I’ve been watching the channel’s videos for a few years now and David you have improved your presenting style over that time, not that there was anything much wrong to begin with. Thanks for the content 👍
Maybe after you finish with Myths about the Soviet Union you can dispel all the myths in general about The Cold War. It would be quite interesting. My compliments to all those who made this video a reality.
Yeah, I'd be down for that. One that's actually quite common is that it was purely NATO/SEATO VS Warsaw Pact/Comintern. There was actually a whole third faction, the Non-Aligned Movement, which was larger than either side and counted Egypt, Yugoslavia, and India among its founding members. In practice, each member leaned more towards one side or the other most of the time in often contradictory fashion (Yugoslavia tended to be more pro-Western despite being led by a communist regime after Tito and Stalin had a falling out, and both India and Egypt had close ties to the Soviets despite having nominally democratic governments), but they refused to join any of the mutual defense treaties that would've dragged them into World War III had the Cold War gone hot.
As a Russian, I can explain the “Hating Regime” thing. The truth is that most people didn’t hated it, they just either ignored it or didn’t care much. Most of the people just rolled with the time and was apolitical. A lot of people laughed at propaganda in their kitchens, creating jokes about politicians and the current state of the party. And in the 70’s most of the Soviet citizens just didn’t believe in the regime, but lived every day life, cuz it didn’t affected them much. That’s why, for the most part in the 90’s, people wasn’t apposed to the new Russian Federation, cuz, like, who give a crap, man.
@@ilikecheese4518 well, u actually can divide Putin’s reign into 2 parts. 1st part, from 2000-2008 was actually a really good times for Russia. Like yes, some shit was going on, but overall it was a free country and u could express ur opinion how u like it(Except if u were a NazBol radical or were critiquing Chechens, then sorry, into death or jail u go), a lot of business was open and a heaven for internet piracy and privacy (like no one would knock on ur door, if u post smth, somewhere).But overall it was good and free time. But the second part from 2011- till now is where the shit show start. There is a conspiracy that Putin was killed in 2004 or like in those years and sometimes u start to believe this, cuz what he started to do is just unexplained really. He start to shut free press, start to secure his position almost to his death (there is a legit law, that forbids to have any legal action against previous presidents). He started to sign a laws about internet regulations, like u easily can go to person for posting wrong post on the social media. A lot of power to the army and other armed forces in the country. Completely eliminated any kind of a fare elections and hearing from my parents and grandparents, what Soviet Union was like, I’m start to believe that Putin slowly want to put Russia back into soviet times in a way. Funny story to that, Putin never quit Soviet Party, he still has the document, that says he is in the Soviet Party. I think, that should explain a lot
Religion in the Soviet Union is quite an interesting topic, my ex's dad was a colonel in the Soviet army and thus a party member, and throughout his career he was a secret Orthodox Christian (an Old Believer to be precise) The whole family aparently celebrated Christmas in secret, istead of the officially sanctioned new year celebrations.
@@pizzapicante27 It was during the Soviet/Afghan war, so late Brehzhenv to Gorbachev era. I think it would have resulted in him getting kicked ot of the party and thus losing his job, since army officers had to be party members, I'm not sure if there would have been legal repurcussions.
@@pizzapicante27 I didn't live through the era, so I cannot give a definite answer. My interactions with the people who did live at that time suggest the following: If it was just Orthodox Christianity (not a sect, not Baptism/Protestantism), if the timeframe was 70s-80s, then at most it would mean problems at work (no promotion, maybe push to retire), public or non-public criticism. I.e. if he didn't try do defend himself, but just denied it, it would mostly be ignored if discovered. It would be different if you tried to defend yourself publicly or somebody was holding a grudge against you. Also keep in mind that freedom of worship was guarantied by Soviet constitutions, so no consequences, if you were not a party member.
There is a book, “Father Arseny, 1893-1973: Priest, Prisoner, Spiritual Father,” that describes situations like this. Many members of the Communist Party, in the Soviet Union, were secretly Orthodox Christians.
An old coworker of mine escaped from Poland during early WWII and eventually ended up in the USA. Years later he went back to Poland and met up with an old friend, now a local Communist Party official. Joe was surprised: "-but you were always such a good Catholic!" The friend said "As a Catholic, I am believing but not practicing. As a Communist, I am practicing but not believing."
Joe was an interesting guy: He was a pilot for the Polish Airforce before the Nazi/Soviet invasion. He jumped out the window of a multi-story building because he heard people storming up the stairs to arrest him. He knew if he stayed in Poland he wouldn't live very long, so he escaped Poland and flew in a Polish unit of the RAF against the Nazis. After the War, he didn't want to return to a communist Poland, so he eventually ended up in the USA. -he had a certain peacefulness about him: after all he'd been through early on, it was rare for something to happen that made him upset.
Joe was quite a guy! I worked with him just out of college: I was 20s, he was 60s. The things I heard! He was still a licensed pilot. A couple of times a year he’d rent a small plane and take it out for a while. One day he took off and was no more than a mile away from the airport and his engine died. All of a sudden, he found himself gliding down over a pretty densely packed suburban neighborhood: not a decent place to land in sight! He was down almost to the rooftops when a wingtip hooked a tree and he came spiraling down and crashed on this family’s front lawn. The homeowner came out and yelled “Oh my GOD!! Are you OK?!!!”. Joe said “I am fine! Can I use your phone?” -the man was completely indestructible! He loved to ski, and the last hint I have of him is that he was living with his daughter up in Vermont. If he’s still among us today, he’s about a Hundred. Given the life he’s lived, I wouldn’t count him out!
In regards to Myth #1, there was a rule at one point that a member of the Supreme Soviet or any of the Soviet councils could not keep their seat if less than 50% of their area voted in an election. As a result, if a local area did not like their CPSU representative in the Soviet council or Supreme Soviet, they could simply refuse to vote at all to get them replaced with a different candidate.
As my parents and grandparents who lived in the USSR say, refusing to vote was not exactly a wise decision. The government would appoint some incompetent apparatchik anyway, but polling station on the voting day was a place where you could get some useful and scarce goods either for free or at a significant discount. Local politicians deliberately used their power to stockpile some commodities to sell or give away on the voting day to gain people's favour.
In the mid 1980s I recall hearing a professor who taught Russian history say that whenever he visits the USSR he makes a point of going to church to see who is attending.
@@Americandragonrider333. then how comes that right-wing politicians engage in lobbying so often if corruption is left-wing? Hm, something doesn't fit in your worldview
It's a very strange "myth" to include that I can't imagine anyone but the most deranged tankie would ever say with confidence. I feel like there was a slightly ill-advised attempt at balance here by alternating between pro-soviet and anti-soviet myths.
@@Americandragonrider333. The very meaning of all leftist ideologies is CHANGE. Many of those rose as response to corruption and detachment appearing in status-quo (right-wing) institutions, like the church, monarchy or aristocracy. This is why leftists are so divergent even in one nation yet so cooperative internationally, while rightists are so low-friction inside the nation yet so militant against rightists from other countries - there are many ideas how to change a country which however can be shared with others, and there is one common history and tradition for a nation, which often incorporated conflict against others.
Russian Orthodox Church was subservient to the state since Middle Ages. Tzar was offical head of the Church, and Peter the Great reorganized it into stratified government service. After being kicked down a few notches in 20-es and 30-es, Church pretty much returned to it's role of serving whoever is on top.
Oh please. Tsar was _not_ an official head of the Church. State did interfere a lot with Church affairs, as was (and sometimes is) common for the Eastern Church -- at the same time Roman Church poked its nose into state affairs a lot. Peter I did subjugate the Church to the state administratively and this had caused much harm to the Church, but the Church was officially run by the "Holy Synode", consisting of bishops and influenced by emperor-nominated secretary.
There were quite often quite servile bishops within the Church, but at the same time there were always quite many in silent opposition. Of course, You will seldom hear of them because the public media in Russia almost always was (and is) state-controlled, and also because it is not considered a good thing to publically denounce what Your bishop says. Not even mentioning how much the current Patriarch is holding back his opinion and tolerating opposition -- even after so many years certain chronic (and very much public) denouncers are still at least formally members of clergy.
@@igorsmihailovs52 The Tsar was the head of the Orthodox Church. The Church reinforced his authority: Official Church doctrine stated that the Tsar was appointed by God. That's from the BBC, make your own mind up.
The (re)creator of Vatican state, Benito Mussolini was also a communist in WWI. He was expelled from the party due to his views on foreign affairs, not views on how Italian economy should work.
My best friend it's Czech and I'm friends with two Czech families. My parents spent a wonderful evening when I was growing up talking with these two families about the stereotypes we all had about each other growing up. My favorite was that Americans all lived in log houses. So one time, when one of our friends came ove, and we were fixing up our house, withhad some of the studs exposed, my dad showed our friend and said, "see we still live in log houses," everybody got to laugh.
Corruption was even depicted in state-approved artistic works. A lot of Arkadiy Raikin (a prominent soviet-era comedian) skits are precisely about that.
Kruschev asked General Kutasov if there was anything he needed, to which he replied that he needed a private apartment for his mistress, which he got with no problem.
Just wanna say, this channel helped me get an A in A-level History and I'm really grateful. Though I must say, watching your videos now, for fun, doesn't feel quite as fulfilling as when I would watch them at 3 in the morning as I fervently took notes for an essay that would be due the next day😂
On that last point, my grandfather who lives in Kharkiv worked in a juicer factory. He is very talented as an engineer and he even designed a new juicer machine. He submitted his design to the bosses who than asked him to join the communist party. After he said no his design was dismissed but he kept his job. Soon later, the same design was submitted by the boss who he submitted the design to and the guy got a promotion and even a medal. About bribery, my mother when she lived in the Ukrainian ssr worked at the market selling rugs and furniture. She told me that the only way to get anything done or any nice things was through bribery.
Pretty much. Also you could get some goods only in big cities. My grandfather used to tell me stories about how he would travel to Kharkiv just to buy some sausage and Georgian wine. Also fun lifehack about how you could get drunk almost for free. My grandfather and his friend, while they were in Kharkiv, used to go to some marketplace with the whole big row where Georgians sold their wine. And you could try a little bit of wine from every stall if you ask for it. But the row was pretty long, so by the time you reach the last stall you would be pretty wasted without even paying a ruble. And the secret was to buy one bottle from the last stall otherwise the Georgians will beat your ass.
"The myth holds that levels of corruption in the Soviet Union were very low to nonexistent. Often cited are the laws, regulations, and practices that forbid corruption." Gee, it's just like how in the United States, drug abuse doesn't exist because of federal regulations against it. Also, apparently Andropov and Gorbachev didn't spend half the '80s trying to root out a rampant corruption problem as their main priority. Great video!
False equivalence. by the time Andropov and Gorbachev came to do something, it was already too late. The whole system was falling apart & they knew it.
@@daytonjobgen8639 Didn't mean to imply that the Soviet system could have been saved at that point---I was just pointing out that "there was no corruption in the Soviet Union" is a weird take when the Soviets themselves admitted that the problem was very serious.
@@NicQuattromani Andropov and Gorbachev were of a reformist mind, and reformers tend to admit the flaws in the system, because they intend to fix them. Even Khrushchev was a reformer, hence de-Stalinization.
Under Lenin and until the 30s the USSR had a totally other election system where the workers elected their representatives out of their own rows. Anyone could become a delegate to the Soviet no matter if he or she is a party member or not.
@@BolshevikCarpetbagger1917it waxed and waned in intensity over time, but Russification has been a Soviet policy since the fall of the provisional government. Lenin may not have made Russian the national language, but he wasn’t happy to hear Ukrainian either.
A guest lecturer at my undergraduate college told his class about his experiences with “Blat” in the USSR. He was somehow one of the few American businessmen allowed to go to the USSR (why exactly I don’t know, I wasn’t in the class, just heard the story from friends who took the class). He rented an apartment in Moscow and had bought some furniture to be moved into it while he stayed in the Capitol for a year. On the day the movers came, they asked the man if he was an American. The lecturer told them yes, and the movers said “we don’t want you to pay us in money. Go to the international store, and buy us all some vodka there.” When he asked them why they didn’t just accept his money so they could go buy vodka on their own time, they replied “we can’t get the good vodka at our stores. The international stores have the premier vodka made for tourists and visitors from the west since you’re guests in our country. We want that. Our money is useless” (I should mention, it was about 1983 when the lecturer went to the USSR). So he went to the international store, bought them ten bottles of vodka, and then gave it to them as payment before they left. The movers just chilled in front of the apartment for a while apparently drinking and singing.
@@dabbasw31 yeah. It’s also kinda funny. It’s just extremely stereotypical in many ways (bad economy and alcoholism). Although, it does illustrate how the USSR did suffer from corruption. If that is happening on a micro-level, one can only imagine what happened at the upper levels of government
Sounds like a good time, glad the movers got a special treat... hopefully they survived the 90s and can get nice vodka now, not like days are much better in Russia now
The Soviet Union was not monolithic. Most Russians did not hate the Soviet Union, they were proud to be part of a great world power. In addition, the Soviet Union was still their empire. But most people in the Baltic countries did hate the Soviet Union (even those who were members of the Communist Party). I mean here the indigenous people, not the Russians who had moved there during the Soviet occupation. This so-called information bubble was not complete either, for example in northern Estonia it was possible to see Finnish television if you rebuilt your TV little bit.
@@MM22966If you analyzed America, would you talk about mass or separate racial and ethnic groups? White America, Asian America, African America, Latin America, Native American Indians
First time I heard of the myth that there was no corruption. I was born a soviet citizen and left the USSR when I was three years old, so most of the corruption I only got from stories my family told, but even when talking to other people in Germany or the internet about the USSR, it somehow always was taken fro granted, that the system was corrupt.
I think this is not a real myth more of a myth about the preconceptions people have for the soviet apologists. A myth that the tankies are so divorced from reality that they actually believe the myth that the USSR was not corrupt if you will.
@@FakeSchrodingersCat Dude, I can only assume you are kind of in a similar spot to where I was a couple of years ago, an anarchist who hates the USSR and calls anyone who doesn't also hate the USSR a tankie. Am I about on point?
@@anarchogarfieldist1652 Not really, I do dislike the USSR for a number of reasons but don't hate it at least not as a whole, individuals within it sure but as a nation it was just a somewhat corrupt totalitarian state similar to many others half of which claimed to be capitalist. I will even defend it against the people who ignorantly parrot Cold War era propaganda labeling it as the root of all evil. But I have just as little tolerance for those who dismiss it's very real flaws out of misplaced ideological zeal as those who strawman it as evil.
@@FakeSchrodingersCat That's reasonable. I think that it is a case study of what can happen to a revolution when the goal stops being revolution and becomes something more like a beurocrat state rather than a proper dictatorship of the Proletariat. I think there is a lot to be learned from both the mistakes and victories of the USSR, and also the material conditions that led to each.
2)One of the main reaons Tajikistan was formed because most of the money for the autonomous region didn't make it to its destination via Tashkent. Uzbekistan was pretty notorious. 4)Catholics in LT experienced a resurgence after Khruschev and started to promote Lithuanian language, among other things. An interesting trend across the Soviet Union is that Grandmothers often passed religion to their grandkids (past their kids), but the prevailing "wisdom" was that religion was something between you and God and not something you talk to others about. Even in the 80s there were a lot of persecution and myths however...friends told me how a party member who went to Easter was beaten in front of the school, and many heard the myth that Baptists eat babies.
@Agente Polaris The book I read was "The Birth of Tajikistan," which covered mostly the 1920s...according to the book, Tashkent was the dominant power in Central Asia and usually got their way, the exception being Osh being given to Kyrgyzstan as the borders were being drawn. Tajikistan was an autonomous oblast within the Uzbek SSR for about 5 years or more but according to the book as little as 25% of the money budgeted for Tajikistan was making it all the way to TJ through Tashkent, so Tajik leaders petitioned Moscow for their own Republic. Tajikistan is also interesting because Tajik identity was very much formed by the Soviet Union as an amalgam between Tajik speaking nomads in the mountains and "Sarts" (now a bad word for Uzbeks), who were Persian speaking city dwellers who were the majority in places like Khojand, Bukhara, and Samarkand. They also spoke Uzbek generally, and many of them were intellectual elites of both Pan-turkism and the Persian speaking world (also an interesting contradiction). These city folks created the Tajik language based on the mountain dialects, filling in gaps with their Persian knowledge. Many of these elites were later purged or fled, but unfortunately for the party, in the 20s very few people in Tajikistan (and Central Asia) could read and write, so many of these local elites were party members until suitable replacements could be found.
