Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. GrandTheftAuto.net - Website Re-Launch

    1. GTA Online

      1. The Diamond Casino Heist
      2. Find Lobbies & Players
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Vehicles
      5. Content Creator
      6. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Frontier Pursuits
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
    3. Crews

      1. Events
    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Gameplay
      3. Missions
      4. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Redemption

    1. Grand Theft Auto Series

    2. GTA 6

    3. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    4. GTA IV

      1. The Lost and Damned
      2. The Ballad of Gay Tony
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
    5. GTA Chinatown Wars

    6. GTA Vice City Stories

    7. GTA Liberty City Stories

    8. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    9. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    10. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    11. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    1. GTA Mods

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Red Dead Mods

      1. Documentation
    3. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    4. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Rockstar Games

    2. Rockstar Collectors

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    3. Gangs

    1. Announcements

    2. Support

    3. Suggestions

WhatsPoppin

Are we really better off without the USSR?

Recommended Posts

WhatsPoppin

Is Russia, the United States of America, and the world better off without the Soviet Union.

 

Im not a Communist or anything nor do i mean to offend anyone or agree with what the Soviet Government did to its people

 

what i mean by this is as a whole is the world better without the Soviet presence

 

During the Cold War the USSR's presence as the other world superpower made Americans generally unified against something and put many Americans to work building up our stockpile, America and the Soviet Union were competitive and it was that completion that drove the American workforce to work harder to be the best. it was also that spirit that lifted us out of the Recessions we've had during the Cold War.

 

After the breakup of the Soviet Union America had no competitor and so we just let our industries crumble under our feet leaving us with no backbone when the Great Recession hit. America in the 90s also developed the sense that we were indestructible and we could never be harmed so when 9/11 happened it was a bigger wake-up call then it would have been if we still were prepared for a random strike like we were during the Cold War.

 

In the former Eastern Bloc there is rampant political corruption and in many countries there is hyperinflation or complete economic collapse. i think some of these countries were not ready for independence, their people were guaranteed a job and at least health care under the Communist Government, Many of the fifteen Soviet Republics for example has just recently achieved pre-breakup economic levels

 

Lastly you might say that the Soviets still were a threat to world peace due to their nuclear stockpile but i strongly believe if General-Secretary Gorbachev had been able to finish his plans for a more free economy and decrease of military industries of the USSR, the world would still have its competition but with the threat of nuclear annihilation greatly reduced

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Svip

Eh. I don't think you got your economics class all that right. The US was ahead after the Second World War because most of Europe and Japan were in ruins. You have any idea how hard it is to kick start a broken factory? Yeah, it ain't go go well.

 

So, the US had a head start during the first few decades. But in generally, they were not that good, they were just the only one in the West who were actually producing something and a lot of it.

 

Already in the 1970s, it was clear that the Europeans and Japanese were far more advanced car manufactures. Made better, cheaper cars. The US never really closed the gap.

 

But the Cold War had a lot of advantages for the West. It was a lot easier to remove the focus from the citizens' real problems. And even other foreign relation problems.

 

But it was also a conflict bound to end. It simply could not last. No bipolar or single-polar power structure of the world can. The world will always strive to become a multipolar world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shaboobala

 

Lastly you might say that the Soviets still were a threat to world peace due to their nuclear stockpile but i strongly believe if General-Secretary Gorbachev had been able to finish his plans for a more free economy and decrease of military industries of the USSR, the world would still have its competition but with the threat of nuclear annihilation greatly reduced

 

Well the chances of nuclear apocalypse were a lot more palpable during the cold war than we can appreciate now. Even during the final death throes of the USSR, there was a very real possibility of conflict. You seem to underestimate the influence of the politburo and the KGB. Gorbachev was not the leader of the country in the same sense as we have leaders in the West. I'd say it's generally a good thing that there are no longer a couple of guys sitting around on opposite ends of the ocean with their fingers hovering over "mutual destruction" buttons.

 

 

In the former Eastern Bloc there is rampant political corruption and in many countries there is hyperinflation or complete economic collapse. i think some of these countries were not ready for independence, their people were guaranteed a job and at least health care under the Communist Government, Many of the fifteen Soviet Republics for example has just recently achieved pre-breakup economic levels.

 

You seem to be confused between the Eastern Bloc and the actual USSR. The Eastern bloc is now (for the most part) better-off than it has been in a very long time. Yes, the 90s were a slippery slope of corruption and sleaze but it seems like the worst is over. It's extremely patronizing to say these nations aren't "ready for freedom", especially when the inception of that freedom came at no cost to yourself(afaik). There is no insta-fix transition that will make it easy to go from communism to a free market economy. A stable, free country takes many decades to grow and the most important factor influencing development is always the attitude of the people. Eastern European cultures have a deep history of conflict, sectarianism, orthodoxy and authoritarian subjugation. That kind of thing doesn't just disappear over night.

 

 

America in the 90s also developed the sense that we were indestructible and we could never be harmed so when 9/11 happened it was a bigger wake-up call then it would have been if we still were prepared for a random strike like we were during the Cold War.

