Inside the Soviet Army (1982)(militera.lib.ru)
militera.lib.ru
Inside the Soviet Army (1982)
http://militera.lib.ru/research/suvorov12/index.html
110 comments
The basic point is valid regarding communism and forced equality, but e.g. plenty of countries have very efficient, well funded and cost effective nationalized medical services. It's a particularly poor example to choose to try and make the point.
The problem with communism isn't that so many of it's services are nationalized, it's that one-party politics leads to an ossified, excessively powerful, corrupt bureaucracy with no checks and balances.
Any political system that lacks dynamism and protects cronyism would suffer the same problems, regardless of it's ideological base. That's why in practice Fascism and Communism produce functionally indistinguishable resultant states.
The problem with communism isn't that so many of it's services are nationalized, it's that one-party politics leads to an ossified, excessively powerful, corrupt bureaucracy with no checks and balances.
Any political system that lacks dynamism and protects cronyism would suffer the same problems, regardless of it's ideological base. That's why in practice Fascism and Communism produce functionally indistinguishable resultant states.
I have yet to see an efficient nationalized medical service.
They are usually MUCH better than the U.S. model (in that everyone has basic healthcare and nobody gets bankrupt), but I wouldn't use words like "efficient" and "cost effective" to describe them.
At least within a democracy, they don't get "that" ossified, but you do get a massive, powerful and somewhat corrupt bureaucracy (at least in my country).
I find it incredible that the waste generated is less than the waste from the U.S. insurance system, yet it is so.
They are usually MUCH better than the U.S. model (in that everyone has basic healthcare and nobody gets bankrupt), but I wouldn't use words like "efficient" and "cost effective" to describe them.
At least within a democracy, they don't get "that" ossified, but you do get a massive, powerful and somewhat corrupt bureaucracy (at least in my country).
I find it incredible that the waste generated is less than the waste from the U.S. insurance system, yet it is so.
Where does he say that socialized medicine can not be efficient, well funded, and cost effective???
He says only that the effect is to place the doctors into a sort of "prison" scenario. Prisons can be efficient and well run. The problem is that they're prisons.
Imagine your own sector being socialized.
He says only that the effect is to place the doctors into a sort of "prison" scenario. Prisons can be efficient and well run. The problem is that they're prisons.
Imagine your own sector being socialized.
I wish more people understood and accepted this. It seems like every other day I read something which is wistful for a bit more 'enforced equality'. Ther can be no such thing, nor is it desirable. People have different talents and different levels of motivation. As such they produce Inequal results - and that is just life. Trying to prevent inequal results can only be done through force in the end, so a prison is the result.
> The USSR is not Russia or the Russian Empire; it is not an empire at all.
> The Soviet Union does not need new territory.
> A communist regime cannot feel secure so long as an example of another kind of life exists anywhere near it, with which its subjects can draw comparisons. It is for this reason that any form of Communism, not only the Soviet variety, is always at pains to shut itself off from the rest of the world
This is a massive insight. Most current analysis of Putin centers around a WWII Lebensraum perspective of his actions. Modelling his behavior in terms of neutralizing breakaway territories seems a much better fit.
> The Soviet Union does not need new territory.
> A communist regime cannot feel secure so long as an example of another kind of life exists anywhere near it, with which its subjects can draw comparisons. It is for this reason that any form of Communism, not only the Soviet variety, is always at pains to shut itself off from the rest of the world
This is a massive insight. Most current analysis of Putin centers around a WWII Lebensraum perspective of his actions. Modelling his behavior in terms of neutralizing breakaway territories seems a much better fit.
Current analysis on the general consumption news is always specious. Usually it's some form of regurgitating whatever the administration says via press release.
The current situation is more like the 19th century "great game". The Ukraine is in Russia's turf, and Putin is all about rebuilding the lost greatness of the nation (while enriching himself & friends as much as possible).
Maneuvering to place the Ukraine under the umbrella of NATO, dominated by the US, or the EU, dominated by Germany, just feeds that message. I don't watch Russian news, but I'm sure the last 6 weeks have been longest victory lap of all time.
People are reverting to WW2 stories because they can't figure out WTF the point of US policy is, and it's easier to say "OMG, Hitler!" than attempt to explain why the Vice President is flying around re-affirming US willingness to go to war with Russia in order to protect Estonia and Latvia.
The current situation is more like the 19th century "great game". The Ukraine is in Russia's turf, and Putin is all about rebuilding the lost greatness of the nation (while enriching himself & friends as much as possible).
Maneuvering to place the Ukraine under the umbrella of NATO, dominated by the US, or the EU, dominated by Germany, just feeds that message. I don't watch Russian news, but I'm sure the last 6 weeks have been longest victory lap of all time.
People are reverting to WW2 stories because they can't figure out WTF the point of US policy is, and it's easier to say "OMG, Hitler!" than attempt to explain why the Vice President is flying around re-affirming US willingness to go to war with Russia in order to protect Estonia and Latvia.
I don't see how.
Putin isn't a communist and Western media is widely available in Russia so there is no benefit in regards to information flow in expanding the border. And there is no significant economic difference between Russia and her neighbours, the Soviets were trying to hide the evidence that average people in the West had it better than the new Soviet man.
