The Economy of the Soviet Union
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 тра 2024
- This video was made possible by our Patreon community! ❤️
See new videos early, participate in exclusive Q&As, and more!
➡️ / economicsexplained
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
The Soviet Union is one of the most historically significant economies to understand, not only because it was the home to some of the most controversial economic practices ever, not only because it was a nation that altered world politics for the latter half of the entire twentieth century, or because it was home to one of the largest and most rapid economic declines in modern history, no no, all of that stuff is important and we will explore it, but more important than all of that is that even today, almost 30 years after the fall of the soviet union, the lessons of the nation and its economy are having lasting implications on the world today.
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
📚 Want to learn more about the Soviet Union? We recommend reading "The Last Empire: The Final Days of the Soviet Union", by Serhii Plokhy 👉 amzn.to/2YdreY9 (as an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases)
Enjoyed the video? Comment below! 💬
⭑ Subscribe to Economics Explained 👉 bit.ly/sub2ee
⭑ Enjoyed? Hit the like button! 👍
Q&A Streams on EEII (2nd channel) → / @economicsisepic
✉️ Business Enquiries → hello@economicsexplained.com
Follow EE on social media:
Twitter 🐦 → / economicsex
Facebook → / economicsex
Instagram → / economicsex. .
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
#Economics #VideoEssay #USSR
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Sources & Citations -
Nove, A., 1986. The Soviet economic system (pp. 49-74). Boston: Allen & Unwin.
Sampson, S.L., 1987. The second economy of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 493
Myant, M. and Drahokoupil, J., 2010. Political Economy of Russia, Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Hoboken, NY: Wiley and Blackwell.
Williamson, J., 1994. The political economy of policy reform. Peterson Institute.
Markusen, A., 1992. Dismantling the cold war economy. World Policy Journal
Murphy, K.M., Shleifer, A. and Vishny, R.W., 1992. The transition to a market economy: Pitfalls of partial reform. The Quarterly Journal of Economics
Hanson, P., 2014. The Rise and Fall of the The Soviet Economy: An Economic History of the USSR 1945-1991. Routledge.
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
EE Fan Exclusive Offer:
Sign-up for Acorns! 👉 www.acorns.com/ee (after registration, Acorns will deposit $5 in your account to help you get started with investing!)
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
ECONOMICS EXPLAINED IS MADE POSSIBLE BY OUR PATREON COMMUNITY 👊🙏
Support EE by becoming a Patron today! 👉 / economicsexplained
The video you’re watching right now would not exist without the monthly support provided by our generous Patrons:
Morgon Goranson, Andy Potanin, Wicked Pilates, Tadeáš Ursíny, Logan, Angus Clydesdale, Michael G Harding, Hamad AL-Thani, Conrad Reuter, Tom Szuszai, Ryan Katz, Jack Doe, Igor Bazarny, Ronnie Henriksen, Irsal Mashhor, LT Marshall, Zara Armani, Bharath Chandra Sudheer, Dalton Flanagan, Andrew Harrison, Hispanidad, Michael Tan, Michael A. Dunn, Alex Gogan, Mariana Velasque, Bejomi, Sugga Daddy, Matthew Collinge, Kamar, Kekomod, Edward Flores, Brent Bohlken, Bobby Trusardi, Bryan Alvarez, EmptyMachine, Snuggle Boo Boo ThD, Christmas
Hi all, the UA-cam police have been real class enemies on this video as well as a fair few other more controversial economies.
I do now almost exclusively rely on the income I receive from making these video's so I want to put my hat out for the channels patreon page. Any donation helps and it means I will not have to shy away from talking about more controversial topics like this into the future for fears of being hit with the youtube hammer of advertiser friendly content.
www.patreon.com/EconomicsExplained
Please only give what you can, and as always you are welcome to enjoy otherwise :)
Economics Explained do you accept BAT ?
Do you know what specifically is causing this demonetization?
Pin it friend
Damn YT lack the balance comunism and capitalism.
@@SuperMunQ it can vary from the footage shown Vs certain words that he's saying that may be flagged by advertiser's as not suitable to show their ads on. Once UA-cam sees it can't make money on the video it will be demonitised
I remember the old Soviet joke: "We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us."
I lived in the socialist country, and I have to tell you people work hard,
@@jk5042 And they still aren't compinsated
We`re pretending to work BECAUSE they`re pretending to pay us. Not otherwise dummy
It could also be. America pretends to be the greatest, and others tune for the show.
@@pavellima5755 Christ mate he's making a joke calm down.
Calling Mythbusters "that old TV show" just threw me through a loop.
Yes we are old:(
It is old tho
I felt older than I should when he said that...
The phantom menace is old☹️
I feel ancient
My grandfather was personally affected by the horrors of Communism. One time he was eating ice cream and Stalin came up to him and asked for some, he said yes and then Stalin proceeded to pull out a comically large spoon.
Band kids are not funny.
Was your grandfather Reagan?
@@mzadro7 All communist states were ruled by tyranny and terror, they do not go along with freedom
This made me laugh out loud. Here’s a gold star for you ⭐️
"Comrade, that is not fair! Everyone is issued standard Soviet size spoon. Why is yours bigger than the standard size?"
......
This person was never heard from again.
Thanks. With this knowledge I can now create a true communist utopia. You are also invited.
I'm not too crazy about the communism, but if you throw in a nice Russian bride I can be persuaded!
Lol, okay. Just be careful of Georgians who know people with ice axes.
China? 🤠
Make lennin proud
⛏
"A lot of workers are idle most of the workday, maybe like you are right now"
I feel personally attacked.
Turns back to work pc
*chuckles in lunch break
*angry communism noises* I still get paid the same no matter if I work or if I watch them videos *angry lazy worker noises*
I thought that bit was funny. If anything was annoying/offensive, it was the statement that 'most workers' in the west get 'a salary and maybe a bonus'. Yeah - thirty years ago. Most today get minimum wage, or don't have a job to begin with. What's left of the middle-class talk like they're still typical. They have no clue. End of rant. Otherwise, the video was quite good...
@@Microtherion I know a lot of salary workers. I know a lot of hourlys too. Don't know a lot of minimum wage outside unskilled labor. Also, national unemployment as of May was 5.8%.
i’d like to see a series on the economies of ancient civilizations (roman, egyptian, etc)
Roman Egypt would be great, pretty much raised the standard of living across the empire just with that one territorial expansion.
It is in the works my good man :)
Economics Explained please do Economy of Czech Republic explained
@@EconomicsExplained Both Invicta and Kings & Generals already did something on that. Maybe you wanna cooperate with them. That would be super awesome.
Persian Achemenid Empire as well !
Soviet economy of each decade is absolutely different, it cannot be generalized. Even certain institutions, such as GosPlan, worked very differently in different years.
And, the level of efficiency was also very different.
Yeah without having to worry about lobbying or beuracracy , caused the Soviets to be very flexible with experimentation.
Yes, that's very true. Somebody has to say it.
@@sethgaston8347 beurocracy? It was litterally the embodiment of beurocracy.
Each decade was different, but the lies never change: over-report (inflate) good numbers while downplaying the bad. China uses the same playbook.
@@weirjf lol China is killing it fam don't use them as an example
You stepped on a landmine when you said Soviet tanks were vastly inferior to German ones. Just a heads up, the tank nerds are going to hold you accountable.
T-34 had almost no chances to survive 1v1 against Tiger. But if we compare cost and not units, its at least 5v1, with very different result. Also Germany had huge fuel problems and lack of metals like vanadium for steel alloys, which made them stuck at impractically heavy tanks.
@@randombystander991 and likely most of the time they were fighting panzers medium tanks or light tanks.
@@randombystander991 You shouldn't compare Tiger to T-34 because Tiger tank was an answer for T-34 when appeared that Pz4 is not good tank compared to T-34. So actually at the beginning German tanks were much worse than T-34 however better equipped , with experienced crews and good tactics.
@@piecia66 When people say that german WW2 tanks were superior to soviet, they compare most iconic ones. My point was that quantity over quality can be more efficient strategy than just building better weapons; not just mindlessly throwing more, like soviets usually depicted, but finding optimal effort/effect balance.
@@randombystander991 oh, ok. Now I get it.
This needs a part 2. The economy under kruschev, brezhnev, and gorbachev was very different. The post stalin portion of it is a lot more interesting than Stalinism which, while important and well-explained, is commonly known.
Especially gorbachev
The only one you mentioned that was really significantly different was Gorbachev. But by the time he came in the economy was already crumbling and the only thing he could do really is try to reform it which he did to some degree but got blamed for the whole thing falling apart.
A part 2 of definitely needed
Ilya Levin The destalinisation and Khrushchev’s reforms were significant. Strict socialist central planning was transitioned to a profit-focused central planning. Then came, Kosygin and Brezhnev’s stagnation. And then of course, Gorbachev’s uskoreniye and perestroika.
@@juanjoniebles452 BS, total centralisation is Khrushchev's invention. During Stalin's rule, private enterprises, called 'artels', worked fine. They were banned by Khrushchev, who did not have any idea what he was doing with his country other than do-what-Stalin-did-not and undo-what-Stalin-did.
I'm not unmotivated, I'm multitasking. Slowly.
At my job, we may not do good work, but we're slow.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Round-robin_scheduling --> Just call it that during the meetings. Also try to use the word "Synergy".
*deliberately.
