Cold War Comparison: United States vs Soviet Union/Russia (1950-2020) 

How do you make these graphs

What's the name of the song? I need to know. Luv it

CAN YOU TELL ME THE NAME OF THE SONG?

@@passportauthority3399 use flourish in chrome

@@moochie101880 from russia with love~huma huma

@Herdan or the stagnat was a lie of Gorbachov!!!

because oil mostly

@Herdan That was what I meant. Those times are called "Era of stagnation". I don't know how true it is though, I am from Bulgaria, not from Russia, and I haven't lived in those times.

@@josemariapena4226 That's possible. I haven't thought of that possibility before.

@@user-jq4ej7pf9o True. The Soviet Union couldn't reduce its reliance on oil and also relied on agricultural products from other socialist countries. They also gave many resources to other socialist countries on low prices and that propably also affected their economy negatively.

@@allykid4720 Massive? No. Investments? No.

Because that’s the power of communism

@UCalJj8bjKqCb7jAY05IzjQw USA stopped investing in 1945, and demanded payment for lend lease. You cannot compare Soviet Lifes to American weapons. USA gave away only 11 millions dollars to SU, while Great Britain get 30 billions dollars from USA. SU got from USA 11 MILLIONS DOLLARS. And they demanded their 11 millions back.

@@anhvunguyen6888 Yeah, people was very patriotic and heroic, so everyone was ready to die for the motherland.

@@allykid4720 You cannot compare lifes to plants and factories. Shut up, 1500? Sovet Union did built 3200 by itself. It is western propaganda.

If only that is how they compete

Except going back up with trump/putin. Miserable legacy.

@@fromthedumpstertothegrave3689 Yeah, and then Russia invaded Ukraine on Trump's term right?

@@fromthedumpstertothegrave3689 Obama is in office, Ukraine gets invaded, and Crimea is annexed. Trump is in office, ummm. Biden is in office, Ukraine gets invaded once again. lol

@@yyeeeyyyey8802 It was in the making since the Obama, sure Trump sort of served as an intermission, but did little to quell it, then Biden bumbled, Putin laughed and invaded. Though Putin is having a hard time.

Which probably explains why the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 when you have 50,000 tanks, 10,000 planes and 1000 warships along food shortages where the average Russian had to stand in long lines to buy milk, bread, eggs and potatoes!

North Korea in a nutshell.

North Korea spends 25% too

@·♃I· That's what I call stupidity to the core.

@@antichoice1 shoo

russia doesn't decide the US military budget lmao

True lol imagine thinking you are a economic threat lmao

@@cageybee7221 he's not talking about the US military budget...

@@cageybee7221 yea, because he's talking about Russia, my God, were you dropped as a child?

@@TheCrazierz dropped or otherwise atleast i was raised with manners.

Dont be scared little one. Those nations are scared to press the button cause they will die too.

@@birdstwin1186 Yes but, The fact a few people have the power to destroy the world many times is scary

"I'm not afraid of the man who wants ten nuclear weapons. I'm scared to death of the man who only wants one." - Dr Julia Kelly (Nicole Kidman) from Peacemaker

It was nice to see the nuke numbers go down to at least more logical levels. Plus, at least both superpowers eventually quietly acknowledged the high possibility of mutual assured destruction and thus worked to avoid any direct conflict. The biggest concern for nuclear attack would be rogue states, who feel they have nothing to lose and a lot to gain. Hence why getting North Korea denuclearized should be such a critical foreign policy priority.

@@arianbehnami1050 It is precisely because North Korea is afraid of the United States overthrowing itself that it uses nuclear weapons to protect itself

You should really be thinking, how many nukes does it take for a nuclear winter? 500 explosions? 1000? The US and the UK blew up more than 900 nukes in a 30 year time span.

What’s even crazier is at one time america seemed to have over 80,000 while the soviets had around 800.

@@billjones7223 it was probably incorrect

@@billjones7223 during that period most of the bombs did not get over 10kt. The bombs have just gotten bigger and they remanufactured the material into the other bombs. What we should also wonder is how many russian silos are full of water. Like they discovered after the USSR feel apart more than 60% of russian silos were full of water and thus pretty useless.

@@cedric3973 did they flood?

Ironic considering he used to work in that field

@@priestofronaldalt well the more reasons for him to see why wars is generally stupid.

