Could the Soviet Union have survived?

You're right. I realized in the middle of dinner that I was using the wrong term and came to correct myself. :eek:

I guess I was thrown off by all the USSR's five-year plans.

Thank you, and do know, I'm not counting you out in particular, this is just something that needs to be taken into account whenever one discusses the Soviet Union.
 
I think the USSR as a political entity could still make it, but they'd need significant economic reforms like China pursued. However, they likely still would have lost a lot of the satellite states and would have had to abandon the Cold War to pursue those reforms.(like Gorbachev basically did)

maybe an earlier reformer coming to power, and the Soviets abandoning keeping up in the arms race with the US at an earlier point.
 
I think the USSR as a political entity could still make it, but they'd need significant economic reforms like China pursued. However, they likely still would have lost a lot of the satellite states and would have had to abandon the Cold War to pursue those reforms.(like Gorbachev basically did)

maybe an earlier reformer coming to power, and the Soviets abandoning keeping up in the arms race with the US at an earlier point.

The USSR didn't have a choice, in regards to the arms race. That wasn't a one sided affair in regards to how the arms race worked.

Besides that, I linked a thread earlier that shows why it can't quite copy China.
 

Jason222

Banned
If they used the Chinese model, introduce free enterprise but keep the repressive government.
If nuclear weapon never invented it possible USSR could surival if USA and USSR fighting each like game Red alert simple nationalist views keep two countries alive
 
The only way it could've survived is by reforming directly after World War II; even reforming in the 1950's or early 1960's greatly increases the Soviet Unions chances of survival.
 
The only way it could've survived is by reforming directly after World War II; even reforming in the 1950's or early 1960's greatly increases the Soviet Unions chances of survival.

They did. Under Kruschev.

Look, guys, reforms, in of themselves, won't solve the Soviet Union's problems, and may actually exasperate them, especially as their failure will discourage further ones being attempted.
 

RousseauX

Donor
The USSR didn't have a choice, in regards to the arms race. That wasn't a one sided affair in regards to how the arms race worked.

Besides that, I linked a thread earlier that shows why it can't quite copy China.
Sure they did, they had the option of employing the exact strategy that NATO employed: which is basically nuclear deterrence above conventional forces with regards to western Europe.
 

RousseauX

Donor
They did. Under Kruschev.

Look, guys, reforms, in of themselves, won't solve the Soviet Union's problems, and may actually exasperate them, especially as their failure will discourage further ones being attempted.
Kruschev was a political reformer and the economical reforms he conducted consisted of restructuring the planned economy towards more consumer goods production, as oppose to reforming planned economy itself.
 
Sure they did, they had the option of employing the exact strategy that NATO employed: which is basically nuclear deterrence above conventional forces with regards to western Europe.

Not really, they had to keep a large garrison force because their satellites weren't the most... loyal of states unfortunately.
 
Kruschev was a political reformer and the economical reforms he conducted consisted of restructuring the planned economy towards more consumer goods production, as oppose to reforming planned economy itself.

Interesting point, however it still raises the problem of their failure discouraging future reforms.(To be fair, arguably the political reforms were more permanent, but that's a matter for another time.)
 
Planned economies have enjoyed limited success in just about every country they have been tried. Most of them switched to market economies and did much better after the transition. Command economies today include Cuba, North Korea, Myanmar, Saudi Arabia and Belarus; the only one that is doing well economically is the one with massive amounts of oil and a market to supplement it.


How is Saudi Arabia a planned economy?
 

RousseauX

Donor
Not really, they had to keep a large garrison force because their satellites weren't the most... loyal of states unfortunately.
That's true, but you don't need top of the line weaponry systems to use your troops as a police force either.
 

RousseauX

Donor
Interesting point, however it still raises the problem of their failure discouraging future reforms.(To be fair, arguably the political reforms were more permanent, but that's a matter for another time.)
I don't think Kruschev's reforms were "failures" as a whole (yes I know virgin lands campaign was a failure), he was ousted for being too "liberal" and "soft" rather than the failure of any of his policies after all.
 
That's true, but you don't need top of the line weaponry systems to use your troops as a police force either.

You'd be surprised actually, depending on the circumstances.

With that in mind, could they have cut there? Yes, however not nearly as much as one might think, because of the need for a garrison force.
 
I don't think Kruschev's reforms were "failures" as a whole (yes I know virgin lands campaign was a failure), he was ousted for being too "liberal" and "soft" rather than the failure of any of his policies after all.

If his policies had worked, it would've solidified his hold on power enough to survive, which they didn't. While his policies weren't outright failures, they didn't solve the Soviet Union's internal problems with things like worker morale, which they needed to at least alleviate on a much higher level to work.
 
And again, COMMAND, not planned.

There are more than five states that have planned economies. One can't say the same for command economies. Additionally, none of the latter are in the top 5 wealthiest states in the world, while the former has one getting very close to the top.
 

RousseauX

Donor
You'd be surprised actually, depending on the circumstances.

With that in mind, could they have cut there? Yes, however not nearly as much as one might think, because of the need for a garrison force.
Garrison forces would be far far cheaper than the sort of armored forces meant to push NATO off the continent.
If his policies had worked, it would've solidified his hold on power enough to survive, which they didn't. While his policies weren't outright failures, they didn't solve the Soviet Union's internal problems with things like worker morale, which they needed to at least alleviate on a much higher level to work.
His policies weren't a stunning success, but then again he was ousted over the Cuban missile crisis which I feel he didn't "fail" at.
 
Top