Here in Mexico folks bitch: "Oh, mexicans work 2500 hours-a-year" but, in reality, they're watching football, at facebook / instagram / tinder, and don't know how to turn on a PC, nor want to learn to avoid "more responsibility", yet, they want a six figures income.
Everything that this video says is true, but the main reason that the USSR dissolved is because President Reagan's crusade against the "Evil Empire" just drove it into bankruptcy. Reagan wildly increased the national debt of America to fight an enemy that was greatly a product of his own imagination. The Soviet leaders saw that Reagan's madness would either destroy the world or at least put the Soviet economy into the toilet. They chose to dissolve the USSR to remove it as the the primary target of American military madness at the time. The USSR actually won The Cold War because they were the first to realize that winning the Cold War wasn't worth destroying the whole planet in process, and not even worth the resulting hardship that it would put on the Soviet people. Compare that to America since 2000, where massive annual defense budgets are putting the nation further in debt, while many 1000's of Americans are homeless and on the street because they can't even afford a place to live. The Soviets at least cared enough about their people to give up its geopolitical ambitions, while America cares less and less about the welfare of its people in its desperate attempts to maintain its hegemony over the world. ... jkulik919@gmail.com
Can you cover Yugoslavia as well? Their economy was run significantly differently from that of the Soviets and other Warsaw Pact nations, and I'd love to see you cover it
YEEEEEEESSSS PLEASEE
step one: imf loan
ua-cam.com/video/nGm0u3UHDZM/v-deo.html
Yugoslavia💀
Yeah would be interesting
Okay, the Mythbusters experiment he referenced is one of my favourite. For those who don't know what it was, the myth was that dynamite could be used to clear hardened cement from a cement truck. What ended up happening was that not only was the cement little more than a vague memory, but all that was left of the truck was a single axle.
Maybe they should have tested with smaller amounts of dynamite to begin the experiment lol
Someone could have gone inside the mixing chamber with a pneumatic drill and used that to break up the concrete.
I'm going to be on sick leave that day.
I thought it was just Capitalist propaganda but now i see your theory
What do you call a Soviet sharpshooter? A Marxman
Ok, that’s a good one.
We need more jokes
Ugh..
I understand that you hate marxists I too, But this is really cringy "joke"(?).
I see what you did there
Marx was german
Romanian saying :"Ottomans took our eggs from time to time . Soviets took our chickens and asked for more eggs."
😂😂
lol. true though.
@Ruffus Vampir laughs at capitalist Germany
@@inigobantok1579 Cant beat that Wirtschaftsmotor and Export Weltmeister!
@Ruffus Vampir cope
My dad once got arrested for selling 40kh of cabbage outside his home town in Soviet Moldova 😅😅. Also it was incredibly difficult to do anything… to build a house (getting materials was hard because even if someone had something buying and selling cement, for example, was prohibited)
i've never heard of this kh unit before, would you like to explain to me what it is?
@@professorcube5104 I think he meant kg
KH probably means kilo-hectare. A unit of land area.
@@tom23421 Kilo-Gram = Its a unit of weight measurement.
Oh my cabbages!!
I remember that my Grandpa told me about a young coworker at a factory they worked at.
The young lad didn't know about that lie everyone knew about so the same month he joined the factory, it produced like 150% of the quota.
The managers burned the additional 50% in a huge fire behind the factory and told off the new worker.
At my last job, if I was too productive and finished early, I was pressured to leave early and miss out on paid hours.
Exactly! Before the new labour laws introduced in Portugal by the Socialist Party, if you were "too" productive, they'd just hand you extra work and pay you the same!
My dad has a buddy who works as a local government accountant and he gets flack from coworkers for just meeting or somewhat exceeding expectations. In an unamused way they told him that he was making them look bad.
@@Fred_the_1996 it does happen in countries without socialist politics as well.
If I finished early, they would give me more work even though I was being payed the same.
That sucks!
can we see the economics of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy? It would be interesting to understand how the countries were run in such a weird economic system.
Nazi germanies economy was pretty similar to the Weimar economy, but the Nazi party heavily subsidized war industries, to the point where they were almost broke.
Due to the runaway spending and borrowing, the Nazi economy was unsustainable, and basically required conquest to keep it going ( one of the reasons for the war).
Fascist Italy was a bit different. Lots of stuff was directly owned by the state, and by extension, the fascist party.
@@hellboy6507 you are absolutly right, but hitler wanted to become socialist. and thats why barbarossa happened in the first place. he knew that a socialist economy couldnt compete with a capitalist one. so germany needed to be resource independent that trade wouldnt be required anymore.
if u read about hitler, u will notice that his decission making and plans made sense, despite that he was megalomaniac racist. and not that moron as many descripe/displayed him... for example hitler knew better than his generals that the modern war is won in factories(which require resources etc.)
Don’t listen to either of these comments
I don't think the differences would be that big
Corporatism. Autarky
I have a 25 video playlist on my channel. Neither capitalist nor socialist
You've achieved Factory Manager Level
Objective: Don't get sent to the Gulag.
The objective: "Don't get sent to the Gulag" applies at every level, from school child, to retirement, from factory worker to minister in the government (only exception is the supreme leader, who gets poisoned instead).
My family told me about when the family farm was turned into a state farm. I was told that the authorities came and took all the good honey from their beehives, and left them the trash nobody wanted to eat. The next time the authorities came there were no beehives since it was decided to not be worth the effort. I can imagine situations like this playing out across the system would break it, without incentives why put in the effort?
"Show me the incentive and I'll show your the result"
Lol the "Communism is when the government steals stuff" meme 🤣
@@nateisawesome766 Lol the "I'll blindly defend Communism whenever someone gives a valid criticism of it" meme.
@@visassess8607 "valid criticism" yeah okay buddy 🤣
@@nateisawesome766 When the first comment was literally just saying a story that happened to his family under a Communist government then yes, it is a valid criticism.
In communist Poland there was a joke about trading with them :
,,We gave them sugar and they take coal from us."
they gave us coal
we gave them best helicopter production and massive shipbuilding orders
and sent first Polish man to space (added name: Mirosław Hermaszewski)
@@mashamylaramu you really had to comment about the Polish Cosmonaut to a guy with a Polandball profile pic didn't you? We all know that Poland cannot into Space, never did and never will...
I'm just joking 🤣, Don't take this seriously...
@@michaelnewbold214 sorry man, i cannot into comics culture, never did and never will...
:))))
Seriously, however, a former space nation has become a joke of everyone by denying it's own achievements, it's sad.
@@mashamylaramu it of ok. Just a dumb joke...
5:55
"This had led to a phenomenon where a lot of workers are idle for a vast majority of their working hours. Like maybe you are right now watching this video."
I had to pause the video and laugh. My coworkers looked at me in surprise. You got me there.
I feel attacked.
It's amazing how much capitalist America works like soviet Russia. It seems the flaw lies in the human component and not the ideological system.
So really, that’s hardly something unique to socialist nations.
Matthew Stinar Exactly, which is why the Soviet Union exists to this day.
We called that running out for a few things with a string bag.
My Dad told me there's a saying in the navy: "the reward for working hard is more work"
That's what I found when I was at school: If you can solve a math problem then they keep giving you harder and harder problems until you can't solve them anymore.
I recall hearing about Soviet managers having to do things to meet their quotas such as slaughtering beef cattle early to meet the numbers. Then they had no breeding stock when the next period started.
yes,there was the case after wwii in one district..
04:55 (...) and to not get gulag-ed. Cut to Amazon ad.
This was a work of art from the algorithm
I got an investment ad to try to get people to invest in stocks.
😂, I got download local government vivid tracking App!😅🤣🤣
Mine was a recruitment video from the Canadian Armed Forces. The machine is learning!
> not using YT vanced
Mine was about microeconomics
My dad's company does a lot of what the factory managers did. If a team got a budget, they used every cent of it because if they didn't, they wouldn't be given that funding again. There were a lot of business trips that really didn't need to happen before he retired.
Exactly it's the same process. The only difference being is that if that goes unchecked for too long the business starts to struggle financially and faces potential bankruptcy, prompting an investigation and changes.
In our socialist systems the factory managers didn't fear bankruptcy as the government managing all wages and its had a larger reserve of money to fund it. The issue was that initially most factories did fall for idea of productivity, but over the decades more and more figured out how to play the system to make more on the side.
Now a company might go bust if it functions like this (and a lot of them do go bankrupt) in a couple of years, a country though, the larger in size than a dwarf planet, almost a century to run out of juice
Same goes to education, westerners schools pretty much dump perfectly good school equipment bacause the budget will be reduced if they see them use a year old equipment. Thats why my buddy who's dad was the school janitor had like 5 microscopes in his room. The education budget here in my country does the complete opposite though. Theu gives school almost nothing and many rely on private donations, my high-school had 10 microscopes for 4,000 students and all of it were 5-10 years old.
That’s what the military does
But that spending also helps other businesses from the money he spent on those trips. Probably expensive dinners and drinks etc.
@@boflator the reason goods and Services are so cheap is because the companies have limited money. When something is state run it don't has to worry as much as a business that only profits through sales.
tried to see the comments but I accidentally pressed the subscribe button instead
I don't mind because it seems like a great channel (even though that's the first video I watched)
keep up the good work
I’ve seen a lot of your videos so far and what a great channel for explaining economics (and international relations) in layman’s terms. Keep up the great work man.
Deliberately under performing so that when we achieve something it will look like a win.... Its what retail managers do all the time 😅 shhhh don't tell head office.