@lhpoetry：There is an interesting saying about Turks and Persia. The word Truk originally referred to Azerbaijan. In ancient times, Azerbaijanis and Persians lived together. Until today, Ali Khamenei, the leader of Iran, is an Azerbaijani.
@@可爱包-c4v: So one of the most fascinating and sad things pre-1900 is that before nationalism things were a lot more diverse linguistically and "ethnically"...well things still are ethnically (at least bloodwise) just a lot of people identify with one "nation" more frequently when before they didn't think of themselves that way. So definitely in the courts of the Khans of Central Asia and also the Mughals in India...and I assume in the middle east as well...you have this interesting mix of Persians, Turks, and Arabs (as well as Mongols) who are the elite...in India this is especially interesting as sometimes they would plot against each other on the basis of nationality or Sunni vs Shia but they were a huge minority among the Hindu population so they often worked together. But definitely, Tajiks didn't think of themselves as Tajik until the Soviet Union, although many of them were these Sarts who...were a mixed Persian/Turkish identity of sorts. Also, with the Turkic languages of Central Asia, I've observed that the languages, even with Soviet and Post-Soviet borders...don't really have definitive ending and beginning points geographically. Kazakh near the border sounds pretty close to Kyrgyz on the other side, and Kyrgyz in some regions near Uzbekistan also sounds a lot like Uzbek some times. (Well Kyrgyz and Kazakh identities were also separated by the Soviet Union, and people didn't generally think in those terms until they were put on their passport. It was nomads vs city. Sunni vs shia. This clan vs. that clan. (And that last one is still kinda true)
Another slight amendment I guess but because you guys are covering mostly the early cold war this might be the reason you omitted it. Near the end of the USSR they had at least 2 free and fair elections in the more western sense. They also had a referendum in for the new union treaty which despite obvious concerns for legitimacy from what I have read was a decent representation of will of the people that was only voided because of the August coup.
Yeah, if not for the August coup there probably still would be a Soviet Union. My speculation is that if there hadn't been the coup attempt, you'd have seen Soviet Dengism, pretty much, and a revival of the New Economic Policy. I'm not sure how much political liberalization may have happened, though.
@@browncoat697 No chance for that to happen. Why? Because the foundation of the USSR was already shaking too heavily. You can't build a successful country when your country is founded on a dozen of occupied independant countries with different languages, culture, traditions and a huge wish for a free, independant state.
Myth 3 - it depends on the generation. My family as an example. My grandma is Ukrainian. She was born in 1948, so the biggest part of life she spent in USSR. She says that she misses Soviet Union and she loved USSR. While my mom was born in 1975. My grandfather is Georgian, so she lives in both Ukraine and Georgia in different periods of her life. In 80s there was big crisis in USSR, so she has no good memories about Soviet times. She only remember that sometimes parents couldn't buy new shoes for her, although they have money. There just were no shoes in stores... When USSR was separated into many different states, borders were opened, and production from all over the world was allowed, so you could buy anything you needed. Of course, 90s period was hard for all republics, but 70-80s generation is glad to nowadays situation (mostly). While 40-60s generation miss USSR and think that life in USSR was better. P.S. I judge by my own family and people who I personally know or met in the Internet.
Both of my parents mostly miss the USSR. They're from Belarus but some with Ukrainian family. I don't get why the older generation will be more nostalgic while they've lived under stalin
@Lex Bright Raven word. whether it's capitalist or communist, the world is just a chess board for people in high power, and we ordinary citizens are just pawns. defending one ideology over the other is just stupid. and this ideology war has nothing to do with the rest of us.
No Lex it’s because they were being gaslit and lied to about the threats they faced. You know that there were older Germans who missed living in nazi Germany right? It’s for the same reasons.
@@mrb152 Stop using words. "Gaslighting" has lost all meaning lmao. And by your logic, Americans who say they live in a great country are themselves gaslit about the horrible late stage capitalist fascism that they're facing every day.
Who says the Soviet Union was free from corruption? I feel like thats as evident as the corruption seen in capitalist countries too. Are there Tankies seriously suggesting the USSR had no corruption? Its a common trope that the production commisar would fudge numbers to boost production quotas.
I've never heard anyone, Socialist or otherwise, try and claim ANY state is free of corruption. Man is not infallible and corruption is a contradiction that can arise both in Socialist or capitalist societies.
From my limited training on the subject, I think it is important to point out that there is a difference between “Worker” and “Peasant” in Soviet nomenclature. The peasants were traditionally assigned the role as sacrificial lamb, their back breaking labor used to fuel the expansion of industry and the conditions of the urban worker. I believe this was a pre-cold war policy, but something to note nonetheless.
In Marxist theory, the peasants are considered a non revolutionary class because their relationship to production is more similar to that of the petite bourgeoisie (self-ownership of productive property, but also self-exploitation of labor). Marx called them a "sack of potatoes" for this reason, and attributed the victory of Louis Napoleon in the French Second Republic to this reactionary tendency among the peasants. The goal of the Soviet leadership was to transform the vast peasant class of the USSR as it existed in the early 20s into an industrial proletariat that could operate as the vanguard of the revolution and eventually end class society. They vastly underestimated the scale and difficulty of the project, however.
Gorbachev visited the West in the 1980's and saw PCs already in wide use in nearly every enterprise. He realized that the USSR would need to use them to keep up with the West and also realized that in doing so, the Party could no longer hold a monopoly on the spread of information as it had managed to up to that point. There was no Internet as such, but the possibility that one could put an entire Solzhenitsyn novel on one floppy disc and disseminate it that way meant that the genie was out of the bottle for the CPSU.
He visited the West in 1985 and even by then, PCs were a normal part of business life. Heck, even my neighbor, an independent contractor in Flagstaff, AZ, used to pay me to do his bookkeeping entries on his home PC in 1985.
11:55 A Polish friend of mine told me that churches became places to gather and discuss all the bad aspects of the Soviet Union. 13:40 When East and West Germany united, the industrial workers suffered a severe drop in status. They had previously been praised as the backbone of the Soviet economy, whereas Western Germans valued academic pursuits and professional people far more than blue collar workers, who they basically looked down upon.
A lot of people could see through the propaganda, but those who did like the Soviet Union liked it because of the stability of one's standard of living (being guaranteed a home and food, where it existed) which is not guaranteed after capitalism took over due to market forces causing homelessness, etc. There was also the fact that their was more of a community spirit during the Soviet Union which fell apart after the fall of the union. Despite the many flaws of the Soviet Union, at the end of the day most people just want a home and a meal to go home to and a community where we belong.
Another problem is that Westerners seem to view it as a Black and White issue. It's possible for sombody to like some aspects of their government while disliking others. Everything is somewhat relative. Most people in my experience have mixed feelings about their governments. I know of few who have an uncritical love or un-nuanced hate for their nations
I'm from Bulgaria, which was technically not part of the Union, but was very much a part of the Eastern Block. I was born in the 90's, so I didn't live through that time, but my impression is that many people were reasonably satisfied with their lives. Obviously some people had their property taken away, were put on black lists, imprisoned or even murdered. But others came from poor rural areas, were provided with jobs and decent housing and lived in relative comfort. It helped that most didn't know what conditions on the other side of the curtain were like, so they couldn't compare. Then the 90's came along with a really, really bad depression. So, it's no surprise that many grew to miss the good old times. Nostalgia for the socialist period is still widespread today.
#2 and #5, seriously? How are these anywhere near common myths? Pretty much everyone I've encountered who is politically Left-of-Social-Democrat knows that the Soviet Union was a flawed, even if well-meaning, attempt at creating a socialist society. The most prevalent myth I've encountered about the Soviet Union is the notion that people were starving pretty much the whole time. Newsflash, they didn't. Post-Stalin, Soviet leaders would import food to make up for any failures of Soviet agriculture, and even during Stalin's time, famines were specific events, not an everyday reality.
“Well meaning”? How come genocide of Ukrainian peasants and millions in Gulag reconcile with this? #2 simply means you people simply don’t comprehend _how_ widespread corruption was
@@RHGM71 gulags were far better than any other prison in the entire world relative to their time. which is the most important thing to know as a foundation. they let you out early if you exceeded work quotas, you earned a food wage so better performance gave you better food, and later you earned a actual wage for any work you did in your prison. keep in mind the tsars gulags had USUAL death rates around 60%, the soviets at the worst points, i.e the GPW or famines, was 11%. and averaged in total around like 3%. comparable to modern prisons. so if you want murder factories. tsarist russia is where you can go to seethe over people you pretend to care about. knowing this it fails to be surprising the bolsheviks had such massive support after the revolution began isnt it? the famine in the ukraine was not intentional as multiple agri historians have confirmed. and no non agricultural historian actually can adequately prove due to lack of any evidence. the only mentions of intentional malice, come from the nazis.
t's crazy just how much propaganda we take in, it's as if we need something to be only the best/worst to even have an opinion. Same with North Korea: is it not enough that they had one ruling family for over 70 years, an authoritarian regime with nuclear weapons, etc.? Were the 'single mandated haircut', unicorn, and other wacky stories really necessary?
@@Brackert unless you teach critical thinking and logic in schools and universities it will continue. Not everyone has the mind to see how much they are fed a diet of propaganda and bs. It is up to those who can see the reality of the situation to fight through politics to win elections and then try to change the system from within.
@@nigeh5326 well as Garfield says, we too aren't inmune to propaganda. I honestly don't think critical thinking courses in an education system remotely similar to the current one will be any good, and the '"change the system from within" has been proven to be pretty much impossible; you absorb the logic of the system wether you like it or not. On that line I recommend the book 'Seeing like a State'
Propaganda of the kind we see regarding North Korea nowadays is mostly directed at people who don't necessarily have the best skills when it comes to critical thinking. A single google search shows that the hair cut myth is just that, a myth, as different sources seem to be unable to agree on whether or not people are forced to get the Kim Jong-un haircut or are forbidden from doing so. The unicorn story is a gross misrepresentation of a North Korean archeological discovery related to an ancient temple (or something like that, I don't remember) where someone riding a unicorn-like creature is described. This one is a little harder to directly disprove, because the false story is propagated through South Korean news sources, which are of course in Korean and reading the original North Korean documents requires knowledge of Korean, or use of a translator which people seem incapable of doing.
While I generally like this channel the poll in question is actually really unhelpful in the discussion of whether people loved or hated the USSR at the time to the point of uselessness. Having looked it up, people aged 18 and up were polled. Meaning a significant number of people polled were born long after the Soviet Union was already gone. One of the other questions asked was along the lines of “where did you learn about life in the USSR?” and 51% stated from parents or close people. Basically the poll says almost nothing about what people actually thought at the time.
Well, looking at Russian history those people have had it tough all through the ages. Whether it was people coming from the west or east to conquer you, the occasional brutal King, and the other hardships tossed in. All that added up makes the time after Stalin seem pretty nice, guess it’s all about perspective.
So rising economy in the 1950s isn’t a high bar? It’s like saying “america believed the 1950s was a prosperous period. What a low bar” ofc ppl like it during those times, because they were prospering. Although, america was racist while the USSR treated black ppl like ppl, so it may not be a good example.
@@iswitchedsidesforthiscat The Soviet Union under Stalin performed ethnic cleansing. That sounds pretty racist to me. And before the Soviet Union…. hundreds of years of monarchy where the royalty lived in golden palaces and did the usual wealthy crap, while the people starved to death. This is why the Red army and Lenin became so popular. Before communism, the bar was floor level for comparison in standard of living.
Great video! I think another very important point to remember regarding the myth that "everyone hated the Soviet Union" is that life in the Stalinist period would have been very different from that in Gorbachev's era. Soviet leaders were quite different from each other. So I think a lot of opinion would also depend on what period(s) one experienced.
I agree. There was probably 10x more people thinking of defecting under Stalin than under Brezhnev or Gorbachev. Khrushchev for a while at least was wildly cheered by the Soviet people (despite his own tyranny) because he ended Stalin's worst abuses and actually built up the USSR's technology. The Soviet Union was ALWAYS a corrupt, tyrannical state, but under Stalin it was close to Hell on earth for anyone who thought remotely different than what the ruling leaders felt (mostly Beria and Stalin himself).
Myth #5 The Who summed this up with their iconic song, "Wont Get fooled again". After singing 6 verses to the glory of the revolution, the final two lines of the song say: "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss" lol
Something worth noting about the diminishing perception of threat from the Russian Orthodox Church has to do with the fact that many of the high ranking clergy were in fact KGB agents or people who were controlled via methods of kompromat.
It’s amazing, that today - especially in the US, that a majority of people, now, do NOT know these facts about the Soviet Union. I grew up in the 1960’s-1970’s. Even at age 10, when I first discovered the world of Short Wave Radio [ and heard “Radio Moscow World Service “ in English], I was keenly aware of all this - WE were all taught it in school, we saw it on TV , and we heard all the adults discussing it. NOW, sadly, it looks like we [ the US] is moving slowly in that direction. Great video. - 📻🙂
If only the US would actually become a nice, multinational country with indigenous minority rights (African American SSR when?), with good art and music, with nostalgic aesthetics and with free healthcare and housing...
They had money but it was basically the equivalent of arcade tickets, as the country's real accounting was done through material balances, not hard currency, and money was only used to purchase retail consumer goods.
The "they didn't have money" myth is people who think just because they called themselves communist the soviet system had any connection to that ideology
@@Pheer777 I suspect I am more aware of what currency is then you are if you think any modern currency is hard in the normal uses of the word. The reason the USSR dealt in goods internationally rather then currency was simply because their currency was not accepted internationally. But that would be true for any country in the same circumstances since there is no actual inherent value in any modern currency except what we pretend it has. If everyone refused to deal in US dollars tomorrow they would still be used internally but international trade between the US and other countries would be commodity based just like it was with the Soviets throughout their existence.
Can you make an video about Soviet aid to developing countries? I'm studying the agricultural history of India. To my surprise, the Soviet Union gave India a lot of and comprehensive assistance. The same thing happened in Egypt and Cuba. There is no doubt that the Soviet Union has made a lot of help for world development
Indian here. Soviet "aid" wasn't free money. It was loans we had to pay back, just like China had to as well. Or it was a barter trade: we imported steel from Soviet Union and paid it back with vegetable exports. Which...turns out... still left us in a lot of debt to Soviet Union. Second highest after our debts to USA. America made us buy more US-made goods and Soviets sold us their used military jets and warships to clear up the debt.
@@christiannipales9937 on what basis? nothing about their account indicates that it's a china bot, and besides, everything they said in the comment is objectively true. I doubt that a china bot could write a nuanced and grammatically correct comment that is perfectly related to the subject matter of the channel and video
Michel Foucault once wrote: "Every educational system is a political means of maintaining or of modifying the appropriation of discourse, with the knowledge and the powers it carries with it"
I would apply that also to the media. Look at the USA where healthcare is popular with the majority but the news media such as Fox keep calling it free socialised healthcare when it is not free it’s just paid for by taxing everyone a little as in the UK and it’s hardly socialism when every leading country apart from the USA has a variation of it and conservative parties support it as well as left of centre parties.
@@lukemarshall5605 The guy you’re talking to is just using the logic of the quote and it’s whataboutism? You have no idea of “self-criticism” or applying logic at a consistent level.
10:04 I think narrator wanet to say until Gorbachiovs reforms tok place becouse the stagnation of 1978-1982 was coused becouse of extreme investments in living standarts and Afghan war,the only time living standarts in USSR got lower after 1947 were 1986.
Thank you, this is a very informative video. I often find discussions regarding the Soviet Union to be misconstrued or or otherwise unreliable. So I think such videos are very helpful sources of information
It was arguably worse than they say. The USSR is often romanticized nowadays, interestingly by right-wingers who love its law-and-order/authoritarian demeanor. Especially if you look at what the USSR did to Eastern Europe (East-Germany, Romania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, the Baltic states) it's easy to see that the USSR was a terrible force for a great number of people.
@@uschurch I disagree, at least if you only consider the west. In eastern Europe its a different matter perhaps. A lot of people in the west seem to hold the view that the USSR was some kind 1984 style totalitarian state where people were literally starving all the time. In general living standards were considerably higher than most of the world, except the west on average and certainly better for a lot of people who currently live in some post Soviet countries like Ukraine, Russia and central Asia. Government institutions were ultimately authoritarian and elitist, but there were some democratic institutions in some levels of society. As for Soviet interventions in eastern Europe, I can only agree that they were awful. What's less known is that the USA treated Latin American countries in a very similar way by using espionage, violent coups and sometimes outright invasion to undermine democratically elected governments that were ideologically undesirable for the US government. Just check out the Wikipedia page on "United States involvement in regime change in Latin America".
