If the cause of the Confederate Revolution is a war of revenge by the Union that lops off much of the Confederacy but leaves a rump CSA*, I could imagine a drive to industrialize in order to avoid the final extinction of their state/society.
The problem is, the sections the CSA would lose are their most industrialized regions.
The Nazi's didnt, they hated the socialists and union members because they where only a step or two away from communism (which they hated to).
While the Stalinists and Leninists were really just more efficient versions of the Tsar state.
All the more reason to industrialize. Hell, with their agriculture, they can even do it in a similar manner to how Stalin did it in the Soviet Union.
No. To some extent, the Leninist bureaucracy was inherited from the Tsarist bureaucracy but... that's it. Economically, politically and socially, they were hugely and fundamentally different from start to finish.While the Stalinists and Leninists were really just more efficient versions of the Tsar state.
Stalin controlled a country that was powerful enough that it could more than hold its own weight. That would not be true of the CSA which would be a fraction of its size and population.
Economically? Yes, but politically, they really don't differentiate as much as believed from their Tsarist origins. Gulags, the NKVD, and many other parts of the totalitarian infrastructure were inherited from the Tsarists.
Yes Johnranksn, they had gulags, and additionally, had a massive reliance on secret police.
No, they were slave labor camps. Gulag death rates at the height of the Purges averaged about 5%, while release rates were 10%. In other words, you were twice as likely to be released than die.Yes, they had gulags but not nearly as bad as the Stalinist variety which were little more than death camps.
Yes, they had gulags but not nearly as bad as the Stalinist variety which were little more than death camps. The tsars were bad but they didn't kill maybe 20 million people during one tsars reign. They had secret police to be sure but not the mass murder squads the NKVD had. There is a big difference in scale between the two. Stalin had millions but the tsars had only thousands.
No, they were slave labor camps. Gulag death rates at the height of the Purges averaged about 5%, while release rates were 10%. In other words, you were twice as likely to be released than die.
The absolute worse the Gulag ever got was during the War-induced famine of the early '40s, wherein the death toll climbed to 33%.
Post-War, it death rates never reached even 5% again.
Stalin is responsable for about 20,000,000 deaths, no tsar comes even close to that even considering population differences. Face it Stalin was more bloodthirsty than any tsar, and that is saying something.
Stalinism had shit-all to do with Marxism and everything to do with traditional Russian state-building. Peter the Great was worse than Stalin when it comes to treating the subjects as expendable figures, but this isn't all that surprising when we consider that both Modernized their societies by completely smashing the preceding one. At least 100,000 dead in building St. Petersburg alone, out of a population of maybe 20 million.Stalin is responsable for about 20,000,000 deaths, no tsar comes even close to that even considering population differences. Face it Stalin was more bloodthirsty than any tsar, and that is saying something.
You're talking as though penal labor and covert internal security are hugely original ideas. The covert internal security of the NKVD was totally structurally unrelated to the previous Okhrana. They resembled them by parallel evolution, they were not inherited. Mass penal labor in the sense of the GULAG didn't exist under the Tsars, either, and the system that emerged in the Stalin era was largely independent in scale and purpose.Economically? Yes, but politically, they really don't differentiate as much as believed from their Tsarist origins. Gulags, the NKVD, and many other parts of the totalitarian infrastructure were inherited from the Tsarists.
Yes Johnranksn, they had gulags, and additionally, had a massive reliance on secret police.
Two things.
1. How do you think that statistic is reached? Stalin directly killed actually about 1-4 million, the rest are calculated from more indirect related deaths. This is similar to Mao, so that doesn't actually show bloodthirstiness.
2. Do you know the death counts of the Tsars? Judging by your previous statements, I doubt you do.
I'll leave it up to Wolfpaw to show the Tsar related deaths. Stalin was a monster, but saying he killed more than any Tsar is suspect, especially considering how the amount of deaths was actually collected.
Stalinism had shit-all to do with Marxism and everything to do with traditional Russian state-building. Peter the Great was worse than Stalin when it comes to treating the subjects as expendable figures, but this isn't all that surprising when we consider that both Modernized their societies by completely smashing the preceding one. At least 100,000 dead in building St. Petersburg alone, out of a population of maybe 20 million.
The transformation of Muscovy into Russia was even more traumatic and brutal than the transformation of Russia into the USSR, Stalin just had more toys and people to screw around with than Peter.
100,000 is 1/200th of Stalin's , I am trying to get a grand total for Peter but it seems that the building of St. Petersburg had the greatest death toll of everything he did. Even if it is just 1/5 of the total (from what I have read so far it seems to be a higher percentage) which would drop it to 1/40th which means it was a lower percentage as you can't say that Stalin's USSR comprised 800,000,000 people!!