@@mitsumikyoya8746 It totally didnt make the US a super power

@@priestofronaldalt Eisenhower warned the US about military industrial complex

Eisenhower >>>>>> Reagan

Not really. Today some US states have economies almost as big as Japan’s despite Japan having a population of over 120 million since the 80’s toll today. What’s impressive though is the Netherlands always being top 10 in almost everything despite a population of only 15 million or so.

Singapore, Norway, Australia, etc too may be economically “impressive” (whatever that means) but tbh when you go down to the reasons it’s not really impressive, it all makes sense. In Japan’s case it makes sense from a historical POV too. They were already pretty big before 1945. They annexed Korea in the 1900’s and Taiwan (free labour and resources). Then annexed Manchuria then invaded all of Asia. Their population arguably the most educated non-European/American population too. There’s a ton of other factors as well to point out but it’s almost 4 am so I’m gonna sleep now.

@@pepehimovic3135 I'm talking about peak Japanese economy not today's Japanese economy Vs USA lol

@@pepehimovic3135 well Singapore is pretty small Norway was not much effected by wars (not destroyed) Then you have japan (country which is completely destroyed during war) and just few decedes later a economic Superpower way bigger than all European countries only close being Germany (another most destroyed one) lol

@@pepehimovic3135 that’s a lie. The US’s richest state (by far) is California, with a gdp of $2.9 trillion, Japan has a gdp of $5.1 trillion.

soviet union had a larger population than USA ,still they had way lower GDP

@@zmeu_md3831 What?Soviet union have small population than USA...

You can see it from the difference between the two GDP figures: When Soviet GDP/C relative to USA and GDP relative to USA are both the same ratio, the populations are same size. When the Russian GDP/C ratio is 1.5x higher than the nominal ratio, it's because the population of USA is bigger by 1.5 times.

@Mike K But USA have more good time and rulers USA not was full idiots how Gorbachev,Chrushev,Elcin

@Mike K And SU very much give money/resources to African,Asian,Europe states,but you right about population,ok.

That why it failed in later year I think. Due to its economy crisis caused by overspending.

@@minhtran7431 that was part of of the reason it collapsed but not the full story

@@minhtran7431 and USA is now following USSR path

@@Superpo0oper2020 not really

@@Superpo0oper2020 yeah but i dont think such thing will happen to USA because Soviet Union is a union like its name suggests so it broke up while USA is a country.

they are this was the reason for corruption in the ussr

When you look at the economy numbers, you clearly see that the ussr was never really on par with the us, but they wanted to give off that impression to the world. So they had to spend ludicrous amounts of money on defense. This eventually bancrupted them.

None, a big reason for their collapse

@@viiizzaalishvili9967 There almost wasn't corruption in SU, because it was almost senseless

They should because USA

only through oppression is this possible. People disappear at night.

Communist economy is a direct economy without middlemen and hence does not have GDP overcalculation. In Capitalist countries, if you sell your goods to a middleman who then sells it to another middleman and finally to customer, there is a doubling or even tripling of GDP but with no additional production or gains. This is why USSR could spend heavily on military

They had the biggest industrial base in the world,they could back it up.

Because the population went from like 300 mil to 170 mil

@@soofjandepr0 and Boris Yeltsin was a terrible leader.

@@dr.vikyll7466 There really wasn't amy way for him to save the economy though. He just got used as a scapegoat

@@soofjandepr0 This, seriously the Soviet Union at the time of its collapse had more people in it than the USA. Russia by comparisons is outnumbered by the USA by a factor of 2 1/4. That's also not taking into account that Russia's population is hardly growing whereas the USA continues to add more people at a relatively stable pace.

Yeltsin of course wasn't the cause of Russia's collapse. But he had the misfortune of overseeing the country during a very difficult transition period.

well USSR clearly outspent US on military for most part of 1980s despite being many times smaller economy...