@Krause Ist Prolet 50's and 60's Western working class living cinditions trumped the Soviet ones. We're talking average people, not the bottom 10% that ironically You consider to represent all of the society. That's why people were fleeing to the West, not East apart from a few deranged commies.
@Krause Ist Prolet I am pretty sure that You're trying to talk about recent times and not the 50's and 60's when what we call neoliberalism didn't exist.
Not all Western Countries are the same when it comes to electoral systems, many use Proportional Representation whether it is a Party List system that is closed and everything in between to open, Mixed Member Proportionate (a combination of Single Member District plurality and Party List with the Party List correcting for the dis-proportionality of the Single Member District system), and Single Transferable Vote, and other uses Plurality/Majoritarian Single Member District Plurality, 2 Round Systems, Preferential/Ranked Choice Voting.
"they were elected by the members of the party" as if the members of the party had not been elected by the workers, and of course it was the workers themselves, it is so much historical revisionism that it gives me anxiety.
In short: The worker did not have in fact "control over the means of production"; as that was reserved to the state, which was dominated by the party, which in turn was not controlled by the people, but by a small elitist class. In addition, the country was heavily centralized instead of being what it set out to be - a decentralized union of councils. So the USSR was neither a Union, nor a Soviet, nor Socialist ;)
Nice video but how can you talk about the Soviet Union without talking about the gulag archipelago and all the literally millions murdered or starved to death mainly simply to keep the masses living in fear and total obedience to the government?
Dude. There are many more interesting books about the USSR than the archipelago. In addition, you will not find information about life in the post-Stalinist USSR in the archipelago.
@@jangrosek4334 I was referring to the system of gulags, not to a book. The system was always fear based, all the way into the 80’s. People had to be very careful what they even said on the phone because they would often be listened in on. Life during Soviet the Soviet Union was stark and drab even if marched along obediently and accepted the lack of freedom. Not to mention frequent lines and long waits for food and basic living supplies. The polls conducted post Soviet Union reflect people fondly remembering being young. At least they were young then and because if the iron curtain and constant propaganda, they didn’t know that life, overall, was far better in the west - well not until around the 1970’s when people who returned from trips to Europe started talking in secret and that began to realize they were trapped in an oppressive system.
Still better than economic stagnation entire existance, damn toilet paper was available from 70s and was luxurious since then, and you had to use newspapers instead, waiting your life for outdated car and limited fuel..
Where have you ever heard the myth that there was no corruption in the ussr? That’s one of the first things I would think of. If you were just using it as a storytelling device to ply a topic, that’s cool, but as far as most people think, def not a myth. Good show sir.
Surprisingly truthful analysis of Soviet reality. Didn’t expect thar level of objectivity from the westerner. But it’s Hruschev. As well as Harkov and Chehov.
@@adamsfusion You use “kh” because you copy French transliteration, which they introduced because in French “h” is silent. When you write Kharkov you pronounce it Karkov, while it’s Harkov. At the same time you perfectly well write Hodor when it comes to retarded servant of Bran Stark.
@@stischer47 you perfectly well write Hodor or Houston. If you write Khouston it would be as stupid as Kharkov. Sound [h] is the same in English and in Russian.
10:55 - Marxism is anticlerical but not necessarily anti-theist, in Anti-Dühring, Friedrich Engels criticizes heavily Dühring and one of the reason is that Dühring was a strong anti-theist who wanted to persecute religious people. Engels instead argued that religion would gradually disappear over time, that there was no need for persecution of religious people and that such policies would not work and are dangerous.
and he was right, western europe after decades of capitalism has lower religiosity than eastern europe, trying to suppress religion forcibly is pointless and counter productive, future communists should learn from this
I have so far loved EVERY thing you have done and both thank and applaud you for it. Could you perhaps do something on the relationship between the USSR and Vietnam and other South East Asian countries?
5:26 I read in an old Reader's Digest (1970's) describing the soviet political comic, Krokodil. The format sort of is like the Farside with some cartoons having a manager taking the corporate car to a "official trip" while in hunting attire. Another showed workers sleeping on the job or beinf drunk.
There's a lot of Krokodil caricatures and scans on the net, obviously, in russian sector. They used to mock lots of things: foreign mass culture, bureaucracy burying any fruitful initiative in papers, lazy youth, etc. But the funniest part was the "You can't invent it on purpose" part, featuring laughable quotes from official documents. For example, "I made a couple of bottles of moonshine (that was illegal both for sale and personal consumption, today you can make booze for yourself, but can't sell it) and went to my friend on the public bus, in the bus I was caught for riding without a ticktet with all my booze. I understood my guilt and from now on I will always buy tickets".
As a leftist, I really appreciate this video. Myths about the soviet union abound both on the right and the left from different angles and having some dry and sensible discourse on the subject is quite helpful
Re: Myth No. 4. Stalin's campaigns against religion may have been the most ferocious, but his successors weren't quite as benign as painted here. For all the positive impression that Khrushchev's "Thaw" created (often deliberately fostered with Western journalists), it also must be remembered that he initiated his own intense anti-religious campaign in 1958. Anti-religious propoganda rapidly escalated; thousands of atheist clubs were formed across the USSR. By 1964 he had closed 70% of all churches in the USSR. See particularly Dimitry V. Pospielovsky. A History of Soviet Atheism in Theory and Practice, and the Believer, vol 2: Soviet Anti-Religious Campaigns and Persecutions, St Martin's Press, New York (1988).
Soviet Union didn't fought religion. It fought the state/powergrabing institutes which was e.g. the church. After the church was "defeated" the communist party pretty much didn't care about who prays to who and what. Religious ceremonies were rather "ridiculed" in the face of modernization, progress and scientific breakthroughs, hence why it might sometimes look harsher than it really was. Nobody cared about your beliefs if you practiced it for yourself or in "groups of interest"
I find all this educational, When I was twelve-year-old I went on a field trip to the 1977 Soviet National Convention At the Los Angeles Convention Center.
Surprisingly, I've actually come across the, "Stalin only owned a pair of old boots and clothes when he died" argument before in other comment sections.
A really nice video - I cannot comment on the SU itself, but was a child in 80's in Hungary -> #1: Elections - here were elections too, but soviet style, as I recall my parents quite ignored, it has no significance for the larger pop., was considered a powerplay inside the state party; #2: Corruption - it was the integral part of life, in an economy with scarcity regarding some goods (although food was aplenty all the time) couldnt have been otherwise ... in case of such simple things, that you could secure some bananas for your family in stores, with some bribes or favours; #3: Hating the regime - Hell, no, for most Hungarians, as Hungary was labelled as the "happiest barrack of the Eastern Bloc", as I stated before, no food shortages, the information bubble did exist, as most people could not travel to the West, but could see, how harsher was life in the SU or in other comrade states (actually when that bubble was popped in the 70's and 80', as western tourists were allowed into the country, preeminently germans from both german countries, and people could see how the West was doing, then started the reslessness really growing here); #4: Religion - we had here the "TTT-system" which translates into english - "Forbidden, Tolerated, Encouraged"; religion was in the tolerated section, major christian branches were closely working with the government, priests were highly respected (if they "behaved"), no purges, etc., basically the state has a somewhat reserved neutral stance (I think they thought that religion will wither away in time - which actually did, as today's "true believers" are actually paying only lip service to the various churches, but living a completely secular lifestyle); #5: Worker's paradise - ofc it wasnt, but if you wanted to work you got some work ... unemployment was virtually non-existent, as it was called "unemployed within the gates" = meaning doing inefficient or no real work for payment ... but it meant basic needs were more or less secured ... like in case of the Maslow-pyramid - the 1st 3 steps - physiological/safety/belonging was pretty much secured, and these 3 steps are just enough for the most of the population to live a relatively happy live...
Very good. As always. Each of these myths deserves a show of its own. Just a little sidenote to the myth number 3 about people hating or not hating the Soviet Union. The claim there goes dangerously near to the notion as if there would have been a "Soviet people" - which there never was (as f. e. Gorbachev discovered to his surprise and dismay in the end of 80s) - because the levels of acceptance of the system very very different depending if one would ask a Russian, a representative of one of the 'titular' republics or for example someone belonging to a large minority who had now administrative entity in the Soviet Union at all (like Poles or Germans). One should not forget, that in its essence, Soviet Union was just another version of the Russian empire, which means, that yeah, of course they looked past it's problems and would say, that all things considered - SU was at least fine. At the same time the majority of other nations living there of course could enjoy the everyday moments of their lives, but were bitterly aware and constatly reminded, that they are living in a country, were everyone is equal, yet one nation is more equal than others, so that at least in the Baltic countries a version of the double talk, were some stories were told only in the family and close friends' circles, and another attitude was shown publicly, was a norm and majority of people knew all the time, that what's happening isn't right. At the same time propaganda functioned at least in that sense, that although people knew, that the Soviet reality is wrong, yet they didn't know what would be right. Which, I think, was pretty clever from the propaganndists point of view, as they surely must have known, that many things the official news outlets where bragging about, were just blatant lies.
>they are living in a country, were everyone is equal, yet one nation is more equal than others RSFSR (current day Russia) actually had lower living standarts than some of other Soviet republics. Baltic states or Georgia especially were always considered more prosperous than RSFSR. That was largely because of "affirmative action" policy (yes, USSR invented it before the West did). Central Soviet budget spent much more money on average resident of non-Russian Soviet republics than on avarege RSFSR resident. So USSR was not "Russians are more equal than anybody else" thing as most of the Westerners believe.
@@randomname359 It has nothing to do with living standards but with political power and the Stalinist nationalities politics which continued to the end of the USSR.
In fact, when the Soviet Union born, the modern national concept did not form. I think the Soviet Union is a failed attempt of Russians. Russia and India are soul mates. In ancient Europe, there was a powerful Kievan Rus ，She intermarried with the Byzantine Empire, and she died. After that, Russia with Rus and Byzantine blood was born, so he had a goal: to retrieve all the territory of Kievan Rus . At the same time, because he had the blood of Byzantine Empire, he thought he was the Christ of fate.
Russia tried to achieve its goals with communism, but he failed. The main reason is that the Soviet Union is too poor, so others don't want to believe that he is Christ, especially Ukraine.The Soviet Union is indeed a complex topic. What makes me happy is that some Russians who admit that the Soviet Union is a poor country still like the Soviet Union because of faith.
@@可爱包-c4v I hope you know that there was no state in history called "Kievan Rus"? The state you call "Kievan Rus" officially was called simply "Rus" as it was hundreds of years before Kiev became the capital and "central city" for about 100 years
No but its a common mistake. Most of what people associate with Marxism is actually from Lenin expanding upon and clarifying how one is to actually implement communism. Marx was too lazy couch surfing on colleague's goodwill and letting his family starve to bother finishing his work
@@austinaragon3110 leninism and marxism are distinct from eachother. idk what you mean when you say he was too lazy to write anything when that’s all he did, it was that most of his stuff couldn’t get published because of it’s content. you also like jontron and the quivering so your probably not that bright
@@sage1312 lol nice ad hominim. I don't like this guy so ill make fun of his entertainment. Yeah there're distinct but if you actually read what I said most people conflate the two and think that a lot of what Lennin did was actually orthodoxy Marxism as preached by Marx. The reality is Marx died a loser, where 4 of his children died malnourished and poorly provided for while he was a parasite to his more successful colleagues. He never finished organizing his work and beliefs, they were all scattershot and later communists had to gather and organize it into better and more thought out literature like Lenin did. He was a flop and his ideology is too as evident by more intelligent and harder working individuals who tried to implement his ideology also failing. But you seem to like Marxism so you wouldn't come to that conclusion because you're probably not that bright.
It is just a fact that a regime which lasts decades cannot do that without most of the people most of the time supporting it, at least tacitly.Something we should remember when talking about sundry ME regimes, or when talking about China. Sure it is "manufactured consent" (in Chomsky's phrase) - but as Chomsky points out, manufactured consent is hardly unknown in democracies. Especially, patriotism is something that is ridiculously easy to stir up and always supports those in power.
In Khrushchev Remembers which i read recently. Khrushchev recalls a incident where Stalin was cheating on his wife with the wife of another soviet official it caused his wife to take her own life. However the husband of the other women seemed to actually know about the affair but did nothing about due to it being Stalin. Not quite corruption but a abuse of power to say the least.
I have three complete Memoirs of Khrushchev. I will reread them and see if it exists. Before, because Khrushchev scolded China in his memoirs, I didn't read it all because I was angry. At least, as far as I know, there was no such thing
@@julianshepherd2038 Was the goal of WW1 to defend freedom? I honestly don't see what was the point of the conflict. I think most in the West recognized the irony of working with one oppressive regime to topple another. It is why the Cold War between the West and Soviet Union started before WW2 even ended.
@@julianshepherd2038 you can't be serious? The Soviet Union conspired with Nazis to divide up Europe and after the Nazis were defeated they occupied half of Europe for decades..... that's not what I call freedom
Please clarify what do You mean by "the opposition" which is "suppressed" by the Russian Orthodox Church. While certain bishops and (much more frequently) priests do openly align with Putin, the Church itself is not a totalitarian "vertical of power". There are also priests who openly align with opposition, although they are certainly less common because religious people are usually quite conservative. Oh, and vast majority of them are against any sort of revolution. Both because of Christian way of thinking and of historical experience.
As far as I am aware, only Albania under Enver Hoxha actually claimed to have eliminated religion, and even that is questionable. At Hoxha's funeral in 1985, a woman was seen crossing herself.
Whenever I see Hoxha, I wonder if the civilian possession of light guns under his regime was a failure of gun control or if he never bothered with it in the first place, unlike other communist regimes that were "gun free" except for criminals of certain relevance.
@@Neomalthusiano I mean under Hoxha from what I understand. Gun training was a thing mostly due to fear of invasion since Hoxha was so paranoid and believed even the warsaw countries were out to get him.
@@blackearl7891 Yes, but gun ownership in Albania was considered huge according to sources of the time. Even in other Soviet Republics, like Estonia, which had marksmanship in schools or some form of military service, that not correlates with the number of guns on private hands. Almost all weapons were in the hand of the state. As far as general sources go, Albanian guns were not weapons of war, but under powered civilian guns (.22 lr, light handguns and bolt action surpluses). Thus, as it may be possible they were issued by the state as a mean of deterrent, I don't think it was the case, since if they had all that power, they would be more dangerous for the communist dictatorship than against Yugoslavians or westerners.
@@Neomalthusiano from what I have read accounts from Albanians. They were supposed to know how to use, and disassemble ak47. Guns were stored in storage, and the average citizen has a mandatory time they were supposed to have been in the military similar to countries like sweden.
@@blackearl7891 This is actually quite common. Most countries where English is not an official language operate like this*. In Continental Europe before WWII, several countries also functioned this way. *However, as quotas decreased or remained the same over the years, people are unlikely to be obliged to actually serve if they don't want to. I believe this is the case even in Sweden.
There were 4 different eras of Soviet Union: 1917-1936 1937-1953 1954-1966 1967-1991 During each of those eras life of ordinary people in the Soviet Union was very-very different. To a degree when it wouldn't be an understatement to say, that applying the same analysis and drawing a single conclusion would be a total failure.
This + the regime and its terror varied between the USSR and every single soviet occupied country. The USSR itself, Ukraine and Poland faced the biggest brutality. But fore example Czechoslovakia experienced comparatively lesser brutality (altough people were worked to death, tortured to death, executed or imprisoned in quite some numbers), while Czechs and Slovaks were often shocked that people for example in Bulgaria openly joked about their government in public places, which would be a direct ticket to a prison back in Czechoslovakia. There was several different chapters and countries when and where reality was never identical, but the underlying fact is that it was ALWAYS an oppresive and brutal regime that wiped its ass with human rights and never gave a fuck about what it should have by its own definition.
@@vh5663 Interesting point of view. Especially for me, who was born, grown and lived in USSR for quite some time. But, of course, who will believe me -- son of ordinary people in the ordinary family? I'm not a historian, how could I possibly know what the life in USSR was?
@@andreylebedenko1260 Relax amigo, Im from Prague, my country, family and friends spent 40 years under the regime and my family have history with communists since 1917 (my great grandfather was in the czech legions), some of our family friends ended up in the camps after the war, many of the people I know spent decades being bullied by the regime to a degree they were forced to emigrate. I have a solid grasp of what it was like and I wasnt saying anything against what you said - there indeed was a number of chapters the USSR went through, altough I think there were just three main ones - pre Stalin era, Stalin era and post Stalin era.