Putin's actions look much more like those of the 19th century Russian Empire than of the USSR (which never used nationalist rhetoric).
Putin isn't a communist and Western media is widely available in Russia so there is no benefit in regards to information flow in expanding the border. And there is no significant economic difference between Russia and her neighbours, the Soviets were trying to hide the evidence that average people in the West had it better than the new Soviet man.
Putin's actions look much more like those of the 19th century Russian Empire than of the USSR (which never used nationalist rhetoric).
Putin's administration justifies the current economic state and the rampant corruption in Russia by that Russia has is own 'special way' of development which is limited the history and the socio-economic heritage of the communist regime. If Ukraine(or any other ex-Soviet country) manages to get rid of the current cleptocratic system and launches succesfull socio-economic reforms that tackle corruption, it will be a strong signal to the broad russian population that the current regime is not the driver, but a hindrance to the overall development. That is why any regime change in ex-Ussr countries is viewed by suspicion or even open hostility by the elites in Russia.
Ukraine is broke. They owe Russia millions of dollars and have been living on pretty much free gas (courtesy of Russia).
I assume you live in US? Do you not find it ironic that you blame Russia for taking this seriously (in their own backyard) while US have been staging government coups within other countries (with multiple death tolls) for decades?
And in regards to corruption:
"People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones"
Perhaps you should focus on your own backyard first ;)
I assume you live in US? Do you not find it ironic that you blame Russia for taking this seriously (in their own backyard) while US have been staging government coups within other countries (with multiple death tolls) for decades?
And in regards to corruption:
"People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones"
Perhaps you should focus on your own backyard first ;)
Ah, good old one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes
Well, not quite. I won't waste my time to point out all the atrocities, millions of lives taken, billions of lives that usa destroyed all over the world so a bunch of corporations could get their hands on resources, new markets, so you could strengthen your military and economical grip of the world. All empires commit atrocities, you can be assured that where ever power is concentrated, innocent lives will be destroyed. Regardless of your education, your background, the amount of hours you spend on economic conventions being brainwashed to believe you are entitled, enlightened-enough to do "unpopular" decisions - biologically we all are the same animals we were 100, 200, 500 or even 5000 years ago. if we won't sober up from our overconfidence and ideological world-view of our selves as humanity, all we can hope for are different types of oppressive regimes changing periodically. .. everyone is corruptible - its time to build governments and institutions that take this as a fact(as you might guess I'm advocating measures against power concentration, and - since we're all selfish egocentric pigs who won't care about public matters until we see a direct, clear link to our wallets/environments etc .. OK I went already waaay too far..)
Sorry for the long(slightly off-topic) lead-in, enjoy(Harald Pinters Nobel Prize speech): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flvLfSSR1d4
Sorry for the long(slightly off-topic) lead-in, enjoy(Harald Pinters Nobel Prize speech): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flvLfSSR1d4
I never stated that Russia was wrong. Let's make that very clear.
I'm simply amused at ignorance of people who have very little understanding of the situation but try to give their 2 cents.
If government of South Korea was overthrown by anti-US activists; US would be dispatching troops to protect their military basis and citizens within a split second.
And I will bet you that the death toll would be in hundreds within first few days.
I'm simply amused at ignorance of people who have very little understanding of the situation but try to give their 2 cents.
If government of South Korea was overthrown by anti-US activists; US would be dispatching troops to protect their military basis and citizens within a split second.
And I will bet you that the death toll would be in hundreds within first few days.
From someone external to all of this, I don't think the US really has a foot to stand on when it comes to telling the rest of the world what to do militarily. The Iraq and Afganistan wars really leave a bad taste in my mouth. Where are those WMDs that the entire war was based on? I still remember seeing Cheney standing in front of the entire world and showing those bullshit pictures to the UN. They invaded a foreign country and killed people based on that bullshit.
First, you're conflating Afghanistan and Iraq. If you think that the US would sit by while Mullah Omar supported Al Qaeda camps after 9/11, you're greatly mistaken. Though the war in Afghanistan should have never entered a nation-building phase, it's hard to lump it with a war of choice in Iraq.
Also, I believe that you meant Colin Powell speaking to the UN. I don't believe VP Cheney made any presentations to the UN in the run up to the Iraq War.
Also, I believe that you meant Colin Powell speaking to the UN. I don't believe VP Cheney made any presentations to the UN in the run up to the Iraq War.
That is the same logic as
"I beat my wife because my neighbor does the same".
And then "she went to police - police should told her to keep quiet and all would be well, right now I have to beat her up and it's all the fault of police - gave her funny ideas".
I do see your point. US has to a certain degree have lost a lot of credibility especially with Afghanistan and Iraq. I definitely think Russia has the right to look out for it's own interests especially when US have been doing so for a long time now, often behind the veil of covert operations aimed at puppeteering elite ruling social class in different countries often through the usage of economic warfare through fronts like the World Bank and International Monetary Fund by freely giving loans and aids and in return taking their resources, be it oil or soldiers to fight their other armed conflicts. US is able to achieve this most of the time without the usage of force.
that is very good insight. Another point might be the idea of creating buffer zone (Ukraine) to counter the threat of NATO military assets being placed right at the border with Russia, access to Black Sea. I understand that if Putin does not take Ukraine, NATO will.
