How the fuck did the USSR supply North Vietnam with AKs, tanks, and MiGs against the US for TWENTY YEARS?

How the fuck did the USSR supply North Vietnam with AKs, tanks, and MiGs against the US for TWENTY YEARS?

Did they really posses that kind of armory/wealth back then?

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The USSR was a massive industrial power centered around arms production. USSR was spendining north of 10% of its economy on GDP.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      10% on military.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      10% on military.

      20% on military during years of war and armament.
      It's one of the reasons they were struggling so much.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      10% on military.

      Closer to 16-17% in peacetime. The military-industrial complex employed 35% of the population.

      >How the fuck did the USSR
      china*

      It was a multi-tiered system but ultimately was enabled by the USSR providing both with tons of equipment.

      Funnily enough, Soviet aid to the North went way up AFTER the US left the country. They probably had their own calculus about risking escalation with America. The North could have used that aid while they were being pounded to rubble by Linebacker. What good allies.

      After the Second Indochina War, the increased aid was to prevent Vietnam from falling into Chinese orbit. The Soviet Union and PRC were not friendly during the Cold War.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        This but also don't forget things got better for USSR due 70s fuel crisis

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Good god, imagine what they could accomplish if they spent 50% of their GDP on their GDP

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >How the fuck did the USSR
    china*

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      China was still in bumfuck peasant mode when the Vietnam war kicked off

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        vietnam even admitted without china giving them weapons/training/other shit they never would have beaten france

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      China wasn’t an industrial powerhouse until like the late 70s

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        how fucking dumb are you people

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    socialism vs petrostate capitalist oligarch mafia

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >proceeds to collapse just because petrostate decided to give rocket launchers to some goat fuckers.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I think he was comparing the Soviet Union to modern Russia

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Funnily enough, Soviet aid to the North went way up AFTER the US left the country. They probably had their own calculus about risking escalation with America. The North could have used that aid while they were being pounded to rubble by Linebacker. What good allies.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Well the West only started giving heavy weapons to Ukraine after Russia retreated from Kiyv

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The UK sent thousands of NLAWs before and during the first couple weeks or something so they didn't send nothing, you literally saw one or more with every single territorial militia unit in Kyiv lmao. The US sent javelins from UK stocks, and both had been preparing Ukraine for a defensive/insurgency for over 8 years.
        The only problem really was Ukraine, moving the mines from the Crimean entrance and losing Kherson without blowing the bridge was the dumbest fucking thing they could have ever done and now they're paying for it with a costly Kherson reclamation. (Though perhaps this overextension and larger front is good for Ukraine, who knows)

        Also, democracies work slow on potential lost causes that they don't have pacts with, they needed to see if Ukraine had the ability and political will to fight before they committed, and if their own people had the political will to back them. A "losing" Ukraine gives political will to send more stuff that isn't seen as warmongering by their own populace.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Wasn't for the US. It was for those shifty chinks

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Wasn't for the US. It was for those shifty chinks

      The US left Vietnam in 1973. That same decade China backed the Khmer Rouge (Cambodia), as did the US (CIA) to an extent.

      The Khmer Rouge genocided their own people including ethnic minorities such as the Viets, and regularly clashed with Vietnam along the border. This ultimately resulted in Vietnam toppling the Khmer Rouge in 1979, which was then followed by China invading it that same year but the PRC lost.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >backed the Khmer Rouge (Cambodia), as did the US (CIA)
        ....what?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >....what?

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_United_States_support_for_the_Khmer_Rouge

          Widely known. This is how the US started growing ties with China against their mutual enemy in the USSR.

          Nixon visited China in 1972, a year before they pulled out of Vietnam.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            looks like a bit of political support and the rest vapourware
            >one truck
            lol

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Historylet detected

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          We're bastards, anon. We've always been bastards.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Well, once in a while US does the right thing, like now.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Broken clock etc.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            All governments* are bastards. Some are just a little less of a bastard than the rest.
            >*all people

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Real Communism hasn't been trie-

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Do bear in mind that at the same time they were rationing basically every consumer good including food, and holding their population to a quality of life not far advanced beyond 1950s USA right up to 1991 (and in fact deteriorating significantly towards the end). That was part of the price paid.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Its alright comrades because it all in the promotion of world wide socialism!

