CanadianGoose
Banned
Because they were. By Autumn 1918 Reds controlled less soil than Grand Duchy of Muscovy used to 4 centuries before that.Why are people saying that the White Russian forces were in control of the country ???
Because they were. By Autumn 1918 Reds controlled less soil than Grand Duchy of Muscovy used to 4 centuries before that.Why are people saying that the White Russian forces were in control of the country ???
Look here (pp. 2-3) http://books.google.com/books?id=PfptbHVD20UC. According to Fig. 1.1, Polish GDP in 2001 was more than 30% larger than in 1989 (while population was more or less stable, so GDP per capita increased too), Czech and Hungarian GDPs in 2001 were little more than in 1989 (while population decreased, thus GDP per capita increased). Life expectancy in all three countries increased at the same time by two to three years (Fig. 1.2, the same book).Give me something more measurable and less affected by propaganda. Life expectancy is good (if you can prove it). How about GDP per capita?
But how much of population did the Whites control? Even in October, 1918/October, 1919 both capitals, as well as densely settled Central Russian provinces were under Bolshevik rule, while the counter-Revolutionary armies held (besides Ukraine) relatively underpopulated regions, such as the Urals, Siberia, North Caucasus and so on. On the other hand, it means that even lesser number of the Whites' victims (compared to the Reds' victims) could mean greater brutality of their regimes, because they had less human material for their massacres.Because they were. By Autumn 1918 Reds controlled less soil than Grand Duchy of Muscovy used to 4 centuries before that.
Take a look at this: http://www.ggdc.net/Maddison/Historical_Statistics/horizontal-file_03-2007.xlsLook here (pp. 2-3) http://books.google.com/books?id=PfptbHVD20UC. According to Fig. 1.1, Polish GDP in 2001 was more than 30% larger than in 1989 (while population was more or less stable, so GDP per capita increased too), Czech and Hungarian GDPs in 2001 were little more than in 1989 (while population decreased, thus GDP per capita increased).
Why not look at this:Take a look at this
I don't expect any Westerner to be aware of "Kyrgiz Mutiny of 1916", but have you heard about it and about Russian settlers' actions? Those guys could give Wild West and "good Injun is dead Injun" attitude a run for their money.Thus, returning to the topic of White (Fascist) Russia, many of Communist crimes could be perpetrated by anti-Communist regime, and some of them could be even more hideous (e.g., Kazakh famine of 1930-1931 would occur almost inevitably in Fascist Russia (maybe, in different year), and it could have even more victims, though reasons of the crime would be entirely different).
Yes, I have read about Central Asian Uprising of 1916 and its bloody suppression. I thought namely about it, as an example of possible Fascist Russian policies towards minorities.I don't expect any Westerner to be aware of "Kyrgiz Mutiny of 1916", but have you heard about it and about Russian settlers' actions? Those guys could give Wild West and "good Injun is dead Injun" attitude a run for their money.
The increase of life expectancy comes with the increase of food and its quality, living standards and conditions(such as heated water or electricity), less pollution and so on. All of which suffered during Soviet occupation.So, I think it's now obvious that health situation in East-Central Europe has improved since fall of Communist regimes. But how much of this improvement was caused simply by progress of medicine? Do we have any reasons to think that surviving dictatorships would deprive their citizens of fruits of this progress, so as to intentionally prevent life expectancy increasing?
Depends on the country you choose to view. The data presented was a bit outdated being six years old.Canadian Hoose wrote, reasonably enough, that while the Socialist system was losing, the liberated Eastern Europeans didn't decrease their handicap compared to Western Europeans
I think this is the best result since centuries, before WW2 Polish standard was 1/3 of German.Poland’s per capita GDP, taking into account the purchasing power of a currency, amounted to 57.5% on EU average in Poland in 2008. It was the first time Poland managed to reach half of the living standard of Germany, compared to one-third 12 years ago.
The chart shows that expactancy grew by approx. 1.5 yr/decade in Poland versus approx 2.2 in Germany during Communist regime, by 2 years/decade after 1990. So yes, some improvement here (one area I fully credit end of Cold War for is increased availability of the modern drugs). Countries of ComBloc weren't exactly pillars of modern drug industry (I'm being charitable here) before they fell under USSR influence (except GDR, so they naturally became ComEcon's pharmaceutical giant), and being cut off from world market didn't help.The charts go back to 1950-there was no radical medical revolution in the 90s that would explain this.
Newer version (up to and including 2006) is available at Msddison's website http://www.ggdc.net/maddison/ Feel free to take a look.Depends on the country you choose to view. The data presented was a bit outdated being six years old.
You know, given a choice between Dutch prof and Polish (or any other x-ComEcon, for this matter) chest-thumping promotional magazine, I'll believe the prof.
You would be surprised. 1938 ratio is 0.49. And, according to the same source, 2006 ratio is 0.42I think this is the best result since centuries, before WW2 Polish standard was 1/3 of German.
You can take a look yourself. As I said, 1960-1980 is more or less in sync within 10% with pre-war data (underdeveloped Romania and Bulgaria won big time, developed Czechoslovakia somewhat lost).Also CG started from Soviet period-but ignored how it looked before Soviet occupation, compared to Western Europe.
Because they were. By Autumn 1918 Reds controlled less soil than Grand Duchy of Muscovy used to 4 centuries before that.