This is like China not willing to give up North Korea, it has it's function as a buffer.
This is like China not willing to give up North Korea, it has it's function as a buffer.
That is why it is happening. NATO was set-up to counter the Soviets (dominated by Russia) and it is a slap in the face for Russia to allow NATO right on their border when they are trying to become a real world power again.
NATO might have gotten away with limited defence/economic pacts with former Soviet satellites, but full NATO and EU membership was bound to provoke a reaction from Russia.
Apparently the US State Department didn't learn from its arrogance in Iraq, because such blatant provocation shouldn't have been allowed.
NATO might have gotten away with limited defence/economic pacts with former Soviet satellites, but full NATO and EU membership was bound to provoke a reaction from Russia.
Apparently the US State Department didn't learn from its arrogance in Iraq, because such blatant provocation shouldn't have been allowed.
> Apparently the US State Department didn't learn from its arrogance in Iraq, because such blatant provocation shouldn't have been allowed.
Provocation: Letting Ukraine voluntarily choose closer ties with the West
Not Provocation: Invading and annexing the Crimea
Gotcha.
Also, since when is the US State Department in charge of the EU?
Provocation: Letting Ukraine voluntarily choose closer ties with the West
Not Provocation: Invading and annexing the Crimea
Gotcha.
Also, since when is the US State Department in charge of the EU?
>Provocation: Letting Ukraine voluntarily choose closer ties with the West
Ukraine should have been quietly told that joining NATO or the EU was not possible.
>Not Provocation: Invading and annexing the Crimea
Strawman: This.
What Russia did is absolutely wrong IMO, but it is expected (just like the US doesn't like anyone else messing with South America or the Caribbean).
>Also, since when is the US State Department in charge of the EU?
The US has been the primary power in Western Europe since the 8th of May 1945. The US can directly control who enters NATO, and wields significant influence over the primary EU members. The possibility of Ukraine joining NATO or the EU would have gone through State and should have been firmly rejected.
EDIT: Downvotes and no replies, I can't tell whether I am on Hacker News or reddit.
Ukraine should have been quietly told that joining NATO or the EU was not possible.
>Not Provocation: Invading and annexing the Crimea
Strawman: This.
What Russia did is absolutely wrong IMO, but it is expected (just like the US doesn't like anyone else messing with South America or the Caribbean).
>Also, since when is the US State Department in charge of the EU?
The US has been the primary power in Western Europe since the 8th of May 1945. The US can directly control who enters NATO, and wields significant influence over the primary EU members. The possibility of Ukraine joining NATO or the EU would have gone through State and should have been firmly rejected.
EDIT: Downvotes and no replies, I can't tell whether I am on Hacker News or reddit.
The concept of "should have been quietly told that joining .. was not possible" is immoral.
Nations have a right of self-determination. Russia and USA can argue for their interests, but if USA and Russia agree "oh, country X will be in your sphere of influence" without giving country X a voice and a veto-vote there - that is evil and insulting to people living in those nations, just as Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement before WW2.
Such divisions should be unacceptable to the global community.
Nations have a right of self-determination. Russia and USA can argue for their interests, but if USA and Russia agree "oh, country X will be in your sphere of influence" without giving country X a voice and a veto-vote there - that is evil and insulting to people living in those nations, just as Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement before WW2.
Such divisions should be unacceptable to the global community.
Well said. But...
Putin probably remembers his history. In World War II, Germany nearly overran Russia, and it started from the middle of Poland. If it had been able to start from the eastern border of Ukraine, Russia might well have not survived.
So Putin may feel, historically, that Russia's survival is at stake if Ukraine joins NATO. (I am not saying that Putin's desire to control Ukraine is moral or ethical. I am merely saying that it is understandable.)
Putin probably remembers his history. In World War II, Germany nearly overran Russia, and it started from the middle of Poland. If it had been able to start from the eastern border of Ukraine, Russia might well have not survived.
So Putin may feel, historically, that Russia's survival is at stake if Ukraine joins NATO. (I am not saying that Putin's desire to control Ukraine is moral or ethical. I am merely saying that it is understandable.)
Not directly in charge, but close...
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/bolivia-angered-by...
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/bolivia-angered-by...
The UK's GCHQ is just as interested in nabbing Snowden as the NSA.
Why should people in states bordering Russia care what Russia thinks of their independence and alliances?
Morally/ethically: They shouldn't.
Practically: Because that is the way the world actually works. If you've got a big power like Russia, with a leader that is willing to use that power, then your choices have consequences. You'd better think about those consequences when you're making your choices.
[Edit: If you're a neighbor to a big power like Russia, then your choices have consequences. The point was not that Russia's choices have consequences, but that Ukraine's do.)
Practically: Because that is the way the world actually works. If you've got a big power like Russia, with a leader that is willing to use that power, then your choices have consequences. You'd better think about those consequences when you're making your choices.
[Edit: If you're a neighbor to a big power like Russia, then your choices have consequences. The point was not that Russia's choices have consequences, but that Ukraine's do.)
Because that is political reality.
Do you see any armies marching to protect Ukraine's territorial integrity? Russia isn't a small state that can be easily threatened, and nobody in the West has the stomach for a real war. I bet Russia could take all of Ukraine with no response beyond a boycott and some air-strikes.