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It might have worked if nukes didn’t exist
        >USSR keeps war time economy at peace
        >Sometime between 1960 and 1980 invade Western Europe
        >Steamroll them with hordes with pretty decent to superior (Russian tanks were arguably superior until the 80s) equipment
        >With the evil capitalists defeated you can demobilize your economy
        Of course with nukes such a war would never happen or be meaningfully winnable and the USSR was thus handicapping its economic growth against a country whose larger population and industrial base made matching and surpassing them already highly difficult. In hindsight the USSR would have been better off focusing on quality to a degree even higher than the US and NATO and instead of building 30,000 T-55s build 3 million cars or tens of thousands of miles of rail infrastructure or better roads or canals.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >might have worked if real life consideration wasn't a consideration
          yes, and if I was Robert Downey Jr I too might have done bucketloads of coke, conned Marvel into letting me lead their franchise, and fucked a bajillion groupies from here to Sunday, but as it turns out, I'm only a crackhead and girls wouldn't give me the time of day

          one suits one's strategy to the circumstances at hand, not the other way around

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    1965 was only 20 years removed from a MASSIVE influx of technical equipment and machinery given to them during WWII. They also had a growing population and had yet to rot every bit of motivation and work ethic out of their people, the USSR was still a nation with a dream in 1965. As much as corruption has hurt Russia, a lot of what's wrong with Russia actually has to do with the fact that they don't dream of the future. Living like that is poisonous to the human soul.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >As much as corruption has hurt Russia, a lot of what's wrong with Russia actually has to do with the fact that they don't dream of the future
      This is BS. They are the exactly the same they have been for centuries on end. Miserable, paranoid, backwards, suffering and failed churka mongoloid abortions.

      >inb4 stronk Rasha in WW2
      lend lease bailed the failing regime out, this is fact.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous
        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >supply multiple countries while fighting on two fronts

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        it's just a decoration. stop being butthurt

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Having Communist Star, Hammer and Sickle in the God's house is not "just a decoration"

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Why do you feel that way?
            Keep in mind that the Russian Orthodox church sees things different, especially when compared to American pr*testants

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Your asking why a church participating in the deification of a atheistic system that murdered millions is a problem?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The USSR would win regardless of lend lease. It would just take longer and more Russians would die.
        Another proof USA is the empire of Satan.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >The USSR would win regardless of lend lease

          No it wouldn't.

          Rewriting history will not change the well-known facts.

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Not just the USSR, which was the largest country in the world, but also China, the most populous country in the world, and all of the USSR's puppet states in Eastern Europe, and a way smaller number of Chinese puppet states. It wasn't just one country.

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The Viets were not only supplied by the Soviets, but also by the rest of the Warsaw Pact & most importantly, China. The Chinese shat out Type 56s and sent them by the trainload to Vietnam.

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It'd important to remember that vietnam was also a major wedge in the sino-soviet split, spurning the major aid deliveries and infrastructure/economic assistance from china in favor of soviet political friendship, as well as later going to war with pro-chinese cambodia

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Actually, Vietnam benefited more than anyone expected; both USSR and China decided to send aid (the Chinese sent a lot of infantry small arms and artillery)

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Despite Western narratives for 50 years, Socialism is actually better than Capitalism in some instances

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What is this MMT horseshit

      Socialism is a lie, everything is driven by human self-interest

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Shut the fuck up you pinko bootlicker. EVERYTHING a state can do, can be done much better by a free market.
      Socialism is just about assholes who can't hack it by themselves relying on the works of others. FUCK that with a rusty rake

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        boomer

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Did you know you can have a free market in socialism?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          You can, but at the significant expense of efficiency.

          Ultimately a socialist economy gives the appearance of a free market at grassroots level but macro movements remain dictated by the powers that be, and when said powers fuck up, the whole lot goes to hell in a handbasket. The Darwinist survival-of-the-fittest action of a more capitalistic market is missing; and this results in the whole not being the fittest, and vulnerable to competition by other organisms.