Don't worry I'll keep this oath bound secret
XD
Juche Gang Gang OF8 Revolution 🕊️🕊️🕊️🕊️🕊️🕊️🕊️
That was our strategy in PE class
It's funny how this was the only critique of communist inefficiencies that he could bring up, when literally the entire premise of a command economy introduced a major set of flaws that directly contributed to the black markets of the country, as well as shortages.
I'm kinda surprised about how you talked about the industrial growth in the early Soviet Union. That wasn't the gov being obsessed with building more factories just because, it was literally the Russian industrial revolution. Like, that's why the soviets built so many factories: they didn't have enough to produce enough goods for their population, which wasn't really solved until after the war.
The failure to talk about the Holodomor (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor) was an even greater indictment of the incompleteness of this video.
@@hackysmack The Holodomor is so new, academically, that Millennials graduated high school before it was taken seriously and only 13 countries in the world recognized it last I checked. You will have to forgive most of the world for being unable to discuss something they don't know about.
@@Robert-qq9em i mean, Robert Conquest was talking about the holodomor in the 60s, and I would hazard a guess that the reasons certain people in academia didn't take him seriously were politically motivated, although it must be said that Conquest's death toll figures for the holodomor and the subsequent purges were way higher than what was eventually confirmed. That being said, a regime doesn't suddenly become fine and acceptable just because it turned out they only killed 4 million people at once instead of 15 million people at once
Yes people seem to forget that Russia was behind the west.
@@Currrby Robert Conquest was working for the British Intelligence as a professional propagandist.
"That being said, a regime doesn't suddenly become fine and acceptable just because it turned out they only killed 4 million people at once instead of 15 million people at once"
And who 'killed' these people? There are more than 4 million missing there...
i.imgur.com/Rm4AYex.png
Hi, thanks for the quality content! I am always enjoying your videos... just thought could be quite interesting to see a video about the economy of cambodia during the khmer rouge.
" people might be idle at work, like you are watching this video" 😂👍
"that old tv show myth busters" dont do this to me
Bruh...
Go watch tested on UA-cam it’s a great show hosted by Adam
Tbh I think USSR would benefit from a division between Lenin Stalin, Kruschev and Gorbachev during economic analysis. To me these are significantly different enough to warrant seperate videos
Yeah especially because of the shit economy Kruschev drummed up with his "reforms". You can look at the growth data in all former Soviet countries and it goes as follows: Increasing quickly through to roughly the mid-sixties then a quick about face, an uptick in the mid-late seventies, followed by collapse under the weight of Gorbachev's "reforms"
Exactly! Thank you! Every time under different leader economy worked differently. Bringing up only Stalin dictatorship let alone forgetting the fact that Russians were attacked by Nazis is quite biased. Life under Brezhnev was completely different.
@@vkrgfan Economy DID NOT work differently. Only political repressions eased up from Lenin to Gorbachev over time.
@@user-ku3jy9vd7n Regardless of the economy, if your country is in the middle of war, any economy will collapse, especially Capitalistic system.
@@vkrgfan not necessarily, war can be a massive promoter of industry. It just depends on what parts of your nation are invaded and what resources/routes are seized. If you are not invaded your economy will likely blossom.
This is sadly true in every aspect of our lives. In a world where work hours mean more than anything, people are actually compelled to work slowly and waste time. I like to say I am pretty good at my job, better than my coworkers. I tend to finish the day’s work in the afternoon instead of the evening like they do. So often when I turn it in, my boss “punishes” me by giving me more work to last me until the end of the day. Now I just take my sweet time to do because I know it’s better to put in less effort as I get paid the same to do more, and faster. Punishing greatness is so deeply engrained in any economic society that there’s no simple way of phasing such a concept out.
When I was a welder, I would push my table to finish. For 2 years we were allowed to leave when done, then they got a new manager who told us we had to do 1/3 of another tables work for no extra money. I said FU and quit on the spot
9:45
Not just the public sector. I have a lot of first hand experience with exactly this in big private companies.
Me too. Every April my department is scrambling to spend every bit of money. I have so many iPads I've never used because they're an easy way to spend thousands
It's plain wrong in my opinion.
By the later years of the war, the soviet tanks weren’t vastly inferior to the German ones. Some were, but most at the time could almost measure up the the German tanks in 1-1 combat. The difference was more that the German ones were vastly over-engineered which inhibited the ability to conduct field repairs if they were damaged or broke down, whereas the soviet ones had more basic and universal parts. Basically, the Germans went so far i to the ‘quality’ side of things that they saw huge diminishing returns in the effectiveness of their tanks compared to the Russians.
Not only that, the soviet production process was quicker because of the more standardised templates that russian tanks adhered to, and they still had a lot of factories in the lands the Germans hadn’t reached whereas the Britons had been bombing the shit out of German manufacturing centres for a long time after the battle of britain.
This is still typical for german cars - they over engineried and hard to repair.
Just because you play World of tanks doesn't make you a tank expert.
@@mateuszsmagacz8332 it actually makes :-)
Yeah, the "Soviet soldiers and weapons were rubbish but they just _overran_ us" thing is basically a narrative embarrassed German generals came up with after the war to explain why they lost. And since German generals were for decades the primary source of Western information about the war in the East (what with the Cold War and all), it stuck around. It's only true of the earliest stages of the war.
It is also worth to take in consideration the fact that germany was heavily short of fuel by the later years of the war (if not the whole war period). Specially in the eastern front there was a huge shortage of oil, forcing panzer squads to just leave the tanks abandoned.
8:15 "its not good economics, but it does make everyone feel good" Kinda like money printer goes Brrrrrr
I agree with 5:48 and it's true in a lot of workplaces, but where I work, we get bonuses based on the profit made from our particular clients (so if we manage the Northeast division, profit is split between all people working on that division based on the profit, and for salespeople it's based on whichever clients they manage). It's a small company and that is probably why it works, but it does motivate us to work, and a few people who have put in a ton of work have been rewarded.
My granddad was tractor driver in Lithuanian SR (part of USSR). He said management would measure your work on fuel used, so tractor drivers would go down the field pour diesel from fuel tank to some ditch, have a bottle of vodka and drive back. A lot of diesel used means they worked really hard, even field is still not plowed yet...
My grandfather was a bus driver in socialist Poland and he would suck the Diesel out of the bus. He would then trade It for bricks to build His own House after Work. Legend. My grandmother still lives in that house
@@alexgratzaTV no wonder that so many people were purged or starved to death if everyone was so selfish
Alex Mainz my great grandfather was riding bicycle from work to home every day and would pass some construction yard where they keep construction materials, he would take three bricks every day. By the time he retired, he built house, garage, farm building and there was still pile of bricks left lol.
@@qwertyuiopzxcvbnm9890 don't talk about something you don't know. Nobody was getting paid much and only way to survive was to barter state property. In a communist system everything is state property
@@SA2004YG That is obvious. Still people should have gotten their act together. It cannot be that dumping fuel is easier than carefully making officials understand that there is a way to get the work more productive.
Last time I was this early, Lenin was still in Switzerland
With his German handlers (Yes Lenin was a German plant and agent)
Okay boomer
@@markaleman4419 420 FUNNY LMAO!
@@markaleman4419 More like a boomers parent/grandparent? Boomers are called boomers because they where born during the baby-boom after world war 2. Lenin was released into the world as a millitary weapon during world war 1 by desperate Germans who needed their soldier in the east who where fighting the Russian Empire to go to the west to fight the French and English.
And the most crazy part of all, IT WORKED!
@@adobo777 wasn't Lenin being allowed to go to Russia more a calculated risk from the German higher ups, in hope that the commies would get the Russians off their backs?
John Maynard Keynes once wrote, "The important thing for government is not to do things which individuals are doing already, and do them a little bit better...but to do those things which at present are not done at all."
Thanks for posting - very clear and concise!
“The Soviet tanks were massively inferior to the German tanks”
Germans: “Hans ze transmission broke again”
Yeah, I caught that too. The T34/85 actually out performed most German tanks and there was way more of them. Most people forget that most German tanks were Panzer III or IV variants that were inferior to the T34 and much more complex to build it repair. The Germans still had better communications and tactics though
@@seanc.5310 yes i think in early t34 only a small portion of tanks had radios.
Sean C. Very right but I would replace “tactics” with “crew training”. Comparing Soviet Deep Battle Doctrine with German Bavegunskrieg in their entirety I think it would be difficult to say one is “better” than the other, but one thing you certainly can say is that German tank crew training was superior, at least in the early war, and that by extension their tactical cohesion and ability to execute tactics likely would have been superior. A pedantic difference, I know, but one I think is important to note
At ghalkin Gol in 1940 the USSR invaded Japanese held territory and wiped out the 7th Army........the USSR had the best equipped,led and supported blitkrieg army in the world. It already had 4,000 heavy tanks, and the rest of the world combined had zero. The "incompetence" of the Red Army claim is absurd.
I mean that was a big problem with T34s and soviet tanks too. The difference is that the Russian tanks were easier to repair.
I am a military historian, I can explain some of the things mentioned by E.E. when it comes to the Red Army and the Soviet war effort around Kursk.