P.S. The US has done far worse things than what Russia is currently doing in order to keep South America and the Caribbean within their sphere of influence. Small neighbours of great powers seldom get to exercise real independence.
Do you see any armies marching to protect Ukraine's territorial integrity? Russia isn't a small state that can be easily threatened, and nobody in the West has the stomach for a real war. I bet Russia could take all of Ukraine with no response beyond a boycott and some air-strikes.
P.S. The US has done far worse things than what Russia is currently doing in order to keep South America and the Caribbean within their sphere of influence. Small neighbours of great powers seldom get to exercise real independence.
How does the US doing bad things justify Russia doing bad things to a territory independent of both? That makes no sense at all. And the fact that Russia can get away with it does not ethically absolve their actions.
If we followed your ideas, the Baltic states would never have broken away from Russia. That actually worked out quite well for them.
If we followed your ideas, the Baltic states would never have broken away from Russia. That actually worked out quite well for them.
It doesn't justify it, however it explains it.
[deleted]
> This is a massive insight.
Don't forget that it was provided by a KGB defector who was sentenced to death and was living under protection of his asylum country. Anything that's not a verifiable fact should really be assumed to have a massive bias.
Don't forget that it was provided by a KGB defector who was sentenced to death and was living under protection of his asylum country. Anything that's not a verifiable fact should really be assumed to have a massive bias.
(I think you posted this to hn because I posted it to Facebook again, yes?)
The really interesting things to me are:
1) Invisible divisions, and the system to split units
2) Hiding top-tier equipment from the West -- even at the cost of not allowing their own soldiers to know what equipment they're supposed to ultimately use. Vs. the US, where soldiers are expected to be intimately familiar with their assigned weapons systems.
3) A really naive view of economics, that the military is "free" because the State provides it. It doesn't correctly assign the cost as that of the foregone alternative -- a tank means 100 fewer cars, etc.
4) "Role before Rank" promotions -- officers being promoted into a role above their rank as a precondition to attaining that rank. In the US system, that only really happens for certain General Officers; everyone else is promoted and then assigned, with most early to mid career promotions being either automatic or based on seniority and checkboxes.
The really interesting things to me are:
1) Invisible divisions, and the system to split units
2) Hiding top-tier equipment from the West -- even at the cost of not allowing their own soldiers to know what equipment they're supposed to ultimately use. Vs. the US, where soldiers are expected to be intimately familiar with their assigned weapons systems.
3) A really naive view of economics, that the military is "free" because the State provides it. It doesn't correctly assign the cost as that of the foregone alternative -- a tank means 100 fewer cars, etc.
4) "Role before Rank" promotions -- officers being promoted into a role above their rank as a precondition to attaining that rank. In the US system, that only really happens for certain General Officers; everyone else is promoted and then assigned, with most early to mid career promotions being either automatic or based on seniority and checkboxes.
"Role before Rank" is how I laid out a company remuneration and incentives program.
The essence was "to be a senior dev you must already be doing these things". The proof (observed by two senior people and acknowledged by colleagues at and below your level) that you were fully performing the given role meant that you would be given the job title and salary to match.
We felt this was an improvement on other systems as it made it very clear what it meant to the individual. In that they needed to improve, learn things, operate differently, to be able to progress from one tier of recognition to the next and left it up to the individual to say whether they wanted to or not. It also handled the scenario of demotion... failure to maintain a standard of work meant that you'd set your role (and thereby rank) at the step below.
Did this work? Mostly, yes.
Definitely some rough edges when it came to dealing with long-time serving people who didn't (or couldn't) improve themselves. For those people the title and salary seldom matched their expectations.
The essence was "to be a senior dev you must already be doing these things". The proof (observed by two senior people and acknowledged by colleagues at and below your level) that you were fully performing the given role meant that you would be given the job title and salary to match.
We felt this was an improvement on other systems as it made it very clear what it meant to the individual. In that they needed to improve, learn things, operate differently, to be able to progress from one tier of recognition to the next and left it up to the individual to say whether they wanted to or not. It also handled the scenario of demotion... failure to maintain a standard of work meant that you'd set your role (and thereby rank) at the step below.
Did this work? Mostly, yes.
Definitely some rough edges when it came to dealing with long-time serving people who didn't (or couldn't) improve themselves. For those people the title and salary seldom matched their expectations.
I thought I was the only one in an organization structured like this.
While off topic a bit... I found this structure pretty discouraging.
If you don't promote your developers into the role they are actually fulfilling, it quickly begins to feel like you're taking advantage of them. That is, treating them and giving them the responsibilities of a Sr. Engineer but only compensating them like a typical engineer (or developer).
There's only so many 'atta boys you can give someone before it seems like you're dodging meaningful compensation for their efforts.
While off topic a bit... I found this structure pretty discouraging.
If you don't promote your developers into the role they are actually fulfilling, it quickly begins to feel like you're taking advantage of them. That is, treating them and giving them the responsibilities of a Sr. Engineer but only compensating them like a typical engineer (or developer).
There's only so many 'atta boys you can give someone before it seems like you're dodging meaningful compensation for their efforts.
Agreed. If you don't actually give the recognition and promotion after making it clear what is needed to reach the next level... then none of this works and morale will crash.