@@vh5663 I feel for you and your family, but let me ask you one question. Could your history and history of your family be somehow linked to the struggle socialism came through while fighting against capitalist forces (internal AND external ones)? You are aware of atrocities caused by foreign intervents on USSR soil during its first years, arent' you? Sure, repercussions were harsh, but so were actions, so was the time -- nobody knew whether the country will survive or not.
@@andreylebedenko1260 Well pretty most of the people from central Europe and everyone from the eastern Europe is in some way linked to socialism / communism. Its just its usually negative connection. I wont apologize for being very openly anti soviet, altough Im otherwise a left leaning guy. The regime was superbly tyranical and I refuse to accept the notion of the USSR actually doing something for general population. You may say that the imperial Russia was an undeveloped pit of despair (I wont argue against that for sure, because it most definetely was) and that soviets rebuild the country into a superpower (again, yes they did) - but rebuilding a country with millions of slaves, killing over a million people in gulags, executing another millions on random killing fields all over the place, starving a half of Ukraine to death repeatedly and invading a half of the continent - well, thats something I simply dont see as struggle for the people. Of course, throughout the history of the USSR its people suffered because of way more powers than the one who ruled the land. but that hardly changes anything I think about it. Soviets were tyrants who often suffered under other forces. I feel sorry for the ordinery citizen, I honor the ordinery soldier, but the country itself was nothing but evil dressed as a revolutionary.
14:10 I laughed out loud when I heard him say that worker’s rest days were random throughout the week so that production never stopped. Over 100k American workers’ are on strike as the result of working 12-16 hours a day, 6-7 days a week, in increasingly dangerous conditions.
What does that have to do with the Soviet Union and it’s work conditions? Every time anything even slightly negative about the soviet system comes up there’s always some sort of half assed comparison to America. Don’t get me wrong America isn’t perfect but anyone with a rational mind can see living conditions here are far better than that of the Soviet Union.
Fake news. No American company is paying the (time and a half)x(time and half) for a 112 hour work week. It would be cheaper and way more productive to have three different workers share those hours. If you are going to lie, then at least make it plausible.
@@christianmorales8978 Not for people making low wages, dude. At least in the USSR they could see a doctor and have an apartment. Take your blinders off and see what's around you.
@@badluck5647 Not fake news. I worked 100+ hr weeks for about 3 months every year...for many years. USPS during Christmas season. Just because you haven't done it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
The point about elections isn't entirely true. While you could write in "none of the above," the other option was to not vote at all. This was the metric the CPSU used to determine the viability of their representatives: if the candidate didn't get 50% voter turnout in their district, the party would find a new one.
Concerning Myth #1, I saw a video by the channel History Matters about Soviet elections. To the best of my recollection he said that if Soviet voters didn't like a candidate offered to them (but not the Party or the system as a whole) they would vote for "none of the above" to register their displeasure. Soviet authorities would obviously want to find out why a percentage of people voted against the Party selection and using the tools at their disposal would find out it was a protest against the candidate not the overall system then making changes accordingly if the reasons for voting against the candidate were valid (over the top corruption, didn't view the candidate as in line with the Party, etc.) Obviously I could be misremembering or History Matters highlighted a few rare instances in which local Soviet citizens hoped voting against a candidate would result in a good outcome and were right (though I doubt this happened when the Mustache was in charge as no one had a death wish). Any clarification would be helpful.
It depended on the period and also on the regional situation. The phase of candidate composition was more interesting, not the election itself. And a number of organizations could play a role in this. The displeasure was rather expressed through the complaints about some individual characters. The citizen ran to the youth organization, the union, etc. The Soviet Union also had to consider ideologically certain quotes: how many women do we have, in which positions, which nationalities. In practice, it was less the choice than the complaint that was interesting for the citizen. And complaints were often made to other branches of the bureaucracy. In addition, one must note that an authoritarian system also has an ideological claim. And you could play with this ideological claim.
This part about elections requires clarification. The candidates were chosen through quite elaborate procedures on some sort of primaries. As an example: local party organisation proposed someone, the "working collective" voted its approval, then regional party commitee considered among proposed candidates, special comission performed backgroung check on them and their families, and finally regional party commitee approved one (not necessarily a party member). As a result only ONE candidate was present in the ballot. Legally you could vote "against" by crossing out the name. The option "against all" only appeared in 1989 once alternative candidates became possible. The voting against didn't make any any difference or sence. The Election Day obviously was a pure rutial, although an important one. All efforts were aimed to participation, not the choice. I recall voting for the first time (at 18) I had received a small gift for coming. Also some deficit goods (or at least buffet) were expected at the voting places.
Corruption is endemic to any and all current advanced and specifically “complexly,” designed, functioning bureaucracies in and of governments. It’s a necessary trade off even here in the USA.
I think those about corruption and workers' paradise are popular among those who are dissapointed (to say the least) with modern capitalism - where boss always have money to buy himself a new boat or send his daughter to Oxford but never to give you a raise. Where rich people prefer to fly into space instead of improving working conditions. And where the law is changed to benefit those who can pay more (corporations, banks, clergy) instead of average people.
As somebody who actually came from the Soviet Union this is an excellent video, well-researched and seems to portray everything accurately as far as I can tell. Of course my favorite one is the "worker's paradise". There's just no such place on Earth and probably never will be.
No, but you can bet they had a secret service office concerned in spreading this kind of bs in other to sabotage other countries. Actually, all the so called "minorities" as well.
1- elections. These were circus of the highest order, no matter who i talk about the subject (and i have plenty of options, with my country, Estonia, being occupied by soviets for 50 years). These were literally the only places where regular people could get deficit goods like oranges & bananas from (sounds funny nowadays, but that was remarkably common troughout USSR, although i imagine deficit goods changed from place to place). That usually resulted in elderly russian ladies being first ones trough the door. Also- you could not NOT vote. You had to do it. Whatever the reason you had it, they cast a "vote" for you if they had to. Furthermore, one of my teachers in high school actually shared a memory of how he was missing from a meeting where they decided who is in the election commitee (sidenote- missing from such meetings meant that you were chosen). He very distinctly remembers how he had to phone in election results to Moscow at time, when there was still a hour of voting time left (Estonia & Moscow have 1 hour time difference). 2- corruption. Wait, there are people that geniuenly believe corruption didnt exist in USSR? First ive heard of it. It was so common that it is putting pretty much any other example i can think of to shame. Every single thing you wanted to achieve could only come to pass via connections, bribery, etc. Grocery line skipping is actually very accurate example. 3- people hated USSR. This is entirely dependent on nationality and area. Russians that got sent to occupied Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania tended to be extremely state-loyal (although it is worth pointing out that when the 3 countries did vote for restoration of independence question, good chunk of russians also supported it). And these are only areas i can speak of with any real confidence. These 3 countries, however, definetly hated USSR (proven by existence of forest brothers up until late 1970s). Thats also helped by the fact that these 3 countries were independent before ww2, enjoying very successful existence. And they each had their own ways to get outside information (f.e in northern Estonia, finnish TV was such channel, despite that being very illegal) That said, modern reactions to make it seem that fair number of now middle aged/elderly people miss USSR. But it could be result of Russia pushing soviet-nostalgia. 4. religion. Religion definetly existed and was actually one of few open ways people could express their dissatisfaction with USSR, resulting even many non-believers turning into church-goers. Fun fact- one of few monasterys that USSR had was Pechory monastery, which only survived stalinist purge, because it was part of Estonia before ww2. 5. workers paradise. Ha. Hahaha. I would like to point your attention to what i said in point nr. 2- that overlaps with it a lot. How can anything be a paradise for anyone, if you have to be corrupt to get even basics and basic things done?
Occupation means that your region should be controlled by a military administration. In fact, the Soviet occupation of the Baltics is a myth created by local nationalists to legitimize their seizure of power.
@@Mentol_ You know what- you are right in sense that occupation is too mild of a word for it. The thing that soviets did was much worse. And myth you say? please be a shill elsewhere. But ok, to counter your argument 1. dividing independent countries with nazis and assisting eachother in unleashing ww2 as per Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and its secret protocols- something which USSR itself admitted in Congress of People's Deputies of the Soviet Union in december 1989. 2. Organising military invasions sloppily disguised as a coup against neutral and independent nation (even assuming that bases contract was done in legal fashion- despite the very clear ultimatum being given, with direct threat of open war- the "coup" people were 90+ percent russian-speaking young men, with shaved heads, with somehow having access to soviet weaponry, despite pre-ww2 russian population in those countries being less than 10 percent.) 3. Mass executions of local politicians, military leadership, activists and random civilians by the thousands. 4. Mass deportations of civilian populations to mini-genocide levels (such as in june 1940 and with operation priboi) 5. repressing local culture and education system, with preferential treatment given to russian language. 6. preferential treatment given to russians in every aspect of life- from goverment positions to getting apartments and such more easily. Also mass-importation of russians to conquered areas, trying to snuff out as much of native population identity as possible 7. subjugating newly-conquered areas economy fully to serve the needs of russian cities like Leningrad, while giving little to nothing in return. 8. forcing conquered areas people to serve in the conquerors military far from home as well as in its wars, like in Afghanistan. Oh and to top it off- getting rid of conqueror, who took the country using illegal means in every sense of the word (heck, it even violated soviet own laws) is by no means illegal. So, you want to claim you russians are innocent? Please, give us back lives of tens of thousands that died directly because of you, thousands more lives that never got to be born because of you, literal billions from economy we lost and damage we suffered. And then we can talk.
@@Meelis13 Most of what you say is old mythology that your nationalists told you. You are not using Soviet primary sources of information. For example, you say that the USSR suppressed your culture and considered your territory as conquered, but you do not quote any Soviet documents. If you cannot prove your words are right, then they are of low value.
I am pretty sure the people starved to death by Stalin's farm policies and those sent to gulags much less the disappeared would have had a strong negative response to that poll. The Russian citizens did have a deserved positive opinion about the Soviet's defeat of the Nazi's and the nationalism that they derived from that.
Soviet Nostalgia is because of how absolutely hellish the 1990's were, and the pride of being a part of such a powerful, influential nation. Many in the 1960's and 1970's lived much better lives then the 1990's and 2000's.
@@TheSunderingSea At the low low price of exploiting the rest of the COMECON. Once the late USSR started issuing IOUs (aka transferable rubel), it was evident they have no means and will to pay. So yeah, in the 1990s they just paid their fair share owed to the rest of us.
@@akosbarati2239 shock therapy wasn't good for most of eastern europe either and buddy if you think thats "exploitation" maybe look at the us and modern western europe and the us is built off the blood of africa and the global south, thats real exploitation of course now i guess you're happy, the poles get to be the us junior partner in imperialism and help them rape the global south for some of the scrapes, they're occupied by western troops, and were on of the biggest supporters sending troops to help the us invasion and genocide of iraq, some freedom
Cyber Month Deal is here! Go to nordvpn.com/thecoldwar to get 73% off the 2-year plan + 1 month free!
I’ve been watching the channel’s videos for a few years now and David you have improved your presenting style over that time, not that there was anything much wrong to begin with.
Thanks for the content 👍
We need a video on Blat.
What kind of otherwordly schizophreniacs believe that there were "no corruption in the Soviet Union"? Obviously they exist...
I hope to see video on how KGB could just flip countries in 20 to 30 years without direci military intervention
@@Stroheim333 usefull idiots do
Maybe after you finish with Myths about the Soviet Union you can dispel all the myths in general about The Cold War. It would be quite interesting. My compliments to all those who made this video a reality.
Nah , cmon they cant produce that much propoganda.
@@ivanmonahhov2314
Why not❓
Cuba is still doing it.
📻🤣
Yeah, I'd be down for that. One that's actually quite common is that it was purely NATO/SEATO VS Warsaw Pact/Comintern. There was actually a whole third faction, the Non-Aligned Movement, which was larger than either side and counted Egypt, Yugoslavia, and India among its founding members. In practice, each member leaned more towards one side or the other most of the time in often contradictory fashion (Yugoslavia tended to be more pro-Western despite being led by a communist regime after Tito and Stalin had a falling out, and both India and Egypt had close ties to the Soviets despite having nominally democratic governments), but they refused to join any of the mutual defense treaties that would've dragged them into World War III had the Cold War gone hot.
@@z3r0_35---Indeed
@@jeffking4176 And the USA never stopped doing it lol
As a Russian, I can explain the “Hating Regime” thing. The truth is that most people didn’t hated it, they just either ignored it or didn’t care much. Most of the people just rolled with the time and was apolitical. A lot of people laughed at propaganda in their kitchens, creating jokes about politicians and the current state of the party. And in the 70’s most of the Soviet citizens just didn’t believe in the regime, but lived every day life, cuz it didn’t affected them much. That’s why, for the most part in the 90’s, people wasn’t apposed to the new Russian Federation, cuz, like, who give a crap, man.
so would you say that putin is better or worse than the soviet union?
Communist romania
@@ilikecheese4518 well, u actually can divide Putin’s reign into 2 parts. 1st part, from 2000-2008 was actually a really good times for Russia. Like yes, some shit was going on, but overall it was a free country and u could express ur opinion how u like it(Except if u were a NazBol radical or were critiquing Chechens, then sorry, into death or jail u go), a lot of business was open and a heaven for internet piracy and privacy (like no one would knock on ur door, if u post smth, somewhere).But overall it was good and free time. But the second part from 2011- till now is where the shit show start. There is a conspiracy that Putin was killed in 2004 or like in those years and sometimes u start to believe this, cuz what he started to do is just unexplained really. He start to shut free press, start to secure his position almost to his death (there is a legit law, that forbids to have any legal action against previous presidents). He started to sign a laws about internet regulations, like u easily can go to person for posting wrong post on the social media. A lot of power to the army and other armed forces in the country. Completely eliminated any kind of a fare elections and hearing from my parents and grandparents, what Soviet Union was like, I’m start to believe that Putin slowly want to put Russia back into soviet times in a way.
Funny story to that, Putin never quit Soviet Party, he still has the document, that says he is in the Soviet Party. I think, that should explain a lot
@@BostonSQ Except it is 50 times better now than at any time in the 2000s.
Also people preferred the communists over the hell of the 90s
Religion in the Soviet Union is quite an interesting topic, my ex's dad was a colonel in the Soviet army and thus a party member, and throughout his career he was a secret Orthodox Christian (an Old Believer to be precise) The whole family aparently celebrated Christmas in secret, istead of the officially sanctioned new year celebrations.
An interesting fact: Stalin was once a student of religion school.He almost became a priest
What would've been the repercussions of an official finding out about that if I may ask and during what period of the union?
@@pizzapicante27 It was during the Soviet/Afghan war, so late Brehzhenv to Gorbachev era. I think it would have resulted in him getting kicked ot of the party and thus losing his job, since army officers had to be party members, I'm not sure if there would have been legal repurcussions.
@@pizzapicante27 I didn't live through the era, so I cannot give a definite answer. My interactions with the people who did live at that time suggest the following: If it was just Orthodox Christianity (not a sect, not Baptism/Protestantism), if the timeframe was 70s-80s, then at most it would mean problems at work (no promotion, maybe push to retire), public or non-public criticism. I.e. if he didn't try do defend himself, but just denied it, it would mostly be ignored if discovered. It would be different if you tried to defend yourself publicly or somebody was holding a grudge against you. Also keep in mind that freedom of worship was guarantied by Soviet constitutions, so no consequences, if you were not a party member.
There is a book, “Father Arseny, 1893-1973: Priest, Prisoner, Spiritual Father,” that describes situations like this. Many members of the Communist Party, in the Soviet Union, were secretly Orthodox Christians.
An old coworker of mine escaped from Poland during early WWII and eventually ended up in the USA. Years later he went back to Poland and met up with an old friend, now a local Communist Party official. Joe was surprised: "-but you were always such a good Catholic!"
The friend said "As a Catholic, I am believing but not practicing. As a Communist, I am practicing but not believing."
This sounds almost like a joke.
Joe was an interesting guy: He was a pilot for the Polish Airforce before the Nazi/Soviet invasion. He jumped out the window of a multi-story building because he heard people storming up the stairs to arrest him. He knew if he stayed in Poland he wouldn't live very long, so he escaped Poland and flew in a Polish unit of the RAF against the Nazis. After the War, he didn't want to return to a communist Poland, so he eventually ended up in the USA.