1st- He said that German tanks were superior at Kursk and thats a contested matter. While it is true the Panther tank and Tiger tank manned by German crews were capable to knocking out many tanks, the function of a tank is NOT solely to destroy other tanks. To say German tanks were better because of this is naive. The Panther was rushed to the field and had major teething issues so many of them broke down before even arriving to the battlefield. The Panther's high explosive rounds were also not very effective as it was equipped with a high velocity 75mm gun (Germans used CENTImeters so that would be 7,5cm) and it was intended to destroy tanks over great distances. Tactically speaking it was good at what it did, but strategically the T-34 was superior due to low costs, ease of production, and good performance when driving on the battlefield and in armament. While it needed the 85mm gun upgrade to kill late-war German tanks, and the 85mm HE rounds were more effective against infantry and fortifications, the 76.2mm F-34 gun was still effective. That said, the Soviets generally had superior tanks, the T-34 was better in the early phases of the Eastern front, its upgrade post-Kursk was effective but the Red Army recognized it was an aged designed so they worked on making the T-44 precursor to the T-54 tank, and the Soviet heavy tanks were the best except for 1942-1943 when the Tiger was better than the KV tanks in nearly every way, which led to the IS/JS series of tanks that had thicked frontal and hull armor that was sloped, and the more common variant was the IS-2 with a 122mm gun that outperformed the 88mm gun on the tiger in every way except reload time and ammo capacity.
2nd- The Soviet industry DID give the Red Army a marked advantage over the Wehrmacht, but this has led to many misconceptions, among them being that tanks were war winning weapons that were made in the thousands each month vs. hundreds made by the Axis which meant by sheer numbers alone the Soviets won. The majority of casualties caused in both world wars was artillery, 60% of those killed in ww2 were killed by artillery, so mortars and field guns were actually more critical than tanks, which served as mobile bunkers with Machineguns (2nd main cause of death at 20-30%) and big guns with HE rounds for infantry and AP rounds for vehicles. Tanks were primarily an offensive weapon in Soviet hands, while artillery was used effectively on the defensive and on the offensive. That is why every battle in the Eastern front had more field guns than tanks, as the guns themselves were cheaper, easier to produce, less complicated, and served their intended function very well compared to tanks, which were effectively mobile artillery and MG crews. But another misconception is that the Soviets ONLY won because of their industry and throwing men at the German line. This is false. The Soviet Deep Battle/Operation doctrine was very effective and as the war went on, more men were armed with submachineguns than rifles, due to the effectiveness of the weapon in close quarters, which is why we see the Red Army having mass infantry charges, to get men in range with their SMGs, but we often ignore that these offensives would open with artillery strikes and men would often be accompanied by tanks. These offensives were organized, but the Germans continued using the Kar98 and built squads around the MG and supporting it as the main weapon of a squad. Rifles were typically favored for this as engagement distances were about 3-400 meters and the SMG with smaller pistol rounds was effective up to 150 meters while rifles and machineguns that used full sized rifle rounds. They also relied on the Kar98 over semiauto rifles because the Kar98 was more precise and very reliable, compared to the G41 and the G43 rifles, and used the less precise MGs to cover entire areas with a hail of bullets (the inaccuracy of this weapon was actually an advantage as it was more effective as suppressing enemies, German fanboys calm down) and the Red Army's efforts to compensate for their machineguns not dropping lead like the MG34 or MG42, had their infantry armed with SVT38/40 and SKS semiauto rifles and PPSh-41s and PPS-43s to increase the amount of bullets fired at the Axis forces. The PPSh-41s and PPS-43s were very easy to produce and with a large Soviet industrial base, and Soviet weapon engineers making planes, tanks, small arms, artillery and trucks in great numbers with their quality improving over the war, the Soviets actually began making planes like the Yak-3, La-5 and La-7 that began outperforming the Bf.109, Fw.190. The Soviet industry's advantage was not limited to simply "making more of everything", but it also allowed the Soviets to build newer designs with tanks, planes, and guns without compromising the output of necessary weapons. Germany typically made variants of existing weapons to improve performance, while the Soviets and Americans only did it as a stopgap measure or to have the M4 and T-34 fill a specialized role, such as the Sherman Jumbo acting as a sort of heavy tank, or the T-34/57 acting as a tank hunter. The Soviets also made sure the weapons they made were simple to make and use, while Germany's early attempts at modernizing their primary service rifle by having a semiauto rifle be capable of having a manual bolt action feature that complicated the design for manufacturers and soldiers looking to clean their weapon. The simplicity of these weapons also made them more reliable as there were less parts that could be compromised and less time to clean/repair them. Replacing a wheel on an M4, T-34 or Panzer IV was far easier than doing so for the Panther and Tiger tanks, the SVT-40 and M1 Garand were easier to maintain than the G41. The Soviets didn't just win by being industrialized, they won by being smart with how they used that industry. They won by having a firm understanding of logistics and maintained their supply lines effectively, and used misinformation to have Germans attack strong points along the front by obtaining false reports from Soviet headquarters they seized, they attacked railroads disguised to seem busy while keeping the railways they relied upon secret by giving them a bogus target, and any disadvantage they had tactically or strategically they worked to correct while the Germans would sooner blame failures on a lack of commitment.
Well on paper German industry wasn’t certainly inferior against Soviet one,as in every source German gross national product and heavy industry was largest in Europe since 1900s,they were just failed to mobilize their economy until 1943-44 and they used inefficent production methods.Soviet industry was certainly was more efficient than German one but if Germans were fully mobilized from early 1940s they wouldn’t been outproduced by USSR considering they already produced more value of munitions in 1944 with 17 billion dollars against 16 of Soviets.Germany had 5 times of Soviet coal(all types)production,3 times of their steel-aluminium and 2 times of their electricity production between 1942-44 since Soviets lose half of their heavy industry to Germans.Still before WW2 Germany had a larger economy than Soviet Union as well as little bit more industrial power,just second only to US on paper according to American historian Paul Kennedy.
@@Tutel9528 Well those are good points. I should prefix the industrial point with "war industry" or say the amount of industry committed to military hardware vs. consumer goods. As for the coal, while thats a fair point, the Soviets had oil and while the Germans might have managed keeping up if they were more efficient, the existing hardware they had didn't have the fuel to maintain their constant use like Soviet hardware enjoyed, and Germans liked complex hardware because it seemed superior. Germans had a bit of an ego, while Soviets were definitely a lot more pragmatic. To offset the disadvantage in steel and aluminum, they used wood frames for planes and worked to make them more maneuverable to avoid getting hit, as far as fighters went, with ground attack aircraft having mixed construction in the case with the IL-2.
But those are excellent points, thank you for pointing that out. Hopefully people who read our comments will get a proper idea on the industrial situation and how both sides handled it and why.
It's always a mistake to attack Russia, it's where Empires go to die
@@idiocracyisnowadocumentary8834 Thats curious that you say that, because the historians I have talked to and read from state Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires. Youre not wrong about Russia, though. Its definitely seen the Mongol, Swedish, and German empires destroyed.
@@ajohnymous5699 Agreed about Afghanistan , Russia has mortally wounded some as well , Napoleons Grand old Army wasn't so grand after the Russian Campaign
My dad and uncle were born in the USSR. They both worked abd still work in the machine tool industry. My dad was so good at machine tool he got invented to Canada to work but then the company failed. And now he owns a business making machine tools.
Do a video on how you got started with the channel! I've been here a while, but would love to hear about it
In the US the vast majority of people aren't salaried / exempt employees. MOST people are paid by the hour.
which is still the same problem. If you work in some supermarket then you paid a flat rate for the hours you work so why should you give 100% performance when 50% nets you the same pay?
Your source?
@@paprikaa117 ummm....the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. 59% of Americans are hourly, not salary.
@@AT-AT26 Because there is the opportunity for pay raises and promotions...
@R S there was also the opportunity for you to get huge benefits in the Soviet Union if you were an exemplary worker. You could get a nice Dacha or better working conditions and a car.
But for the majority of people then and now you just work a normal boring rate and don’t (or barely) get rewarded
As a logistician in the government, we were heavily encouraged to spend every dollar of our budget, even requesting fund transfers to increase the next years slice of fiscal pie.
We’d spend thousands on extra furniture, equipment we wanted,
And, the US military. It's a showcase of inefficient allocation and over-spending.
Don't believe the myth that this is unique to the public sector. This is present in every organisation with budget cycles and people that are motivated by building their own fiefdom (pretty much every large organisation that exists).
From travel budgets to events/entertainment to project budgets; the private sector is rife with this wastage. I've seen purchases of products of $1M+ to "preserve next years budget" that was totally unnecessary and actually made things worse (and now you are forced to use it to justify the previous years purchase).
@@tomtech1537 The term you're looking for is "Use it or lose it", and is indeed a common budget allocation failing.
Having spent about six years in old communist countries, I think you are severely underestimating lack of worker motivation that was happening there. It was nothing comparable to even our worst bureaucracies. Imagine a job you don't like and being assigned to it for the rest of your life, with no consequences for anything but telling the truth. The ideology talks of land, labor and capital, but carefully omits people. The greatest misallocated resource by far was people (and not just the murdered, starved and imprisoned ones). A good economic system is the one that is best at getting the right people doing the things that the most add value to others. Hard to pull off if people are classified as glorified machine parts.
exactly. there was no incentive to do great or innovative things
yep. This is what you get when you let a few people who just happen to be good at communist theory run entire complicated industries. Everything just becomes another statistic. This isn't even a question of socialism at this point--it's a question of irresponsibility.
@@007kingifrit Yet this exact same thing goes for capitalism too.
@@_________________142 are you slow? capitalism's incentive to innovate is called "getting rich"
@@007kingifrit "getting rich" by earning shitty wages working long hours in shitty conditions. Yeah, great incentive.
Anyone know the intro song, I cant find it and its bothering me
Will you do another one on Yugoslavia's economy?