We put in place quarterly reviews that were heavily focused on employee improvement, learning and application of that learning. Promotions were automatic and didn't need many levels of buy-in to approve. It was simply "are you doing the job of a senior dev? Congrats, then you are one".
This was also strange as to most it was very different from quarterly or annual reviews they'd encountered elsewhere that had focused on project progress and milestones. The business goal was to build and retain the best team, focusing on that meant the project goals naturally followed.
We put in place quarterly reviews that were heavily focused on employee improvement, learning and application of that learning. Promotions were automatic and didn't need many levels of buy-in to approve. It was simply "are you doing the job of a senior dev? Congrats, then you are one".
This was also strange as to most it was very different from quarterly or annual reviews they'd encountered elsewhere that had focused on project progress and milestones. The business goal was to build and retain the best team, focusing on that meant the project goals naturally followed.
> In the US system ... everyone else is promoted and then assigned
It's worth pointing out that one of the reasons this system works in the US army is that non-commissioned officers are trusted with a great deal more responsibility than their Soviet counterparts were. The mechanical promotion of junior officers would be impossible without 15 year veteran NCOs taking care of a lot of the grunt work that Soviet officers got stuck with, simply because the system wouldn't trust NCOs with it.
It's worth pointing out that one of the reasons this system works in the US army is that non-commissioned officers are trusted with a great deal more responsibility than their Soviet counterparts were. The mechanical promotion of junior officers would be impossible without 15 year veteran NCOs taking care of a lot of the grunt work that Soviet officers got stuck with, simply because the system wouldn't trust NCOs with it.
Yep. You'll note below, I wrote "courtesy of RDL"
I just found the post fascinating. Reminded me of this for some reason: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnJbtbh4tDE
I just found the post fascinating. Reminded me of this for some reason: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnJbtbh4tDE
Thanks to the OP for this link. I just found out why USSR didn't invade Romania (a long time subject of speculation in Romania). We were poor, communists enough, defenseless and not much of a threat. This is so funny when I remember how many naive Romanians thought our army had some "secret weapon " :D (actually we had, it was based on the beans served regularly to the soldiers :D).
Why would USSR invade Romania? The only scenario I can think of is reinstating Communist government.
Seriously, USSR didn't have plans to occupy and assimilate random foreign countries. Not as far as I know.
And don't forget USSR depended heavily on Romanian furniture :)
Seriously, USSR didn't have plans to occupy and assimilate random foreign countries. Not as far as I know.
And don't forget USSR depended heavily on Romanian furniture :)
Keeping/reinstating Communist governments through military force was a cornerstone of USSR foreign policy for many decades at that point - e.g. Prague Spring.
Well, Romania was keeping Communist government so they didn't have to worry.
Concurrent to the Hungarian uprising of 1956, there was some unrest in Romania as well, and the Soviet military presence there was strengthened in response. Romania began to oppose the Soviet hegemony in the 1960s—Ceaușescu spoke out against 1968 Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia, and Romania built friendly relations with the anti-Soviet bloc. So it's not entirely a given that the Soviet Union would not have considered military intervention in Romania at some point like they did in Hungary or Czechoslovakia. You can't excuse the Romanians for wondering how their government could afford to get away with their open defiance of Soviet hegemony.
courtesy of RDL.
Yeah, Viktor Suvorov is pretty interesting writer. This guy was a KGB agent who escaped to the West and published a lot of books. Another his book worth checking out is "Aquarium" - about his path from a spetznaz operator to KGB and then to escape.
I found the tv production based on his book on youtube. Looks pretty interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akmZsPUudfI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akmZsPUudfI
I read this book many years ago, back when the Soviet Union was still a going concern. A very good read, with some interesting things to say about leadership.
If you don't mind, can you give me a rundown about what it's all about?
Sure.
The first three parts are a rundown of how the Soviet Army was organized at the time of writing (the early 1980s). This part was of great interest then, because reliable information on the Soviet Army was hard to come by in the days of the Iron Curtain, and the author (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Suvorov) was a recent defector. But for today's reader, this part is pretty dull, all tables of organization and maps of military districts. They're all safe to skip.
Part IV ("Mobilisation") departs from the data-dump format of the earlier chapters to talk about how the Soviet Army is organized so that in wartime it can double its number of units overnight, through a system the author calls "invisible divisions." If you wondered how the USSR was able to turn things around after the early disasters following the Nazi invasion in 1941, this chapter will be of interest.
Part V ("Strategy and Tactics") is where the book starts to get really interesting, because here it starts giving you insights into how different the way the Russians looked at war is from the way Western armies do. Part VI ("Equipment") expands on that theme by showing some examples of how that type of thinking informed the way the Soviets designed weapons that became world-famous for their effectiveness, like the AK-47, the T-34 tank, and the Hind helicopter.
Finally, Parts VII ("The soldier's lot") and VIII ("The officer's path") are narrative descriptions of the lives of enlisted conscripts and officers in the Soviet Army.
Overall, I found the book useful because the author's experience in that system taught him a lot of lessons about leadership -- especially leadership in situations where you're expected to achieve impossible things with limited resources and mediocre (at best) people. And the stuff about Soviet strategic thinking and weapons design has lots of interesting things to say about the value of simplicity, reliability and scale over things like feature richness or even user comfort.
