Quantcast
The Russian Empire vs. the Soviet Union - a geographic/territorial comparison

Forums - Politics Discussion - The Russian Empire vs. the Soviet Union - a geographic/territorial comparison

barneystinson69 said:
Leadified said:

I have no love for communism but there is no denying that Russia was a superpower during the Soviet Union and transformed the country into an industral powerhouse. The Russian Empire was backwards, in a constant state of financial crisis and just as corrupt as the Soviets, it started to get better towards the end but it was too little too late.

As someone with roots in Austria-Hungary, I can't think of a reason why you would shit your pants, unless if you meant shit your pants laughing on how much of a trainwreck that whole experiment was.

That too. Seriously though, Germany and Austria-Hungary were not to be fucked with. If the German's were actually competant, and the Ottomans not stuck in the 16th century, it is likely WW1 would have been a central power victory.

Germany had some street cred, they beat France (and Austria-Hungary) which at the time was considered to be strongest continental power and had a powerful economic backbone.

The main problem I have with AH and the earlier Austrian Empire is it's poor record, Austria was crushed by Prussia during the Brothers War and the country almost collapsed in 1848. Ironically I think you should give the Ottomans more credit for opening up another front against the Russians and winning some major victories against the British.

The problem in WW1 was the lack of resources for the Central Powers (similar problem with the later Axis). Britain, France and Russia controlled a large part of the world at the time while the Central Powers had colonies only on paper and by the time they managed to force Russia out of the war, it was already too late.

Last edited by Leadified - on 04 November 2017

Around the Network
TheWPCTraveler said:
Leadified said:

I have no love for communism but there is no denying that Russia was a superpower during the Soviet Union and transformed the country into an industral powerhouse. The Russian Empire was backwards, in a constant state of financial crisis and just as corrupt as the Soviets, it started to get better towards the end but it was too little too late.

As someone with roots in Austria-Hungary, I can't think of a reason why you would shit your pants, unless if you meant shit your pants laughing on how much of a trainwreck that whole experiment was.

Austria-Hungary was on the verge of breaking apart in the years leading up to the First World War - if it wasn't for the Emperor of Austria and King of Hungary, Franz Ferdinand.
The German Empire found themselves in hot water with both France and the Russian Empire, given how Wilhelm II screwed the diplomatic balance that Chancellor Bismarck worked hard for.

So, yeah, you really would shit your pants if you found yourself in that position.

I think you meant to say Franz Joseph there, Ferdinand was the Archduke. It seems Ferdinand had some ideas which may have saved the empire or at least prolong its life, kind of fitting that his assassination ended up being the final nail in the coffin for Austria-Hungary.



Leadified said:
barneystinson69 said:

That too. Seriously though, Germany and Austria-Hungary were not to be fucked with. If the German's were actually competant, and the Ottomans not stuck in the 16th century, it is likely WW1 would have been a central power victory.

Germany had some street cred, they beat France (and Austria-Hungary) which at the time was considered to be strongest continental power and had a powerful economic backbone.

The main problem I have with AH and the earlier Austrian Empire is it's poor record, Austria was crushed by Prussia during the Brothers War and the country almost collapsed in 1848. Ironically I think you should give the Ottomans more credit for opening up another front against the Russians and winning some major victories against the British.

The problem in WW1 was the lack of resources for the Central Powers (similar problem with the later Axis). Britain, France and Russia controlled a large part of the world at the time while the Central Powers had colonies only on paper and by the time they managed to force Russia out of the war, it was already too late.

The reason Russia collapsed was because of Lenin was smuggled into St. Petersburg by the German's and starting the october revolution (oh the irony in that). Until then, the Ottomans where being pushed back by the Russians. Even after that, the Ottomans where still struggling against the British, and eventually lost arabia and surrendered. If the German offences in 1914 or 1918 where able to achieve a successful capture of Paris, or if the ship that was sunk by the German's (don't know the name) wasn't, its likely the American's wouldn't have an excuse to join the way, and I would guess WW1 ends in stalemate even with a failure of the spring offences in 1918. 

Either way, the Ottoman's really didn't do much to allow for a Russian, that was all on Germany. 



Made a bet with LipeJJ and HylianYoshi that the XB1 will reach 30 million before Wii U reaches 15 million. Loser has to get avatar picked by winner for 6 months (or if I lose, either 6 months avatar control for both Lipe and Hylian, or my patrick avatar comes back forever).

barneystinson69 said:
Leadified said:

Germany had some street cred, they beat France (and Austria-Hungary) which at the time was considered to be strongest continental power and had a powerful economic backbone.