They had a very different view of socialism that was much more centred on local autonomy and market socialism than the USSR
@smb Serbia was the only country that would loose from Yugoslav breakup, all other countries especially Slovenia and Croatia profited.
It was natural for Serbia to try to maintain Yugoslavia no matter how misguided it was.
As for economy, Yugoslavia starting from the early 90s was not really socialist by that point.
@@kostam.1113 Yugoslavia was a mess after Tito died
@@cosmophobia1917 Yugoslavia was a mess since 1918
@smbYugoslavia had its own industry,factories and production,good international reputation and a strong army as well as better working conditions and security for its citizens.
And now you have a bunch of debt ridden small and insignificant corrupt countries in which politicians are billionaires and people have nothing.
All as a result of people like yourself.
@@aaaaaa-ii4hg They had hyperinflation in the 80s
"soviet tanks were massively inferior..." Um, no they weren't. They were superior in some areas & inferior in others. But they were definitely more numerous.
Andrew Caleb Gorospe You’re not aloud to say anything positive about the Soviet Union. Every time you insult the Soviet Union, a capitalist earns a dollar
Their tanks were certainly far more numerous, which of course made a difference at Kursk and in WW2 in general. Even Hitler can be heard in a UA-cam video complaining to Finland's Mannheim how he heard many reports of Soviet factories pumping out vast quantities of tanks. That fact cannot be underestimated, and neither can the massive military-industrial output of the US in WW2.
Thank you, Andrew. We need some perspective and logic here. The T-34 at the BEGINNING of WW2 was an overall excellent tank, and had the biggest gun of any tank in the field. Obviously, Germany had to counter this, and did so in some ways, but never in numbers. As Hitler himself said, if he had known about the T-34, he would have never invaded Russia....
Not to mention the IS-2.
Germans created tanks to last for years and years to come. Russia made them to laat for just about long enough
I really liked this video, far more than the sUpPLy aNd dEmAnD stuff I learned in school. Do yall recommend any further resources on the topic?
I remember a friend saying that communism works only in small communities, where your incentive is your success. The more the scale grows, the less it works as organization shatters and responsibility is diluted.
Now, imagine your scale is the biggest country in the world.
Venezuela and Cuba started worse than bigger coin muni at countries
Rewarding underperforming industry’s and claiming they are “too big to fail” is exactly what failed the Soviet Union.
Yet we still do it in a capitalist society, those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
That's because austrian economics is not fashionable. Keynesianism is just selective socialism for failing industries
Null and the US almost never learns they actually thought invading the middle east with arms was a good idea with no idea of how that regions worked.
Actually none of the "too big to fail" were privately owned. They were corporations and thus by definition public and also by definition not capitalist.
@@dat581 publicly traded companies are still private, they just have many owners.
@@gothenmosph5151 That is an oxymoron. Corporations are not capitalist by definition. If it is a publicly traded company it is socialist, end of story.
A guy in the USSR goes to buy a car.
"You can pick up your car in 10 years"
*"Morning or afternoon?"*
"Why does it matter? It's gonna be in 10 years!"
*"Well the plumber is coming in the morning"*
President Reagan.
It's like me buying a bike.
Ronald Reagan
Yea I love that joke
I love these bullshit scenarios republicans make about a country they only know of from rocky films.
I want to know how effective the US economy actually is. I want someone to analyze Amazon the same way we analyze the soviet union today.
5:50 the hardest I’ve ever worked was at a grocery store, literally no downtime for my first few months and just getting stuff done. A month or 2 after covid caused me to be laid off and I took what I could. Then I got a small promotion in pay, but a huge promotion in free time on the clock. Did the expected work and then I could just do what I wanted for my last 3-4 hours of my shift. Idle time is just inevitable at a certain level on the totem pole
Actually, the soviet tanks by the end of the second world War were actually quite good individually yet still could be mass produced at a soviet scale
Ronaldjr Montagne they were good from 1941 t-34s were op
Maybe they were better designs compared to the early war ones, but the crews were still just as undertrained as they were early in the war. Hence, the reason why German tanks continued to enjoy a lopsided k/d ratio right up till the end of the war.
CavalierHorseman91 Yh and the fact that the soviets didn’t really care about safety features on the tanks at all
What's this? Do we have ourselves a soviet tech tree War Thunder player?
Bedford Grime Media They do lol. They knew too well by 1943 that losing trained soldiers is not the way to go. Plus it was about cost efficient, mass production, easy to fix and stuff
"The Soviet tanks were massively inferior to the German tanks."
Oh dear.
Not massively inferior, but inferior yes
I am not sure the T-34 was really that inferior to german tanks.
@@Mormielo History and practice show this quite clearly - they was superior their german counterparts and FAR FAR superior than american vehicles garbage.
And most important - not only 34. T-60, T-70, bt-7, kv-1 and 2, all IS, (which later gives a life to main battle tank of new generations), planes with their aces and ships with brave sailors - all those reliable machines and their heroic crews had a decisive role in the liberation of the world from faschism's monster.
@@user-no1nj9ji1d I think all in all soviet tanks were, specially the T 34, a more practical overall weapon compared to the german tanks.
You may argue that tigers were infact better tanks, maybe not the panthers due to reliability, but logistics, was problematic to say the least.
And yet Germans arrived almost literally inches to taking Moscow.
Had they done that (maybe had they anticipated the attack avoiding the worst of the winter) things would have been different.
@@user-no1nj9ji1d from nazism to stalinism.........thanks
It kinda hurt when he said Myth Busters was an old show. Part of me just kinda broke thinking the show I grew up on is now "old".
Always interesting, thank you.
From Russia: What i miss in this video is numbers and statistics. And fundamental social programs.
and a logic argument also fam. hes literally just touching common missconceptions and making it sounds like facts.
@@pantera8085 lol...A true marxist/ leninist/ Socialist would know, logic and 'argument' are just temporary tools used to water down opposition until absolute and complete control can be achieved ,thus rendering "argument" extinct. (+as well as the opposition 🤗)
@@pantera8085 Missconceptions? How does socialism works? (real, not theoretic)
Well it's inevitable. The Soviet "archives" basically turned the Ministry of Truth from 1984 into a reality
@@victorrenevaldiviasoto9728 lol u r funny, it doesnt in reality, only theoretically
I'll give this video credit on trying to be ambivalent about the USSR, but I'll throw in my 2cents.
The Russian Empire was feudalism, which was completely backwards in the 20th century and led to Russia's defeat and overthrow. The majority of people were peasants and Russian economics at the time lacked the mercantile and capitalist engines that powered the other nations. This point is crucial in understanding where Russian communists started with and why they did what they did.
This video seemed to try painting a picture of the Russian Empire that was contemporary to socialist revolution in capitalism. Proletariat are wage-earners who had to earn money to buy things that they needed. Peasants are not wage-earners on this level. Peasants toiled their lord's land to produce crops, which a portion was provided to the lords. Peasants then had to provide everything else by themselves like it was the middle ages. No way can this economic system compete with the industrial revolution.
Marx and Lenin were paired together in the video often, which could be done if considering the lineage of Marxism (as Marxism-Leninism), but the people themselves had differing views due to their differing historical contexts from which they theorized. Marx did not foresee socialism building up in such backwards conditions and thought that socialism would come from the developed world first and then spread out from there. (The reverse of this prediction occurred. In fact, orthodox Marxists disagreed with Marxist-Leninist developments of theory after Marx and failed in adapting Marxism to their conditions.)
(Marx also did not envisage how socialism and communism would exactly develop in detail. He was more into explaining contradictions of capitalism and how they would theoretically be somewhat resolved in a socialist and fully resolved in communism.)
Lenin instead adapted Marx's theories to Russian conditions at the time. He developed political organization theories such as the vanguard that would be intellectuals and leaders that would lead on behalf of his comrades. (This was important because Marx did not develop such theories himself.) Lenin also developed the broad plan for the USSR's first half of history to transition from backwards feudalism into a capitalistic stopgap phase and into socialism and then eventually communism, the classless society that would remove contradictions from the production process under capitalism.
The period between Russian feudalism and Lenin's time and Stalin's time was reduced to a throwaway statement. Feudalism was absolutely backwards and could not support socialism, a system where workers owned the means of industrial production, because such industrial production barely existed up to the capacity capitalism had.
I will gloss over the early War Communism years of economics because it was essentially a war economy taking forceful control of resources and the economy to win against the liberal, capitalistic Whites during the civil war.
Lenin proposed the New Economic Policy in order to capitalistically build up the economics (using private property as opposed to public) until it could support socialism. So a mixed economy between the private and public sectors existed, something akin to China now. Peasants were given private property (which they wanted because they did not own land under feudalism) but were not forced to collectivize and industrialize. The private sector was free to exist outside central planning.
Stalin ended the NEP in favor for collectivization and industrialization under central planning. This was the start of Soviet socialism where the state owned everything, but the state was in control of the Party, which was voted in by workers. Peasants were to become industrialized farmers using public industrial resources. Of course, there were always peasant resistance to things like this or war communism, which led to anarchist uprisings and the eventual ouster of anarchists from participation in USSR politics. The necessity of such policies were trying to have feudalism catch up to capitalism in a couple decades as opposed to hundreds of years. While the system could be defined as socialism under Stalin, but industrially, it required much more development while lead to the rapid paced five-year plans.
This video then goes into the typical argument that not being threatened with being fired leads to lazy workers. But it also happens under capitalism??? I will give this video much credit for realizing capitalism also has that issue.
