5 ms·

> Ww2 hit russia harder then west which was hit super hard. I know. Russia suffered greatly in ww2. That's my point. It's why I compared ww2 to the soviet col

> Ww2 hit russia harder then west which was hit super hard. I know. Russia suffered greatly in ww2. That's my point. It's why I compared ww2 to the soviet collapse. That's how awful the soviet collapse was for russia. It was even worse than ww2. I never claimed the west suffered more than russia in ww2. No country suffered more than russia in ww2. > What happened is that post ww2, people had children. Not only that they had jobs and hope for the future. Life expectancy increased, everything got better. They became the 2nd largest economy in the world. Everything improved not just from ww2, but even prior to ww2. The exact opposite happened after the soviet collapse. They stopped having children, people died in droves, life expectancy dropped dramatically, their economy tanked from being #2 economy in the world to a third world hellhole being picked apart by foreign vultures, etc. Even today, 30 years later, russia still hasn't recovered. It took russia 10 years to recover from ww2. In 30 years, russia has yet to recover. In other words, russia is worse off today in population, economy, international clout, etc than they were 30 years ago. > Post communist russia has less children for the same reasons why western countries have less children - you got options if you are ambitious and also need to work if you are not. We have less children because we are wealthy and selfish. Russia isn't wealthy. Also, given the growth the west has enjoyed in the last 30 years, we can afford to have less children ( though we probably should be having more ), but russia doesn't have that luxury. Anyways, people think since bombs weren't dropped during the soviet collapse that ww2 was the worst thing russia experienced in the 20th century, but an objective analysis clearly shows otherwise. Winning ww2 helped russia advance and improve. Losing the cold war truly damaged russia in ways that it doesn't seem capable of recovering from. Not only that Russia has a higher median age than the US. So not only is russia older, it's poorer than the US. That doesn't bode too well for future russian prospects.

watwut 7y ago
Childbirths went down everywhere easter and central Europe. And it is not just poverty - if anything midle class and educated women are less likely to have kids. It is often oportunities to not be mom at home that attract women. "Objective analysis" that centers on birthrate only is not objective at all. Especially when it ignores effects of Stalin rule on people and conflates ruling party health with populace health. Comunist regime did not had healthy economy - it is one of reasons why it became weak.
- elfexec 7y ago
  > Childbirths went down everywhere easter and central Europe Yes, warsaw pact nations and former eastern european soviet nations also suffered. But russia suffered the most since they were the core of the soviet union. > And it is not just poverty - if anything midle class and educated women are less likely to have kids. I didn't say it was. My point was that the russian population dropped from near 150 million in the early 1990s and is still below that today ( 30 years later ). My point is that in the 90s, russian life expectancy dropped dramatically 10%+ - this is not normal. My point is that russia's economy is nowhere near what it was in 1990s ( second largest economy in the world ). > Especially when it ignores effects of Stalin rule on people and conflates ruling party health with populace health. What? As if yeltsin's or putin's rule were any better? > "Objective analysis" that centers on birthrate only is not objective at all. I didn't just look at birthrates. You seem to be fixated on it. I'm talking about population. Russia's population declined in 30 years. That's not a good thing - especially for a poor country. > Comunist regime did not had healthy economy - it is one of reasons why it became weak. It was healthy enough to be the 2nd largest economy for most of the cold war. The capitalist regime didn't have a healthy economy after the soviet collapse. Even during stalin's purges, the indicators weren't as bad as they were in the 1990s. I'm just talking about objective stats. Not sure why you are bring communism or stalin into the mix. The 10 years after ww2 were far better for russians than the 10 years after the soviet collapse. This is just statiscal fact. Go look at every measurement. Economic, cultural, political, demographic, etc. The soviet union grew and advanced in nearly every metric during the decade after ww2. Russia declined in every metric during the 10 years after the soviet collapse. Seems like winning a hot war is better than losing a cold war. I'm not saying communism is good or bad. I'm not saying stalin was good or bad. I'm just saying that russian life was better in the immediate years after ww2 than after the soviet collapse - purely in objective statistical terms. I'm just talking about the effects of ww2 and the soviet collapse in objective terms. Maybe it's psychological. Winning boosts a nation's confidence and losing destroys a nation's confidence. I don't know. What we know is that 10 years after ww2, russia improved greatly and 10 years after the soviet collapse, russia regressed. Even 30 years later, russia still hasn't gotten back to the starting line.
  - watwut 7y ago

watwut 7y ago

Childbirths went down everywhere easter and central Europe. And it is not just poverty - if anything midle class and educated women are less likely to have kids. It is often oportunities to not be mom at home that attract women. "Objective analysis" that centers on birthrate only is not objective at all. Especially when it ignores effects of Stalin rule on people and conflates ruling party health with populace health. Comunist regime did not had healthy economy - it is one of reasons why it became weak.

elfexec 7y ago
> Childbirths went down everywhere easter and central Europe Yes, warsaw pact nations and former eastern european soviet nations also suffered. But russia suffered the most since they were the core of the soviet union. > And it is not just poverty - if anything midle class and educated women are less likely to have kids. I didn't say it was. My point was that the russian population dropped from near 150 million in the early 1990s and is still below that today ( 30 years later ). My point is that in the 90s, russian life expectancy dropped dramatically 10%+ - this is not normal. My point is that russia's economy is nowhere near what it was in 1990s ( second largest economy in the world ). > Especially when it ignores effects of Stalin rule on people and conflates ruling party health with populace health. What? As if yeltsin's or putin's rule were any better? > "Objective analysis" that centers on birthrate only is not objective at all. I didn't just look at birthrates. You seem to be fixated on it. I'm talking about population. Russia's population declined in 30 years. That's not a good thing - especially for a poor country. > Comunist regime did not had healthy economy - it is one of reasons why it became weak. It was healthy enough to be the 2nd largest economy for most of the cold war. The capitalist regime didn't have a healthy economy after the soviet collapse. Even during stalin's purges, the indicators weren't as bad as they were in the 1990s. I'm just talking about objective stats. Not sure why you are bring communism or stalin into the mix. The 10 years after ww2 were far better for russians than the 10 years after the soviet collapse. This is just statiscal fact. Go look at every measurement. Economic, cultural, political, demographic, etc. The soviet union grew and advanced in nearly every metric during the decade after ww2. Russia declined in every metric during the 10 years after the soviet collapse. Seems like winning a hot war is better than losing a cold war. I'm not saying communism is good or bad. I'm not saying stalin was good or bad. I'm just saying that russian life was better in the immediate years after ww2 than after the soviet collapse - purely in objective statistical terms. I'm just talking about the effects of ww2 and the soviet collapse in objective terms. Maybe it's psychological. Winning boosts a nation's confidence and losing destroys a nation's confidence. I don't know. What we know is that 10 years after ww2, russia improved greatly and 10 years after the soviet collapse, russia regressed. Even 30 years later, russia still hasn't gotten back to the starting line.
- watwut 7y ago