@@teemuvesala9575 they could simply surpass usa economy tbh but their leader just doesn’t want to. If yuri andropov live longer ussr economy could surely surpass usa economy

@@Joseph-dw8qc what did andropov plan that you're saying USSR would've surpassed US

@@le_meme_man8983 this scenario is based if andropov live longer Begin: it is the 10th of February 1984. The front page of Pravda announces that after a 6-month battle with renal disease, General Secretary Andropov had made a full recovery and has been released from hospital. Without delay, he sets to work continuing the ambitious programs he had embarked on during his short rule. Shortly after his release from hospital. Andropov launches a massive anti-corruption purge of the party (OTL he made huge anti-corruption efforts) Old officials that had been allowed to roam free under Brezhnev are exiled from the party, and lose their positions. This purge percolates down into lower ranks of the party, resulting in tens or perhaps hundreds of thousands of officials being demoted, or expelled from the party. These actions would be in direct contrast to his predecessor Brezhnev, who let corruption run free. There would be quite a few upset party members, but it would result in a noticeable increase in economic efficiency and performance, as corruption was one of the two main factors that explained the underperformance of the soviet economy, the other being military spending. In terms of foreign policy, he would make attempts to bridge the gap between the two countries, but it is unlikely Reagan would respond positively, given his opinion of the Soviet Union. During OTL Andropov made several attempts to promote friendly relations, but nothing came of it. Regarding the war in Afghanistan, Andropov saw it as a mistake, and it is likely that he would have negotiated an end to the conflict. The terms of any hypothetical peace treaty is hard to say, but it is likely that the soviets would be fairly lenient, as Andropov understood the vast ramifications the war in Afghanistan would have, both economically and politically. It is hard to overstate the cost that the war in Afghanistan, and soviet military spending in general had on its economy. The soviets spent nearly 50 Billion dollars US dollars (116.25 Billion in 2017 dollars) on the war in its first half alone, and costs only rose as the war progressed. Stopping the war before it got out of hand would have been a major boon to the soviets, as that money could have been spent in economic or social sectors. On the topic of the economy, Andropov would be a major benefit to the soviet economy, and that would have improved with time. His labor discipline measures and reorganization would result in a stronger economy (as they did OTL) with this effect being compounded over time. He believed that the soviet economic stagnation could be solved through socialistic methods, and during his tenure we would see an alternate perestroika, focusing on streamlining bureaucracy, eliminating corruption and encouraging work discipline rather than market reforms. Finally, perhaps the most dramatic change we would see would be in domestic policy. By the early 1980’s the soviet people had begun to be quite cynical, a process which we would see culminate OTL in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s with chronic shortages, independence movements and a rejection of communist principals by a sizeable portion of the population. Andropov saw that the soviet people had lost their shiny-eyed optimism about the future of communism that they held under Stalin and Khrushchev, and he seeked to restore national pride, as well as crack down on independence movements. The 1980s would see a massive resurgence in propaganda efforts by the government. Andropov, like many others in the party, sought to reinvigorate national pride and hope for the future, and would likely excite the population by increasing consumer goods (which would be helped by the newfound economic power) and secure stability through a crackdown on dissent. Firstly, it is important to note that in OTL, the explosive growth of independence movements in the late 1980’s was due in large part to the dire economic conditions that manifested under Gorbachev. Without those underlying conditions, or at least with them reduced, independence groups would be significantly less powerful. But it is still reasonable to assume that Andropov would have cracked down on independence groups very hard. It is not hard to imagine mass raids, arrests and perhaps even executions. It is unlikely that independence leaders like Levko Lukianenko would have survived the Andropov era without being imprisoned or executed. This would most likely shock the west, but It would secure the stability of the USSR, and combined with economic improvements would most likely prevent the collapse of the Soviet Union. Domestically, however, citizens would remain relatively free, provided they were not politically active, and combined with economic improvements and newfound national pride, we would most likely see significant popular support for Andropov from the soviet populace. It is possible that with the election of Bill Clinton in 1992, we could see a reduction in tensions and perhaps even a peaceful end to the cold war, but that is purely speculation. I believe that by Andropov’s death on February 9th 1995 at the age of 80, The USSR would not only still be a global power, but a stable, well off nation with high living standards and a content populace. Much like the 1960s OTL.

The ussr economic model was flawed in its core and in fact communist economic model is flawed in its core thats why it didnt worked anywhere even in china that is seeing economic success its because they actually implemented a relative more financial freedom (they basically became more capitalistic and succeded what a suprise!)

*introduce them to ww2*

@@Zalmoxesuwu If Cold War went down badly, most of us wouldn't be here. So..

@@templar3209 true but if the nazis won ww2 NO ONE would be here that isn’t a nazi

@@Zalmoxesuwu Resistance has always existed within earth. No empire will always exist no matter what decisions it makes.

