View Single Post
  #18  
Old 06-21-2009, 05:09 PM
kato13's Avatar
kato13 kato13 is online now
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chicago, Il USA
Posts: 3,292
Send a message via ICQ to kato13
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raellus
If the argument is that the Soviet Union couldn't have paid for a full-scale, two front war, it could just as easily be argued that the NATO nations couldn't have either.
IMO the Soviet economy was a house of cards. In your opinion a pure military economy might add tape to the cards, in my opinion it would be like trying to take said house on a cross country drive. This was a nation with tremendous productivity problems under the best of situations, the chaos of war would not help them any IMO.

The USSR had complete top down power. If they could have waved their hand and established even a partial wartime economy to improve their long term productivity problems, why didn't they. I agree with you is that patriotism (at least in the ethnically dominant Russian areas) could be used to offset the some of the hardships of war, but in the militarily suppressed areas, including the outer provinces and eastern Europe, I am not sure how well patriotism would counter the pain of an empty belly.

You are also right in you assertion that what happens in the Atlantic would be the determining factor, as the US would not suffer anywhere near the disruption as Europe and the USSR would. Until you throw nukes into the equation US productivity (especially in agriculture) would be a tremendous long term strength. Again what we have learned about the weaknesses of the Soviet Navy don't help their long term prospects IMO.
Reply With Quote