The REAL argument is shown later that the central planners misallocated resources in an attempt to help what they thought were underperformers. This has a basis in anti-capitalist critique because capitalism will not be very kind to economic underperformers, no matter how important their output is. However, how they went about addressing this issue in this scenario led to those mentioned issues.
The video attempts to say that its politics and not economics, but there's hardly a distinction here because it's really political economy and the distribution of economic power throughout a legal system. Capitalism also has issues of political economy where resources are mismanaged to appease a very narrow ruling section that's sealed off from the masses without consideration for actual economic results. Soviet socialism had the intelligensia section of workers stratified from the common workers through their political system. Soviet misallocation is a very real problem, which led to its own demise, but similar "political" misallocaiton is also causing similar issues under capitalism, but instead of a worker's state, it is a state to appease capitalists first. However, Soviet misallocation is a matter of not understanding how their socialist economics worked and the actual conditions of workers. (Mao would go on in his contributions to Marxism-Leninism to try forcing the intelligensia in actually coming into the actual workplaces they preside over and work with the actual workers themselves to see what's going on). (Lysenkoism is another example of Soviet misallocation. It attempted to propose an alternate science to the science that justified racist politics under capitalism and fascism. It attempted to create justification for their mode of political economy.) Like what Marx said, economics form the superstructure of society (and culture).
(As a side note, peasants were FAR more lazier than workers under capitalism. Capitalism was where the concept of time is money was developed because the industrial revolution changed production from a matter of scaling human laborers through sheer numbers on a 1:1 ratio to scaling machine output and efficiency through technology where 1 person could product more and more and more in the same time span and that number of production can increase significantly other than simply more people and more resources. Peasants also spent a lot of time goofing around as long as the crops were tended to.)
The video then moves on about how the Soviet Union focused on industrialization and development as opposed to life comforts. This is a true statement, but lacks the context that the USSR literally came from feudalism and needed to catch up to the West. Hundreds of years of development had to be made in a few decades. There was also that specific industries such as defense and agriculture were favored more than modern comforts such as fashion.
This latter point is what later Soviet leaders after Stalin attempted to do through liberalization policies. However, such policies would root the seeds of the USSR's demise with it ending with Gorbachev using liberal policies to create a private sector that intentionally undermined the Soviet public sector. He also caused economic instability with policies like alcoholic prohibition. Yeltsin then went against the people's wishes to continue socialism and its safety nets for workers for some of the worst ten years of Russian history, where economic shock therapy looted the public sector to create oligarchs and people lost public services to make little under the private sector, leading to mass death and a massive reduction in production that Russia still has not fully recovered from. This led to Putin taking power.
The Soviets won over the Germans because they actually had resources. Germany constantly suffered from oil issues and so they fielded horses to help along their machines and supplies. This would be a nightmare in the logistics involved in invading Russia.
The Soviets also had BETTER TANKS THAN THE GERMANS. The T-34 caught the Germans by surprise because they were expecting Russian tanks to be crappy like the interwar ones that lost to FInland. So the Germans didn't have good enough anti-tank weapons to penetrate the T-34 armor. So the only way the Germans could fight back was COPY THE T-34. However they couldn't fully due to the aforementioned oil issues and their lack of quality steel. How's that for lazy socialist public sector workers? Meanwhile, Nazi Germany under fascism forced workers to labor for the private sector or else they actually were killed. At least the USSR would at worst label uncooperative workers as parasites to be sorted out in gulags (political labor camps).
Other achievements of lazy socialist workers were the AK-47 and satellites and space exploration, the latter which was useless and forced the US into beating out the Soviets to not be ashamed by them.
Another problem with Soviet consumer-oriented production was that they maximized for utility rather than comfort in allocating resources. Housing were depressing boarding houses but functional (which was the main urban unit of housing during the early 20th century before post-War boomers got the stereotypical suburban homes). Cars tiny, but functional. The lack of consumer comforts would be another factor in the demise of the USSR. Innovation was not lacking however. There were design plans for things like a radio-based system to transmit text onto screens akin to the Internet, but usually the resource allocation issue won out.
The USSR certainly did have an impact on the world. The rise of the USSR put fear into capitalists that workers would rise up and so made concessions. Krushchev condemning Stalin's failures lead to the downfall of the radical left in America. China would try to learn from the USSR's failures (the USSR's advisors to China did not understand Chinese conditions and failed, and so China and the USSR would inevitably have their schism) and go their own way. North Korea would use Stalin's example of socialism in one country (rejecting orthodox Marxist ideals of revolution spreading for Stalin's recognition of the conditions) for Juche to survive past the USSR collapse of Eastern bloc trade networks. Venezeula under Chavez and Maduro would develop socialism of the 21st century and attempt to have socialism under Western-style democracy with open elections for all sorts of parties.
(Interestingly, the collapse of the Eastern bloc led to the integration of the former countries into global trade that was blocked and sanction by the Western capitalist countries. Such blocking of the exchange of ideas and resources led to the constriction of resources those countries faced under the Eastern bloc. Poland used to have to share resources, but now it can take resources from Africa to develop for itself. Global trade is also the secret to China's success. However, Russia didn't fare so well still suffering sanctions for being a strongman against NATO encroaching more and more on former Russian allies surrounding Russia and rejecting the wishes of former Russian leaders for NATO to not do that. The flip side to global trade is the proletarization of the third world and their exploitation to benefit the first world at the third world's behalf. China managed to enforce discipline and cheap deals to attract this kind of investment but also take just enough for it to be able to build itself up through deals the West could not refuse. The future will certainly be a clash of the first world vs the third world vs the "second" world of China)
.
@@natehiggins2487 Russia in 1913 was on the same level as 1860 Germany, check the economic data. Marx thought a revolution was possible in Germany. Also "industrial proletariat" was always a very small percentage of the population in industrialized nations. In 1930 during the New Economic Policy the Soviet Union was as advanced as Germany in 1890, or as UK in 1860.
@@natehiggins2487 wow that's a lot of information, can you give some sources for further readings? I'd love to know more about socialist economies.. It would seem their biggest mistake was not being able to translate economic growth into public welfare?
@@presuntomr their biggest issue was having to fight hot and cold wars with every major capitalist/imperialist nation on the planet since its inception and until its demise. Hard to achieve anything socially or economically when all the most powerful nations in the world make it their lifes work to see you fail.
Wow, what an insightful analysis! Respect!
The usual videos are excellent, but this one is great! Thanks for the economics mythbuster episode.
My great grandma didn't know how to read, count ans write. But her son, from northern village of Kazakhstan. My grandfather became surgeon. And it was all for free!
On the other hand without the incentive of profit margins and constant growth their fridges lasted 50 years.
Bump
Their cars and Space ships too,
The Soyuz Space craft is 60 Years old and is still in use.
Actually, statistically it is even safer than the NASA shuttle.
The Kharkovchanka, the land crawler in antarctica, is also a 65 year old soviet vehicle. No one has been capable or replacing it.
Tells you much on how right you are....
@@rosesprog1722 oh i know ! It is no wonder the environment is suffering so much. Mountains of garbage... just so a GDP is never lower than the year before. Stupid. Just plain stupid.
Even xerox copy machines had a fuse that would break after a certain amount of copies produced... rendering the machine useless... and the fuse was almost impossible to just change out. We shouldnt let companies do that on purpose, its almost criminal.
@@mr.coffee6242 I know but that's what happens when profits are your first priority, capitalism is fundamentally flawed, it is savage, inhumane and a constant and increasing risk for us all. It might be saved I suppose but it will need a serious revision if we are to survive beyond a few hundred years... or maybe less.
@@rosesprog1722 indeed. Infinite growth in a world of finite resources.
Doesnt take a genius to figure out it cant function forever.
It will take a genius to get us out of that though.. in my opinion.
Me being unfortunately from Romania I can collaborate that this sort of mentality displayed here is still in many segments of life still present, unfortunately. Like lying about results or top down command chain, demanding results regardless of realistic they are ...etc. The country is a mess.
The same things happen here in the US all the time too. It's not a unique issue to communist countries, as the video points out. Everything is mismanaged here and all the power is at the top while the little people are always at risk of losing everything.
The very nature of communism means giving as much power as possible to the government hence creating an even more extreme hierarchy.
@@tomk6292
Communism is actually a world without states, money, or power hierarchies, where all resources are fairly shares and distributed by people, and where work is distributed and done rationally and fairly, as needed, by society. A place where none of that needs to be coerced because people willingly do it because that is how society functions. That is the accepted social contract, just as "normal" and "expected, without requiring force" as you visiting or doing something nice for your mom or grandma.
It is the opposite of what you're saying. Though, some Communists (Marxist-Leninists) posited that the only way to get to that point is through state centralization via a single Vanguard parth which guides the societal transition toward the new world. That is not agreed upon by all or even most Communists these days, but instead there are many other discussions around how to get to that point.
Classical Marxism itself preferred a more Democratic approach that did not include any type of centralized Vanguard party, but instead was led by the workers (/worker-owners of the new society) themselves, who would choose their leaders democratically through worker councils ("Soviets" in Russian, though Lenin and Stalin moved away from giving them any real independent power if they weren't part of the Vanguard party elite). Then, those worker councils and their elected body would represent the will of the people and work based on that will in a far more accountable way than "bourgois democracies" since they would be instantly recallable, and could not indepedently make important decisions without first getting the approval of the worker councils they represent. So, it wasn't supposed to be a purely top-down model.