@@templar3209 is still be a terrible state to live in

That's what really shocked me.

When you look at the years of moving in the right direction under a wide range of presidents for nuclear disarmament and then that legacy undone with trump/Putin, miserable record.

@@fromthedumpstertothegrave3689 Biden is the president bruh, place blame on HIM for letting Putin invade Ukraine and forget about the nukes, it doesn't matter obviously. 5 is enough.

@@antichoice1 how the fuck did biden “let” putin invade ukraine you brainwashed idiot. also, nuke numbers increased under trump

Number of nukes went down because the nukes got bigger.

Collapse begins much earlier.

Their economy slowed massively for a decade leading to Gorbachev. It never fully recovered from the 1973 oil crisis.

Computers accelerated it. The Soviet Union had no wish to get into the digital age, losing to the US in innovation. It was likely if you lived in the USSR in the late 80's you wouldn't see a computer unless you worked in a nuclear power plant. By that time, the US had them in elementary school.

@@BoxiesAU false. Wanna know?

@@Foria777 it’s not false it’s fact, Gorbachev has repeated it in interviews.

Didn’t someone say “Sir, we (the US) have run out of bullets, the cupboards are bare?” Could that possibly have been a lie?

Being Canadian and a former service member. We could only dream of what the US has. Along with basically every other country in the world.

It's falling apart because of the people in it. Not the equipment.

Are there seriously people which believe that the US military budget is too low?

@@peterlustig6888 the question is how high can it go

20-25%

USA 6-7%

Not all of the Soviet Union was Russian so saying Russia lost half of its population is misleading

Well, because of American war plans for destroying the USSR in 1946-1950th and because of quantity of nuclear weapons by country in the beginning of the video, fears of the Soviet government and its attempts to catch the USA up and leave it behind seemed not so paranoid. They simply thought they don't have choice.

@@zakaryloreto6526 more 40 millions of soviets died during ww2 more 10 millions ww1 Vietnam war 1 millions diseses 5 millions corea war 100k staline 500k died from cold food no water 20 millions the mojority of russian population died in only 100 years

@@orangecobraEU 1. ~27 million of soviets died in ww2 2. In ww1 It was the Russian Empire, then Provisional Government, then Russian Republic, not USSR 3. Only 16 soviets died in Vietnam war 4. You forgot that in the same time that people were dying, there were people borning

I mean almost every soviet republic(and even some part of Poland) are Russian Empire territory or actually ruled by Russian though some of them do not like this. Russia lost control on these republic after the Soviet Union era

За СССР

Pretty based you mean

with the weapons they bought they ended up killing each other battle royale, chechnya georgea and ukraine

@@basedkaiser5352 Debased you mean, it's why they collapsed as a nation, all these war machines and nukes, yet can't feed your own people effectively? Military of a superpower, yet the economy of a small European state

Thanks you!

@@RankingCharts thanks you too

@@RankingCharts yours welcome

I know really, and we never found the truth until we brought Communism down, we all thought everyone in the west was a rich movie star with fancy cars and easy women.

Ну да, тогда очень много бандитских группировок было

@@squareblocks2826 и сейчас есть, одна из них в кремле сидит

I know in ex Yugoslavia where i am from fall was really bad ..my father monthly net salary failed from 1500 deutsche marks in 90/91 to just 50 deutsche marks in just 2 years (1993 was worst year) ...so if you did not have savings i dont know how people survived that few years because it was not possible to live from salary. But that big fall in 90s was in all ex socialist-communist countries..like some shock

Not everywhere, central Europe and the Baltics were doing well, but the former USSR, Bulgaria, Romania etc. They were doing horribly, fortunately today most of the former eastern block is a decent place to live.

It was its downfall.

And still they are garbage. Can't even take Ukraine. They would probably get rocked by Canada.

Their leaders probably still thinks that you can just invade a country if you need more resources. We have gone past that. The economy is more important than military power. Cause you can always ask for help from allies. Something that Russia also lacks.

1 tril per branch

@@antichoice1 you’re not very smart, aren’t you? User fell in 1991, and 90% of its equipment got destroyed after the fall. Ussr would invade Ukraine and Europe in 1 week 😂 Ussr was the most powerful country in history.

And corruption skims the money, and the military is a joke.

Measuring Soviet economy in GDP doesn't work.