          This is the problem affecting most major European countries except Germany, which benefits from their loss, and ultra-rich micro-states like Norway who have deep reserves and can operate inefficiently. That is why for 10 or even 20 years in some cases they have been losing on the global stage to the more capitalistic USA despite this being a period of rapid tech development and massive liquidity.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >EVERYTHING a state can do, can be done much better by a free market.
        Except provide a basic standard of living to ALL citizens regardless of their situation.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          He who does not work does not eat. A principle that founded America.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yes and it's a bad principle, because America was founded hundreds of years ago and the way of life of those bygone days isn't very valuable today, because the world is a very different place.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              The initial colonies were set up on quasi socialist principles. They all failed. Then John Smith came along quoted the Bible
              >Thessalonians 3:10
              >If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat

              And, using this basic principle, turned Jamestown into a roaring success that would eventually grow to become the worlds first hyper-power.

              It applied then, it applies today.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >It applied then, it applies today.
                How so?
                Please do explain.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat
                Simple as. He who will not enslave himself to the laws of nature must not be permitted to free-ride from those who do.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Why?
                There is more than enough food for everyone.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >There is more than enough food for everyone
                Because investing in the unproductive detracts from investing in the productive.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Why? If we produce enough food to feed 100 people but we only feed 90 of them, how is that good?
                And how do you know whether an investment in an "unproductive" won't result in more productivity down the line?

                The way I see it, your viewpoint is pure ideology.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >The way I see it, your viewpoint is pure ideology
                Yes.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                So fundamentally there's no tangible reason for why you hold it and it's just a spooky spook inside your mind.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >there's no tangible reason
                I have already told you the reason. Those who are productive should not have to support those who are not.

                If you don't work, you don't eat.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yes, it's a spook, anon.
                There is no material reason why you believe that and there isn't even a metaphysical reason, because every religion preaches of the virtue of charity.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Socialism =/= Charity.

                >There is no material reason why you believe that
                There is a material reason. You are unproductive, you thus have no use, thus any resources spent on you are a waste.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Why does everyone need to be productive? Why does everyone need to have a use?
                Why do you believe that resources spent that way are a waste, when these resources are thrown away otherwise?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >when these resources are thrown away otherwise?
                They are not thrown away. Simply reinvested in more productive individuals.

                >Why does everyone need to be productive?
                Because we live in a society. Regardless of political system it is a collective effort, those who do not contribute to the effort do not need to be included. Lenin had similar thoughts, ironically.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Pure ideology.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                In your opinion.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Whether something is or is not pure ideology is not really a matter of "opinion".
                You have yet to present a reason why you feel the way you do and your sheer inability to do so reveals that it is nothing but ideology, because that is a central aspect of ideology. It simply is.
                It's not rational, it's not thought out, it simply is something you take for granted.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >You have yet to present a reason why you feel the way you do and your sheer inability to do so reveals that it is nothing but ideology
                I have, repeatedly: efficient resource allocation. To which you repeatedly respond
                >Omg ideological

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You cannot explain why it is more effcient.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I need to explain to you how investment works?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yes, you need to explain to me how not feeding people will somehow lead to better outcomes than feeding people.
                Why won't the hungry people do something that harms society?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Productive societies don't enough hungry people to be concerned.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                have you heard of the word "crime"?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Are you going to make an argument or are you simply lonely and looking for attention?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You're the one who keeps repeating what amounts to ideology at me.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Efficient resource allocation is ideological?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You have yet to show how it is efficient to let people starve.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It's 1913 and we are Russian serfs? It's a question of taxing productive people to support unproductive people. Be limiting the capital available to the productive you limit their productivity, by reallocating it to the unproductive you compound unproductive behaviour.