These are not arguments you hear a lot from Western writers, so they are a refreshing alternative take. He's writing about weapons, of course, but the arguments are presented in such a fashion that you can easily extrapolate the lessons to really any kind of product.
(I actually referenced one of those lessons in a previous comment on HN, here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5062096)
You don't have to read the book front-to-back to get the good stuff out of it; skip over the early chapters and start at Part V and you'll get all the nutrition with none of the boring, out-of-date tables and charts and maps.
The first three parts are a rundown of how the Soviet Army was organized at the time of writing (the early 1980s). This part was of great interest then, because reliable information on the Soviet Army was hard to come by in the days of the Iron Curtain, and the author (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Suvorov) was a recent defector. But for today's reader, this part is pretty dull, all tables of organization and maps of military districts. They're all safe to skip.
Part IV ("Mobilisation") departs from the data-dump format of the earlier chapters to talk about how the Soviet Army is organized so that in wartime it can double its number of units overnight, through a system the author calls "invisible divisions." If you wondered how the USSR was able to turn things around after the early disasters following the Nazi invasion in 1941, this chapter will be of interest.
Part V ("Strategy and Tactics") is where the book starts to get really interesting, because here it starts giving you insights into how different the way the Russians looked at war is from the way Western armies do. Part VI ("Equipment") expands on that theme by showing some examples of how that type of thinking informed the way the Soviets designed weapons that became world-famous for their effectiveness, like the AK-47, the T-34 tank, and the Hind helicopter.
Finally, Parts VII ("The soldier's lot") and VIII ("The officer's path") are narrative descriptions of the lives of enlisted conscripts and officers in the Soviet Army.
Overall, I found the book useful because the author's experience in that system taught him a lot of lessons about leadership -- especially leadership in situations where you're expected to achieve impossible things with limited resources and mediocre (at best) people. And the stuff about Soviet strategic thinking and weapons design has lots of interesting things to say about the value of simplicity, reliability and scale over things like feature richness or even user comfort.
These are not arguments you hear a lot from Western writers, so they are a refreshing alternative take. He's writing about weapons, of course, but the arguments are presented in such a fashion that you can easily extrapolate the lessons to really any kind of product.
(I actually referenced one of those lessons in a previous comment on HN, here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5062096)
You don't have to read the book front-to-back to get the good stuff out of it; skip over the early chapters and start at Part V and you'll get all the nutrition with none of the boring, out-of-date tables and charts and maps.
"The soldier's lot":
http://militera.lib.ru/research/suvorov12/07.html
is spot on! Been there.
http://militera.lib.ru/research/suvorov12/07.html
is spot on! Been there.
"It is, in fact, impossible to reach the speeds of which the MIG-25 is capable using titanium: yet the Soviet designers had managed to build this, the fastest combat aircraft in the world, from ordinary steel. "
Right...
MiG-25, Mach-2.8. All steel.
SR-71, Mach-3.5. Uses titanium for 85% of its structure.
Right...
MiG-25, Mach-2.8. All steel.
SR-71, Mach-3.5. Uses titanium for 85% of its structure.
I think this was an area for which the writer simply wasn't as well informed. Titanium and steel are both capable of fulfilling the requirements, but titanium is very difficult to work with. (Lockheed had particular trouble with it as well.) It's more ideal to use because its so much lighter, and increasing weight is the bane of any aircraft's existence. The Soviets would have preferred this, but they couldn't overcome the machining challenges, especially not in the scale required to build the numbers required. So they went with the safer, if less ideal alternative. And since the Soviet system did not exactly encourage discussion of shortcomings, and the "simple is better" tradition fits well, its not far to see how the "steel is better" explanation became the accepted one.
All that being said, I point out that the plane did what they set out to do, and regardless of whatever compromises had to be made, it was an aerospace achievement.
All that being said, I point out that the plane did what they set out to do, and regardless of whatever compromises had to be made, it was an aerospace achievement.
Speaking of titanium, the Soviets also had a class of attack submarines with titanium hulls:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfa-class_submarine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfa-class_submarine
Combat aircraft. SR-71 is a spy plane.
While it is true that the SR-71 & A-12 were spy planes, and that the GP makes a slightly asinine statement, the pedant (and aviation geek) in me feels obliged to point to the YF-12[1].
The YF-12 was a twin-seater derivative of the A-12 that was developed as a fighter aircraft, complete with a look-down/shoot-down radar and missile bays.
The F-12 never made it to production, but a small number high-speed of weapons tests were conducted with the 3 YF-12 airframes that were built.
With that said, the MiG-25 should certainly not be belittled as a marvel of aviation. It was a blisteringly fast interceptor and reconnaissance aircraft, with an impressive radar system for its time. It filled a special role in the Russian Air Force until last year[2].
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_YF-12 [2] https://medium.com/war-is-boring/21d12739b5db
The YF-12 was a twin-seater derivative of the A-12 that was developed as a fighter aircraft, complete with a look-down/shoot-down radar and missile bays.
The F-12 never made it to production, but a small number high-speed of weapons tests were conducted with the 3 YF-12 airframes that were built.