The main problem I have with AH and the earlier Austrian Empire is it's poor record, Austria was crushed by Prussia during the Brothers War and the country almost collapsed in 1848. Ironically I think you should give the Ottomans more credit for opening up another front against the Russians and winning some major victories against the British.

The problem in WW1 was the lack of resources for the Central Powers (similar problem with the later Axis). Britain, France and Russia controlled a large part of the world at the time while the Central Powers had colonies only on paper and by the time they managed to force Russia out of the war, it was already too late.

The reason Russia collapsed was because of Lenin was smuggled into St. Petersburg by the German's and starting the october revolution (oh the irony in that). Until then, the Ottomans where being pushed back by the Russians. Even after that, the Ottomans where still struggling against the British, and eventually lost arabia and surrendered. If the German offences in 1914 or 1918 where able to achieve a successful capture of Paris, or if the ship that was sunk by the German's (don't know the name) wasn't, its likely the American's wouldn't have an excuse to join the way, and I would guess WW1 ends in stalemate even with a failure of the spring offences in 1918. 

Either way, the Ottoman's really didn't do much to allow for a Russian, that was all on Germany. 

Don't get me wrong, the backbone of the Central Powers was Germany without a doubt, but Russia ended up contributing close to a million men for the Caucasus Campaign that ended up being bogged down in the Armenian Highlands. If all those troops were directed towards Germany then Russian domination of Europe might have started 20 years earlier.

I can see the argument for taking Paris to force France to surrender like in the Franco-Prussian War but I'm not too sure how Germany could achieve this in 1914 since Blitzkrieg was not yet possible and France had political stability along with British and Belgian troops.



Leadified said:
barneystinson69 said:

The reason Russia collapsed was because of Lenin was smuggled into St. Petersburg by the German's and starting the october revolution (oh the irony in that). Until then, the Ottomans where being pushed back by the Russians. Even after that, the Ottomans where still struggling against the British, and eventually lost arabia and surrendered. If the German offences in 1914 or 1918 where able to achieve a successful capture of Paris, or if the ship that was sunk by the German's (don't know the name) wasn't, its likely the American's wouldn't have an excuse to join the way, and I would guess WW1 ends in stalemate even with a failure of the spring offences in 1918. 

Either way, the Ottoman's really didn't do much to allow for a Russian, that was all on Germany. 

Don't get me wrong, the backbone of the Central Powers was Germany without a doubt, but Russia ended up contributing close to a million men for the Caucasus Campaign that ended up being bogged down in the Armenian Highlands. If all those troops were directed towards Germany then Russian domination of Europe might have started 20 years earlier.

I can see the argument for taking Paris to force France to surrender like in the Franco-Prussian War but I'm not too sure how Germany could achieve this in 1914 since Blitzkrieg was not yet possible and France had political stability along with British and Belgian troops.

They came within 50 km of Paris in 1914, and about 80 km in 1918. I'm not exactly sure into how Germany could've broken the lines faster (I'm not much into details of WW1 battles), but considering how effective the German's had been in the past (Prussia was god throughout the 1800s after Napoleon lost), it was within the relm of possibility. 



Made a bet with LipeJJ and HylianYoshi that the XB1 will reach 30 million before Wii U reaches 15 million. Loser has to get avatar picked by winner for 6 months (or if I lose, either 6 months avatar control for both Lipe and Hylian, or my patrick avatar comes back forever).

Around the Network
Leadified said:
TheWPCTraveler said:

Austria-Hungary was on the verge of breaking apart in the years leading up to the First World War - if it wasn't for the Emperor of Austria and King of Hungary, Franz Ferdinand.
The German Empire found themselves in hot water with both France and the Russian Empire, given how Wilhelm II screwed the diplomatic balance that Chancellor Bismarck worked hard for.

So, yeah, you really would shit your pants if you found yourself in that position.

I think you meant to say Franz Joseph there, Ferdinand was the Archduke. It seems Ferdinand had some ideas which may have saved the empire or at least prolong its life, kind of fitting that his assassination ended up being the final nail in the coffin for Austria-Hungary.

Oops :P

I keep confusing the two, because their names start with Franz and I keep reading Franz Ferdinand more than Franz Joseph.