                It's not complicated, my lonely friend.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                So you think if people don't have anything to eat they'll just roll over and starve until they die?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >So you think if people don't have anything to eat they'll just roll over and starve until they die?
                I think they will get a job so they can get something to eat.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Or they will find a way to get something to eat that doesn't involve a job.
                Besides, who even decides what is and isn't "productive"?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Is someone willing to exchange goods and services with you? Yes? You're productive!

                >Or they will find a way to get something to eat that doesn't involve a job
                I see, so we should support the kind of people who will rob us rather than get a job. Excellent use of societies resources.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                So let me get this straight - your argument is that everyone should be forced to give up the products of their labour to those who are not just unable but outright unwilling to produce anything of value themselves; and that we must do this because those unwilling to be productive might get violent if we don't?
                I mean you are more honest than the average socialist, I'll give you that.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                my argument is basically that crime exists

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It does.
                But that doesn't mean it's moral or effective or efficient to institutionalise crime.
                >if you kill your enemies they win
                -tier thinking, that

                >Caption: MAGA

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                If you give criminals no reason to exist, they do not.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                This is absolute delusion lmao. So using your logic, Sweden shouldn’t have criminals. Yet
                >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organized_crime_in_Sweden#Outlaw_motorcycle_gangs
                Just say you want to be a moron and commit crimes, it helps my conscience when you get shot in the face by a moron

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You think you're smart. In reality you're saying nothing

                Pure ideology.

                Said the Commie gay who thinks I should be forced to share with him.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Social spending helps create productive people by helping alleviate the common roadblocks of the poor. Much in the same way that parents provide their children with the tools to succeed. That and you don't end up in a South Africa inequality situation where the rich hole up in compounds.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Crime rate in RSA has exploded since the end of apartheid and the new governments adoption of redistributive policies. Ironically so has unemployment.

                In the US, alternatively, where there is as small a social safety net as possible, crime was in freefall (until leftists started meddling with the criminal justice system) and standards of living exploded.

                The proof is in the pudding.

                Who're you quoting 'tard?

                >Who're you quoting 'tard?
                LMAO, newfag

                >initial colonies were set up on quasi socialist principles like private land ownership, indentured servitude, and global trade in furs/wood while paying taxes to a King
                You’re a retard

                You may want to do some reading on the early colonies.
                >Two of the first British settlements, however, Jamestown and Plymouth, began as collectives. In both, the officials organized the settlers on semi-military lines, assigned the tasks, and required each worker to bring his produce to the common “magazine,” or warehouse. The officials doled out these products according to the supposed needs of each settler. That is, they distributed the available goods according to the communist principle: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                How are crime rates in Europe, anon?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >That and you don't end up in a South Africa inequality situation where the rich hole up in compounds.

                The rich already do this though

                Even just upper middle class, they all love their "gated community"

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >there's no tangible reason
                I have already told you the reason. Those who are productive should not have to support those who are not.

                If you don't work, you don't eat.

                Socialism =/= Charity.

                >There is no material reason why you believe that
                There is a material reason. You are unproductive, you thus have no use, thus any resources spent on you are a waste.

                >when these resources are thrown away otherwise?
                They are not thrown away. Simply reinvested in more productive individuals.

                >Why does everyone need to be productive?
                Because we live in a society. Regardless of political system it is a collective effort, those who do not contribute to the effort do not need to be included. Lenin had similar thoughts, ironically.

                Maybe there's more to life than just turning some gears day and night for the sake of experienced productivity, huh retard? Such as having fun, like going to the range. Like, we're on fucking PrepHole. Ventilating paper and denting steel doesn't really give really anything shit for society. It takes.
                Fucker, there's always some bigger workaholic fuck out there, whose slow kys is somehow a reward-worthy virtue by your retarded take. But I'm more than a min-maxed Excel, so fuck you.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >It's impossible to work hard and have fun

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Who're you quoting 'tard?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Retard, what we're saying is nobody owes you money simply for existing.
                You want to shoot guns? Be productive, earn money, buy guns, shoot them. Simple.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                No, but it is. So fuck you. I earn what I earn, and I get what I take. But I won't respect someone just because they're "more productive" and somehow therefore "higher" in some retard's ideology-in-denial.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Your respect is not required. Just stay out of our neighborhoods.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                To be honest, if you don't have a system that takes care of incapable people like children, old people, physically and mentally injured people then the healthy people will not accept any of it.