-he had a certain peacefulness about him: after all he'd been through early on, it was rare for something to happen that made him upset.
@@Narrowgaugefilms I know it's been two years but I'm glad he did well in life.
Joe was quite a guy!
I worked with him just out of college: I was 20s, he was 60s. The things I heard!
He was still a licensed pilot. A couple of times a year he’d rent a small plane and take it out for a while. One day he took off and was no more than a mile away from the airport and his engine died. All of a sudden, he found himself gliding down over a pretty densely packed suburban neighborhood: not a decent place to land in sight! He was down almost to the rooftops when a wingtip hooked a tree and he came spiraling down and crashed on this family’s front lawn. The homeowner came out and yelled “Oh my GOD!! Are you OK?!!!”. Joe said “I am fine! Can I use your phone?”
-the man was completely indestructible!
He loved to ski, and the last hint I have of him is that he was living with his daughter up in Vermont.
If he’s still among us today, he’s about a Hundred. Given the life he’s lived, I wouldn’t count him out!
In regards to Myth #1, there was a rule at one point that a member of the Supreme Soviet or any of the Soviet councils could not keep their seat if less than 50% of their area voted in an election. As a result, if a local area did not like their CPSU representative in the Soviet council or Supreme Soviet, they could simply refuse to vote at all to get them replaced with a different candidate.
The problem was, you couldn't "simply refuse to vote".
Ever heard of the 4 o'clock knock?
As my parents and grandparents who lived in the USSR say, refusing to vote was not exactly a wise decision. The government would appoint some incompetent apparatchik anyway, but polling station on the voting day was a place where you could get some useful and scarce goods either for free or at a significant discount. Local politicians deliberately used their power to stockpile some commodities to sell or give away on the voting day to gain people's favour.
@@randolphcarter6486 Basically what politicians here in the US used to do, back in the 1930s.
@@kaqubek What? Ive never heard of that, can you give a source?
"Corruption did not exist in the Soviet Union"???? You mean there are people who believe this?
brainwashed people belived it by soviet propaganda
Tankies and hard-core commies do.
I gotta say as a communist myself I've never heard anyone claim this. Bizarre myth to include imo
Corruption is everywhere at some level.
Lmao I was shocked that's even a myth. It means propaganda must be good.
In the mid 1980s I recall hearing a professor who taught Russian history say that whenever he visits the USSR he makes a point of going to church to see who is attending.
Even Stalin attended religious schools, and he almost became a priest.
From what I saw in Soviet Estonia on my frequent visits 1977-79, congregations consisted entirely of old people.
@@可爱包-c4v That was before the Sovjet union, during the Russian empire though.
What does that prove?
@@undine1476 damm i guess i missed the sovjet union is it a dlc?
No corruption in the USSR? I've never laughed so much in my life, not heard that one before that's like saying there's no corruption in the US.
@@Americandragonrider333. As if corruption isn’t a thing that’s present in all ideologies and governments.
@@Americandragonrider333. then how comes that right-wing politicians engage in lobbying so often if corruption is left-wing? Hm, something doesn't fit in your worldview
@@Americandragonrider333. As if corruption wasnt a thing in every theocratic religious regime. Christian or not.
It's a very strange "myth" to include that I can't imagine anyone but the most deranged tankie would ever say with confidence. I feel like there was a slightly ill-advised attempt at balance here by alternating between pro-soviet and anti-soviet myths.
@@Americandragonrider333. The very meaning of all leftist ideologies is CHANGE.
Many of those rose as response to corruption and detachment appearing in status-quo (right-wing) institutions, like the church, monarchy or aristocracy.
This is why leftists are so divergent even in one nation yet so cooperative internationally, while rightists are so low-friction inside the nation yet so militant against rightists from other countries - there are many ideas how to change a country which however can be shared with others, and there is one common history and tradition for a nation, which often incorporated conflict against others.
On 4th you forgot to mention that while religion was tolerated to an extent, KGB did their best to infiltrate the clergy, to attain the control.
Russian Orthodox Church was subservient to the state since Middle Ages. Tzar was offical head of the Church, and Peter the Great reorganized it into stratified government service. After being kicked down a few notches in 20-es and 30-es, Church pretty much returned to it's role of serving whoever is on top.
Oh please. Tsar was _not_ an official head of the Church. State did interfere a lot with Church affairs, as was (and sometimes is) common for the Eastern Church -- at the same time Roman Church poked its nose into state affairs a lot. Peter I did subjugate the Church to the state administratively and this had caused much harm to the Church, but the Church was officially run by the "Holy Synode", consisting of bishops and influenced by emperor-nominated secretary.
There were quite often quite servile bishops within the Church, but at the same time there were always quite many in silent opposition. Of course, You will seldom hear of them because the public media in Russia almost always was (and is) state-controlled, and also because it is not considered a good thing to publically denounce what Your bishop says. Not even mentioning how much the current Patriarch is holding back his opinion and tolerating opposition -- even after so many years certain chronic (and very much public) denouncers are still at least formally members of clergy.
@@igorsmihailovs52 The Tsar was the head of the Orthodox Church. The Church reinforced his authority: Official Church doctrine stated that the Tsar was appointed by God.
That's from the BBC, make your own mind up.
The (re)creator of Vatican state, Benito Mussolini was also a communist in WWI. He was expelled from the party due to his views on foreign affairs, not views on how Italian economy should work.
Naturally, you should do a myths episode about the US during the Cold War!😃
My best friend it's Czech and I'm friends with two Czech families. My parents spent a wonderful evening when I was growing up talking with these two families about the stereotypes we all had about each other growing up. My favorite was that Americans all lived in log houses. So one time, when one of our friends came ove, and we were fixing up our house, withhad some of the studs exposed, my dad showed our friend and said, "see we still live in log houses," everybody got to laugh.
That'd be a good one.
Problem with that idea is that it doesn't fit in with their Pro Western bias.
@@ThugShakers4Christ ?
Should also do an episode on all round Cold War myths.
Corruption was even depicted in state-approved artistic works. A lot of Arkadiy Raikin (a prominent soviet-era comedian) skits are precisely about that.
Kruschev asked General Kutasov if there was anything he needed, to which he replied that he needed a private apartment for his mistress, which he got with no problem.
Hruschev! As well as Harkov and Chehov!
Citation needed
What a surname.
Mmm, being a dick truly runs in the family.
with that surname and the mistress it sounds like a joke...
Just wanna say, this channel helped me get an A in A-level History and I'm really grateful. Though I must say, watching your videos now, for fun, doesn't feel quite as fulfilling as when I would watch them at 3 in the morning as I fervently took notes for an essay that would be due the next day😂
Well done on the A! We are glad we could help, even a little!
@@TheColdWarTV It's approaches like this channel that helped get me into history and politics.
On that last point, my grandfather who lives in Kharkiv worked in a juicer factory. He is very talented as an engineer and he even designed a new juicer machine. He submitted his design to the bosses who than asked him to join the communist party. After he said no his design was dismissed but he kept his job. Soon later, the same design was submitted by the boss who he submitted the design to and the guy got a promotion and even a medal.
About bribery, my mother when she lived in the Ukrainian ssr worked at the market selling rugs and furniture. She told me that the only way to get anything done or any nice things was through bribery.
Pretty much. Also you could get some goods only in big cities. My grandfather used to tell me stories about how he would travel to Kharkiv just to buy some sausage and Georgian wine.
Also fun lifehack about how you could get drunk almost for free. My grandfather and his friend, while they were in Kharkiv, used to go to some marketplace with the whole big row where Georgians sold their wine. And you could try a little bit of wine from every stall if you ask for it. But the row was pretty long, so by the time you reach the last stall you would be pretty wasted without even paying a ruble. And the secret was to buy one bottle from the last stall otherwise the Georgians will beat your ass.
I hope you're grandfather is ok with the ongoing war in Eastern Ukraine!
Source: trust me dude
Yeah corruption snd theft unfortunstely exists in all societies.
a rotten society
"The myth holds that levels of corruption in the Soviet Union were very low to nonexistent. Often cited are the laws, regulations, and practices that forbid corruption." Gee, it's just like how in the United States, drug abuse doesn't exist because of federal regulations against it.
Also, apparently Andropov and Gorbachev didn't spend half the '80s trying to root out a rampant corruption problem as their main priority.
Great video!
False equivalence. by the time Andropov and Gorbachev came to do something, it was already too late. The whole system was falling apart & they knew it.
@@daytonjobgen8639 Didn't mean to imply that the Soviet system could have been saved at that point---I was just pointing out that "there was no corruption in the Soviet Union" is a weird take when the Soviets themselves admitted that the problem was very serious.
@@NicQuattromani Andropov and Gorbachev were of a reformist mind, and reformers tend to admit the flaws in the system, because they intend to fix them.
Even Khrushchev was a reformer, hence de-Stalinization.
Also didnt corruption killed their entire command of pacific navy?
@@wojszach4443 Hello there, fellow Paper Skies watcher.
Under Lenin and until the 30s the USSR had a totally other election system where the workers elected their representatives out of their own rows. Anyone could become a delegate to the Soviet no matter if he or she is a party member or not.
under Stalin in the 30s, in some regions up to half of the deputies were non-party
sure buddy sure they did
Also under Lenin the USSR was not centralized to Russian domination over the other nations.
@@duruarute5445 They did have this system. And that's why Bolsheviks and the USSR were so hated in the "democratic" West.
@@BolshevikCarpetbagger1917it waxed and waned in intensity over time, but Russification has been a Soviet policy since the fall of the provisional government. Lenin may not have made Russian the national language, but he wasn’t happy to hear Ukrainian either.
A guest lecturer at my undergraduate college told his class about his experiences with “Blat” in the USSR. He was somehow one of the few American businessmen allowed to go to the USSR (why exactly I don’t know, I wasn’t in the class, just heard the story from friends who took the class). He rented an apartment in Moscow and had bought some furniture to be moved into it while he stayed in the Capitol for a year.
On the day the movers came, they asked the man if he was an American. The lecturer told them yes, and the movers said “we don’t want you to pay us in money. Go to the international store, and buy us all some vodka there.” When he asked them why they didn’t just accept his money so they could go buy vodka on their own time, they replied “we can’t get the good vodka at our stores. The international stores have the premier vodka made for tourists and visitors from the west since you’re guests in our country. We want that. Our money is useless” (I should mention, it was about 1983 when the lecturer went to the USSR).
So he went to the international store, bought them ten bottles of vodka, and then gave it to them as payment before they left. The movers just chilled in front of the apartment for a while apparently drinking and singing.
A good example that corruption does not require a cartoony black suitcase with loads of bills in it. 🙂
@@dabbasw31 yeah. It’s also kinda funny. It’s just extremely stereotypical in many ways (bad economy and alcoholism). Although, it does illustrate how the USSR did suffer from corruption. If that is happening on a micro-level, one can only imagine what happened at the upper levels of government
@@dannylojkovic5205 Corruption is either bottom up, or top down.
That's not corruption, that's just "alternative economy". You know, like the exception that proves the rule.
laugh damnit! It's a joke.
Sounds like a good time, glad the movers got a special treat... hopefully they survived the 90s and can get nice vodka now, not like days are much better in Russia now
The Soviet Union was not monolithic. Most Russians did not hate the Soviet Union, they were proud to be part of a great world power. In addition, the Soviet Union was still their empire. But most people in the Baltic countries did hate the Soviet Union (even those who were members of the Communist Party). I mean here the indigenous people, not the Russians who had moved there during the Soviet occupation. This so-called information bubble was not complete either, for example in northern Estonia it was possible to see Finnish television if you rebuilt your TV little bit.
Fair point.
@@MM22966If you analyzed America, would you talk about mass or separate racial and ethnic groups? White America, Asian America, African America, Latin America, Native American Indians
First time I heard of the myth that there was no corruption.
I was born a soviet citizen and left the USSR when I was three years old, so most of the corruption I only got from stories my family told, but even when talking to other people in Germany or the internet about the USSR, it somehow always was taken fro granted, that the system was corrupt.
I think this is not a real myth more of a myth about the preconceptions people have for the soviet apologists. A myth that the tankies are so divorced from reality that they actually believe the myth that the USSR was not corrupt if you will.
@@FakeSchrodingersCat Dude, I can only assume you are kind of in a similar spot to where I was a couple of years ago, an anarchist who hates the USSR and calls anyone who doesn't also hate the USSR a tankie. Am I about on point?
@@anarchogarfieldist1652 Not really, I do dislike the USSR for a number of reasons but don't hate it at least not as a whole, individuals within it sure but as a nation it was just a somewhat corrupt totalitarian state similar to many others half of which claimed to be capitalist. I will even defend it against the people who ignorantly parrot Cold War era propaganda labeling it as the root of all evil. But I have just as little tolerance for those who dismiss it's very real flaws out of misplaced ideological zeal as those who strawman it as evil.
@@FakeSchrodingersCat That's reasonable. I think that it is a case study of what can happen to a revolution when the goal stops being revolution and becomes something more like a beurocrat state rather than a proper dictatorship of the Proletariat. I think there is a lot to be learned from both the mistakes and victories of the USSR, and also the material conditions that led to each.
@@FakeSchrodingersCatplease define totalitarianism
2)One of the main reaons Tajikistan was formed because most of the money for the autonomous region didn't make it to its destination via Tashkent. Uzbekistan was pretty notorious.
4)Catholics in LT experienced a resurgence after Khruschev and started to promote Lithuanian language, among other things. An interesting trend across the Soviet Union is that Grandmothers often passed religion to their grandkids (past their kids), but the prevailing "wisdom" was that religion was something between you and God and not something you talk to others about. Even in the 80s there were a lot of persecution and myths however...friends told me how a party member who went to Easter was beaten in front of the school, and many heard the myth that Baptists eat babies.
Baptist eat babies?
Lol I heard about that somewhere before.
Id like to know more about the Tajikistan situation
@Agente Polaris The book I read was "The Birth of Tajikistan," which covered mostly the 1920s...according to the book, Tashkent was the dominant power in Central Asia and usually got their way, the exception being Osh being given to Kyrgyzstan as the borders were being drawn. Tajikistan was an autonomous oblast within the Uzbek SSR for about 5 years or more but according to the book as little as 25% of the money budgeted for Tajikistan was making it all the way to TJ through Tashkent, so Tajik leaders petitioned Moscow for their own Republic. Tajikistan is also interesting because Tajik identity was very much formed by the Soviet Union as an amalgam between Tajik speaking nomads in the mountains and "Sarts" (now a bad word for Uzbeks), who were Persian speaking city dwellers who were the majority in places like Khojand, Bukhara, and Samarkand. They also spoke Uzbek generally, and many of them were intellectual elites of both Pan-turkism and the Persian speaking world (also an interesting contradiction). These city folks created the Tajik language based on the mountain dialects, filling in gaps with their Persian knowledge. Many of these elites were later purged or fled, but unfortunately for the party, in the 20s very few people in Tajikistan (and Central Asia) could read and write, so many of these local elites were party members until suitable replacements could be found.
@lhpoetry：There is an interesting saying about Turks and Persia. The word Truk originally referred to Azerbaijan. In ancient times, Azerbaijanis and Persians lived together. Until today, Ali Khamenei, the leader of Iran, is an Azerbaijani.
@@可爱包-c4v: So one of the most fascinating and sad things pre-1900 is that before nationalism things were a lot more diverse linguistically and "ethnically"...well things still are ethnically (at least bloodwise) just a lot of people identify with one "nation" more frequently when before they didn't think of themselves that way. So definitely in the courts of the Khans of Central Asia and also the Mughals in India...and I assume in the middle east as well...you have this interesting mix of Persians, Turks, and Arabs (as well as Mongols) who are the elite...in India this is especially interesting as sometimes they would plot against each other on the basis of nationality or Sunni vs Shia but they were a huge minority among the Hindu population so they often worked together.
But definitely, Tajiks didn't think of themselves as Tajik until the Soviet Union, although many of them were these Sarts who...were a mixed Persian/Turkish identity of sorts. Also, with the Turkic languages of Central Asia, I've observed that the languages, even with Soviet and Post-Soviet borders...don't really have definitive ending and beginning points geographically. Kazakh near the border sounds pretty close to Kyrgyz on the other side, and Kyrgyz in some regions near Uzbekistan also sounds a lot like Uzbek some times. (Well Kyrgyz and Kazakh identities were also separated by the Soviet Union, and people didn't generally think in those terms until they were put on their passport. It was nomads vs city. Sunni vs shia. This clan vs. that clan. (And that last one is still kinda true)
Imagine a collab between The Cold War and Bald and Bankrupt. That would the most Soviet video since Soviet times.
