…that I cannot find an ounce of evidence to support
I’m doing yet another deep dive on Soviet history during the Stalin years (I’m an ML in a trot org and want receipts) and this statement perfectly encapsulates how fucking frustrating it all is. Even revisionist school historians, who tend to be more reasonable, cite Hoover Institution ghouls for like half of their sources.
Like I’ll read a chapter describing how bad something was. I make notes of anything sourced from the Soviet Archives or other firsthand accounts, cross out anything citing Robert Conquest and the like (or often just unsourced claims or “we don’t have evidence but it was probably blah”). And what I’m left with is a skeleton of facts that don’t really point one way or another. The narrative “skin and muscle” constructed around this skeleton more often than not just seems to corroborate the author’s pre-existing beliefs. I could just as easily invent a believable counter-narrative (which is what less-scrupulous authors have done), but it ultimately doesn’t prove anything.
In my experience they’ll usually have a retort for that with some bullshit about “authoritarianism” and how the Soviets were forcing the population to work focused only upon the will of the party. It doesn’t make sense of course, but it doesnt have to, it only has to fit with the narrative they already believe.
Fundamentally, a lot of people believe deep down in their heart that a mustached patriarch yelling at you to work harder is the best and most efficient way to run any given enterprise. If you have this assumption, then the only method that the Soviets had available to them to outcompete the “free” west was by yelling louder and forcing everyone to work harder than we were at the same time period (which flies in the face of facts about Soviet vacation days, job security, and so on, but facts are subordinate to feelings for most people most of the time).
Fundamentally, a lot of people believe deep down in their heart that a mustached patriot yelling at you to work harder is the best and most efficient way to run an enterprise.
I sell newspapers constantly because I’m trapped in a Trotskyite cult where comrades (white college students) criticize me mercilessly for having a flag from the USSR (degenerate workers state)
They won’t let me order vegan pizza anymore because the phone is Stalinist and “summoning my pizza slaves with a bureaucratic app" is “bad vibes”
There was a really good post on r/history from like 10 years ago about the Nazi efficiency myth and how much more effective the Soviet army over time. The emphasis was that the Soviets applied “scientific socialism” to their strategy and tactics and would pore over results of battles and incursions making constant adjustments to avoid prior mistakes.
Edit: I don’t remember if logistics were specifically mentioned but one assumes that planning would improve as the war went on.
The Soviets during WWII used planned obsolescence based on existing combat data. If a T-34’s average lifespan was 6 months (dropping to less than 24 hours when in actual combat), there was no need to make an engine that would last decades. It was all going to be stripped down later anyways or salvaged from wrecks.
This allowed them to build more quicker with lower tolerances and maintain a strong wartime economy. Remember, they were having to rip up railroad lines to get more steel. Operation Barbarossa was much sooner than they anticipated.
The Germans, in contrast, were overspending on their tanks in both labor and money. They thought quality was better than quantity, except it resulted in tanks that were still one-shot by Soviet tanks while German shells bounced off. Because of obsolescence, the Soviets were quicker to update and adapt. Meanwhile, German tanks would fall behind as production got clogged up with wunderwaffe ideas.
Logistics was a whole other problem for a variety of reasons. For one, the Germans kept running out of oil. They famously abandoned fully functional vehicles in North Africa simply because they ran out of gas during their retreat (which were promptly captured and studied by the Allies). Tiger tank transmissions would give out after 100 miles, meaning they had to be railroaded to the front…also a problem because of Allied bombing and resources diverted to the Holocaust.
One way ideology would impact German logistics was their refusal to believe they were being beaten by untermensch. Soviet partisans would raid a convoy, wiping out a platoon of Germans. The Germans thought only a barbarian horde could wipe out the mighty German, so obviously that’s where the Red Army is positioned! They’d send a force of matching size to go look for this horde out in the woods. Except it was just a dozen locals with old bolt actions. Then the real Red Army was able to overrun German positions which were now understaffed.
I’m doing yet another deep dive on Soviet history during the Stalin years (I’m an ML in a trot org and want receipts) and this statement perfectly encapsulates how fucking frustrating it all is. Even revisionist school historians, who tend to be more reasonable, cite Hoover Institution ghouls for like half of their sources.