                You need to at least be able to pay someone to take care of others (continuously, without losing your money and fortune) or that society will collapse.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The old have been productive and thus are entitled to support. The young have the potential for productivity thus they are invested in. The deserving poor, that is to say those who are unable to work because tragedy has befallen them, are equally entitled to support because it is moral.

                The rest should starve.
                >alas, twas ever not thus and we will continue to pour trillions into the detritus of our species.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Except that politicians keep moving the goalposts of what constitutes
                >taking care of incapable people
                because promising more pork for the people is a quick way to get votes, while conveniently neglecting the
                >without losing your money and fortune
                part of the story.

                Greece, for example, was a socialist paradise, until it wasn't. As it stands today, the level of welfare in most European countries is totally unsustainable.
                >bbbbut what about Norway
                >muh Nordic model
                literally the 1% ultra-rich exception; it lucked into massive oil reserve and invested much of that into the stock market
                comparing with them is like saying "yeah well Amber's daddy gave her a Cadillac for college, it should be an innate human right for all!"

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Greece, for example, was a socialist paradise, until it wasn't.
                Ah yes, Greece.
                Famous example of a wealthy western nation and totally not a poverty-stricken eastern european shithole.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Spain, Italy, France (to a degree). Germany is a glass jawed monster, the UK has been slashing budgets for 50 years. All to feed the beast that is social spending.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >only ultra wealthy western nations can afford socialism
                my point exactly
                most yuros however don't realise their countries are NOT rich; they all point at the "Nordic model" while forgetting they're not Norway, most of them are in the PIIGS

                Mass migration, and Europe's acceptance of it, is driven by the need to try sustain unsustainable social-security pyramid schemes. In the US, the situation on the border is driven by the need to support federal spending.

                >driven by the need to try sustain unsustainable social-security pyramid schemes
                Possibly. I really don't like to think about the implications.
                >In the US, the situation on the border is driven by the need to support federal spending
                I believe that one's gerrymandering plain and simple. Burgers will know this better than I; it's a deliberate Dem strategy to flood the border states with pro-immigration (pro-Dem) new voters. Evinced by how changing voting trends in these states have tracked changing ethnic makeups
                >it's fucking Rome all over again

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >most yuros however don't realise their countries are NOT rich
                Denmark, BeNeLux, Germany, France, Switzerland and Austria are rich enough and all the other countries don't matter.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                and all of them face deep financial woes, having to import new workers from the 3rd world or face financial ruin.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Denmark
                1%er kept barely alive by taxing trade routes
                >Belgium
                deep social issues, shit economy = higher cost of living even for an EU country, lives off Antwerp port
                >Netherlands
                lives off Rotterdam
                >Luxembourg
                literally a rounding error
                >Germany
                the most capitalistic of the EU nations and thus the most successful on its own merit, mogs all the rest
                >France
                only just clawing itself out of the Dotcom Crash hole, anon. Twenty years of destroyed wealth...
                >Switzerland
                living off decades of being the world's illicit hideaway
                >Austria
                I'll be honest, I don't know much about them

                Just two nations here, Germany and France, makes up about 30% of the EU, the rest about 10%. So when you say
                >all the other countries don't matter
                you're saying the majority of the EU - the poor majority - doesn't matter? And you're holding this up as a supposed indicator of the success of a socialist system
                >that takes care of incapable people
                ?

                only the incapable people of the richest 30%, it would seem.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Irrelevant what countries "live off". Resources are resources and if it's simply a trading route through the country, that's what it is. Where the money comes from hardly matters, only that it exists.

                >you're saying the majority of the EU - the poor majority - doesn't matter?
                Yeah?
                Anon, you have a weird idea of how the world works. If you have the money you can live it up, but if you're poor you're irrelevant.
                Don't think I'm a socialist. I've never claimed to be a socialist. I guess the best way to describe my worldview would be firstworldism.
                I don't give a shit about poor eastern Euro shitholes, they're serfs to enable comfortable life in western Europe.
                That's how I honestly see things.

