Koopernic said: Anecdotally the Soviet Union was underdeveloped in the sense that it was industrialised in a few big cities but still agrarian in much of the rest.



I am no great respecter of the achievements of communism, economic retardation is always the inevitable result and the prevalence of Russian Hookers in places like Dubai and Bahrain lets you know what it really does to Society. The propaganda around the achievements of 5 year economic plans that are generally swallowed hook line and sinker by far too many sympathetic western academic historians have left a misleading impression that Communism in the Soviet Union had some redeeming postives, some advantage, some progress. Communism and in general socialism is judged not by what it achieves but by what it promises, a propaganda coupe if there ever was one. The Russian's, a talented people, would have been better of with out it. Click to expand...

The Tsar had to go, even if just for his incompetence in starting WW1 against advice of his generals (see McKeekin's the Russian origins of WW1, the Tsar had his troops attacking and skirmishing with Austrian forces during the period before mobilisation thus making mobilisation and war inevitable) western 'allies' didn't believe the Austrians but it was true. Click to expand...

I'll certainly give you that Soviet Communism was flawed with Lenin's revolution founding government alone, but it got much worse under Stalin ... for 3 decades until Khrushchev finally started to un-do the horrible mess that had been created. (even then it was way too far gone to expect a recovery in any reasonable timescale, especially after the polarization of the cold war was well under way -plus, attempts to dispense with Trofim Lysenko's agriculture policies ended up failing as well, and similar attempted reforms throughout industry ended up bogged down by the existing bureacracy and doctrine -and general incompetence)What the USSR needed was GOOD, progressive leadership to replace Lenin in the first place, someone (or an entire administration) that could recognize the flawed aspects of the initial Maxist-derived dictatorship and worked towards reforming the government and civil/military planning system to be actually rational. (if they'd had planning committees and leadership with people actually skilled/competent in their fields and social reform focusing on improving overall quality of education in all fields -to maintain/improve the overall level of capability in the country, and transcend the largely peasant based mass populace, then modernization of Russia should have been very practical) Granted, the end result might not have been what Marx or Lenin would have considered 'communism' ... but it would probably fit in with what popular culture considers 'socialism' today. (all of the 'progressive' politicians in America in the early 1900s would be considered such as well)Anyway, if you want to apply all this to some real relevance to the topic of the thread: HAD the USSR (or totally different alternative replacement for the Russian Empire) progressed into a system run by well-educated, competent, practical, politically charismatic/influential (ie not 'weak' in the public eyes) leaders without the hateful paranoia of Stalin (to put it lightly), they likely wouldn't have NEEDED lend-lease support in the same sense as was historically the case and would not only have fared better industrially, but had a far more effective and productive agricultural revolution as well. (more food, more fuel, more efficient workers and soldiers -not to mention more capable, versatile and competent technicians and skilled laborers due to improved education -and more unskilled laborers able to be trained in skilled positions if/when the demand increased)Also no purges forcing skilled, talented scientists and engineers (and politicians) into exile, work camps, or having them outright executed. And many of the engineers who already did make progress historically, would be more production and less restricted by a crippled manufacturing infrastructure with poor quality control.More competent engineering also could have chosen more efficient engineering solution to industrialization as well.Much of this was true for nearly ever European Leader during WWI, it was a combined mess of botched pre-war politics and diplomacy as well as miscommunication (the root cause of so many conflicts in history) ... not to get into greater specifics. (Bismark, of course, saw it coming decades earlier, but went largely unheeded)I'd even include President Wilson in those partially at fault as, while some of his ideals would indeed have avoided further conflict (including the 14 points), his policies of isolationism and non-intervention prevented the US from exerting influence before and during most of the war, while his idealism with lack of effective, forceful diplomacy meant he had relatively little impact on the terms of the armistice and subsequent treaty. (he was the wrong person for the job ... at least that that time; Roosevelt seems just about perfect ... had be been elected in 1912 -Wilson may have been more effective in the 1920s in avoiding or at least better moderating the market crash and depression, but then so would have Roosevelt's policies and his better ability to implement them)