Fascist Russia in WWII?

Give me something more measurable and less affected by propaganda. Life expectancy is good (if you can prove it). How about GDP per capita?
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).
Because they were. By Autumn 1918 Reds controlled less soil than Grand Duchy of Muscovy used to 4 centuries before that.
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.
 
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).
Take a look at this: http://www.ggdc.net/Maddison/Historical_Statistics/horizontal-file_03-2007.xls

I do have my doubts regarding this source (for example, how did they calculate GDP per capita in each and every pre-1991 Soviet republic is beyond me), but this is so far only consolidated source I could find, which presumably uses same methods to calculate data for each and every country. Comparing 1989 and 2003 you might see that Eastern Europe as a whole actually slightly lost to Western Europe (EE/WE in 1989 is higher than EE/WE in 2003). For Poland, the ratio was 0.3585 in 1989 and 0.3854 in 2003. By the way, those ratios were within 0.4-05 range in 1960s and 1970s, meaning that Socialist system was losing, but Eastern Europe didn't gain much from it's newfound freedom economically.
 
Take a look at this
Why not look at this:

Life expectancy in countries freed from Soviet occupation:

Poland
http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/indicator_d ... rID=18#row
Life expectancy:
1980-70.9
1990-70.9
2000-72.8

Czech Republic:

http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/indicato...indicatorid=18
1980-70.6
1990-71.4
2000-74.3
http://polisci.lsa.umich.edu/documents/jjackson/chapt1.pdf

polandgdp.JPG
 
Last edited:
Extrasolar Angel, it's weird, but both of us have actually found the same book (on different sites).
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?
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. Maybe, problem wasn't (and isn't) as much in the field of political regimes, as in the field of more far-reaching, deeply-rooted social backwardness?
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).
 
Last edited:
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).
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.
 
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.
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.
 
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?
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.
The charts go back to 1950-there was no radical medical revolution in the 90s that would explain this.
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
Depends on the country you choose to view. The data presented was a bit outdated being six years old.
http://www.polishmarket.com.pl/document/:20836?p=%2FEconomic+Monitor%2F

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.
I think this is the best result since centuries, before WW2 Polish standard was 1/3 of German.


Also CG started from Soviet period-but ignored how it looked before Soviet occupation, compared to Western Europe.
 
Last edited:
The charts go back to 1950-there was no radical medical revolution in the 90s that would explain this.
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.

Depends on the country you choose to view. The data presented was a bit outdated being six years old.
Newer version (up to and including 2006) is available at Msddison's website http://www.ggdc.net/maddison/ Feel free to take a look.
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.
I think this is the best result since centuries, before WW2 Polish standard was 1/3 of German.
You would be surprised. 1938 ratio is 0.49. And, according to the same source, 2006 ratio is 0.42
Also CG started from Soviet period-but ignored how it looked before Soviet occupation, compared to Western Europe.
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).
 
Last edited:
Speaking about OP's idea, I don't think that WWII alliance between fascist Russia and Nazi Germany is too likely. Russian fascism could grow into force big enough to control the country (as opposed to minority fascist organizations/parties, which could pop up from number of different groups) from 2 potential sources: either populist movement with strong agrarian streak (I'm thinking about Right SRs here, given the opportunity and enough time they could easily repeat Mussolini's treck from socialism) or unholy alliance between army rightists and Black Hundred elements (neither were strong enough to rule by themselves, but their alliance could do it). Both groups shared strong distaste for Germans. Besides, you need to to tango and there was this "Lebensraum" thing on German side. Even if Russian fascists were ideological brothers, they still ruled the land which Allmighty destined to Germans, according to Hitler. Close co-operation against Poland is very likely (however, would Poland be smart enough not to lay claim on lands East of Curzon line, there're no reasons for deep hostility between it and Russia, contrary to popular Western delusions Russian thinking was somewhat along the lines of "to rule Poland is like shearing a pig - lots of noise, little wool"), but after that there're little reasons for mutual love (I still believe in ability of British and French diplomacy to do their best to alienate Russia and to push it into alliance with Hitler, given right circumstances).
 
Because they were. By Autumn 1918 Reds controlled less soil than Grand Duchy of Muscovy used to 4 centuries before that.

There were hardly a government, tho. They were a coalition of different armies and leaders, and tho there was some sort of theoretical unity, their actual areas of command did not function as any real part of a confederacy

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Top