And, well, to cover the other side of the debate over Austria...I still find the bordergore proposal of a "United States of Greater Austria" to be very amusing. Ugly German Bohemia and Moravia territories to cover Sudetenland, and numerous ugly autonomous German enclaves in practically every other part of the empire - not to mention splitting Hungary into three distinct parts...

It definitely wouldn't have survived for long, though.



 
I WON A BET AGAINST AZUREN! WOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

:3

Slimebeast said:

Here you go. In contrast to the pics above where Soviets have snatched some border areas of Finland in 1940, when the Finns started their counter-offensive into Soviet Union in 1941, with the backing of the German Operation Barbarossa, the dream was to conquer and establish Greater Finland:

But it really depended on the success of the German Operation Barbarossa of course.

Why would Finland want to get a part of Russia that has never been theirs? That's like half of the original Russia.

This way, Finland would have been just as bad as Russia, controlling a huge foreign area just for power, and not caring about its people.



Flilix said:
Slimebeast said:

Here you go. In contrast to the pics above where Soviets have snatched some border areas of Finland in 1940, when the Finns started their counter-offensive into Soviet Union in 1941, with the backing of the German Operation Barbarossa, the dream was to conquer and establish Greater Finland:

But it really depended on the success of the German Operation Barbarossa of course.

Why would Finland want to get a part of Russia that has never been theirs? That's like half of the original Russia.

This way, Finland would have been just as bad as Russia, controlling a huge foreign area just for power, and not caring about its people.

Because at the time, Finnish tribes populated all those areas in the north market yellow on the first map. We had no historical interest in conquering Novgorod or Moscow.



Well WW2 colours things, but imo WW1 Germany was likely one of the most impressive military performances ever.

Holding off the combined French and British armies + empires and inflicting far more casualties on the Western Front. Even by 1918 they were inflicting insane casualties on the combined USA and French and British armies.

While they aided the Ottomans and assisted the Austrian Hungarians in knocking out Romania out of the War and devastating the Italian Army and inflicting insane casualties on the Russian army.

Difference between WW2 and WW1 is that after Stalingrad, it seemed like it was all over but German in WW1 had a chance of winning till 1918.



TheWPCTraveler said:
monocle_layton said:
Of course an interesting topic is ruined due to a man who allegedly isn't a nazi but wishes germany won (the fuck does that mean?)

Maybe this conversation would improve if Professor FuckAnyoneWhoIsntEuropeanWhite realized it'd take Austria decades to become a minority, even if we assumed they magically took in twice the amount of migrants than austrians born there

And for god's sake, wishing Germany won? How the fuck is that not ban worthy statement?

A pyhrric victory for the Nazi Germans may actually have been much better than a decisive Soviet victory in the Eastern Front. Given the case of anger against the Germans of the Slavs and Baltic peoples who were stuck under German rule during that war with the Soviets - even with the additional industrial power, they would've fallen apart anyway.

There is a precedent for this, too. The First World War. Germany won decisively against the Russian Empire-turned-USSR, but the manpower needed to maintain control over their newfound eastern territories meant that the German Empire (sorry Rol, but the Austrians in that war were a dead weight) could not sustain the Hundred Days offensive.

In any case, if you are a Finnish irredentist, you should wish for a  victory over the Soviets in order to be able to retake the land lost in the Winter War, as well as maybe take the rest of Karelia.

Also, re: italicised, maybe drop the insult? The entire point is to prevent Austrian Germans from becoming a minority in the first place. I mean, if you study Austrian history, you'd very well know why some Austrians feel that way.

Leadified said:

I have no love for communism but there is no denying that Russia was a superpower during the Soviet Union and transformed the country into an industral powerhouse. The Russian Empire was backwards, in a constant state of financial crisis and just as corrupt as the Soviets, it started to get better towards the end but it was too little too late.

As someone with roots in Austria-Hungary, I can't think of a reason why you would shit your pants, unless if you meant shit your pants laughing on how much of a trainwreck that whole experiment was.

Austria-Hungary was on the verge of breaking apart in the years leading up to the First World War - if it wasn't for the Emperor of Austria and King of Hungary, Franz Ferdinand.
The German Empire found themselves in hot water with both France and the Russian Empire, given how Wilhelm II screwed the diplomatic balance that Chancellor Bismarck worked hard for.

So, yeah, you really would shit your pants if you found yourself in that position.

Huh, that's actually fairly interesting. Thanks for correcting me.

 

As for my last point, I dont think all migrants are perfect. I also understand his concern, but at the same time his gloom and doom nature is highly exaggerated.