With that said, the MiG-25 should certainly not be belittled as a marvel of aviation. It was a blisteringly fast interceptor and reconnaissance aircraft, with an impressive radar system for its time. It filled a special role in the Russian Air Force until last year[2].
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_YF-12 [2] https://medium.com/war-is-boring/21d12739b5db
Just out of interest, was the MiG-25 'all steel' and 'all valves'? As in no electronics as we know them, just valves? I had heard that it was EMP-proof due to the lack of any transistors on board...
80% nickel steel alloy, 11% aluminium, and 9% titanium. Using valves instead of transistors meant for easier maintenance in addition to resistance to EMP. [0]
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-25
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-25
The SR-71 and the MiG-25 were originally envisioned for exactly the same role: next-gen high speed, high altitude interceptors. We made a decision that missiles would fill the niche better, and the SR-71 became a recon platform, but it's roots are still in combat.
Perhaps a typo/misquote. The point being made is that the high speeds were achieved using steel (rather than more exotic materials). As others have pointed out the SR71 wasn't a combat aircraft.
Pretty sure the SR-71 is not a combat aircraft.
And that matters because?
That matters because you're comparing apples to oranges, the part you quoted specifically mentioned combat aircraft. Giving the SR-71 as a counter example makes no sense.
It's like mentioning the space shuttle as a counterexample.
Little background music while you read, Tovarich https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHomETco0MI
Author of this book has committed treason and famous for his pseudo-historical books, that usually paint USSR in blackest colors possible. No serious historian in Russia takes his works seriously.
So I'd question anything that written in the book.
False.
- anybody went along with Soviet Union dissolution technically committed treason
- he is not a professional historian, and it shows. However majority of his theories have been confirmed by professional historians, such as Solonin (http://www.solonin.org/en), Hoffman (http://www.amazon.com/Stalins-War-Extermination-1941-1945-Do...), Danilov, Gorkov, etc
Ha-ha, professional historians. Solonin wrotes very much false too. See comments about his book: http://awas1952.livejournal.com/58827.html
No kidding, half of Americans think that Snowden is a traitor.
[deleted]
Awesome read.
Final sentence of Conclusion: "Protest today. Tomorrow it will be too late."
Final sentence of Conclusion: "Protest today. Tomorrow it will be too late."
Anyone has any idea on what license does it have? What can be legally done with that book?
What is more interesting is to look into experiences of the Soviet military in modern warfare in Angola for example.
As someone very interested in Soviet Union, it's system, this is a great resource. I'd love it if this was available on kindle or a paperback.
Even Russians will say Soviet Union is shit or people will react like, 'why are you learning russian and so obsessed with Soviet Union', I think it's because I think it could've been a great system, it's a noble ideology that men and women of all races are integrated and all receive the similar dividends but human greed and corruption always ruins things. I don't like the way people have been persecuted because of Soviet Union, but I find it's technologies and philosophies very interesting.
Even Russians will say Soviet Union is shit or people will react like, 'why are you learning russian and so obsessed with Soviet Union', I think it's because I think it could've been a great system, it's a noble ideology that men and women of all races are integrated and all receive the similar dividends but human greed and corruption always ruins things. I don't like the way people have been persecuted because of Soviet Union, but I find it's technologies and philosophies very interesting.
I hope your research leads to the correct conclusion that trying to force people into equality leads to the use of force to stop dissent, and leads people to flee or campaign against it.
Socialism ends in death and misery, every single time. At this point death and misery is a feature, not a bug that can be fixed.
Socialism ends in death and misery, every single time. At this point death and misery is a feature, not a bug that can be fixed.
That's not true, look at Sweden, France, Germany, UK ... all practising socialism. It's helped their people with free health care, education. There are many good things about socialism.
The Bolsheviks were dictatorial bastards, no doubt. And many people think Bolshevik communism is the only way to go, it certainly is not.
The Bolsheviks were dictatorial bastards, no doubt. And many people think Bolshevik communism is the only way to go, it certainly is not.
This is only true for the American populist definition of socialism. Here in Europe we usually talk about social democracy, where basic needs of people (healtcare, education, not starving) are addressed by the state, but one is free to form private enterprises (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model). This is quite different from the brand of socialism the USSR was aiming for, where all private property would have been abolished.
"The Bolsheviks were dictatorial bastards, no doubt. And many people think Bolshevik communism is the only way to go, it certainly is not."
Ah yes, the True Scotsman defense for socialism.
Not that it matters, because pointing to the UK of all places (or any place else on your list, for that matter) as an example of socialism is, to put it mildly, 'confused' about socialism, those countries, or both.
Ah yes, the True Scotsman defense for socialism.
Not that it matters, because pointing to the UK of all places (or any place else on your list, for that matter) as an example of socialism is, to put it mildly, 'confused' about socialism, those countries, or both.
They're practicing it to a (very) limited degree. People are still allowed to do pretty much anything they want.
Also, USSR was not socialist, it was technically a state capitalism system: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism
Also, USSR was not socialist, it was technically a state capitalism system: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism
Add Canada to that list. Free market but it's definitely trying to emulate the socialist policy successes in Scandinavian countries.
> Socialism ends in death and misery, every single time.
