Talk:Economy of the Soviet Union

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2020 and 22 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Timlee5321.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

GDP.
The World Bank and CIA uncritically believe the GDP figures that were provided by USSR authorities. Those figures can't be taken seriously. --

That's not true, Soviet authorities didn't even provide GDP figures at all (they used a different accounting system, called NMP). All GDP figures for the USSR are, by necessity, Western estimates. -- 107.242.117.35 (talk) 16:00, 5 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Just checked the BIP raise of sovietuniuon 1990: https://unctadstat.unctad.org/EN/ says, there was +8,42 in 1990 and 1991 -6,2! 2001:9E8:A1A7:4300:E429:9A8C:A969:4AD1 (talk) 11:02, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

The supposed Russian term
Why экономика and not хозяйство? Wegesrand (talk) 14:00, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Ambiguous compound sentence, end of second paragraph.
The sentence:

The White House National Security Council of the United States described the continuing growth as a proven ability to carry backward countries speedily through the crisis of modernization and industrialization, and the impoverished base upon which the five-year plans sought to build meant that at the commencement of Operation Barbarossa in 1941 the country was still poor.

is ambiguous. Here is why:

1) The National Security Council (NSC) was founded in 1947, but the sentence seems to say the NSC spoke contemporaneously. Thus the first clause is imprecise, it might be that the NSC was speaking of the five year plans at some point after WWII as well.

2) The second clause ...and the impoverished base...Barbarosa... is both not connected to what the NSC had to say post-1947 but also seems to contradict the earlier sentence Impressive growth rates during the first three five-year plans (1928–1940)...

I suggest there should be two separate sentences. One saying that the NSC looked back at the first three 5 year plans and found them impressive. Another saying that despite the impressive growth, the base was so impoverished that Russia was still poor at the commencement of Barbarosa in 1941.

Both issues - how the five year plans helped move Russia from an agrarian economy to industrial powerhouse, and how Russia's starting point in the 1920's was so disastrous - are major issue worthy of study and comment. They deserve mention in the lead in to the page. I think they need to be written separately.

I'm not 100% clear on why Barbarosa is mentioned here at all, since this is a page on the USSR economy and not on WWII. Russia would have been exactly as poor on June 22 1941 if Germany had not attacked, yes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.77.20.244 (talk) 22:21, 4 May 2022 (UTC)