@@DmitryySergeevich what do you mean?

@@DmitryySergeevich idk, but there was only one side that was putting machine guns on the border to stop it’s people from escaping

Basic economic measurements apply to any country.

Wonders of socialism

Because communism is easier to spread than capitalism, revolutions are always more attractive than status quos.

It came at the Expense of the soviet people 😔

Their economy was in the toilet. Besides the vast amounts of natural resources like iron ore, oil, natural gas, coal, and timber, the Soviet economy didn't have much to trade, to enrich themselves. Their people suffered as they poured as much treasure as possible into their nuclear program and land armies, which are not only expensive to build, but very costly to maintain as well. In addition, the Soviets didn't have any year-round deep water ports to field a large navy like the US, which could have secured overseas trade arrangements with parity against the West, mostly limiting them to trade with contiguous partners in Asia.

Just make all people equally poor and don't show them that any other case is possible. Same with North Korea now

Even Orwellian

It was just 4.9 per of its gdp go and check in chrome

You forgot Gorbachev

That's why Russia, a corrupt nation, invested in nukes. It's much easier to threaten people with nukes (even though the US will instantly end Russia if they even THINK of launching a nuke) than to strategize, and run the logistics of a military force. Russia is a stupid bully that gets tackled from behind and laughed at.

Nuclear warheads are expensive to maintain, and the number of Warheads shown aren't all in ICBM form in Silo or Submarine ready to launch any moment. Most of them are stored in a warehouse, and the one that do standby are short range cruise missiles (Non tactical Nuke) that can easily be jammed or shot down. Their power while stronger than Fat Man and Little Boy, not as strong as the Tsar Bomba

@@antichoice1 oh nyooo is this how you cope how all of USA production comes from China, how all corporations prefer the Chinese market instead of american one, how your super stars praise China and how your sport praises China. You can cope post as much as you want but you still kneel to China.

@@user-fm7xv5pk5z Hahahaha wow. Is that what they tell you? I feel sorry for Chinese people...

Only if you can't afford it, like Russia...

Exacto

Pero si en los 70 la URSS tenía casi el doble de gasto militar que EEUU o estás ciego

lol you have no idea whats going on in the world, the US has new theats like China and still russia and iran and much more.

@@salvationcore5120 and Iraq back in 2003 And also the terrorist military groups such as taliban

That because the military downsized substantially in the 90s, it just returned to it's previous size but still not cold war size.

Other thing is more interesting - USA spend more on the military than Soviets, but for Soviets it was nearly 1/5 or more of their economy, while for US it was far lower percentage

@@salvationcore5120 We made them threats. They didn't just become threats. The US just wants to remain top dog. They have no real reason to spend as much money as they do on military. Hell, cut the budget in half and it'll still be much greater then those three countries combined. Fact is, that money can go to much better stuff like health care, education, and generally improving the lives of everyday Americans. But the military industrial complex won't allow it.

That's when Trump withdrew from a bunch of nuclear treaties, thus restarting the nuclear arms race. It's sad.

@@Whyoakdbi Russia wasn't even obeying it anyway.

According to where

@@Dylan-bc2po United States CIA Factbook

@@prashanthbharadwaj5504 Nah you can’t really trust on GDP value of a communist nation.By the way it says 2.6-2.7 trillion USD not 3.Either way less than half of what US had. And i don’t really trust CIA Factbook,it’s the only source that claims USA is bigger than China in terms of area.

@@erichvonmanstein1952 that's why he said almost 3 trillion

A big issue is that the USSR would count the same production multiple times in different stages. And that it's statistics weren't based in any market average, making them difficult to understand.

Most of that 800 billion is spent on maintaining bases on your allies in Europe and Asia

@@yeeyee5057 also paying Soldiers salaries and benefits such as education and healthcare.

You do realize the US maintains bases in about a hundred countries, and does anti-piracy all over the world with it's gigantic navy

*military spending

Measuring Soviet economy in GDP nominal is basically doing nothing. It's not how Soviet economy works. In fact, it was the same or even bigger than the US economy.

@nigga at least not a ni99a

They also had massive influence and lead the communist countries, had bunch of puppet states, a huge amount of nukes, and the second biggest economy. Literally no other country could match them besides the US.

Short answer:Military strength

Yes, going back, way back. The one on top always falls eventually.