Outside of Marxists the other most common approaches to bring about Communism are through participation in the Democratic process of modern Democratic countries, and/or through beginning with the reduction or elimination of the state and top-down authority as a complex, as a whole, and building a communist society from the bottom-up and/or municupally first, this is the approach of libertarian-communists, Anarchists/Anarcho-Communists, and Communalists/Libertarian-Municipalists, among others. In terms of being able to organize a larger society that worked toward larger goals most of them tended toward an idea called Democratic Confederalism, which would be for all of these different areas or groups (such as Syndicates) to agree to work together, but with full autonomy and without force or coercion, and thus they could achieve what states can currently achieve without needing any type of top-down heavy handedness, so they could guarantee both freedom and a communist society where the fruits of the labor of society are distributed more fairly and no one is exploited.
Before you say this is impossible either because it would require force because people would never comply without coercion, ask yourself, how did human beings live for the hundreds of thousands of years before certain pastoralists started hoarding land and animals and forcing people to work for them? And especially before capitalism? (Since even in pastoral times and during serfdom there was a considerable amount of "communism" among most people, even if the elites exempted themselves from it.)
Ask yourself, how did our current world order arise? Is this really how human society and human "nature" have always been? Is most of the work and hierarchy today natural and really necessary? What will the world necessarily look like soon when AI and automation can do all of our jobs (and they can already do many of them)?
If you realize the answers to these problems, you realize that pure (non-statist,"transitionary") communism (aka Anarcho-Communism) is actually the "natural order" of this world, and that humans wouldmt be able to survive and thrive otherwise in a stateless or very small state world, which I think we both agree would be ideal. Without the people agreeing to work together and share their resources fairly, that would otherwise just lead to another age of feudalism, since those with the most resources would continue to have the most power and people would be forced to work for them to get a few scraps of bread to survive-which isnt too far from today, except the government has that power, instead of some corporation, though in today's world corporarations basically own the government. So yeah, we're living in neo/techno-feudalism right now and the only way to ensure real freedom for all is to agree to share all of our resources fairly.
@@ammanite So you, like communism and everything that comes with it? Or am I trippin
@@ammanite Did you know that the Communist revolution wouldn't have happened in the Russia without financing from the wall street bankers? Communism is just a scam, designed by the very richest to use useful idiots in order to give the elite even more power than they have now under capitalism. In fact Karl Marx was a relative to the mighty Rockefeller family, the richest banker family in that time. That should raise alarms in every >60iq human being.
Really awesome video, I learned a lot
I Love these Videos Really Explaining each country economy
Sad that UA-cam actually considers this “controversial” what a joke. I listened and it seems nothing more than educational and fair
MyDogFulton It's Apolitical,Friendly,Intriguing
What's the issue!?..NONE!
(If you think I'm insulting you I am not I'm just expanding on why oh why does youtube see this as Controversial)
This upsets too many Stalinist flakes, who, ironically, somehow make perfect members of the consumer society. Basically because they have no idea of how economics work on any level.
It is minor "edgy" and most companies when looking to get their name known avoid "edgy" at all costs. They want to be associated with warm and fuzzy feelings, not anything at all, in any way, negative. UA-cam is a prostitute of advertisers, not creators, and as such goes way out of its way to please them.
Controversial basically just means, "someone somewhere will find a way to creatively interpret this to get upset"
🤣🤣
I'm not a Stalinist, and I'm definitely not upset, but hot take:
It's a bit ignorant to suggest that Lenin (let alone Marx) ever supported the kind of dictatorship Stalin represented. So although some of the policies implemented were more communal, it's hard to call it socialism since society at large didn't have any say in political matters by the time the country stabilised.
In fact, by some Marxist definitions - such as the systematic extraction of surplus - Stalinist Russia can be considered State Capitalism.
*this WAS the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
twas
Economics Explained #camp
@@EconomicsExplained As someone who lived for some time in a commie country and whose parents and grandparents lived under it all of their lives:
The video SUUUUUCKS! Like major balls suck!
First and foremost-the Soviet Union was NOT SOCIALIST AT ALL!
They might have called it Socialism,but I also might call myself the UFC Champion,but calling myself that does Not make me the UFC Champion,does it?And so It was Communist-which is a 100% opposite of Socialism.
@@dobriltanev9722 thats just the same shit with different sparkles.
No matter how much you want to make it glow, it will still stain, stink and smear.
@@dobriltanev9722 yep, totally opposite, you just need to switch the socialism and communism to get it ... less wrong ;)
and as long as you find enough people to accept your definition of the UFC champion, then yes, it makes you that in their eyes. there are plenty of examples of misused words like that.
"Quantitive accumulation leads to qualitative changes"
Just need to add, that the soviet tanks were not inferior to the germans in terms of firepower or armor. And though the assembly of the soviet cars was really bad, there were some really genius design decisions to make the cars work despite the means of production.
they were vastly inferior in firepower, the kwk l76 8.8cm had a vastly higher rate of fire. less dispersion after 100m and lower gun depression....not to mention the penetration difference
@@007kingifrit hahhahaaaaaa
History isn't gaming you know...
@@tsvetankunchev4477 not a response
Soviet armors were really weak one nazi tank commander took out like 20 soviet tanks and his tanks didn't die after taking like 3 direct hits
People in the USSR were rewarded for working harder, at least in theory. There were perks for particularly productive workers.
And in practice? Not criticizing just don't know
@@etiennebouyoux3577 It did happen, but how well it worked and was applied varied from industry to industry and from time to time. There was originally a system of payment per piece produced, then it was hours worked. Both had upsides and downsides.
Can you provide a source? Plz
A father and son are listening to the radio when the announcer says that, once again, there will be a 70-kopek increase in the price of a bottle of vodka.
“Daddy,” the child says, with hope in his heart, “will this mean you will drink less?”
“No. It means, you will eat less.”
sucks to be you
One of the few policies that continued from pre revolutionary days in the USSR was a state monopoly in vodka production which kept it cheap.
OK but this scenario can very well still happen under capitalism as well...it has nothing to do with socialism
@@hannijazz3276 this is more likely to happen under capitalism lol
@@jackrutledgegoembel5896 I don't even know how someone can say that when the largest man-made famines in the 20th century were in socialist nations. Take into account the US as a country has never had a famine, even at its lowest economic point. Can you say the same for China? Soviet Union? Cambodia? North Korea? Ethiopia?
Ireland had a 5 year plan too. In the 60s called the first programme for economic expansion. The economy grew by 20%
Stalin's five year plan grew the Soviet economy, but it wasn't sustainable. It's easy to grow an economy when it's coming from nothing.
Many countries in the 50s-60s had five year plans. Argentina had two "planes quinquenales" in both governments of Peron in the 40s/50s.
@Revolutionary Communist You misunderstand, by "created from nothing" I meant that the Russian economy was garbage, and the five year plan made it marginally better. I know you're looking for places to type about something you're clearly passionate about, but my comment is unrelated to your wall of text.
Aidan Collins how is it unrelated? It’s context and context means everything
@@Zhicano It's unrelated because the context was not relevant to my statement. I have already explained why in my above comment.
At my last job (a major supermarket), the last three months of the financial year were marked with an uptick in maintainence, and equipment replacement. As pointed out in the video, it's because if you don't spend it this year, you wouldn't get it next year. As you can imagine, when you're ripping out perfectly good built-in freezers (for example), this gets expensive quickly for no real gain.
and the extra expense is passed on to the customers via higher prices. Whenever your supermarket (or any other business you frequent) upgrades its facilities remember that YOU the customer ultimately pay for it.
Thank you for this
Be careful you don't fall into the "german tank good, soviet tank bad" wehraboo camp. The German tanks were quite inferior in many a regard to the Soviet's, it wasn't just that these amazing machines were overwhelmed by shittier ones, it's that the Germans were too worked up creating 101 different varients of the same tank to fix its fundamental flaws. Check out Potential History for better info on Tanks in history (especially in the first and second world wars).
Russians still lost 3-4 times as much equipment and men but yeah sure. It surely was their superrior intelligence and engineering.
If the soviet Russia and the Nazi Germany had a war against each other then the superiority of Russian tanks would be irrelevant. The Russian commies would crush themselves under the weight of failures that have and will always follow socialist doctrine. The war would be about whether a German nationalized economy can out perform the already failing Russian socialist economy.
@@littlejohnny41 They lost most of the tanks to infantry rather than German tanks. It was mostly the lack of proper training and field tactics that led to such numbers. Still, until the IS-2 and the t-34-85, the Soviet tanks were quite flawed. In particular, they were overcrowded and they lacked a proper way to observe what was happening outside (AKA a cupola).
Look, based on just design the Germans and Soviet tanks were on par with each other each having their own class of strengths and weaknesses. But in production Soviet doctrine was not to make tanks last for a long time but just enough to do well in the war. With their limitations I still think Soviet tanks were still phenomenal. That’s goes for Germany, American, and even Japanese tanks with all their limitation and applications to their doctrines.
Quantity is a quality all on its a own.
Wehraboo camp? Lmfao 😂
Rather dead than red
1:29
There's a reason why the Tsar lost power.
The important thing, is that people should not be cut-off from Basic Necessities.
That was the Motivation for the Soviet Union.
To quote an Imperial Russian soldier:
"Our Wives, Mothers, and Children are protesting in those streets."
"They have no bread."
"Are you telling us to turn against them too?"
"That was the Motivation for the Soviet Union."