 

There is no way to link 9/11 in any way to the cold war without totally grasping for flimsy rationalizations. There's lots of air traffic in the west and planes/pilots have always been totally unarmed and fairly insecure. Hijackings are not unheard of, terrorism is not unheard of and no doubt these things will continue to happen(and have happened in the past). We cannot pre-empt every possible terrorist scenario because then people's domestic rights must eventually be infringed upon. I say we just give the pilots guns/better cabins and put anti-missile defenses on civilian aircraft.

Edited by shaboobala

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dom0803

In my opinion, America had competition.

 

America doesn't like competition, so it went to war to try and beat the competition into submission.

 

Russia still have a LOT of nukes, like 400 or something. If they were so nuke-happy, why haven't they launched these yet?

 

Answer; because they aren't nuke happy at all. They're just another country like the USA or the UK and it's possible that the US didn't want the USSR to become popular, because if people were to get the idea that communism works better than capitalism, then American and British governments would soon see coups forming.

 

Not something the government wants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vido Corleone
In my opinion, America had competition.

 

America doesn't like competition, so it went to war to try and beat the competition into submission.

Ohhh. Ok. So that's what happened. It had nothing to do with the socio-political differences of The US and USSR and the differences in policy when it came to how to manage post-WW2 Europe. Nor did it have anything to do with the USSR fostering communist revolutions in it's surrounding countries which lead to the creation of alliances like NATO and eventually the US's containment policy on communism which was demonstrated by various "police actions" throughout South Eastern Asia. And it definitely had nothing to do with a buildup of Nuclear arms between the two countries or the various puppet wars that the two countries funded.

 

Nope, America just doesn't like competition, so it went to war... coldly. A Cold War, if you will, to try to beat the competition into submission.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mad Tony
In my opinion, America had competition.

 

America doesn't like competition, so it went to war to try and beat the competition into submission.

As far as I know, Russia were America's competitors. America never went to war with Russia. Do you even know what you're talking about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tom Toole

 

America in the 90s also developed the sense that we were indestructible and we could never be harmed so when 9/11 happened it was a bigger wake-up call then it would have been if we still were prepared for a random strike like we were during the Cold War.

 

There is no way to link 9/11 in any way to the cold war without totally grasping for flimsy rationalizations. There's lots of air traffic in the west and planes/pilots have always been totally unarmed and fairly insecure. Hijackings are not unheard of, terrorism is not unheard of and no doubt these things will continue to happen(and have happened in the past). We cannot pre-empt every possible terrorist scenario because then people's domestic rights must eventually be infringed upon. I say we just give the pilots guns/better cabins and put anti-missile defenses on civilian aircraft.

Hmmm.

 

I certainly link the upsurge of the "National Security Ideology" to 9/11-(here's a link http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2009/01/21...onal-security/).

 

That national security ideology which was the leading ideology behind the implantation and/or support for dictatorships throughout the world. (Including Saddam Hussein's)

 

The cold war... is an important topic that is not at all past. Good topic I think...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lt. Dan
In my opinion, America had competition.

 

America doesn't like competition, so it went to war to try and beat the competition into submission.

As far as I know, Russia were America's competitors. America never went to war with Russia. Do you even know what you're talking about?

The US never directly went to war with the Soviet Union, but the anti-expansion policy against Communism ensured the US would use military force in Korea and Vietnam, which both failed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vido Corleone
In my opinion, America had competition.

 

America doesn't like competition, so it went to war to try and beat the competition into submission.

As far as I know, Russia were America's competitors. America never went to war with Russia. Do you even know what you're talking about?

The US never directly went to war with the Soviet Union, but the anti-expansion policy against Communism ensured the US would use military force in Korea and Vietnam, which both failed.

Korea wasn't a failure. More like a draw. Technically we're still at war with North Korea and we're enjoying a 50+ year cease fire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mad Tony
In my opinion, America had competition.

 

America doesn't like competition, so it went to war to try and beat the competition into submission.

As far as I know, Russia were America's competitors. America never went to war with Russia. Do you even know what you're talking about?

The US never directly went to war with the Soviet Union, but the anti-expansion policy against Communism ensured the US would use military force in Korea and Vietnam, which both failed.

But the Soviet Union did the exact same thing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lazzo

 

Eh.  I don't think you got your economics class all that right.  The US was ahead after the Second World War because most of Europe and Japan were in ruins.  You have any idea how hard it is to kick start a broken factory?  Yeah, it ain't go go well.

Hm. Nothing about the military-industrial complex? This is still vital to the United States' economy today but the justification lies in a much greyer area. The Pentagon spends more money than all of 50 states combine (source) and not to mention how private industry invariably profits from war (think Northrop-Grumman, Halliburton, Lockheed Martin, etc).

 

This is starting to fall apart as the years pass from the fall of the U.S.S.R.. There is no more direct threat aside from the threats that are made up. This keeps the complex moving. If one's entire economy is built on war, then it needs war (think Iraq, Afghanistan, Desert Storm, etc).

