Could the Soviet Union have drastically cut defense spending in the 50s?

Yes, actually it could.

Actually it couldn't. That was abundantly shown when the USSR fell and Russia's subsequent domestic needs were met by imports and are still met primarily through imports or imported factories.

Also, the tank factories weren't called "Kharkov Tractor Factory" for nothing :D ;)

Don't confuse propaganda with reality. :rolleyes:

Unlike the Chrysler plants which turned out tanks and bombers, the "Kharkov Tractor Factory" and it's like weren't originally consumer goods production lines switched to military production for the war effort.

Seriously, the Soviet consumer market was absolutely starved for goods and would have no problem swallowing any amount of production released by cutting arms race.

And, I'll once again point out the fact that the USSR industrial production system inherited by Russia after 1989 totally failed to meet that huge demand and still cannot meet that huge demand.
 
Let's not also forget that a) the Soviet leaders were still traumatised by the events of 1941, which led to a huge amount of paranoia in the minds of their leaders and b) they had a certain amount of squirrel mentality that meant that they were very reluctant to scrap old equipment, just in case of disaster (see 'a)' above).
 
And, I'll once again point out the fact that the USSR industrial production system inherited by Russia after 1989 totally failed to meet that huge demand and still cannot meet that huge demand.

The Soviet/Russian industry was/is horibly inefficient and quickly faltered
when it had to compete with the rest of the world under free market conditions.

But with a Pod in the 50s we are still dealing with a planned economy.
 
Actually it couldn't. That was abundantly shown when the USSR fell and Russia's subsequent domestic needs were met by imports and are still met primarily through imports or imported factories.



Don't confuse propaganda with reality. :rolleyes:

Unlike the Chrysler plants which turned out tanks and bombers, the "Kharkov Tractor Factory" and it's like weren't originally consumer goods production lines switched to military production for the war effort.



And, I'll once again point out the fact that the USSR industrial production system inherited by Russia after 1989 totally failed to meet that huge demand and still cannot meet that huge demand.

Because in 1989 it's to late the pod is n 1950-60.
 
I'll point you to the OP's use of the word "drastically". Drastically as in drastic:
dras·tic (dr
abreve.gif
s
prime.gif
t
ibreve.gif
k)adj.
1. Severe or radical in nature; extreme.
2. Taking effect violently or rapidly.

Not planned, not drawn out, not gradual, but drastic.

Everything I wrote takes the OP at his word and the word he used was drastic.

My description of Russia's current economy is straight from the editorial columns of The Economist. You'll understand if I take their opinion over your opinion.

As for the rest of your post, meh...

Could the USSR have reformed? Certainly.
Could the USSR have reformed better than it did in the OTL? Certainly.
Could the USSR reform to the level suggested here and remain the same USSR ideologically? Certainly not.

Yes, I know all that.:rolleyes:

Still even a drastic cut in spending,would leave the U.S.S.R with a large army, airforce & navy. So my point stands.

As for ideal ideology. The U.S.S.R did change drastically on that front, even if much of the rhetoric remained the same. So there’s no intrinsic reason it cant evolve differently post-Stalin.

The Economist is a sleazy and uuntrustworthy rag. It's reporters ''didnt spot'' (I.E they lied their arses off, because they supported Yeltsin and his band of merry looters), the Russian crash in 1998. Because they're a bunch of lying hacks. Eveything they say about the Russian economy is deeply suspect.
 

Maur

Banned
Actually it couldn't. That was abundantly shown when the USSR fell and Russia's subsequent domestic needs were met by imports and are still met primarily through imports or imported factories.
Irrelevant, really. It doesn't mean what you say.

Unlike the Chrysler plants which turned out tanks and bombers, the "Kharkov Tractor Factory" and it's like weren't originally consumer goods production lines switched to military production for the war effort.
That was... well, there is a joke about how Chinese army attacked Soviet tractor working the field, and said tractor answered with rocket fire and flew away to Moscow. :D

More seriously, there is not much difference, except that the Soviet version of Chrysler factory produced both even in peacetime.

And, I'll once again point out the fact that the USSR industrial production system inherited by Russia after 1989 totally failed to meet that huge demand and still cannot meet that huge demand.
Competition with western consumer goods is irrelevant when there aren't any available.

Also, "huge demand" in the (usual) meaning i used is something specific to that particular economies. Also, commercialized enterprises were outcompeted, not "failed to meet demand".
 

Maur

Banned
The Soviet/Russian industry was/is horibly inefficient and quickly faltered
when it had to compete with the rest of the world under free market conditions.

But with a Pod in the 50s we are still dealing with a planned economy.
I would say, that among the factors that contributed to it, the most important was the complete and utterly common ignorance of the concept of marketing, not actual industrial efficiency - that had relatively smaller role.
 
Top