Japanese economy was almost 75% of USA economy way huge than Soviet It would have suprass USA's too if not they were forced to sign Plaza accord

@@unconscious1076 no they wouldnt they are to small for that and their demographics is thrash

@@basaraydn7030 shit demographics is what west has and now they’re going downhill. China taking over

@@teemuvesala9575 West is not a country. US' demography wasn't shit(now it is becoming slowly). You're saying that China's demography isn't bad? It should be considered one of the worst. Japan's demography is currently in a really bad state.

@@mathewjose4753 It basically is. US empire and it’s vassal states.

GDP PPP is a useless statistic. If you are going to use GDP PPP then use it per capita. GDP PPP is useless because countries dont exist in a vacuum and a lot of industrial products and even food is bought and sold on international markets

@@SuperLusername Its way more useful than nominal gdp or nominal gdp per capita. Especially when you're comparing capitalist and communist countries.

@@sheevrealname2365 I wouldnt use nominal GDP either. Real GDP is the best metric. Nominal and PPP GDP are both useless. Nominal GDP doesnt include inflation, while PPP is uselss because it doesnt acocunt for the fact that both Americans and Russians have to import bananas from the same producers on the world market for example. But USA can buy a lot more bananas than Russia

@STALIN and oil prices

@@le_meme_man8983 and exchange rates

US beat USSR at economic, from GDP to Per Capita to salary, while Soviet beat US at military stuff.

@@le_meme_man8983 What does oil prices have to do with USSR and Russia. Don't they use natural gas. Plz explain.

@@why1513 well actually, the Russian and Soviet economy relied/s heavily on natural gas and oil. 60% of Russian government income comes from natural gas and oil

There’s so many fucking tankies in these comments I can’t

@@electricwaster It's pretty incredible how retarded people can be, isn't it?

ppl in denial

@@electricwaster RU-vid is just like that, most history videos have 14 year old Stalinists in the comments.

What "exchange rate"? Between the dollar and the ruble? It objectively is in favor of the US you troglodyte, any nominal GDP is. The numbers in the video UNDERSTATE the wellbeing of the USSR

That would be more interesting

Luxembourg, Quatar would be basically firsts

They use nominal gdp, but correctly was use gdp ppp

@@yarrybka when comparing nations nominal is better as with PPP only reflects within that nation, not it's actual value when it leaves that country.

You look at the lower end of the range to dispute the validity of the mean. Both bad math and bad logic

Well, we were both down to 4000. I’m concerned at the current trajectory

they didn't really get rid of their nukes they just got rid of the atomic onces and kept the way bigger and more powerfull hydrogen bombs

Maybe, but after WW2 we saw the USSR gobble up half of Europe. We fought Germany to free Europe and now they're worse off than before? Backing the invasion of Korea didn't protect the USSR from American nukes. They did it because they were pushing communist expansion. They wanted to conquer the world in the name of communism. It must also be pointed out that in the Soviet Union's constitution, they stated their goal of turning the USA into a communist country. Unacceptable.

@@protorhinocerator142, first of all, I read the Soviet constitution, you didn't. I know you didn't because there wasn't such point in any version of USSR's constitution. Secondly, the US backed anti-communist forces in Greece and Japan against their strong local communist movements in 1945-1950th, even before the Korean war started. So who really wanted to push its expansion? Also, the main reason Europe wasn't conquered and hold by Nazis is the Soviet Union, its peoples and its army. Yes, all sides fought well and I deeply respect Allies' contribution to victory, but the US army isn't the main "freeer" of Europe. USSR gave even less part of Europe than it had liberate. And what do you know at all about communism as idea and political theory so you think it's evil?

@@danonimusgombelinius7254 So you're just going to excuse on hwo the USSR basically suppressed almost all of Eastern Europe for half a century and now as soon as they got free from communism, the people are more than willing to put communism behind them especially the Baltic States and Poland (which the USSR invaded alongside Nazi Germany BTW). The reunification of Germany allowed the country another chance to prosper and now look where it is, the most prosperous country in the EU. Completely devoid of communism and its far in its past. And communism actually came from Germany, yet most of the country is now more than willing to never return to it again. Hell, the Baltic States and Poland are now one of the most pro American nations in the world and as soon as they left the Eastern Bloc and joined the European Union, their economiea rebounded and quality of life increased. Yeah, it was the UK who intervened in the Greek Civil War to prevent a communist takeover. And America did everything to prevent the rise of communism in Japan. And look at where Japan is now. One of the most prosperous countries in the world.

