For what reasons is it not a good idea?
<Insert eight thousand guerilla wars here>
For what reasons is it not a good idea?
You also must count property destroyed by USSR, but in general I agree with you, this can't be used for predictionRapid economic development of the Baltics right now is (I'm not sure that Present tense is correct, they're in recession) based on consumer boom fueled by Swedish and Finnish credits. And guess what is collateral? Property built by USSR. Basically they're pawning Soviet assets. So, as impressive as it looks, this is not prediction of their performance IATL.
That can be ascribed to the post-soviet syndrome.Estonians demonstrated willingness to sacrifice the advantage of Russian trade for ideological purposes. So, even assuming that "equality" bogeyman is true, wouldn't it be correct to suggest that Estonia would be at same "20% below WE" level it used to be according to most optimistic propagandists? Which places it above Portugal and below Spain.
Whatever Soviet sins were, wanton destruction of liberated property surely wasn't in the list. Besides, Estonia and Latvia were mostly agrarian countries pre-WWII and did not have industries worth destruction.You also must count property destroyed by USSR, but in general I agree with you, this can't be used for prediction
Once I read that Estonia used to be among the wealthiest countries in Europe and that Czechoslovakia was an economic powerhouse as well then. I even "fear" that they might have been richer than the German Reich then.
But due to the Iron Curtain, economic performance was poor in the East due to the introduction of socialism. And as Nazi Germany used to treat its conquered territories like fiefdoms or colonies (a miracle if they didn't), at least the Eastern nationes were already affected from the loss to freely prosper before the Soviets came in.
So WI Germany kept the rule of law after WW1 and median Europe had neither been affected by the Nazis nor by the Soviets importing communism? How would the individual nations stand at economically, in a sense of a ranking?
You may even remind that the "economic miracle" of Western Europe in OTL had its source in WW2-related things like men dying in action causing a scarcity in the workforces making wages higher etc.
@ Glen: I read the Weimar World timeline carefully, but there was nothing about economics.
May be yes, may be no. Baltics were always underdeveloped comparing with Finland, even when they were under the same Russian rule, so I'm not certain how could they magically shoot up to Finnish level ITTL (this "Estonian GDP per capita was equal to Finnish" bogeyman looks like a mythical creature on so many levels, starting with sources for this statement, which are "patriotic Estonian research", i.e. writings of Soviet-trained propagandists).
A lot of Finnish IOTL prosperity originates in extremely close Soviet-Finnish cooperation IOTL (USSR was by far biggest trading partner and Nokia nearly collapsed after USSR went down), when Finland had access to Soviet resources at deeply discounted prices and was receiving decent prices in hard currency for it's industrial exports in USSR. Estonians IOTL showed willingness to sacrifice their economic advantages to satisfy nationalistic pride (killing Russian transit to get rid of Bronze Soldier), so I'm pretty sure this cooperation is ASB in alternate TL.
Rapid economic development of the Baltics right now is (I'm not sure that Present tense is correct, they're in recession) based on consumer boom fueled by Swedish and Finnish credits. And guess what is collateral? Property built by USSR. Basically they're pawning Soviet assets. So, as impressive as it looks, this is not prediction of their performance IATL.
I'm not talking about ties with the rest of Europe. Finns enjoyed these ties too and were 20% under West European average GDP per capita by 1938 (see http://www.ggdc.net/Maddison/Historical_Statistics/horizontal-file_03-2007.xls). They started to trade with USSR post-1945 and, everything else being the same, shot to 5-6% advantage over WE average by 1990.
All humans who ate tomatoes died: thus tomato is a deadly poison. Your line of reasoning does look like this joke to me.The Baltic areas did not enjoy similar privileges, but received their marching orders from St. Petersburg: thus their comparatively stunted growth.
Baltic governorates had very special status comparing to other ones. They were comparable to Congress Poland in this regard. Speaking about Poland (and Lithuania), if Russian rule was so stunning, Lithuania should have been prosperous developed nations in 1795 comparing to Latvia and Estonia, who fell under Russian yoke almost a century before that. Surprisingly, it wasn't.Had there been a Baltic area with an autonomy on par with Finland, it is quite likely it would have prospered too.
Well, are you trying to tell us that 100 years of stunting Russian rule made Finland better off than 5 centuries of enlightened Swedish one (Russia gained control over Finland in 1808 and Swedes ruled it 500+ years before that)?When I say prospered, I of course mean comparatively speaking. Finland in 1917 was not rich by any standards, but still a far cry from the impoverished border province it was in 1808.
This is $1 mln question. However, Finns fought two wars with Russia and it did not make them mortal enemies of Russia, willing to starve themselves in order to stick it to Ruskies. And, if Finns remained democratic country as much as it was possible in 1930s Europe, all three Baltic countries turned to dictatorship.But if the ATL Baltics were not occupied by the USSR and retained their independence post-1940, would not their attitude towards the Russians -and thus towards trading with Russia - likely be more positive? Maybe they would see Russia more like we Finns do, not as a bloodthirsty enemy, but as a potentially beneficial partner, even if a very overbearing and difficult one at that. National attitudes, even if slow in changing are not set in stone you know.
It must be some misunderstanding. I just said that Baltics would likely be on the same level comparing to WE average as they were in 1938.On the other hand, the ATL doesn't entail fifty years of stunted Soviet economic growth either. Yet you don't have any discussion of this argument.
Give me alternate source. I'm not a economist, yet a lot of stuff in Maddison looks really weird to me too. However, I couldn't find any other distorical GDP data covering whole Earth.First off: Maddison sucks.
Standard of living is different. Average American car is two sizes bigger than German (Golf vs. Impala, Opel Omega had been considered "small luxury car" during it's brief tenure as Catera), average American home is twice as big as German and German social net considerably lifts standards of living for lower classes.Secondly, your argument is a bit strange. Look at Germany in 1938 to America; yet nobody in their right mind thinks that the standard of living is that different today.
Baltic governorates had very special status comparing to other ones. They were comparable to Congress Poland in this regard. Speaking about Poland (and Lithuania), if Russian rule was so stunning, Lithuania should have been prosperous developed nations in 1795 comparing to Latvia and Estonia, who fell under Russian yoke almost a century before that. Surprisingly, it wasn't.
Well, are you trying to tell us that 100 years of stunting Russian rule made Finland better off than 5 centuries of enlightened Swedish one (Russia gained control over Finland in 1808 and Swedes ruled it 500+ years before that)?
This is $1 mln question. However, Finns fought two wars with Russia and it did not make them mortal enemies of Russia, willing to starve themselves in order to stick it to Ruskies.
Give me alternate source. I'm not a economist, yet a lot of stuff in Maddison looks really weird to me too. However, I couldn't find any other distorical GDP data covering whole Earth.
War most certainly played a role.
<Insert eight thousand guerilla wars here>
With World War 2 wouldn't the colonial powers be able to defeat the guerilla movements in the colonies?