Ukraine's European Revolution?

[Queequeg]

Again, not really?  Germany went from rubble to the wealthiest nation in Europe in, what, 30 years?  These historical legacies are crucial.

It did?  Because East Germany sure looked like a shithole after 30 years.  Strange that it had such a positive impact in the Ukraine.

East Germany was by a substantial margin the wealthiest nation of the Warsaw Pact.

[Queequeg]

Spellus, I love history and pulling history into all sorts of topics. But I don't see how Poland-Lithuania in the 18th century has much impact on income distribution today. For instance, in the US we generally discount the impact of the different economic systems of the Cherokee, Apachee, and Navajo when talking about why states are better off than others.

I don't think it's a coincidence that the sparsely populated but incredibly per capita wealthy United States of 1790 became the largest economy in the world, or that most of the wealthiest parts of the world in 1790 are still super rich.  Changing the basics of economic and political behavior requires massive, violent shifts or long-term evolution.

[Jacob]

Of course it is a shithole, it was part of the USSR.

Baltics have done okay for themselves.

AFAIK the Baltics have received a lot of assistance from Scandinavia since they became independent; not necessarily just in monetary terms, but in terms of cultural exchanges, help with infrastructure and governance, trade balance credits, organizing the armed forces and other institutions, dedicated sponsorship and guidance to enter the EU and NATO, etc. There was a very real sentiment of kinship - at least in Denmark and Sweden, not sure about Norway - and a desire to help the transition out of the USSR sphere and find their legs again.

I think that may have played a significant role, and I don't think any of the other SSRs have had similar help.

[Queequeg]

I talk with some friends about this a lot (obviously), and the idea I like most is for Russia to try, like the Baltics, to look towards Scandinavia as a model and partner. 

The Baltics are obviously connected in a more personal way, though.  Valdemar II and Lutheranism and whatnot. 

[The Minsky Moment]

QQ your color map just shows the legacy of the USSR prioritizing investment (mining and heavy industry) in the eastern zone and neglecting the western zone.
It is part of the very legacy that leads present day inhabitants in the western zone to look west for their future and be wary of tying their destiny to Russia.

[Capetan Mihali]

I want to visit the Baltic one day.   Check out Visby.  Live the Hansa dream.  And hang out at one of those "Strength Through Joy" holiday resorts the Nazis built.

[Queequeg]

Yeah, but didn't that kind of, you know, make sense?  It's not like building a coal and steel industry, hydroelectric dams and whatnot was the unique goal of the Soviets. 

[Sheilbh]

IDK. 

I think you're overselling the dysfunction of Titoist Yugoslavia.  It was probably the most functional of the Authoritarian Socialist states.  It wasn't a horrible place to live. Some kind of federated republic a la India wasn't an impossibility.

Not quite. It was the richest Eastern Bloc state aside from East Germany.

But it only worked with Tito. He was very unpopular with Serbs because they thought he favoured Slovenia and Croatia (and his parents were Slovene and Croatian). Though they may have had a point, the problem with Yugoslavia was, I think in Tito's words, that you need a weak Serbia for a strong Yugoslavia. And Titoist Yugoslavia was the most open of the Eastern Bloc, I know lots of other Eastern Europeans were excited by holidays there because it was a little bit more free. But any nationalism was crushed by Tito, nothing would be more likely to get a visit from the secret police because, I think rightly, he knew how precarious the state was. In general there's a reason he's still wildly popular in Sarajevo but not in Belgrade.

He'd arranged for a rotating Presidency after his death, once he died it rotated until it got to Milosevic who manipulated the system to stop the rotation, started centralising and, of course, gave the famous Gazimestan speech in Kosovo.

As I say Yugoslavia may work as an idea, but in practice it only ever worked with Tito. Also, and this is possibly similar with Russia, the theory from outside makes sense but much historical Serbian understanding of Yugoslavia was that it meant Serbia and that the two were interchangeable.

In addition there is an attempt at a federation in Bosnia. It's failing, still. I don't see a great deal of hope that it would have worked if only it was on a larger scale.

[derspiess]

East Germany was by a substantial margin the wealthiest nation of the Warsaw Pact.

Still kind of a shithole compared to West Germany.

[Queequeg]

Not quite. It was the richest Eastern Bloc state aside from East Germany.

Especially impressive considering that it was competing with established industrial economies like Czechoslovakia.

But it only worked with Tito. He was very unpopular with Serbs because they thought he favoured Slovenia and Croatia (and his parents were Slovene and Croatian). Though they may have had a point, the problem with Yugoslavia was, I think in Tito's words, that you need a weak Serbia for a strong Yugoslavia. And Titoist Yugoslavia was the most open of the Eastern Bloc, I know lots of other Eastern Europeans were excited by holidays there because it was a little bit more free. But any nationalism was crushed by Tito, nothing would be more likely to get a visit from the secret police because, I think rightly, he knew how precarious the state was. In general there's a reason he's still wildly popular in Sarajevo but not in Belgrade.

This is how a lot of federations work.  The USSR was fairly similar; non-ethnic Russians had an outsized impact on Soviet politics, and Russian culture was often more repressed than minority cultures.  Panjabis push people around in Pakistan. 

Admittedly, both of those are shitty states.  Actually, I think I just convinced myself of your position.   

[Valmy]

East Germany was by a substantial margin the wealthiest nation of the Warsaw Pact.

Which makes it shittyness that much more damning of the entire Eastern Bloc eh?

[Queequeg]

East Germany was by a substantial margin the wealthiest nation of the Warsaw Pact.

Which makes it shittyness that much more damning of the entire Eastern Bloc eh?

Kind of.  Still proves my point though; wealthy areas stay wealthy, and with only a few exceptions under specific circumstances poor nations stay poor.

[Queequeg]

I think Poland's taking off is a different matter.  Like Deng Xiaoping's China, Communism lasted just long enough that a substantial portion of the population had some memory of market economies, there was a huge ex patriot and emigrant population that could bring economic skills back, and some of the most successful economies in Europe were next door.  Galicia doesn't have any of these advantages. 

[Sheilbh]

Especially impressive considering that it was competing with established industrial economies like Czechoslovakia.

They were asset stripped after the war though.

[Queequeg]

How badly were they hit by the war, though?  I'm not sure allied air strikes targeted Czechoslovakia that much, the Czechs weren't exterminated like the Poles, and honestly how badly would the Soviets have to have stripped Czechoslovakia to make them comparable to a nation that included Serbia and Kosovo?