That is completely and utterly incorrect. The
Tsar was deposed and the people voted for a new government. The Bolsheviks then violently deposed that government against the wishes of the Russian people. Communism was forced on them at gunpoint.
@@dat581 ok, and? Most of the peasants and workers supported the bolsheviks. There were a number of uprisings before the October Revolution including the 1905 Revolution attempt.
@@dat581 you're vastly overestimating the popularity with the workers, perceived legitimacy, and the power of the Kerensky govt. Don't forget the whole dual power situation with the workers Soviets either.
I'd love to study economics, but I already have a career and have no interest in spending tens of thousands to study it. I'll just keep gobbling up youtube videos and the odd book. Thanks for these
Today, you don't have to spend a single dollar studying any such subject. Everything is available online for free, if you look around. You only have to pay, if you want a piece of fancy paper to prove it.
For a "non military historian," you show more accurate stock footage and reenactments than many purported "military history" channels do.
Ohh the reason he shows correct stock footage is because thr comments will only be about an incorrect stock footage. It's been happening a lot in his videos
9:40 i've seen this in corporations also. I worked at a grocery store and some weeks there wasn't enough work and i'd ask to go home early cause I was just twiddling my thumbs anyways. However, my boss would ask me to stay and "look busy" cause if we didn't use all our work hours that week, the next year they would get cut. So a similar phenomenon as the one you're referring to even at the lower echelons of companies
Nicholas Brassard that’s one of the issues with work being paid by the hour instead of the work you do. Hard-working and smart people who get stuff done faster are forced to work on the same level as what a normal person would deem hard, holding those people back from their reward of free time, more money for the work, or whatever.
However if we did make it based on work, everyone would be monitored and those unable to keep up would left out. It’s a tough situation to deal with
Capitalism pays for not working!
@@sandshark2 Agreed, we need more incompetent doctors, carpenters, scientists and pilots. Why should they be left out?
TeaParty1776 I’m sure you’d struggle trying to learn how to fly a plane, or perform surgery, but that doesn’t make you incompetent.
Winston Smith i did not know that, as ive also heard stories like the one above, and others about how once they get work done, they are given more and more work from other slower employees, and yet they get paid the same. My point of view mainly comes from office work, so its somewhat skewed, and this could just be employer’s preference.
Either way, capitalism has its advantages, so im not arguing against it
This Comment isnt a critique about tank Information, more about how you said it.
First off,
The soviets had a different mentality when it comes to tank production, but it wasn't just "Let's throw stuff at the enemy", because thats untrue (for the battle of Kursk, in the early war maybe)
And completly ignores Soviet tactics and commanding skills. Your Version of the Story comes from German Memoirs ( they say they were overwealmed by Hordes of russians wich is did not happen) and because of the cold war .
Btw the battle of Kursk wasn't the biggest tank battle in History that title belongs to the battle of Dubno/Brodi in 1941
There is really no reason to believe that Soviet tanks were of worse quality than the German ones, especially because the heavier German ones constantly broke down and couldn't even get to the battlefield, while the Soviet ones had no such issues, even with the IS series. If anything, they were better than the Germans. Even early in the war, the Soviet KV-1 could not be penetrated by anything smaller than an 88, and the BT series was far more advanced than the German Panzer I/II's.
thank you.
12:20 this is true in terms of beauty of design. But in terms of combat effectiveness it really wasn't. The T34 was famous for its survivability, although they hadn't been upgraded with the 85mm gun at the time of Kurst so they really struggled to kill Tigers, Panthers, and uparmored Panzer IV's (from the front at least). They had a handful of SU-122's and SU-152's that could do the job though. The KV-1's that the Soviets had could also kill the German tanks.
Let's also not forget the fact that the overly complex components the Nazis loved to implement led to reliability issues. And the Tigers in particular were prone to drivetrain failure.
At about 9:50, the issue is not only the public sector, but many private sector companies as well. When I worked for GE in the 1980s, Jack Welch said that we did not have to spend all our capital budget, if not justified, and that we would not be penalized the next year, No one believed him. I was the CIO of a plant, and if we were falling short of spending, I was directed buy as many computers as I could to spend that budget. It made for a lot of tense weeks at the end of the year.
This Channel:
They teach us about economics
*The comment section teaches EE about History*
In this video, the socialist economy is just a series of generalized half-truth stories with no concept. Where is the social sphere? This is socialism, but no words about social benefits. Strange, isn't it?
"Battle of Kursk, largest tank battle in history"
bruh
"Soviet tanks were massively inferior to german tanks"
BRUH
Well, tank for tank you could argue that they were. But that was kind of the point.
Joshua Campbell not really actually they could duel with them quite well
@@joshuacampbell1625 comparing with Tiger tanks, sure. but the average run of the mill T-34 could mostly make short work of Panzer IIIs/IVs if I'm not mistaken. and tigers were quite expensive, so
@@victorc8855 tigers are overrated tanks
Ya boi I concur
I wish you talked more about the 15 soviet republics and how their economies interacted, but still a good video.
The part about underperformance and overexpenditure is pretty much exactly what happens in The Office where Michael has to spend a surplus…that’s all the workplace experience I have but I assume this also happens in the corporate sector.
- Wanna a joke USSR?
- Ok
- Finland
- I don't get it
- Exactly
Ah, yes the Finns who eagerly joined the Nazis in WW2. Not much to be proud of.
@@stanspb763 finland was finland. They never were allies with the axis or the allies.
@@unacuentadeyoutube13 without Finland nazis wouldn't be able to make a siege of Leningrad last so long
@@stanspb763 The red army invaded Finland. So the Finns did whatever they had to do to retain their independence including fighting the Germans towards the end of the war to remove them from Finland. So your attempt to slander the Finns and justify Soviet atrocities failed. The problem is a lot of Russians who grew up in the USSR have this glorified image in their heads of soviet history the brainwashed ones. Germans were forced to come to terms with their WW2 history but Russians have not and unlike Germany, Russia has not paid any compensation to the countries it destroyed or attempted to destroy like Finland.
That's inaccurate, the Soviets defeated the Finns twice and with each defeat they annexed more finnish land (But did not strip Finland of its independence nor did they impose Communism even though they totally could have)
Yes, they had high casualties but they also had high casualties defeating Germany and Romania, and nobody would dare say the Germans/Romanians won the war.
What are the 4 main problems with Soviet agriculture?
Autumn, winter, spring, summer...
And Lysenko. Don't forget him.
@Dovar Gulag time for you comrade
I know a different version: What are the enemies of glorious Soviet agriculture?
The imperialist (because they are always), Autumn, Winter, Spring, Summer
@VICTOR MOLINA even worse Lysenko was actually put in charge of the department of genetics. Alex Jones just goes on peote fueled rampages screaming into a microphone.
Don't forget the Greedy Ukrainians keeping all the food to themselves too. The Glorious Soviets had to force them to share all of they're food they were keeping for themselves.
Hello,Economics Explained.Thanks for the great video.I learned much about the Soviet Union and it was helpful,since I live in a country,which was a part of the USSR.By the way,did you know that there was an economist in USSRwho had done much for the world?It's Wassiliy Leontief.I study his theory everyday.Thanks again for the video.
Leonid Kantarovich basically came up with linear programming in order to try and solve the soviets allocation problems. I dont know if linear programming would have solved the soviets economic problems (probably not) but it certainly has many other uses.
Watching this in my apartment in the old town in Tbilisi is a trip
Soviet tanks were not “vastly inferior” to German tanks, in many regards they surpassed or equalled German designs.
(Namely armor thickness and the application of that armor)
Aka: Sloped armor
On a serious note amazing how quickly sloped armor became a staple in armored vehicles, considering tanks had just been invented one generation before.
Yeah the sovies only invented sloped armour /s
By the time of Kursk, the German heavy tanks were superior to the T-34, but as the narrator explained, there weren't just more T-34s, there was also a seemingly inexhaustible supply of them constantly rolling off the assembly lines. The Nazis thus lost despite their rabidly capitalist economy.
James Smith, The Quiet Hiker The Germans at Kursk had killed many more Soviets and actually won the battle. Hitler halted his advance to reinforce Italy leading to a “strategic victory” for the Russians. The Germans lost 500 tanks and the soviets 1,500. The Germans also didn’t have the gas required to power anything by the end of the war so even if they could produce another 500 tanks it was no use.
Their tanks weren't "massively inferior" why would preface that statement with "I'm not a military historian" and then make such a bold claim like that.
They weren't that inferior, in fact the German panzer had trouble penetrating the front glacis of Soviet tanks. Even though they had the tactical advantage, e.g radio communication and the soviet tanks doesn't have a hatch for the tank commander. Which it means that he will have to open the hatch and pop his head out to observe the surroundings.
@@veyolaski4324 Indeed, german tanks while good on paper were over engineered, underpowered ( mainly the larger behemoths they made later on ) and were extremely resource-intensive.
@@agiftfromdracosfather3490 I might be wrong here, the design and development of panzers were influenced by the Wehrmacht. The designers was supervised by Wehrmacht officers. Plus most of the budgets and investments on the military went to the luffwaffe and Kriegsmarines
@⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻⸻ (Two models of tank)
@@agiftfromdracosfather3490 what is he trying to prove?
Hheeeyy. I'm on break and it's 100 in the shop. I just got done tearing down a trolling motor with water incursion. I've earned a breather.... 😁🤣
"Socialism heroically overcomes difficulties unknown in any other system"
-Stefan Kisielewski
more like socialism creates unnecessary difficulties