                The US does the same thing, but it's less convenient, because it's all domestic. The serfs are US citizens, which makes the whole thing grossly inefficient.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Mass migration, and Europe's acceptance of it, is driven by the need to try sustain unsustainable social-security pyramid schemes. In the US, the situation on the border is driven by the need to support federal spending.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Because subsidizing degeneracy creates more of it.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                define degeneracy without it being reducable to "thing I don't like"

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I dig it how Aristotle over here picks arguments until he gets btfo and then acts like nothing happened until the next poster comes along.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Where did I get blown out, buddy?
                I responded to everything.

                >define degeneracy
                Take a walk through any American inner-city. You have entire, completely unproductive, neighborhoods sustained by nothing more than the public dime. Inter-generational welfare recipients living in the heart of massive economic engines.

                And you think not giving them welfare will magically fix everything instead of breeding even more crime, yes?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >And you think not giving them welfare will magically fix everything i
                yes.
                >Instead of breeding even more crime, yes?
                Once again you return to "give them free stuff, or else!". They commit crimes already.

                >I responded to everything.
                lmao no, Ive been monitoring this thread all day. You get btfo and then just stop until the next person comes along.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Once again you return to "give them free stuff, or else!".
                Because fundamentally that is all there is to it.
                If you can't survive, you'll do crime to survive. Therefore you need to give people the means to survive without doing crime. However, it's an issue of establishing wellfare programs that incentivize people to work. And also accepting that some people will never contribute. The wealth is there for it.

                and all of them face deep financial woes, having to import new workers from the 3rd world or face financial ruin.

                An immigrant underclass has been a fundamental aspect of human society for thousands of years.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >If you can't survive, you'll do crime to survive
                Alternatively, you could simply get a job.

                >Therefore you need to give people the means to survive without doing crime.
                This is known as "work", it has existed for many thousands of years.

                >An immigrant underclass has been a fundamental aspect of human society for thousands of years.
                Yes, it is perfectly normal to import many millions of workers to support a dying socialist economic model. Indeed, Rome was renowned for its vast retirement homes and free dental.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You can't argue with these people anon, they only thing they will understand is a bullet.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >define degeneracy
                Take a walk through any American inner-city. You have entire, completely unproductive, neighborhoods sustained by nothing more than the public dime. Inter-generational welfare recipients living in the heart of massive economic engines.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Not after your ilk takes over

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >initial colonies were set up on quasi socialist principles like private land ownership, indentured servitude, and global trade in furs/wood while paying taxes to a King
                You’re a retard

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        based

        Fuck them hoe ass roads

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What is this MMT horseshit

      Socialism is a lie, everything is driven by human self-interest

      Shut the fuck up you pinko bootlicker. EVERYTHING a state can do, can be done much better by a free market.
      Socialism is just about assholes who can't hack it by themselves relying on the works of others. FUCK that with a rusty rake

      Dichotomized thought processes.
      >Only my specific line of logic is right
      The US runs off a mixed market economy. We socialize public services such as roads, police force etc while privatizing non public services.
      This is pretty basic economics

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yes, Bolshevism built the only true wehrstaat the world has ever seen. While some German generals were jerking off coining the term the Cheka/NKVD/KGB actually built one.

      Unfortunately, nuclear weapons rendered total war unlikely and in time it was seen as the collosal misallocation of resources it was.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yes, Bolshevism built the only true wehrstaat the world has ever seen. While some German generals were jerking off coining the term the Cheka/NKVD/KGB actually built one.

      Unfortunately, nuclear weapons rendered total war unlikely and in time it was seen as the collosal misallocation of resources it was.

      the only right you deserve is the one to be thrown out of helicopters

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        newsflash pal all I said was that socialism is much better at misalocating resources

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The Soviets put pretty much all of their meaningful expertise into building so much military hardware that they literally could not get rid of it all if they tried. They also never scrapped ANYTHING, thinking that the shitty, rusted, obsolete equipment could totally be used in WW3 after the bombs dropped.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      they arent wrong when the nuclear war happens after they burn through all their mosins they still have warehouses packed with old percussion and flintlock muskets dating back to the napoleonic wars out in the urals and fucking siberia

      there are stories of siberian prison guards guarding pow camps in ww2 with flintlock and percussion muskets

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They were the second largest economy in the world and their industrial capacity was ridiculous.