@@memecliparchives2254 You talk about communism but you don't know anything about it. You talk about history, but you know it only superficially. You say that the USSR invaded Poland together with fascist Germany, but you do not say that Poland invaded the USSR during the revolution of 1917. Why don't you say that? Do you not know or are you simply making the USSR a universal evil, saying only bad facts about it and forgetting the good ones? You are not trying to analyze and come to the truth, so your facts can be considered weak

@@danonimusgombelinius7254 Thank you for not twisting the story like the others and trying to think broadly and not biased

Apparently IMP, World Bank, The UN, Wikipedia, And SIPRI

They know of the aliens so they need a surplus in case they attack

@@priestofronaldalt ok just making sure this is a joke

@@metamoose_ "what if it is what if it isn't what if the world was made of pudding!"

Usa✊

Well history repeats again 2022 also is though time for russia

Every year is a tough year for Russia. They suck at being a country.

All thanks to General/President Eisenhower.

@@mntsam1930 You're delusional if you think this. Eisenhower was good, but he wasn't solely responsible for the fifties.

Your absolutely right, But the 40s were even more gold because that's when General Patton was still alive.

Yeah

America Fuck Yeah

China is a difficult one to do because they lie about much of their information (overstating the size of the economy and under-reporting the amount of military spending, for example).

@@ryufireblade Overstating? Do not u know china deliberately devaluate its currency for exports which means its nominal GDP is underestimated. Its PPP is already 40% larger than the US

@@ryufireblade The US economy is also inflated and their debt level is insane.

@@ryufireblade lol someone is jealous

@@Moonlight-uv7jo wumao

not true. it was in many cases the reason why they got stronger

In fact the USA started the cold war, not the USSR

@@fedbat2199 prove it, Stalin blockaded West Berlin first

@@vixinitydbz The NATO was born 6 years before the Pact of Warsaw and the westerns have been the first to take a position against the communism during the korean war. Yes, the northern dictatorship began the war but the USSR didn't send troops, USA did to stop communist expansion. It's also important to say that South Korea wasn't a democracy. More over, Churchill, who wasn't american of course but was a western, thought to invade USSR after the WW2. It's called Operation Unthinkable, but they didn't invade because USSR had a way bigger army

@@fedbat2199 the blockaid of Berlin was in 1948.

It's a propaganda video. The numbers are severely misleading and wrong and I can't believe how many people didn't check the numbers first before liking the video.

Во-первых, верить данным ЦРУ - такое себе дельце. Во-вторых, у ЦРУ речь идёт о ВВП ППС и ВНП СССР, а не о номинальных показателях.

@@Enkilovrussia poor country

@@vocuong4684 Ahahahah, dude, are you seriously trying to hurt someone with this? Especially Russian? Delete the comment with shame.

@@vocuong4684 I don't know if I should laugh or be confused.

China was doing way worse than the Soviet Union and Russia were until about 20 years ago.

Russia has never been on par with the US in modern times

@@Cam-sl8ve In the Cold War, Russia would have destroyed the United States

Neither China nor the USSR have seriously approached the US in capabilities. The US is a hegemonic power for a reason. It also has excellent allies, which nobody else does because basically anyone who's not a dictatorship is already allied to the US, making it damned hard for rival powers to find anyone decent to work with.

@@user-ok3zu9oz4w Did you NOT see the charts in the video LOL? No, they would have laughably been ended once and for all.

No, it's the opposite, they spent a lot on military because they're about to collapse.

Usa🇺🇸 they are amazing!

No,it's not

​@@Remix2366it's part of the reason

@@herisuryadi6885 projected to pass the us in 2000 was pretty close

Not that nuclear war would be less devastating with potentially 10,000+ missiles hit both sides...

What are you talking about? What's wrong about russian army?

@@sukeban1337 almost a month with its smaller neighbor and it is somehow losing.