 

There's a stark difference in much of this though. The Soviet Union had mono-towns that perpetuated growth and industry. The United States had the ability to choose from various private industries. That kept things going for awhile but the two really did need one another, in my opinion.

 

This isn't a very good argument on my part but there is an interesting point to ponder: it was soon after the Soviet Union's nine year war in Afghanistan that it fell apart. The United States is there now and things aren't going well. This is not to say I think the United States will fall as hard as the U.S.S.R. but I do think there will be a paradigm shift in world power. The United States hold onto an old economic model. It's inability to be flexible is a serious issue for its government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jesus'En'Hitler420

Very good post Lazzo. I certainly enjoy this part:

 

 

This is starting to fall apart as the years pass from the fall of the U.S.S.R.. There is no more direct threat aside from the threats that are made up. This keeps the complex moving. If one's entire economy is built on war, then it needs war (think Iraq, Afghanistan, Desert Storm, etc).

 

I like to tell people that the recent decision by the U.S government to deploy an additional 30,000 troops and $600 billion dollars towards defense spending is not all going to Afghanistan. People who just simply follow the mainstream news will believe that. However, there's hundreds of bases all around the world, hundreds of of soldiers and supply routes, puppet governments to prop up. The list is endless in what that $600 billion will be spent on.

 

As for the USSR and the world being better without it, do not believe for a second that the people that were there in the end of the USSR are all of a sudden gone. They are still there, still pursuing their own interests in the new Russian government, it's just not paraded about.

 

Lastly:

 

Already in the 1970s, it was clear that the Europeans and Japanese were far more advanced car manufactures. Made better, cheaper cars. The US never really closed the gap.

 

C'mon Svip, cheaper, some more fuel efficient, but certainly do not say better. I do not see any 1980's Toyota's and Honda's driving around but I'll tell you that my '85 Chevy has been hauling since then without an engine or transmission change, now clocking 250,000 miles to date. My Buick Electra, 1988, 289,000 miles to date. Same goes with alot of old Fords and Chevy's. I can say American cars were built to last, not cars that you throw away like a used condom after sloppy seconds with a Vietnamese hooker like Japanese cars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ari Gold

There can't really be an answer to that question; it all depends on who you ask. You ask a neo-conservative that question and they'll answer "certainly," but ask a former member of the Politburo that and they'll say "of course not."

 

If you ask me I'll say that I'm indifferent, as I think that there are both positives and negatives to the USSR not being around. On one hand, being a Capitalist, I certainly think it's good to free up a lot of these Eastern bloc states from communist control, which has seriously hampered the social and economic progress for a lot of these nations. With my parents coming from a formerly communist country, I understand that there are positives to how the communist system works (free healthcare and education is certainly a plus) but as I mentioned, I just think that overall for the countries' sake, a free, democratic system would work better. As someone mentioned, sectarianism plagues a lot of Eastern European nations, and the tyrannical control of some of these communists only helped boil the xenophobic feelings in a lot of these nations. Democracy and freedom will (eventually) help patch up these feelings and generally make Eastern Europeans happier.

 

Of course, corruption and a small sense of anarchy will be felt once communism was dropped from the nations, but these aren't permanent; in the next 10 years, a lot of these nations will be well on their way to becoming fruitful members of the European community. Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia are all now functioning members of the European Union, and other countries including Albania, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia will eventually be members aswell, provided that a sh*tstorm doesn't arise in either of those countries.

 

Time heals all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
D- Ice

I think an advantage a lot here seem to bring up was the increasedstability of a bipolar world as opposed to one Superpower. However, tbh I doubt that really made the world more stable, as American and Soviet sympathiser terrorists/freedom fighters still wreaked havoc everywhere.

 

On a national level, governments can also somewhat play off the two superpowers against one another so they compete for whats best for their nation, however it can completely backfire as in Saddam's case. Besides this can still be done today but with less powerful countries like China and Russia, who often are a lot more desperate. Thus Iraq's government getting quite good deals for the oil from Chinese and Russian companies as opposed to an expected bid just between US-based companies.

 

Tbh I too would say I am generally indifferent to their collapse. They contributed a massive amount of good to the world, but also were behind a lot of evil just like any Empire/Superpower.

 

Also Capitalism, when not applied in an overly extremist form like Communism, does allow good economic development. And while still pretty poor, the ex-Soviet countries in Eastern Europe do seem generally a lot happier with Capitalism now.

 

Superpowers and empires come and go - you should just stick by the one most beneficial to you and hope it doesn't collapse anytime soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PCM Modding Team

Sorry, im an idiot.

Edited by Waddy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bobgtafan

Above posters have already talked about the nuclear threat yah duh yah duh. But I think the economic impact as been ignored in a one aspect. 3 billion people have been added to the global economy. Sure China and India made some steps towards marketlization but it was only until the destruction of global socialism did they realize that only captialism could advance there people. I don't really see that happening as much in a world were the Soviets are still around. If anything Europeans are the ones who have suffered the most. Not the eastern but the west since they have lost even more influence in global economics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 2 Users Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 2 Guests

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.