Another slight amendment I guess but because you guys are covering mostly the early cold war this might be the reason you omitted it. Near the end of the USSR they had at least 2 free and fair elections in the more western sense. They also had a referendum in for the new union treaty which despite obvious concerns for legitimacy from what I have read was a decent representation of will of the people that was only voided because of the August coup.
Yeah, if not for the August coup there probably still would be a Soviet Union. My speculation is that if there hadn't been the coup attempt, you'd have seen Soviet Dengism, pretty much, and a revival of the New Economic Policy. I'm not sure how much political liberalization may have happened, though.
@@browncoat697 No chance for that to happen.
Why? Because the foundation of the USSR was already shaking too heavily.
You can't build a successful country when your country is founded on a dozen of occupied independant countries with different languages, culture, traditions and a huge wish for a free, independant state.
Myth 3 - it depends on the generation.
My family as an example. My grandma is Ukrainian. She was born in 1948, so the biggest part of life she spent in USSR. She says that she misses Soviet Union and she loved USSR.
While my mom was born in 1975. My grandfather is Georgian, so she lives in both Ukraine and Georgia in different periods of her life. In 80s there was big crisis in USSR, so she has no good memories about Soviet times. She only remember that sometimes parents couldn't buy new shoes for her, although they have money. There just were no shoes in stores...
When USSR was separated into many different states, borders were opened, and production from all over the world was allowed, so you could buy anything you needed.
Of course, 90s period was hard for all republics, but 70-80s generation is glad to nowadays situation (mostly). While 40-60s generation miss USSR and think that life in USSR was better.
P.S. I judge by my own family and people who I personally know or met in the Internet.
Both of my parents mostly miss the USSR. They're from Belarus but some with Ukrainian family. I don't get why the older generation will be more nostalgic while they've lived under stalin
@Lex Bright Raven word. whether it's capitalist or communist, the world is just a chess board for people in high power, and we ordinary citizens are just pawns. defending one ideology over the other is just stupid. and this ideology war has nothing to do with the rest of us.
No Lex it’s because they were being gaslit and lied to about the threats they faced.
You know that there were older Germans who missed living in nazi Germany right? It’s for the same reasons.
@Lex Bright Raven while the USSR was mostly great, Stalin was absolutely a crazy dictator
@@mrb152 Stop using words. "Gaslighting" has lost all meaning lmao. And by your logic, Americans who say they live in a great country are themselves gaslit about the horrible late stage capitalist fascism that they're facing every day.
Who says the Soviet Union was free from corruption? I feel like thats as evident as the corruption seen in capitalist countries too. Are there Tankies seriously suggesting the USSR had no corruption? Its a common trope that the production commisar would fudge numbers to boost production quotas.
I've never heard anyone, Socialist or otherwise, try and claim ANY state is free of corruption. Man is not infallible and corruption is a contradiction that can arise both in Socialist or capitalist societies.
Probably the same people who claim the Soviet Union had no serial killers.
Also never heard it. Even heard some 'tankies' say that the collapse was caused by corruption
No "tankie" has ever said the Soviet Union was free of corruption no.
Man's needed a video to make
From my limited training on the subject, I think it is important to point out that there is a difference between “Worker” and “Peasant” in Soviet nomenclature. The peasants were traditionally assigned the role as sacrificial lamb, their back breaking labor used to fuel the expansion of industry and the conditions of the urban worker. I believe this was a pre-cold war policy, but something to note nonetheless.
In Marxist theory, the peasants are considered a non revolutionary class because their relationship to production is more similar to that of the petite bourgeoisie (self-ownership of productive property, but also self-exploitation of labor). Marx called them a "sack of potatoes" for this reason, and attributed the victory of Louis Napoleon in the French Second Republic to this reactionary tendency among the peasants.
The goal of the Soviet leadership was to transform the vast peasant class of the USSR as it existed in the early 20s into an industrial proletariat that could operate as the vanguard of the revolution and eventually end class society. They vastly underestimated the scale and difficulty of the project, however.
Gorbachev visited the West in the 1980's and saw PCs already in wide use in nearly every enterprise. He realized that the USSR would need to use them to keep up with the West and also realized that in doing so, the Party could no longer hold a monopoly on the spread of information as it had managed to up to that point.
There was no Internet as such, but the possibility that one could put an entire Solzhenitsyn novel on one floppy disc and disseminate it that way meant that the genie was out of the bottle for the CPSU.
Source on that one?
He visited the West in 1985 and even by then, PCs were a normal part of business life. Heck, even my neighbor, an independent contractor in Flagstaff, AZ, used to pay me to do his bookkeeping entries on his home PC in 1985.
Possessive and plural are not the same.
@@Pe6ek what?
biggest myth is that there was no "elites" ,"classes" and everyone was equal...
11:55 A Polish friend of mine told me that churches became places to gather and discuss all the bad aspects of the Soviet Union.
13:40 When East and West Germany united, the industrial workers suffered a severe drop in status. They had previously been praised as the backbone of the Soviet economy, whereas Western Germans valued academic pursuits and professional people far more than blue collar workers, who they basically looked down upon.
I bet that was a blow to the East after reunification.
A lot of people could see through the propaganda, but those who did like the Soviet Union liked it because of the stability of one's standard of living (being guaranteed a home and food, where it existed) which is not guaranteed after capitalism took over due to market forces causing homelessness, etc. There was also the fact that their was more of a community spirit during the Soviet Union which fell apart after the fall of the union. Despite the many flaws of the Soviet Union, at the end of the day most people just want a home and a meal to go home to and a community where we belong.
I’d rather be homeless than having government produced food, housing, etc.
@@FirstnameLastname-do1px That's one of the most incoherent and bizarre statements I've ever read.
@@mishapurser4439 How so? Everything the government touches turns to shambles.
@@FirstnameLastname-do1px That is most idiotic thing I've ever heard.
Another problem is that Westerners seem to view it as a Black and White issue. It's possible for sombody to like some aspects of their government while disliking others. Everything is somewhat relative. Most people in my experience have mixed feelings about their governments. I know of few who have an uncritical love or un-nuanced hate for their nations
I'm from Bulgaria, which was technically not part of the Union, but was very much a part of the Eastern Block. I was born in the 90's, so I didn't live through that time, but my impression is that many people were reasonably satisfied with their lives. Obviously some people had their property taken away, were put on black lists, imprisoned or even murdered. But others came from poor rural areas, were provided with jobs and decent housing and lived in relative comfort. It helped that most didn't know what conditions on the other side of the curtain were like, so they couldn't compare. Then the 90's came along with a really, really bad depression. So, it's no surprise that many grew to miss the good old times. Nostalgia for the socialist period is still widespread today.
I wonder why. They already can compare. Something is not right here.
Most 50+ year olds I've ever talked with are nostalgic for their youth, not the system.
#2 and #5, seriously? How are these anywhere near common myths? Pretty much everyone I've encountered who is politically Left-of-Social-Democrat knows that the Soviet Union was a flawed, even if well-meaning, attempt at creating a socialist society.
The most prevalent myth I've encountered about the Soviet Union is the notion that people were starving pretty much the whole time. Newsflash, they didn't. Post-Stalin, Soviet leaders would import food to make up for any failures of Soviet agriculture, and even during Stalin's time, famines were specific events, not an everyday reality.
“Well meaning”? How come genocide of Ukrainian peasants and millions in Gulag reconcile with this? #2 simply means you people simply don’t comprehend _how_ widespread corruption was
@Lex Bright Raven pity you can’t experience Gulag benefits for yourself, or even regular life in soviet union.
@@RHGM71 gulags were far better than any other prison in the entire world relative to their time. which is the most important thing to know as a foundation. they let you out early if you exceeded work quotas, you earned a food wage so better performance gave you better food, and later you earned a actual wage for any work you did in your prison. keep in mind the tsars gulags had USUAL death rates around 60%, the soviets at the worst points, i.e the GPW or famines, was 11%. and averaged in total around like 3%. comparable to modern prisons. so if you want murder factories. tsarist russia is where you can go to seethe over people you pretend to care about. knowing this it fails to be surprising the bolsheviks had such massive support after the revolution began isnt it?
the famine in the ukraine was not intentional as multiple agri historians have confirmed. and no non agricultural historian actually can adequately prove due to lack of any evidence. the only mentions of intentional malice, come from the nazis.
They're called Tankies
Let's hope this video gets some traction! Good stuff.
t's crazy just how much propaganda we take in, it's as if we need something to be only the best/worst to even have an opinion. Same with North Korea: is it not enough that they had one ruling family for over 70 years, an authoritarian regime with nuclear weapons, etc.? Were the 'single mandated haircut', unicorn, and other wacky stories really necessary?
All governments and countries push their own propaganda to bolster their National and or religious myths.
@@nigeh5326 yeah duh, what I find so interesting is how willing we as audiences are to gradually take it to the extreme, how easy it is for us
@@Brackert unless you teach critical thinking and logic in schools and universities it will continue.
Not everyone has the mind to see how much they are fed a diet of propaganda and bs.
It is up to those who can see the reality of the situation to fight through politics to win elections and then try to change the system from within.
@@nigeh5326 well as Garfield says, we too aren't inmune to propaganda. I honestly don't think critical thinking courses in an education system remotely similar to the current one will be any good, and the '"change the system from within" has been proven to be pretty much impossible; you absorb the logic of the system wether you like it or not. On that line I recommend the book 'Seeing like a State'
Propaganda of the kind we see regarding North Korea nowadays is mostly directed at people who don't necessarily have the best skills when it comes to critical thinking. A single google search shows that the hair cut myth is just that, a myth, as different sources seem to be unable to agree on whether or not people are forced to get the Kim Jong-un haircut or are forbidden from doing so. The unicorn story is a gross misrepresentation of a North Korean archeological discovery related to an ancient temple (or something like that, I don't remember) where someone riding a unicorn-like creature is described. This one is a little harder to directly disprove, because the false story is propagated through South Korean news sources, which are of course in Korean and reading the original North Korean documents requires knowledge of Korean, or use of a translator which people seem incapable of doing.
Russians believed the soviet era was the best period of the country’s history. Well that is a pretty low bar.
While I generally like this channel the poll in question is actually really unhelpful in the discussion of whether people loved or hated the USSR at the time to the point of uselessness. Having looked it up, people aged 18 and up were polled. Meaning a significant number of people polled were born long after the Soviet Union was already gone. One of the other questions asked was along the lines of “where did you learn about life in the USSR?” and 51% stated from parents or close people. Basically the poll says almost nothing about what people actually thought at the time.
Well, looking at Russian history those people have had it tough all through the ages. Whether it was people coming from the west or east to conquer you, the occasional brutal King, and the other hardships tossed in. All that added up makes the time after Stalin seem pretty nice, guess it’s all about perspective.
So rising economy in the 1950s isn’t a high bar? It’s like saying “america believed the 1950s was a prosperous period. What a low bar” ofc ppl like it during those times, because they were prospering. Although, america was racist while the USSR treated black ppl like ppl, so it may not be a good example.
@@iswitchedsidesforthiscat The Soviet Union under Stalin performed ethnic cleansing. That sounds pretty racist to me. And before the Soviet Union…. hundreds of years of monarchy where the royalty lived in golden palaces and did the usual wealthy crap, while the people starved to death. This is why the Red army and Lenin became so popular. Before communism, the bar was floor level for comparison in standard of living.
I am Russian and I consider the Russian Empire to be the best period in Russian history. The USSR is its worst period. Are there any other questions?
Great video! I think another very important point to remember regarding the myth that "everyone hated the Soviet Union" is that life in the Stalinist period would have been very different from that in Gorbachev's era. Soviet leaders were quite different from each other. So I think a lot of opinion would also depend on what period(s) one experienced.
I agree. There was probably 10x more people thinking of defecting under Stalin than under Brezhnev or Gorbachev. Khrushchev for a while at least was wildly cheered by the Soviet people (despite his own tyranny) because he ended Stalin's worst abuses and actually built up the USSR's technology. The Soviet Union was ALWAYS a corrupt, tyrannical state, but under Stalin it was close to Hell on earth for anyone who thought remotely different than what the ruling leaders felt (mostly Beria and Stalin himself).
very good channel.
so much good stuff youtube has not deleted yet, ww2, ww1, interwar years, and now cold war.
Myth #5 The Who summed this up with their iconic song, "Wont Get fooled again". After singing 6 verses to the glory of the revolution, the final two lines of the song say: "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss" lol
Something worth noting about the diminishing perception of threat from the Russian Orthodox Church has to do with the fact that many of the high ranking clergy were in fact KGB agents or people who were controlled via methods of kompromat.
It’s amazing, that today - especially in the US, that a majority of people, now, do NOT know these facts about the Soviet Union.
I grew up in the 1960’s-1970’s.
Even at age 10, when I first discovered the world of Short Wave Radio [ and heard “Radio Moscow World Service “ in English], I was keenly aware of all this - WE were all taught it in school, we saw it on TV , and we heard all the adults discussing it.
NOW, sadly, it looks like we [ the US] is moving slowly in that direction.
Great video. -
📻🙂
“Slowly in that direction” So trump was a communist? Biden too?
If only the US would actually become a nice, multinational country with indigenous minority rights (African American SSR when?), with good art and music, with nostalgic aesthetics and with free healthcare and housing...
Im suprised that "they didnt have money" isn't on this list given how often I see it either directly or by implication
They had money but it was basically the equivalent of arcade tickets, as the country's real accounting was done through material balances, not hard currency, and money was only used to purchase retail consumer goods.
@@Pheer777 So just like all other money then?
The "they didn't have money" myth is people who think just because they called themselves communist the soviet system had any connection to that ideology
@@FakeSchrodingersCat No - learn what hard currency is.
@@Pheer777 I suspect I am more aware of what currency is then you are if you think any modern currency is hard in the normal uses of the word.
The reason the USSR dealt in goods internationally rather then currency was simply because their currency was not accepted internationally. But that would be true for any country in the same circumstances since there is no actual inherent value in any modern currency except what we pretend it has. If everyone refused to deal in US dollars tomorrow they would still be used internally but international trade between the US and other countries would be commodity based just like it was with the Soviets throughout their existence.
Can you make an video about Soviet aid to developing countries? I'm studying the agricultural history of India. To my surprise, the Soviet Union gave India a lot of and comprehensive assistance. The same thing happened in Egypt and Cuba. There is no doubt that the Soviet Union has made a lot of help for world development
Found the China Bot
Indian here. Soviet "aid" wasn't free money. It was loans we had to pay back, just like China had to as well. Or it was a barter trade: we imported steel from Soviet Union and paid it back with vegetable exports. Which...turns out... still left us in a lot of debt to Soviet Union. Second highest after our debts to USA. America made us buy more US-made goods and Soviets sold us their used military jets and warships to clear up the debt.
@@christiannipales9937 Oh yes historical facts = china bot if it's something positive about the USSR
@@Sahtoovi Well I am actually a more biased toward the USSR but I'm just calling it how it is. Account is a China Bot.
@@christiannipales9937 on what basis? nothing about their account indicates that it's a china bot, and besides, everything they said in the comment is objectively true.
I doubt that a china bot could write a nuanced and grammatically correct comment that is perfectly related to the subject matter of the channel and video
Ironically, Lech Walesa was the working class leader the Soviet system promised. His lower class dialect was roundly mocked.
He doesnt speak in a dialect but hes just not well spoken and quite rude on occasion
Maybe because he wasnt russian but a polish worker
@@MA-ev4oq Nie chcem, ale muszem…chodzić do szkoły.
Walesa was leader of a company union, the only trade union loved by union-busters. Not a Soviet-moulded working class leader.
Primarily here to scroll the comments and look for the really bizarre ones - but I will say great video! Looking forward to part 2.
Michel Foucault once wrote:
"Every educational system is a political means of maintaining or of modifying the appropriation of discourse, with the knowledge and the powers it carries with it"
I would apply that also to the media. Look at the USA where healthcare is popular with the majority but the news media such as Fox keep calling it free socialised healthcare when it is not free it’s just paid for by taxing everyone a little as in the UK and it’s hardly socialism when every leading country apart from the USA has a variation of it and conservative parties support it as well as left of centre parties.
@@nigeh5326 ah yes whataboutism
@@nigeh5326 ah yes whataboutism
@@lukemarshall5605 The guy you’re talking to is just using the logic of the quote and it’s whataboutism? You have no idea of “self-criticism” or applying logic at a consistent level.
