Was Russia Destined to Become a Superpower?

umm... were talking about prussia here;
no matter what you think they were some stone cold hard ass mother fuckin killing machines.

and they proved it again and again

These the same guys who needed Tsar Peter III to save them from Frederick's war, got slapped around by Napoleon, and whose system emulated by united Germany led Germany to two epic failures in 20th Century warfare? :rolleyes:
 
These the same guys who needed Tsar Peter III to save them from Frederick's war, got slapped around by Napoleon, and whose system emulated by united Germany led Germany to two epic failures in 20th Century warfare? :rolleyes:

To be fair, I think it was literally logistically impossible for Germany to win World War 2, regardless of how well they did pretty much, and they already had insane luck in OTL to begin with.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Does that make the OTL Northeastern and Great Lakes states it's ATL European Russia? I'm down with that. :p

No, it makes the USA as the European Russia. The Great Lakes area is more like the industrial region near Stalingrad combined with the industrial region of the Eastern Ukraine. Baku is similar to Texas.
 

Nietzsche

Banned
umm... were talking about prussia here;
no matter what you think they were some stone cold hard ass mother fuckin killing machines.

and they proved it again and again
Alright. I'm first & foremost the banner-bearer of Prussia here. I worship Saint Bismarck and pray at the altar of Frederick the Great. And I think this is going too far.

The Prussian army, while undeniably good at many points, was also an abject failure in others. Pound for pound, yes, it was one of the best fighting forces in Europe...at certain periods.

The army that took Silesia from the Hapsburgs, was routed at Jena, turned the tide of Waterloo and defeated France in 1870 are all four different armies, under different leadership.

Prussia survived through unnatural luck, cunning, and yes, at times, being the best of the best on the field of battle. But it was primarily the first two that kept them from being broken by her neighbors.

Are you for real? These guys spent the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars being slapped by anyone who looked at them.

Indeed. Jena and Auerstadt are master curbstomp battles........:D:cool:
I hate agreeing with this. Where's my whiskey...
 
Canada is very much a great power. It's the second most powerful state on either American continent. .

Maybe Canada is more powerful than Brazil. Maaaybe...

As for the comment that being big doesn't matter because Brazil and India aren't superpower, I would venture to say that they are destined to be superpowers, (or "great powers", whatever you want to call it their going to be very important countries) just like Russia was. Keep in mind India has been a country for less than 100 years. It's size and population did contribute to the growth of another super power though. So, I think size does matter.

Size (and resources) + Population + Democracy + Capitalism

Brazil has it all. Canada is a little lacking in people. It is still a powerful country, and having a small population with everything else does make for a great life for the people who live there. Canada has the best shot at stability in the QOL of it's residents of any country on earth. But is it the 2nd most powerful country in the Americas? Maybe, but not for long.

Sorry for the detour. Yes, Russia is destined to become a superpower because it is huge. The end.
 
This has not. Canada is very much a great power. It's the second most powerful state on either American continent. The problem is that its southern neighbor is the United fucking States. It never has to really deal with a problem because of that, and in conflicts of interest between the two respective states, Canada has always held firm her stance and alot of times wins.
Canada isn't a great power. It's not. It's a power, and it is modern, but no....
 
umm... were talking about prussia here;
no matter what you think they were some stone cold hard ass mother fuckin killing machines.
Machines yes, but the Army of Frederick the Great was actually rather subpar when it came to being stone cold and hardassed (being soldiers motherfucking was kinda implied, along with maiden fucking). It was noted that while they were remarkable in terms of firing speed and formation fighting when it came to the bayonet Prussian infantry had no taste for cold steel and took the worst of those exchanges.

Also pay attention to everything else that was said above.
 
Size + population + resources? In that instance Nigeria should be a super power: 1 million sq km, 170 million people (17% of the continents GDP), etc. Resources: thet nearly have one of each

...But I am not claiming Nigeria to be up there.

There must be more to the definition of "great power". Maybe if we define that first?

I shall be putting my thinking cap on, which gives me a headache of course.

Any other having a go at a definition?

Ivan
 

Nietzsche

Banned
Machines yes, but the Army of Frederick the Great was actually rather subpar when it came to being stone cold and hardassed (being soldiers motherfucking was kinda implied, along with maiden fucking). It was noted that while they were remarkable in terms of firing speed and formation fighting when it came to the bayonet Prussian infantry had no taste for cold steel and took the worst of those exchanges.