Leninism and its descendents might, but every country in the developed West -- where the 19th Century socialists criticism of capitalism was focussed, and whose conditions their program was largely designed for -- adopted, between the late 19th and mid-20th centuries, a substantial portion of the socialist program, and its generally not ended in "death and misery", indeed, compared to those same countries experience under the system for which the name "capitalism" was created, its alleviated the "death and misery".
You can't really judge "socialism" by the results of a particular family of efforts to implement it outside of the context for which it was designed, which is exactly what judging socialism by Leninism and its descendants is.
Leninism and its descendents might, but every country in the developed West -- where the 19th Century socialists criticism of capitalism was focussed, and whose conditions their program was largely designed for -- adopted, between the late 19th and mid-20th centuries, a substantial portion of the socialist program, and its generally not ended in "death and misery", indeed, compared to those same countries experience under the system for which the name "capitalism" was created, its alleviated the "death and misery".
You can't really judge "socialism" by the results of a particular family of efforts to implement it outside of the context for which it was designed, which is exactly what judging socialism by Leninism and its descendants is.
I don't agree with that at all.
For a start, socialism goes back further than Marx. The defining characteristic of socialism is the abolition of ownership of private property. Socialism, in the Marxian view, was what was going to arise given the inevitable collapse of capitalism. Everywhere this has been tried, it has ended in death and misery.
The creation of a welfare state is not socialism. It's not even close, unless you want to do some post-hoc rebranding.
For a start, socialism goes back further than Marx. The defining characteristic of socialism is the abolition of ownership of private property. Socialism, in the Marxian view, was what was going to arise given the inevitable collapse of capitalism. Everywhere this has been tried, it has ended in death and misery.
The creation of a welfare state is not socialism. It's not even close, unless you want to do some post-hoc rebranding.
i'd like to hear more about this, exactly how horribly miserable would you end up if you have trillions and you would be forced to give up 99% of your wealth?
you need to be careful at the terms because "socialism" in communists countries and USA means "communism" and socialism in nord & western europe means higher taxes and a bigger public sector & public services (with afferent bureaucracy). Communism didn't fare well for obvious reasons while europe with all its problems, endures.
The loss of wealth is one thing. The loss of freedom to pursue your own lifes choices would be worse. Add to that the loss of the ability to leave and find a different society that suited your tastes - well, that would be a very miserable existence indeed.
Giving it all up was just the "equalizing" part. Being incriminated, prosecuted and sentenced for having employed in some way other people's work was the real face of the system.
I'd say pretty miserable, may end up in suicide.
But the biggest issue would be that someone else would now control that money. And there are no guarantees that they would do it better.
But the biggest issue would be that someone else would now control that money. And there are no guarantees that they would do it better.
The philosophies were a ruse, no-one at the top tier lived accordingly.
"To everyone according to their needs" sounds noble in theory but I'm not sure it would ever be workable in practice, without externalities (like labor camps, authoritarian force) subsidizing it.
"To everyone according to their needs" sounds noble in theory but I'm not sure it would ever be workable in practice, without externalities (like labor camps, authoritarian force) subsidizing it.
That ideology was just a tool to prop up a system of occupation. What really happened behind all that was an ongoing russification all over the Soviet Union, effects of which make themselves visible in an outstanding manner today in Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine, Latvia, and other countries. Yeah, it was pretty that red color from outside, but living under it was a nightmare (unless you were reaaally stupid, in which case the system took care of you).
You should be able to track down a reasonably priced copy of the hardback edition via a good used bookstore. The copy I have now I got via Alibris a few years back.
>I'd love it if this was available on kindle or a paperback.
I can mail you a copy in Russian (: If there is one in a local book store, not sure Rezun is popular currently.
I can mail you a copy in Russian (: If there is one in a local book store, not sure Rezun is popular currently.
please do, although it will take me forever to read with a Eng-Rus dictionary.
Challenge accepted.
Challenge accepted.
No ISA, sorry. Here's what I can get.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/7610280/WP_20140415_001....
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/7610280/WP_20140415_003....
BTW your defector is much more known here than ours.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/7610280/WP_20140415_002....
Contact me at amborodin around acm.org
Tomorrow morning i'll check if is it available, if not another book(aquarium, day m) will be ok for chellange? :)
Info from ISA is common knowlege here (this does not imply info is true) and may be not very popular.
ping
I am really looking forward for such a read about North Korea in some years. I hope I live long enough to see it.
Soviet Communists are frequently reproached for having attempted to build a socialist society but having produced something which closely resembles a prison. Such a charge is entirely unjustified. In the Soviet Union some of the inmates have larger cells than others, some eat well, others badly. There is complete confusion-a lot remains to be done to tidy up the situation. True socialism, in which everyone is truly equal, does not just resemble a prison-it is a prison. It can not exist unless it is surrounded by high walls, by watchtowers and by guard-dogs, for people always want to escape from any socialist regime, just as they do from a prison. If you try to nationalise medicine and, from the best possible motives, to guarantee work for all the doctors, you will find that they pack their bags and leave the country. Try to bring a little order into the situation and your engineers (the best ones), your designers, your ballerinas (again, the best ones) and many, many others will also flee abroad. If you continue your attempts to establish a model society you will need to build walls around it. You will be forced to do this sooner or later by the flood of refugees.