@@IncaWarrior. Russia uses only 10 percent of its troops. 150,000 Russian soldiers against 800,000 Ukrainian and the Russian army is gradually gaining territory. cities are not planned to be taken, they will simply be surrounded. But Mariupol was not taken, because we have a lot of civilians, so there is a very slow progress. And about huge Russian losses, this is a lie of Ukrainian propaganda

@@SenyaS3 Even though a Pro-Putin newspaper confirmed that Russian losses were above Western estimates? Over 10,000 losses in less than a month confirmed by Komsomolskaya Pravda. Yikes! You know what.. I change my mind. I am gonna stop listening to Ukrainian propaganda that said Russia losses are 7k and listen to Russian propaganda that tells me the losses are actually over 10k. Thank you for opening my eyes.

Credits to john f kennedy

It's media fearmongering and sensationalism. They need people to be scared and weak.

They didn't reduce, it degraded with time.

Eh I mean recently they have been adding the risk of climate change to the mix That is probably a reason

@@herisuryadi6885 sounds like they are moving the goalposts. That doesn’t sound like a scientific thing to do.

Could be why the USSR failed. The weapons race is always expensive

Respect to Russia from the USA. Love gaming with you guys!

respect Russia from US (hope this comment doesn't land me in the woke gulag)

Respect to Russia from the USA! They're both great countries :)

Respect to soviet union from an american resident. Shame they collapsed they were very good for the world

Aren't Russia and The USA enemies lol

Kind of sad that it went up after so much progress.

Invade Ukraine in 2014

They didn't do anything, it was just for the increase of oil prices during that time

And Invade Ukraina again

Lie.

Oil

No if USSR’s economy was that big they wouldn’t fall apart that easily.Even thought if it’s true it’s probably GDP PPP not nominal.

@@erichvonmanstein1952 They fell down because of the reforms that Gorbachev made in 1985

@Jenwin Jos M Instead they destroyed the USSR :/

@Jenwin Jos M What kind of question is that? Lol

@@jebpvpw.dgaster.3662 They fell because socialism doesn't work.

And can't solve their homelesssness problem

@@malkaviano14 so is Russia though

@@edwardrikker Russia is not the richiest country in the world

@@malkaviano14 Russia isn't a rich country period

@@bubastis6306 used to be one of the richest. Communist and leftist policies fucked it up.

@@daddy_1453 They had concrete proof, but if anyone actually said anything they would be commiting treason by not beliving in the communist system and the party, and no one wanted to be "that guy"

meanwhile everyone in the west thought the soviet union would surpass the united states lol

No, it isn't. Nominal GDP is a very bad instrument of economy statistics.

The GDP growing is plot of work that Boris Jeltsin does, he hired a bunch of experts that can normally rule the country, that was foundation for the future, which Vladimir Putin successfully ruined.

Western sanctions, simple as

@Sayem it is but if it weren't for Crimea annexation , after Crimea their gdp really start declining

Sanctions combined with population decline.

Eurasia is Asia and Europe, wtf are you talking about

Gorbachev was foolish and naive in the way he handled foreign policy. The Communist Party was incompatible with elections, but he let them go on anyway outside Russia.

I doubt he really could have done anything to save it at that point. He tried a lot of thing, but it still wasn’t enough.

He probably had 300% research bonus for nuclear technology

@@xXxMonkeyBoomxXx Ah, that one hoi4 comment.

Lol then Soviet would win by huge margin

@@rome316ae3 the real standard of living of the population will be like Africa

True

@@rome316ae3 Libya>Russia 😂

@@filyapanzerman335 nah it's even more great than America

Gorbatschow was the best, he saw the reality of the soviet union.

@@Tosse901 for sure 😅😂😂😂

@@sarwenaz that's why he started reforms which were long overdue. I mean the soviet union was almost bancrupt. Only chance was to end the cold war, let the nations of the east do their own thing and therefore reduce military spendings which the soviet union no longer could afford.

@@Tosse901 It could afford the military spending for decades, problems started when Gorbachev fucked up the economy

@@maggotfeast bs, the economy was already fucked up. And no the soviet union couldn't afford these military spendings for years, that was one of the problems.

Because of Pizza Hut, capitalism always works, Human needs to work for themselves not for the government

First McDonald's is opened in morning in Moscow, and it was the same date the USSR collapsed by night.

@@deisk2707 Ronald he did it look at my username I would know. it was all an elaborate ploy to sell more bergers

They started stagnating under Brezhnev's policies. Gorbachev tried to find a way to reverse it, that's why he tried to bring about liberal policies quickly. But it was in vain, as enough damage had already been done.