@@iswitchedsidesforthiscat bro I'm came here to shitpost and not have fucking"frree thinkers" to tell about logic
Ngl I was kind of surprised to see 4 out of 10 points taking almost 2/3rds of the video
10:04 I think narrator wanet to say until Gorbachiovs reforms tok place becouse the stagnation of 1978-1982 was coused becouse of extreme investments in living standarts and Afghan war,the only time living standarts in USSR got lower after 1947 were 1986.
Thank you, this is a very informative video. I often find discussions regarding the Soviet Union to be misconstrued or or otherwise unreliable. So I think such videos are very helpful sources of information
So, in a nutshell: "it wasn't as bad as they say but it wasn't great either".
Amazing video, looking forward to the next part.
It was arguably worse than they say. The USSR is often romanticized nowadays, interestingly by right-wingers who love its law-and-order/authoritarian demeanor. Especially if you look at what the USSR did to Eastern Europe (East-Germany, Romania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, the Baltic states) it's easy to see that the USSR was a terrible force for a great number of people.
@@uschurch I disagree, at least if you only consider the west. In eastern Europe its a different matter perhaps. A lot of people in the west seem to hold the view that the USSR was some kind 1984 style totalitarian state where people were literally starving all the time. In general living standards were considerably higher than most of the world, except the west on average and certainly better for a lot of people who currently live in some post Soviet countries like Ukraine, Russia and central Asia. Government institutions were ultimately authoritarian and elitist, but there were some democratic institutions in some levels of society. As for Soviet interventions in eastern Europe, I can only agree that they were awful. What's less known is that the USA treated Latin American countries in a very similar way by using espionage, violent coups and sometimes outright invasion to undermine democratically elected governments that were ideologically undesirable for the US government. Just check out the Wikipedia page on "United States involvement in regime change in Latin America".
@Krause Ist Prolet 50's and 60's Western working class living cinditions trumped the Soviet ones. We're talking average people, not the bottom 10% that ironically You consider to represent all of the society.
That's why people were fleeing to the West, not East apart from a few deranged commies.
@Krause Ist Prolet If communism's so great, why wasn't everybody emigrating to China before all this shit with the lockdowns?
@Krause Ist Prolet I am pretty sure that You're trying to talk about recent times and not the 50's and 60's when what we call neoliberalism didn't exist.
Not all Western Countries are the same when it comes to electoral systems, many use Proportional Representation whether it is a Party List system that is closed and everything in between to open, Mixed Member Proportionate (a combination of Single Member District plurality and Party List with the Party List correcting for the dis-proportionality of the Single Member District system), and Single Transferable Vote, and other uses Plurality/Majoritarian Single Member District Plurality, 2 Round Systems, Preferential/Ranked Choice Voting.
"they were elected by the members of the party" as if the members of the party had not been elected by the workers, and of course it was the workers themselves, it is so much historical revisionism that it gives me anxiety.
Standard Representative Democracy.
In short: The worker did not have in fact "control over the means of production"; as that was reserved to the state, which was dominated by the party, which in turn was not controlled by the people, but by a small elitist class.
In addition, the country was heavily centralized instead of being what it set out to be - a decentralized union of councils.
So the USSR was neither a Union, nor a Soviet, nor Socialist ;)
I really want to know more about the system of bribery/bartering that was hinted at in the outro!
I recommend to everyone Victor Suvorov books - he breaks all the myths about horrible system.
Suvorov is completely outdated
He is a complete loon and nutjob. Nothing he wrote is true.
Nice video but how can you talk about the Soviet Union without talking about the gulag archipelago and all the literally millions murdered or starved to death mainly simply to keep the masses living in fear and total obedience to the government?
Dude. There are many more interesting books about the USSR than the archipelago. In addition, you will not find information about life in the post-Stalinist USSR in the archipelago.
@@jangrosek4334 I was referring to the system of gulags, not to a book. The system was always fear based, all the way into the 80’s. People had to be very careful what they even said on the phone because they would often be listened in on. Life during Soviet the Soviet Union was stark and drab even if marched along obediently and accepted the lack of freedom. Not to mention frequent lines and long waits for food and basic living supplies. The polls conducted post Soviet Union reflect people fondly remembering being young. At least they were young then and because if the iron curtain and constant propaganda, they didn’t know that life, overall, was far better in the west - well not until around the 1970’s when people who returned from trips to Europe started talking in secret and that began to realize they were trapped in an oppressive system.
Gulag archipelago is discredited work of fiction written by a treasonous anti-semite who deserved what he got.
Lmao "a 'But' Sir Mix-a-lot would be proud of" caught me completely off guard, especially the totally normal delivery of it.
The US had economic stagnation in the late 70s also. Wages when adjusted for inflation have remained stagnant since then.
Still better than economic stagnation entire existance, damn toilet paper was available from 70s and was luxurious since then, and you had to use newspapers instead, waiting your life for outdated car and limited fuel..
@@wojszach4443 What’s the point in having cars when there’s public transportation?
@@iswitchedsidesforthiscat Spoken like a true metropolitan, try living outside of cities.
@@castor3020 Like rural neighborhoods? They’re often small, so you could take a bike ride or whatever, or better yet, walk.
@@iswitchedsidesforthiscat try to rely on public transportation in rural areas
Where have you ever heard the myth that there was no corruption in the ussr? That’s one of the first things I would think of. If you were just using it as a storytelling device to ply a topic, that’s cool, but as far as most people think, def not a myth. Good show sir.
Surprisingly truthful analysis of Soviet reality. Didn’t expect thar level of objectivity from the westerner.
But it’s Hruschev. As well as Harkov and Chehov.
expect it...........these folks are good
Not in English. The closest sound in English is the /kh/. "H" in English comes nowhere near it.
We use kh in English. It's the closest we have to the voiceless velar fricative at the beginning of a word.
@@adamsfusion You use “kh” because you copy French transliteration, which they introduced because in French “h” is silent. When you write Kharkov you pronounce it Karkov, while it’s Harkov.
At the same time you perfectly well write Hodor when it comes to retarded servant of Bran Stark.
@@stischer47 you perfectly well write Hodor or Houston. If you write Khouston it would be as stupid as Kharkov. Sound [h] is the same in English and in Russian.
I really like the comments from actual former citizens or their children or grand children. Please keep adding your remarks!
Great video!!!
10:55 - Marxism is anticlerical but not necessarily anti-theist, in Anti-Dühring, Friedrich Engels criticizes heavily Dühring and one of the reason is that Dühring was a strong anti-theist who wanted to persecute religious people. Engels instead argued that religion would gradually disappear over time, that there was no need for persecution of religious people and that such policies would not work and are dangerous.
and he was right, western europe after decades of capitalism has lower religiosity than eastern europe, trying to suppress religion forcibly is pointless and counter productive, future communists should learn from this
"No Corruption"... I've never heard that "myth" about ANY super power. Almost like this was just an opportunity to sling mud?
I have so far loved EVERY thing you have done and both thank and applaud you for it.
Could you perhaps do something on the relationship between the USSR and Vietnam and other South East Asian countries?
5:26 I read in an old Reader's Digest (1970's) describing the soviet political comic, Krokodil. The format sort of is like the Farside with some cartoons having a manager taking the corporate car to a "official trip" while in hunting attire. Another showed workers sleeping on the job or beinf drunk.
There's a lot of Krokodil caricatures and scans on the net, obviously, in russian sector. They used to mock lots of things: foreign mass culture, bureaucracy burying any fruitful initiative in papers, lazy youth, etc. But the funniest part was the "You can't invent it on purpose" part, featuring laughable quotes from official documents. For example, "I made a couple of bottles of moonshine (that was illegal both for sale and personal consumption, today you can make booze for yourself, but can't sell it) and went to my friend on the public bus, in the bus I was caught for riding without a ticktet with all my booze. I understood my guilt and from now on I will always buy tickets".
As a leftist, I really appreciate this video. Myths about the soviet union abound both on the right and the left from different angles and having some dry and sensible discourse on the subject is quite helpful
Born in 1943, and living first some 50 years without an Internet, I probably took these myths as gospel.
Re: Myth No. 4. Stalin's campaigns against religion may have been the most ferocious, but his successors weren't quite as benign as painted here. For all the positive impression that Khrushchev's "Thaw" created (often deliberately fostered with Western journalists), it also must be remembered that he initiated his own intense anti-religious campaign in 1958. Anti-religious propoganda rapidly escalated; thousands of atheist clubs were formed across the USSR. By 1964 he had closed 70% of all churches in the USSR. See particularly Dimitry V. Pospielovsky. A History of Soviet Atheism in Theory and Practice, and the Believer, vol 2: Soviet Anti-Religious Campaigns and Persecutions, St Martin's Press, New York (1988).
cool, organized religion is mostly a tool of the working class
@@chriss780 Thanks for the Tankie take, Chris.
@@chriss780 A tool *of* the working class?
Soviet Union didn't fought religion. It fought the state/powergrabing institutes which was e.g. the church. After the church was "defeated" the communist party pretty much didn't care about who prays to who and what. Religious ceremonies were rather "ridiculed" in the face of modernization, progress and scientific breakthroughs, hence why it might sometimes look harsher than it really was. Nobody cared about your beliefs if you practiced it for yourself or in "groups of interest"
@@cccpredarmy Thanks, Tankie.
I find all this educational, When I was twelve-year-old I went on a field trip to the 1977 Soviet National Convention At the Los Angeles Convention Center.
Surprisingly, I've actually come across the, "Stalin only owned a pair of old boots and clothes when he died" argument before in other comment sections.
@@Phil-ni3ol 🤨
I swear this myth is stolen from Salahuddin
A really nice video - I cannot comment on the SU itself, but was a child in 80's in Hungary -> #1: Elections - here were elections too, but soviet style, as I recall my parents quite ignored, it has no significance for the larger pop., was considered a powerplay inside the state party; #2: Corruption - it was the integral part of life, in an economy with scarcity regarding some goods (although food was aplenty all the time) couldnt have been otherwise ... in case of such simple things, that you could secure some bananas for your family in stores, with some bribes or favours; #3: Hating the regime - Hell, no, for most Hungarians, as Hungary was labelled as the "happiest barrack of the Eastern Bloc", as I stated before, no food shortages, the information bubble did exist, as most people could not travel to the West, but could see, how harsher was life in the SU or in other comrade states (actually when that bubble was popped in the 70's and 80', as western tourists were allowed into the country, preeminently germans from both german countries, and people could see how the West was doing, then started the reslessness really growing here); #4: Religion - we had here the "TTT-system" which translates into english - "Forbidden, Tolerated, Encouraged"; religion was in the tolerated section, major christian branches were closely working with the government, priests were highly respected (if they "behaved"), no purges, etc., basically the state has a somewhat reserved neutral stance (I think they thought that religion will wither away in time - which actually did, as today's "true believers" are actually paying only lip service to the various churches, but living a completely secular lifestyle); #5: Worker's paradise - ofc it wasnt, but if you wanted to work you got some work ... unemployment was virtually non-existent, as it was called "unemployed within the gates" = meaning doing inefficient or no real work for payment ... but it meant basic needs were more or less secured ... like in case of the Maslow-pyramid - the 1st 3 steps - physiological/safety/belonging was pretty much secured, and these 3 steps are just enough for the most of the population to live a relatively happy live...
Very good. As always. Each of these myths deserves a show of its own. Just a little sidenote to the myth number 3 about people hating or not hating the Soviet Union. The claim there goes dangerously near to the notion as if there would have been a "Soviet people" - which there never was (as f. e. Gorbachev discovered to his surprise and dismay in the end of 80s) - because the levels of acceptance of the system very very different depending if one would ask a Russian, a representative of one of the 'titular' republics or for example someone belonging to a large minority who had now administrative entity in the Soviet Union at all (like Poles or Germans). One should not forget, that in its essence, Soviet Union was just another version of the Russian empire, which means, that yeah, of course they looked past it's problems and would say, that all things considered - SU was at least fine. At the same time the majority of other nations living there of course could enjoy the everyday moments of their lives, but were bitterly aware and constatly reminded, that they are living in a country, were everyone is equal, yet one nation is more equal than others, so that at least in the Baltic countries a version of the double talk, were some stories were told only in the family and close friends' circles, and another attitude was shown publicly, was a norm and majority of people knew all the time, that what's happening isn't right. At the same time propaganda functioned at least in that sense, that although people knew, that the Soviet reality is wrong, yet they didn't know what would be right. Which, I think, was pretty clever from the propaganndists point of view, as they surely must have known, that many things the official news outlets where bragging about, were just blatant lies.
>they are living in a country, were everyone is equal, yet one nation is more equal than others
RSFSR (current day Russia) actually had lower living standarts than some of other Soviet republics. Baltic states or Georgia especially were always considered more prosperous than RSFSR. That was largely because of "affirmative action" policy (yes, USSR invented it before the West did). Central Soviet budget spent much more money on average resident of non-Russian Soviet republics than on avarege RSFSR resident. So USSR was not "Russians are more equal than anybody else" thing as most of the Westerners believe.
@@randomname359 It has nothing to do with living standards but with political power and the Stalinist nationalities politics which continued to the end of the USSR.
In fact, when the Soviet Union born, the modern national concept did not form. I think the Soviet Union is a failed attempt of Russians. Russia and India are soul mates. In ancient Europe, there was a powerful Kievan Rus ，She intermarried with the Byzantine Empire, and she died. After that, Russia with Rus and Byzantine blood was born, so he had a goal: to retrieve all the territory of Kievan Rus . At the same time, because he had the blood of Byzantine Empire, he thought he was the Christ of fate.
Russia tried to achieve its goals with communism, but he failed. The main reason is that the Soviet Union is too poor, so others don't want to believe that he is Christ, especially Ukraine.The Soviet Union is indeed a complex topic. What makes me happy is that some Russians who admit that the Soviet Union is a poor country still like the Soviet Union because of faith.
@@可爱包-c4v I hope you know that there was no state in history called "Kievan Rus"? The state you call "Kievan Rus" officially was called simply "Rus" as it was hundreds of years before Kiev became the capital and "central city" for about 100 years
Good stuff as always guys! Thanks for looking into these topics, much appreciated!
in number 5 you got leninism and marxism mixed up. Marx never wrote about a vanguard leading the revolution
No but its a common mistake. Most of what people associate with Marxism is actually from Lenin expanding upon and clarifying how one is to actually implement communism. Marx was too lazy couch surfing on colleague's goodwill and letting his family starve to bother finishing his work
@@austinaragon3110 leninism and marxism are distinct from eachother. idk what you mean when you say he was too lazy to write anything when that’s all he did, it was that most of his stuff couldn’t get published because of it’s content. you also like jontron and the quivering so your probably not that bright
@@sage1312 lol nice ad hominim. I don't like this guy so ill make fun of his entertainment. Yeah there're distinct but if you actually read what I said most people conflate the two and think that a lot of what Lennin did was actually orthodoxy Marxism as preached by Marx. The reality is Marx died a loser, where 4 of his children died malnourished and poorly provided for while he was a parasite to his more successful colleagues. He never finished organizing his work and beliefs, they were all scattershot and later communists had to gather and organize it into better and more thought out literature like Lenin did. He was a flop and his ideology is too as evident by more intelligent and harder working individuals who tried to implement his ideology also failing. But you seem to like Marxism so you wouldn't come to that conclusion because you're probably not that bright.
It is just a fact that a regime which lasts decades cannot do that without most of the people most of the time supporting it, at least tacitly.Something we should remember when talking about sundry ME regimes, or when talking about China. Sure it is "manufactured consent" (in Chomsky's phrase) - but as Chomsky points out, manufactured consent is hardly unknown in democracies. Especially, patriotism is something that is ridiculously easy to stir up and always supports those in power.
In Khrushchev Remembers which i read recently. Khrushchev recalls a incident where Stalin was cheating on his wife with the wife of another soviet official it caused his wife to take her own life. However the husband of the other women seemed to actually know about the affair but did nothing about due to it being Stalin. Not quite corruption but a abuse of power to say the least.
I really wouldn't trust what khruschev said tho...
@@gnas1897 the comment is correct though if Stalin took a liking to a woman he knew no one would say no.
I have three complete Memoirs of Khrushchev. I will reread them and see if it exists. Before, because Khrushchev scolded China in his memoirs, I didn't read it all because I was angry. At least, as far as I know, there was no such thing
@@可爱包-c4v China needed to be scolded. Mao wanted to ignite the Third World War, and was mad because the USSR wouldn't go along with it. Tsk tsk.
@@nigeh5326 I guess
Well done David!