Like I’ll read a chapter describing how bad something was. I make notes of anything sourced from the Soviet Archives or other firsthand accounts, cross out anything citing Robert Conquest and the like (or often just unsourced claims or “we don’t have evidence but it was probably blah”). And what I’m left with is a skeleton of facts that don’t really point one way or another. The narrative “skin and muscle” constructed around this skeleton more often than not just seems to corroborate the author’s pre-existing beliefs. I could just as easily invent a believable counter-narrative (which is what less-scrupulous authors have done), but it ultimately doesn’t prove anything.
No one ever really answers the question “if they were so bad at everything and starving, how did they compete with us in a space race and a Cold War?”
In my experience they’ll usually have a retort for that with some bullshit about “authoritarianism” and how the Soviets were forcing the population to work focused only upon the will of the party. It doesn’t make sense of course, but it doesnt have to, it only has to fit with the narrative they already believe.
Fundamentally, a lot of people believe deep down in their heart that a mustached patriarch yelling at you to work harder is the best and most efficient way to run any given enterprise. If you have this assumption, then the only method that the Soviets had available to them to outcompete the “free” west was by yelling louder and forcing everyone to work harder than we were at the same time period (which flies in the face of facts about Soviet vacation days, job security, and so on, but facts are subordinate to feelings for most people most of the time).
Everyone yearns for a J. Jonah Jameson
It has always been cope
Nowadays these same people are busy coping about China
“Our enemies are weak and incompetent. They are also an existential threat to not only our way of life but the entire world.”
it’s almost like there’s some kind of “continuous shifting of rhetorical focus”
how many newspapers a week does your trotskyite org make you sell?
I sell newspapers constantly because I’m trapped in a Trotskyite cult where comrades (white college students) criticize me mercilessly for having a flag from the USSR (degenerate workers state)
They won’t let me order vegan pizza anymore because the phone is Stalinist and “summoning my pizza slaves with a bureaucratic app" is “bad vibes”
There was a really good post on r/history from like 10 years ago about the Nazi efficiency myth and how much more effective the Soviet army over time. The emphasis was that the Soviets applied “scientific socialism” to their strategy and tactics and would pore over results of battles and incursions making constant adjustments to avoid prior mistakes.
Edit: I don’t remember if logistics were specifically mentioned but one assumes that planning would improve as the war went on.
The Soviets during WWII used planned obsolescence based on existing combat data. If a T-34’s average lifespan was 6 months (dropping to less than 24 hours when in actual combat), there was no need to make an engine that would last decades. It was all going to be stripped down later anyways or salvaged from wrecks.
This allowed them to build more quicker with lower tolerances and maintain a strong wartime economy. Remember, they were having to rip up railroad lines to get more steel. Operation Barbarossa was much sooner than they anticipated.
The Germans, in contrast, were overspending on their tanks in both labor and money. They thought quality was better than quantity, except it resulted in tanks that were still one-shot by Soviet tanks while German shells bounced off. Because of obsolescence, the Soviets were quicker to update and adapt. Meanwhile, German tanks would fall behind as production got clogged up with wunderwaffe ideas.
Logistics was a whole other problem for a variety of reasons. For one, the Germans kept running out of oil. They famously abandoned fully functional vehicles in North Africa simply because they ran out of gas during their retreat (which were promptly captured and studied by the Allies). Tiger tank transmissions would give out after 100 miles, meaning they had to be railroaded to the front…also a problem because of Allied bombing and resources diverted to the Holocaust.
One way ideology would impact German logistics was their refusal to believe they were being beaten by untermensch. Soviet partisans would raid a convoy, wiping out a platoon of Germans. The Germans thought only a barbarian horde could wipe out the mighty German, so obviously that’s where the Red Army is positioned! They’d send a force of matching size to go look for this horde out in the woods. Except it was just a dozen locals with old bolt actions. Then the real Red Army was able to overrun German positions which were now understaffed.
By necessity, it would have to.
Seems to be a running theme of Soviet history from a western perspective