How the frick 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?
How the frick 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?
The USSR was a massive industrial power centered around arms production. USSR was spendining north of 10% of its economy on GDP.
10% on military.
20% on military during years of war and armament.
It's one of the reasons they were struggling so much.
Closer to 16-17% in peacetime. The military-industrial complex employed 35% of the population.
It was a multi-tiered system but ultimately was enabled by the USSR providing both with tons of equipment.
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.
This but also don't forget things got better for USSR due 70s fuel crisis
Good god, imagine what they could accomplish if they spent 50% of their GDP on their GDP
>How the frick did the USSR
china*
China was still in bumfrick peasant mode when the Vietnam war kicked off
vietnam even admitted without china giving them weapons/training/other shit they never would have beaten france
China wasn’t an industrial powerhouse until like the late 70s
how fricking dumb are you people
socialism vs petrostate capitalist oligarch mafia
>proceeds to collapse just because petrostate decided to give rocket launchers to some goat frickers.
I think he was comparing the Soviet Union to modern Russia
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.
Well the West only started giving heavy weapons to Ukraine after Russia retreated from Kiyv
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 fricking 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.
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.
>backed the Khmer Rouge (Cambodia), as did the US (CIA)
....what?
>....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.
looks like a bit of political support and the rest vapourware
>one truck
lol
Historylet detected
We're bastards, anon. We've always been bastards.
Well, once in a while US does the right thing, like now.
Broken clock etc.
All governments* are bastards. Some are just a little less of a bastard than the rest.
>*all people
Real Communism hasn't been trie-
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.
Its alright comrades because it all in the promotion of world wide socialism!
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.
>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 fricked 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
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.
>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.
>supply multiple countries while fighting on two fronts
it's just a decoration. stop being butthurt
Having Communist Star, Hammer and Sickle in the God's house is not "just a decoration"
Why do you feel that way?
Keep in mind that the Russian Orthodox church sees things different, especially when compared to American pr*testants
Your asking why a church participating in the deification of a atheistic system that murdered millions is a problem?
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.
>The USSR would win regardless of lend lease
No it wouldn't.
Rewriting history will not change the well-known facts.
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.
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.
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
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)
Despite Western narratives for 50 years, Socialism is actually better than Capitalism in some instances
What is this MMT horseshit
Socialism is a lie, everything is driven by human self-interest
Shut the frick up you pinko bootlicker. EVERYTHING a state can do, can be done much better by a free market.
Socialism is just about buttholes who can't hack it by themselves relying on the works of others. FRICK that with a rusty rake
boomer
Did you know you can have a free market in socialism?
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 frick 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.
>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.
He who does not work does not eat. A principle that founded America.
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.
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.
>It applied then, it applies today.
How so?
Please do explain.
>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.
Why?
There is more than enough food for everyone.
>There is more than enough food for everyone
Because investing in the unproductive detracts from investing in the productive.
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.
>The way I see it, your viewpoint is pure ideology
Yes.
So fundamentally there's no tangible reason for why you hold it and it's just a spooky spook inside your mind.
>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.
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.
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.
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?
>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.
Pure ideology.
In your opinion.
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.
>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
You cannot explain why it is more effcient.
I need to explain to you how investment works?
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?
Productive societies don't enough hungry people to be concerned.
have you heard of the word "crime"?
Are you going to make an argument or are you simply lonely and looking for attention?
You're the one who keeps repeating what amounts to ideology at me.
Efficient resource allocation is ideological?
You have yet to show how it is efficient to let people starve.
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.
So you think if people don't have anything to eat they'll just roll over and starve until they die?
>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.
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"?
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.
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.
my argument is basically that crime exists
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
If you give criminals no reason to exist, they do not.
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 Black person and commit crimes, it helps my conscience when you get shot in the face by a Black person
You think you're smart. In reality you're saying nothing
Said the Commie homosexual who thinks I should be forced to share with him.
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.
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?
LMAO, newbie
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.”
How are crime rates in Europe, anon?
>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"
Maybe there's more to life than just turning some gears day and night for the sake of experienced productivity, huh moron? Such as having fun, like going to the range. Like, we're on fricking /k/. Ventilating paper and denting steel doesn't really give really anything shit for society. It takes.
Fricker, there's always some bigger workaholic frick out there, whose slow kys is somehow a reward-worthy virtue by your moronic take. But I'm more than a min-maxed Excel, so frick you.
>It's impossible to work hard and have fun
Who're you quoting 'tard?
moron, 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.
No, but it is. So frick 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 moron's ideology-in-denial.
Your respect is not required. Just stay out of our neighborhoods.
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.
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.
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!"
>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.
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.
>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
>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 fricking Rome all over again
>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.
and all of them face deep financial woes, having to import new workers from the 3rd world or face financial ruin.
>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.
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.
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.
Because subsidizing degeneracy creates more of it.
define degeneracy without it being reducable to "thing I don't like"
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.
Where did I get blown out, buddy?
I responded to everything.
And you think not giving them welfare will magically fix everything instead of breeding even more crime, yes?
>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.
>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.
An immigrant underclass has been a fundamental aspect of human society for thousands of years.
>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.
You can't argue with these people anon, they only thing they will understand is a bullet.
>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.
Not after your ilk takes over
>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 moron
based
Frick them hoe ass roads
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
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
newsflash pal all I said was that socialism is much better at misalocating resources
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.
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 fricking siberia
there are stories of siberian prison guards guarding pow camps in ww2 with flintlock and percussion muskets
They were the second largest economy in the world and their industrial capacity was ridiculous.
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
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.
Actually looks pretty nice by post soviet shithole standards.
>95% of manufactured products were intended for military use
Come on now.
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).
could you give an english language source for that?
i am very curious about the soviet economy
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.
lend lease was a mistake
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
Open a book and look for Sino-Soviet split you Black person
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
No refunds.
poor hueys didn't deserve to be thrown into the heartless sea
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.
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.
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.
>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.
So how long until we see PPsHs and T-34s in Ukraine?
Given the way gopniks "store" their assets most are likely scrap metal. Dispersing your equipment where weather will frick it up then neglecting it is less than brilliant.
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
>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.
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.
>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 b***h 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.
Communism did in twenty what Capital did into hundred
>How the frick 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
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
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.
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
They used FIAT currency, dumbfrick.
>Do this for us or we blow you up
This is how fiat currency works, and that is why they ditched gold.
>goldbugs have entered the chat
there goes the neighbourhood
>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.
Matt Ridgeway knew that. Hickshit LBJ disagreed.
on top of all this 40% of the soviet union's industry was located in this place called ukraine
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.
>kraut autist b***hes about "unregulated markets" in the most regulated economic sector of the world
you should have a Berlin wall around your house
Yeah, they had a massive industrial capacity. An actually formidable foe for the West at the time unlike their current shell today.
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.