless your heart.
7
@pietersteenkamp5241 Who is indoctrinated here? Nice talk. Take your pills.
5
@pathocrat But yet Germany, Japan, and other countries knocked down as far as the USSR managed to "catch up" to the US and enjoy comparable living standards. But I guess an apologist for socialism has gotta make up excuses and find his silver linings where he can because no one exploits and abuses the masses better.
5
@pathocrat Oh and go watch the video again. There was economic growth after the war, but that isn't what TIK was referring to, it was the difference between pre-revolutionary or pre-war agricultural output and efficiency, which was a fraction (that means smaller) than in the West or even compared to Imperial Russia. They didn't surpass that until well after WWII.
5
@vantuz8264 Blurted: " UK, Germany weren't knocked down in terms of economics as much as USSR. Japan wasn't knocked down at all." HAHAHaahahhahahahahahha! I love the internet. Its so hilarious.
5
@pietersteenkamp5241 I see you don't know your Russian Revolution history very well. Or pretty much every single implementation of socialism that has been attempted. But thats okay. Lots of ignorant people these days. You have lots of company.
4
@vantuz8264 Do you have one that goes like: "If you don't get the joke, then you are probably its fool"?
4
@vantuz8264 Your "points" were completely divorced from reality. So no. Other than advise you to go read an actual history book and not neo-socalist revisionist and stalinism apologist web sites.
4
@vantuz8264 I don't see how that is at all relevant to the discussion at hand, but that is a nice little strawman you built for yourself.
4
@vantuz8264 Except it IS the miracle of capitalism. The reconstruction of the Post-war world could have included the USSR and its sphere of influence. But Joe Stalin was an evil asshole who alienated the West and picked a path of conflict and competition for his country by extension, the entire world for the rest of the 20th century. So they were left grubbing around in highly efficient collectivized mediocrity.
4
@vantuz8264 Ask yourself why there was such "outside help" to be had.
3
@derekbaker3279 Oh look more neo-socialist revisionism and rationalization.
3
@derekbaker3279 Both are equally appropriate. You and "Van Tuz" should look up remedies for "cognitive bias".
3
The bread in question is more like straw and sawdust bread.
2
The economy TIK is referring to is the economy of resource allocation, not the economy of trade and business. Even in command economies like the USSR, there is only so much to go around and compromises have to be made. Not even Stalin could demand more food, or tanks, or etc. than could actually be produced no matter how much money was thrown at them.
2
@Peorhum It was implied. One of the primary reasons why socialism fails is because it is highly efficient at badly allocating resources in ordinary times compared to market economies. However during crisis, it becomes an advantage. The Soviets probably would have collapsed (like the French) if it weren't for the stoicism of the people and the ability of Stalinism to take draconian measures regardless of their handicaps.
2
I saw that too. lol
1
@nikitanosov8159 No what he did was take a comment out of context and tried to mansplain' an irrelevant point about how great he thinks socialism and the USSR was.
1
@nikitanosov8159 Try reading entire posts.
1
@nikitanosov8159 Maybe English isn't your strong suit? Read original post that started this thread. Then read my post (which is a add on to that joke) then read ol' Peter's misunderstand and diatribe on the greatness of the USSR and how misunderstood he is.
1
@nikitanosov8159 Yeah no. Millions of Soviet citizens starved to death in the decades BEFORE the Germans invaded the USSR. Thru a combination of mismanagement and incompetence and intentional political malice to weaken those who were resisting sovietization. The US never did and never would do what the Stalinists did. Not even to the hostile native peoples. It was/is a ridiculous analogy. The famine in India was because of a combination of factors, from a bad harvest and floods, to the lack of shipping, to the necessities of war time. Not an intentional act. Again, an idiotic analogy. It wasn't "well anyone woulda done that in those circumstances." No. That is a completely false statement. It was an event that could only occur because of the stupidity of socialism.
1
@nikitanosov8159 Think more (or at least read more real history) and type less.
1
@nikitanosov8159 Also nice answer when the question is ridiculous.
1
@nikitanosov8159 Thats not what "ad hominem" means. I don't think anyone but the most assinine nazi revisionist would deny that the Germans pillaged the shit out of every territory they occupied. That was not brought up by anyone but your friend Peter. Someone from S. Russia ought to know the history and not just be an apologist for a delusional communist poster.
1
@Calvin KIRKPATRICK tldr. Just like socialism, you're too late.
1
The outcome really was never in question, in hindsight. The Allies simply possessed enough resources to win, even without the atomic bomb. But it (the entire 20th century of war and conflict) pretty much was the worst nightmare humanity has inflicted upon itself. So far.
1
It varies greatly. If you are digging trenches or filling sand bags, then yeah, you are burning a lot more energy than if you are sitting in a tank or manning a defensive position.
1
 @derekbaker3279 doth protests too much.
1
@nowthisnamestaken And oil.
1