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    95% of manufactured products were intended for military use, 5% of leftovers - for civilian use. That’s why people in USSR lived in a state of perpetual poverty and deficit of everything, gotta build weapons to “fight uppity capitalistic wealthy pigdogs” and export the misery of USSR worldwide.
    t. have a relative who worked at First Kyiv Machine-Building Plant “Bilshovyk” (a big and important factory by the standards of that time)
    https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Пepший_київcький_мaшинoбyдiвний_зaвoд

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      After the dissolution of USSR the complex was rebuilt as a fancy mall, a hotel and a business centre. Damn, how dare we live so lavishly.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Actually looks pretty nice by post soviet shithole standards.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >95% of manufactured products were intended for military use
      Come on now.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The post above is the words of lead engineer who worked there all his live.
        USSR existed to force its worldview (misery and poverty) upon the whole world. russia is following in the footsteps of its predecessor, albeit failing tremendously without enslaved Baltic nations and Ukrainians (the brains and the brawl of former USSR).

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          could you give an english language source for that?
          i am very curious about the soviet economy

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Anecdotal evidence derived from some lone alleged engineer's alleged opinions in another language isn't exactly much.
          The attitude towards the topic shining from your post doesn't exactly convey a feeling that the goal of this interaction is to lay down the truth, either. Let the facts speak for themselves and leave the excess drama at the door.

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    lend lease was a mistake

  15. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Current Chinese communist stole must of USSR weapons to Vietnam cause they (commies China) were our "allies" at that time, please learn some real history

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Open a book and look for Sino-Soviet split you moron

  16. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They supplied the blueprints to the chinese who built them and supplied them to North Vietnam given their land border.
    Most of the "AK"'s the NVA used were chinese Type 56's with that hooded front sight and unironically they were the "AK"s that started the AK myth of reliability

  17. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No refunds.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      poor hueys didn't deserve to be thrown into the heartless sea

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yes, they did you imbecile. Keeping decks clear is far more important than your autistic attachment to symbols of activities you will never participate in, like sex.

  18. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Like modern merican politicians but to a much greater extent they were happy for a reason to get rid of stock so they have an excuse to manufacture more.

  19. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The US wasn't even in Vietnam 10 years, what?
    The entry into Vietnam happened in 1963 (mostly SOF and advisors) and full-scale entry in 65. The US departed all of its frontline infantry in 72 and evacuated everyone else in 75.

  20. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Did they really posses that kind of armory/wealth back then?
    Yes, it's kind of hard to overstate just how much of a yes that is.

    You know how Japan was mentally scarred by getting nuked twice? Well that same kind of mental scarring happened to Russia by coming within a hair's width of getting nazified in ww2. Instead of making a bunch of weird movies about it, though, the Russians decided to arm themselves to the teeth several times over. While the US put their ww2 equipment on sale as surplus, the Soviets held on to a large portion of theirs into the late 60's with the idea that if the balloon went up it would be better to give all of this old gear back to the huge pool of Red Army veterans than take the time to train them on new weapons. Of course, they were also devoting the lion's share of their industry to making new killing devices at the same time.

    The Soviets had enough guns and ammo to last a century if they had never made another bullet that entire time. Hell, I would be willing to bet there are still multiple bunkers filled with ww2 equipment in Siberia that haven't been opened in the 1970's.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      So how long until we see PPsHs and T-34s in Ukraine?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Given the way gopniks "store" their assets most are likely scrap metal. Dispersing your equipment where weather will fuck it up then neglecting it is less than brilliant.