I love how the Russian Orthodox Church doesn't see the irony allying with Putin to suppress the opposition.
USA allied with Russian empire and the British empire in WW1 to defend freedom
And then allied with Stalin and the British Empire to defend freedom
@@julianshepherd2038 Was the goal of WW1 to defend freedom? I honestly don't see what was the point of the conflict.
I think most in the West recognized the irony of working with one oppressive regime to topple another. It is why the Cold War between the West and Soviet Union started before WW2 even ended.
@@julianshepherd2038 you can't be serious? The Soviet Union conspired with Nazis to divide up Europe and after the Nazis were defeated they occupied half of Europe for decades..... that's not what I call freedom
Please clarify what do You mean by "the opposition" which is "suppressed" by the Russian Orthodox Church.
While certain bishops and (much more frequently) priests do openly align with Putin, the Church itself is not a totalitarian "vertical of power". There are also priests who openly align with opposition, although they are certainly less common because religious people are usually quite conservative. Oh, and vast majority of them are against any sort of revolution. Both because of Christian way of thinking and of historical experience.
@@julianshepherd2038 ww1? to defend freedom? by allying with one fraction of inbred royals leading bloodthirsty genocidal empires over another?
Lenin broke strikes too, I think a labor history of the Soviet Union would be a very interesting topic
As far as I am aware, only Albania under Enver Hoxha actually claimed to have eliminated religion, and even that is questionable. At Hoxha's funeral in 1985, a woman was seen crossing herself.
Whenever I see Hoxha, I wonder if the civilian possession of light guns under his regime was a failure of gun control or if he never bothered with it in the first place, unlike other communist regimes that were "gun free" except for criminals of certain relevance.
@@Neomalthusiano I mean under Hoxha from what I understand. Gun training was a thing mostly due to fear of invasion since Hoxha was so paranoid and believed even the warsaw countries were out to get him.
@@blackearl7891 Yes, but gun ownership in Albania was considered huge according to sources of the time. Even in other Soviet Republics, like Estonia, which had marksmanship in schools or some form of military service, that not correlates with the number of guns on private hands. Almost all weapons were in the hand of the state. As far as general sources go, Albanian guns were not weapons of war, but under powered civilian guns (.22 lr, light handguns and bolt action surpluses). Thus, as it may be possible they were issued by the state as a mean of deterrent, I don't think it was the case, since if they had all that power, they would be more dangerous for the communist dictatorship than against Yugoslavians or westerners.
@@Neomalthusiano from what I have read accounts from Albanians. They were supposed to know how to use, and disassemble ak47. Guns were stored in storage, and the average citizen has a mandatory time they were supposed to have been in the military similar to countries like sweden.
@@blackearl7891 This is actually quite common. Most countries where English is not an official language operate like this*. In Continental Europe before WWII, several countries also functioned this way.
*However, as quotas decreased or remained the same over the years, people are unlikely to be obliged to actually serve if they don't want to. I believe this is the case even in Sweden.
I have always wondered how different the Soviet Union would have been had Lenin lived even until just 1930.
I use to get a laugh out of my soviet counter parts they would say they lived in a Workers Paradise then wink and laugh. =)
"The definition of socialism: an incessant struggle against difficulties that would not exist in any other system." - 1950s Hungarian joke. 😆
*laughs gulags
A great and very interesting episode.
There were 4 different eras of Soviet Union:
1917-1936
1937-1953
1954-1966
1967-1991
During each of those eras life of ordinary people in the Soviet Union was very-very different. To a degree when it wouldn't be an understatement to say, that applying the same analysis and drawing a single conclusion would be a total failure.
This + the regime and its terror varied between the USSR and every single soviet occupied country. The USSR itself, Ukraine and Poland faced the biggest brutality. But fore example Czechoslovakia experienced comparatively lesser brutality (altough people were worked to death, tortured to death, executed or imprisoned in quite some numbers), while Czechs and Slovaks were often shocked that people for example in Bulgaria openly joked about their government in public places, which would be a direct ticket to a prison back in Czechoslovakia. There was several different chapters and countries when and where reality was never identical, but the underlying fact is that it was ALWAYS an oppresive and brutal regime that wiped its ass with human rights and never gave a fuck about what it should have by its own definition.
@@vh5663 Interesting point of view. Especially for me, who was born, grown and lived in USSR for quite some time. But, of course, who will believe me -- son of ordinary people in the ordinary family? I'm not a historian, how could I possibly know what the life in USSR was?
@@andreylebedenko1260 Relax amigo, Im from Prague, my country, family and friends spent 40 years under the regime and my family have history with communists since 1917 (my great grandfather was in the czech legions), some of our family friends ended up in the camps after the war, many of the people I know spent decades being bullied by the regime to a degree they were forced to emigrate. I have a solid grasp of what it was like and I wasnt saying anything against what you said - there indeed was a number of chapters the USSR went through, altough I think there were just three main ones - pre Stalin era, Stalin era and post Stalin era.
@@vh5663 I feel for you and your family, but let me ask you one question. Could your history and history of your family be somehow linked to the struggle socialism came through while fighting against capitalist forces (internal AND external ones)? You are aware of atrocities caused by foreign intervents on USSR soil during its first years, arent' you? Sure, repercussions were harsh, but so were actions, so was the time -- nobody knew whether the country will survive or not.
@@andreylebedenko1260 Well pretty most of the people from central Europe and everyone from the eastern Europe is in some way linked to socialism / communism. Its just its usually negative connection. I wont apologize for being very openly anti soviet, altough Im otherwise a left leaning guy. The regime was superbly tyranical and I refuse to accept the notion of the USSR actually doing something for general population. You may say that the imperial Russia was an undeveloped pit of despair (I wont argue against that for sure, because it most definetely was) and that soviets rebuild the country into a superpower (again, yes they did) - but rebuilding a country with millions of slaves, killing over a million people in gulags, executing another millions on random killing fields all over the place, starving a half of Ukraine to death repeatedly and invading a half of the continent - well, thats something I simply dont see as struggle for the people. Of course, throughout the history of the USSR its people suffered because of way more powers than the one who ruled the land. but that hardly changes anything I think about it. Soviets were tyrants who often suffered under other forces. I feel sorry for the ordinery citizen, I honor the ordinery soldier, but the country itself was nothing but evil dressed as a revolutionary.
Corruption is a human action, why anyone would argue that it wasn’t happening in the USSR, truly is laughable.
Bakunin is laughing hysterically "I told you so!"
14:10 I laughed out loud when I heard him say that worker’s rest days were random throughout the week so that production never stopped.
Over 100k American workers’ are on strike as the result of working 12-16 hours a day, 6-7 days a week, in increasingly dangerous conditions.
More should strike for better conditions
What does that have to do with the Soviet Union and it’s work conditions? Every time anything even slightly negative about the soviet system comes up there’s always some sort of half assed comparison to America. Don’t get me wrong America isn’t perfect but anyone with a rational mind can see living conditions here are far better than that of the Soviet Union.
Fake news.
No American company is paying the (time and a half)x(time and half) for a 112 hour work week. It would be cheaper and way more productive to have three different workers share those hours.
If you are going to lie, then at least make it plausible.
@@christianmorales8978 Not for people making low wages, dude. At least in the USSR they could see a doctor and have an apartment. Take your blinders off and see what's around you.
@@badluck5647 Not fake news. I worked 100+ hr weeks for about 3 months every year...for many years. USPS during Christmas season. Just because you haven't done it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
Good video !
Would you ever do a video on life in East Germany was like?
The point about elections isn't entirely true. While you could write in "none of the above," the other option was to not vote at all. This was the metric the CPSU used to determine the viability of their representatives: if the candidate didn't get 50% voter turnout in their district, the party would find a new one.
Concerning Myth #1, I saw a video by the channel History Matters about Soviet elections. To the best of my recollection he said that if Soviet voters didn't like a candidate offered to them (but not the Party or the system as a whole) they would vote for "none of the above" to register their displeasure. Soviet authorities would obviously want to find out why a percentage of people voted against the Party selection and using the tools at their disposal would find out it was a protest against the candidate not the overall system then making changes accordingly if the reasons for voting against the candidate were valid (over the top corruption, didn't view the candidate as in line with the Party, etc.)
Obviously I could be misremembering or History Matters highlighted a few rare instances in which local Soviet citizens hoped voting against a candidate would result in a good outcome and were right (though I doubt this happened when the Mustache was in charge as no one had a death wish). Any clarification would be helpful.
It depended on the period and also on the regional situation. The phase of candidate composition was more interesting, not the election itself. And a number of organizations could play a role in this. The displeasure was rather expressed through the complaints about some individual characters. The citizen ran to the youth organization, the union, etc.
The Soviet Union also had to consider ideologically certain quotes: how many women do we have, in which positions, which nationalities.
In practice, it was less the choice than the complaint that was interesting for the citizen. And complaints were often made to other branches of the bureaucracy.
In addition, one must note that an authoritarian system also has an ideological claim. And you could play with this ideological claim.
Good video. Although I feel we are heading to a similar system with Mandatory Voting on Uncontested Ballots.
This part about elections requires clarification.
The candidates were chosen through quite elaborate procedures on some sort of primaries. As an example: local party organisation proposed someone, the "working collective" voted its approval, then regional party commitee considered among proposed candidates, special comission performed backgroung check on them and their families, and finally regional party commitee approved one (not necessarily a party member). As a result only ONE candidate was present in the ballot.
Legally you could vote "against" by crossing out the name. The option "against all" only appeared in 1989 once alternative candidates became possible.
The voting against didn't make any any difference or sence. The Election Day obviously was a pure rutial, although an important one.
All efforts were aimed to participation, not the choice.
I recall voting for the first time (at 18) I had received a small gift for coming. Also some deficit goods (or at least buffet) were expected at the voting places.
@Lex Bright Raven Yes
@Lex Bright Raven You couldn't choose candidate before elections. Regional Party officials were choosing someone among them.
You have a good list of countries to do this kind of videos...
Corruption is endemic to any and all current advanced and specifically “complexly,” designed, functioning bureaucracies in and of governments. It’s a necessary trade off even here in the USA.
I think those about corruption and workers' paradise are popular among those who are dissapointed (to say the least) with modern capitalism - where boss always have money to buy himself a new boat or send his daughter to Oxford but never to give you a raise. Where rich people prefer to fly into space instead of improving working conditions. And where the law is changed to benefit those who can pay more (corporations, banks, clergy) instead of average people.
As somebody who actually came from the Soviet Union this is an excellent video, well-researched and seems to portray everything accurately as far as I can tell. Of course my favorite one is the "worker's paradise". There's just no such place on Earth and probably never will be.
Wait, you mean to tell me the Soviet Union didn't have women and people of color overlords who ruled over white men?! My professor lied to me!
No, but you can bet they had a secret service office concerned in spreading this kind of bs in other to sabotage other countries. Actually, all the so called "minorities" as well.
1- elections. These were circus of the highest order, no matter who i talk about the subject (and i have plenty of options, with my country, Estonia, being occupied by soviets for 50 years). These were literally the only places where regular people could get deficit goods like oranges & bananas from (sounds funny nowadays, but that was remarkably common troughout USSR, although i imagine deficit goods changed from place to place). That usually resulted in elderly russian ladies being first ones trough the door. Also- you could not NOT vote. You had to do it. Whatever the reason you had it, they cast a "vote" for you if they had to.
Furthermore, one of my teachers in high school actually shared a memory of how he was missing from a meeting where they decided who is in the election commitee (sidenote- missing from such meetings meant that you were chosen). He very distinctly remembers how he had to phone in election results to Moscow at time, when there was still a hour of voting time left (Estonia & Moscow have 1 hour time difference).
2- corruption. Wait, there are people that geniuenly believe corruption didnt exist in USSR? First ive heard of it. It was so common that it is putting pretty much any other example i can think of to shame. Every single thing you wanted to achieve could only come to pass via connections, bribery, etc. Grocery line skipping is actually very accurate example.
3- people hated USSR. This is entirely dependent on nationality and area. Russians that got sent to occupied Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania tended to be extremely state-loyal (although it is worth pointing out that when the 3 countries did vote for restoration of independence question, good chunk of russians also supported it). And these are only areas i can speak of with any real confidence. These 3 countries, however, definetly hated USSR (proven by existence of forest brothers up until late 1970s). Thats also helped by the fact that these 3 countries were independent before ww2, enjoying very successful existence. And they each had their own ways to get outside information (f.e in northern Estonia, finnish TV was such channel, despite that being very illegal)
That said, modern reactions to make it seem that fair number of now middle aged/elderly people miss USSR. But it could be result of Russia pushing soviet-nostalgia.
4. religion. Religion definetly existed and was actually one of few open ways people could express their dissatisfaction with USSR, resulting even many non-believers turning into church-goers. Fun fact- one of few monasterys that USSR had was Pechory monastery, which only survived stalinist purge, because it was part of Estonia before ww2.
5. workers paradise. Ha. Hahaha. I would like to point your attention to what i said in point nr. 2- that overlaps with it a lot. How can anything be a paradise for anyone, if you have to be corrupt to get even basics and basic things done?
Occupation means that your region should be controlled by a military administration. In fact, the Soviet occupation of the Baltics is a myth created by local nationalists to legitimize their seizure of power.
@@Mentol_ You know what- you are right in sense that occupation is too mild of a word for it. The thing that soviets did was much worse. And myth you say? please be a shill elsewhere. But ok, to counter your argument
1. dividing independent countries with nazis and assisting eachother in unleashing ww2 as per Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and its secret protocols- something which USSR itself admitted in Congress of People's Deputies of the Soviet Union in december 1989.
2. Organising military invasions sloppily disguised as a coup against neutral and independent nation (even assuming that bases contract was done in legal fashion- despite the very clear ultimatum being given, with direct threat of open war- the "coup" people were 90+ percent russian-speaking young men, with shaved heads, with somehow having access to soviet weaponry, despite pre-ww2 russian population in those countries being less than 10 percent.)
3. Mass executions of local politicians, military leadership, activists and random civilians by the thousands.
4. Mass deportations of civilian populations to mini-genocide levels (such as in june 1940 and with operation priboi)
5. repressing local culture and education system, with preferential treatment given to russian language.
6. preferential treatment given to russians in every aspect of life- from goverment positions to getting apartments and such more easily. Also mass-importation of russians to conquered areas, trying to snuff out as much of native population identity as possible
7. subjugating newly-conquered areas economy fully to serve the needs of russian cities like Leningrad, while giving little to nothing in return.
8. forcing conquered areas people to serve in the conquerors military far from home as well as in its wars, like in Afghanistan.
Oh and to top it off- getting rid of conqueror, who took the country using illegal means in every sense of the word (heck, it even violated soviet own laws) is by no means illegal.
So, you want to claim you russians are innocent? Please, give us back lives of tens of thousands that died directly because of you, thousands more lives that never got to be born because of you, literal billions from economy we lost and damage we suffered. And then we can talk.
@@Meelis13 Most of what you say is old mythology that your nationalists told you. You are not using Soviet primary sources of information. For example, you say that the USSR suppressed your culture and considered your territory as conquered, but you do not quote any Soviet documents. If you cannot prove your words are right, then they are of low value.
Another killer episode, unbiased and honest, keep 'em comin'!
Oh no no no, Stalin doesn't own a luxury villa. He just squats there :D
Excellent!
I am pretty sure the people starved to death by Stalin's farm policies and those sent to gulags much less the disappeared would have had a strong negative response to that poll. The Russian citizens did have a deserved positive opinion about the Soviet's defeat of the Nazi's and the nationalism that they derived from that.
Soviet Nostalgia is because of how absolutely hellish the 1990's were, and the pride of being a part of such a powerful, influential nation. Many in the 1960's and 1970's lived much better lives then the 1990's and 2000's.
@@TheSunderingSea At the low low price of exploiting the rest of the COMECON. Once the late USSR started issuing IOUs (aka transferable rubel), it was evident they have no means and will to pay. So yeah, in the 1990s they just paid their fair share owed to the rest of us.
@@akosbarati2239 shock therapy wasn't good for most of eastern europe either
and buddy if you think thats "exploitation" maybe look at the us and modern western europe and the us is built off the blood of africa and the global south, thats real exploitation
of course now i guess you're happy, the poles get to be the us junior partner in imperialism and help them rape the global south for some of the scrapes, they're occupied by western troops, and were on of the biggest supporters sending troops to help the us invasion and genocide of iraq, some freedom
Nobody remembers the Stalin era. That was too long ago.
@@chepushila1 people who survived holodomor remember