Also pay attention to everything else that was said above.
This here. You did, however, forget one aspect. Prussian artillery tended to be superior during Frederick's time, if only because he was taking lessons straight from Gustav. But yes, the Prussian soldier had no taste for close combat, which is why, if you look, Frederick would only engage if he could make sure most of the enemy would be dead before they reached Prussian lines.

Didn't always work, but a good rule of thumb.

Size + population + resources? In that instance Nigeria should be a super power: 1 million sq km, 170 million people (17% of the continents GDP), etc. Resources: thet nearly have one of each

...But I am not claiming Nigeria to be up there.

There must be more to the definition of "great power". Maybe if we define that first?

I shall be putting my thinking cap on, which gives me a headache of course.

Any other having a go at a definition?

Ivan
Nigeria has no infrastructure.
 
Size + population + resources? In that instance Nigeria should be a super power: 1 million sq km, 170 million people (17% of the continents GDP), etc. Resources: thet nearly have one of each

...But I am not claiming Nigeria to be up there.

There must be more to the definition of "great power". Maybe if we define that first?

I shall be putting my thinking cap on, which gives me a headache of course.

Any other having a go at a definition?

Ivan
Im not really sure Nigeria counts on the size front which was what was really up for debate earlier. Its impressively populated yes, but its not exactly 'huge' in terms of land area.
 
In a way, yes. Alexis de Tocqueville and Friedrich Nietzsche both forecast the rise of Russia and the United States as the two dominant world powers in the 19th century.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
Yes, it was. Germany tends to be counted a military great power despite not winning any wars outside of the continent of Africa since 1870, Russia gets counted as one despite losing only three modern wars: 1914 and 1920, and 1979. Having economic problems or stagnation certainly doesn't disqualify states, if that were so Britain ceased to be a Great Power around the period of Relative Decline.
You forgot 1905.:D

To the point: a stable Russia will always be a Great Power. I doubt the Romanov cluster fuck would have been very stable if it survived. Think a Mega version of Mubarak's Egypt, or Iran under the Shahs.
 
So, can we define infrastructure in this context?

Level of industrialisation? -> heavy industry or informal sector?
Rich vs poor? GDP per capita?

what defines a super-power or at least a great power?

I will bet we can always find exceptions and fringe countries (like my Nigeria I chucked in the pot).

Was USSR ever a super-power then? economy was not great but military power was. Japan the opposite.

Definitions, pleasse

Ivan
 
Population is a defining factor, that's why Canada isn't a Great Power but more like a Middle Power. In the Americas there are maybe two or three countries that can stand up to her in many areas (not counting the US).

Quality of life is not defining, it's more abour foreign policy. Obviously though, industrial capacity and military make for a stronger foreign policy.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Size + population + resources? In that instance Nigeria should be a super power: 1 million sq km, 170 million people (17% of the continents GDP), etc. Resources: thet nearly have one of each

...But I am not claiming Nigeria to be up there.

There must be more to the definition of "great power". Maybe if we define that first?

I shall be putting my thinking cap on, which gives me a headache of course.

Any other having a go at a definition?

Ivan

Nigeria lacks an unified ethnic group at its corp. If it had 100 million of the XXX tribe as it core, it would come a lot closer. It is also a lot smaller than Tsarist Russia or the Soviet Union, so to get a better example, Nigeria proper would be 100% of the XXX tribe and Nigeria would control the entire Sahara and North Africa. This state would have a good chance of great/super power status.

As to definitions, superpower is used for one of two major powers, in a two power world. A Great Power just means a major regional power. India today is as strong as Austria-Hungary.
 

Andre27

Banned
Yes. Any state covering the areas Russia did, with a suitable population, is destined for super-powerdom. Stalin sped the process up.

Or slowed it down. AFAIK none of the so called 5-year plans for the development actually worked.

Stalin got lucky WW2 started.
 
A Great Power, almost certainly. By the late 1800's Russia had the combination of population, geographical size, industrial capacity, and an educated elite to be counted among the top tier.

A Superpower? not necessarily if by that you mean a nation that is so powerful that it's ability to exercise power in its sphere of interest is not limited by any conceivable alliance of lesser regional powers. Imperial Russia was certainly so limited. Even in the height of the Cold War, it is arguable that the USSR never was a true superpower in the same way the USA was and is. But it came close.
 
Top