  21. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    north vietnam was also the industrial sector of Vietnam and was eventually able to churn out factories producing their own stuff, while South Vietnam was a mostly rural/agrarian area and never got its own factories going

  22. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >20% of gdp spent on military, 95% of industrial consumption for the military
    It's like they listened to Eisenhower's 'Chance for peace' speech and thought it'd make a good template for society

    >Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
    This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter with a half-million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. . . . This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.

  23. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The USSR was living on borrowed time and collapsed economically as soon as the wealth being stolen from the eastern euro states it occupied dried up. Most of eastern europe needed to go on food aid in the 90s after the USSR dissolved to recover from the decades of exploitation.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Most of eastern europe needed to go on food aid in the 90s after the USSR dissolved to recover from the decades of exploitation.
      Not sure if that is deliberate or from ignorance but I assure you there was meat rationing in Poland complete with a barrel shaped Russian speaking bitch with a pistol to check the ration book. Also RUSSIA received millions of tons in food aid in 1991 from the EU and they would have starved if the EU had not fed them
      https://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/11/world/soviet-disarray-europe-to-give-extra-food-aid-to-3-russian-cities.html
      https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1991-09-20-mn-2410-story.html
      They show their gratitude now by declaring their hatred of the children of people who fed them. Russians are savages.

  24. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Communism did in twenty what Capital did into hundred

  25. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >How the fuck did the USSR supply North Vietnam with AKs, tanks, and MiGs against the US for TWENTY YEARS?
    All the USSR did was make shoddy weapons for mass infantry mobilisation and everything else was about feeding, securing, policing and housing the people who made this stuff as well as schools and healthcare for their kids, their pensions etc etc. That is all the USSR did. It then sent it to terrorists and would be and existing communist dictators all over the world to kill people in return for more raw materials

  26. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    it did eventually go bankrupt trying to have a pissing contest with profiteering western powers on who can spend more on nukes and weapons, no clue why some moron would try to compete with a system that's entirely made for churning out dollars in a pissing contest on who has the biggest bank account

  27. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Rail through China - who also had factories right on the border which the Americans couldn't touch without triggering WW3.

    It's funny when Americans try point to the Viet Cong as some sort of pro-2A example, as if Americans can buy SAMs and tanks etc.

  28. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The price for helping the Spanish commies in their civil war was literally all the gold in Spain

    And Stalin insisted on payment first, which he got

  29. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They used FIAT currency, dumbfuck.
    >Do this for us or we blow you up
    This is how fiat currency works, and that is why they ditched gold.

  30. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >goldbugs have entered the chat
    there goes the neighbourhood

  31. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Did they really posses that kind of armory/wealth back then?

    America couldn't invade North Vietnam because of the Chinese.
    Same thing happened in Korea. China said stay t.f. out of North Korea. McArthur invaded North Korea and a million Chinese troops drove the American army down to the sea.
    Pretty hard to win when you can't invade the country of your enemy.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Matt Ridgeway knew that. Hickshit LBJ disagreed.

  32. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    on top of all this 40% of the soviet union's industry was located in this place called ukraine

  33. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I am seeing the effects of unregulated markets in germany currently. by now, I believe it's more of an historical accident than some sort of imminent property of the soviet union and the communist system that the western block did win in the end.

    I personally don't even want to argue with anti-communists or anti socialists any longer. Shut them up and put them in a gulag, done.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >kraut autist bitches about "unregulated markets" in the most regulated economic sector of the world
      you should have a Berlin wall around your house

  34. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yeah, they had a massive industrial capacity. An actually formidable foe for the West at the time unlike their current shell today.

  35. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    At the outset of the war, it was relatively easy to get weapons shipped through China. Although, more and more, the Chinese were commandeering these arms & equipment shipments for themselves. So, the Soviets started using merchant vessels heading from Vladivostok to resupply North Vietnam. And, due to the outlines set by Lyndon Johnson, ports were excluded from being targeted by American Air Strikes in fear of killing Soviet technicians and military personnel.

    This was remediated with the more terror-bombing focused attacks in Operation Linebacker I & II, but by that time, the surplus of Soviet weaponry in North Vietnam was too great to quell.

Your email address will not be published.