WI: No farm collectivization in the Soviet Union

abc123

Banned
Yeah, GULAG camp in Kolyma is better than a kolkhoz :) Guys, I'm sorry but you almost torture me into being sarcastic.

There are forced labours and forced labours.
In my country after communism was installed there were a lot of forced labour, but allmost nobody died during that labour.
The one thing is labour, and completely another when the labour is just a by-product of killing someone.;)
 
Last edited:

Old Airman

Banned
There are forced labours and forced labours.
In my country after communism was installed there were a lot of forced labour, but allmost nobody died during that labour.;)
Man, you`ve beaten me in a pulp. I was trying to win a title of `` Most heartless AH member`` by carefully and methodically comparing human cost of collectivization and alternatives, and you go to all-out forcing labour as an alternative :) Seriously speaking, ANY kolkhoz is better than forced labour camp. Ppl tend to equate collectivization and Holodomor. But, although latter was direct result of former, it was an unintended consequence, not the purpose of the deal (I think that this whole filthy ``Stalin did Holodomor to kill Ukrainians`` business belongs in the same hall of shame as blood libel). Ppl lived in their own homes, with their families, were allowed to keep animals (cows, goats, fowl etc.) and veggie patches big enough to supply tatters, cabbage and beets for whole year. Not a luxurios living, mind you, but beats forced labour camp, even relatively benevolent one, hands down.
 

Typo

Banned
Wait, purge and collectivization are distinctly different events. We were talking about latter. And purge COULD happen in a world without collectivization. Speaking about "avoiding the destruction",
This is why I specifically pointed to a POD with Stalin losing out against Bukharin and the "right" Communist faction. the Purge, collevization were both Stalin's doing at the end of the day.
Soviets actually did in 1941 at par with French and British in 1940, who had both industrial capacity and highly skilled personnel. So, how would same people fight better with worse equipment at their disposal. Don't overestimate the impact of "the memory of Holodomor". An average Soviet grunt was 10 yo during Holodomor, and average fighter pilot or company commander - 15 yo. With heavy brainwashing they were subjected to in those 10 years by the totalitarian regime, they were not antisoviet, to put it mildly.
If I remember correctly, Soviets produced several times the amount of their pre-war production during WWII. So, a bit smaller losses (I'm cutting you some slack here, assuming they will be smaller) are almost irrelevant, if the trade-of iss lack of facilities to produce stuff.
I don't understand what the "memory of Holodomor" or "brainwashing" has to do with what we are discussing, but the Red army was a far better one than the French or British one, having a mobile warfare proponent as its leader and officers who had trained with their German counterparts, and capable of doing far better than the Anglo-French against Germany before the purges. So the losses are not going to be "a bit smaller", the difference would be pretty huge actually.
We're going deeper into ASB territory with every passing second. Now, not having collectivization means that average Soviet soldier has as much capacity as 5 Americans. I mean, US Army felt the need to create numerical superiority for assaults, and you think that Red Army would not need it (end sarcasm). Get real, buddy.
I feel that you are just strawmanning, never did I ever claim that "average Soviet soldier has as much capacity as 5 Americans.".
 

abc123

Banned
Man, you`ve beaten me in a pulp. I was trying to win a title of `` Most heartless AH member`` by carefully and methodically comparing human cost of collectivization and alternatives, and you go to all-out forcing labour as an alternative :) Seriously speaking, ANY kolkhoz is better than forced labour camp. Ppl tend to equate collectivization and Holodomor. But, although latter was direct result of former, it was an unintended consequence, not the purpose of the deal (I think that this whole filthy ``Stalin did Holodomor to kill Ukrainians`` business belongs in the same hall of shame as blood libel). Ppl lived in their own homes, with their families, were allowed to keep animals (cows, goats, fowl etc.) and veggie patches big enough to supply tatters, cabbage and beets for whole year. Not a luxurios living, mind you, but beats forced labour camp, even relatively benevolent one, hands down.

I wasn't reffering on Gulags and Kolyma, I was refferyng of forced labor like: Evrey weekend/sommer young people go and work for free for State. They ( maybe ) get some food there. Making something, roads, railways, canals, dams... Not Gulag type.

;)
 

Old Airman

Banned
This is why I specifically pointed to a POD with Stalin losing out against Bukharin and the "right" Communist faction. the Purge, collevization were both Stalin's doing at the end of the day.
There's no magic ball to look into and read Bukharin's mind. "No Stalin" does not mean "no purge". Actually, each really big revolution I can think of had it's period of post-revolutionary purges among former "comrades in arms". "Revolution feeds on it's children", remember? French Thermidor, British "Lord Protector" business, remember? So, I refuse to automatically assume "right commies" win will mean no purges. Actually, a lot of top army brass WERE Trotskyists, so they're almost as likely to be unhappy with Kolya as they were with Koba.

I don't understand what the "memory of Holodomor" or "brainwashing" has to do with what we are discussing
I thought that "Red advantage" you wee mentioning was increased loyalty to the state, not poisoned by collectivization memoirs. Other than that, I don't know what type of advantage you're talking about.

the Red army was a far better one than the French or British one
I'd love to see the world where your assumption were true, but our reality is more complicated than that. Pre-purge Red Army had a decent doctrine, half-decent officer corps (don't assume that Purges cleansed "the best and brightest", they mowed more or less indiscriminately), heavily poisoned by lessons of the Civil War (90% not applicable in "real" war) and barely literate conscripts and junior officers, operating a lot of new equipment (in it's turn, built by novice workers, i.e. none too reliable). All in all, I would put it in the same league as French and Brits.

officers who had trained with their German counterparts
Very small number of officers (several hundreds) actually went through German-run courses before Hitler's coming to power.

capable of doing far better than the Anglo-French against Germany before the purges.
Pre-purge performance of best Red Army units, fighting in Spain against Germans and Italians, could only be described as "adequate". Decent, but nothing outstanding.

I feel that you are just strawmanning, never did I ever claim that "average Soviet soldier has as much capacity as 5 Americans.".
Saying that Soviets didn't need massive superiority for their advances is equal to saying that Soviets are better than Americans, as Americans considered numerical superiority a prerequisite for any attack.
 
Top