[dragonwriter]

> But the USSR failed anyways, and it failed to innovate enough before it failed to overcome the downsides of communism.

You mean “the downside of starting off as a poorly-developed state engaged in a multi-generation combination of outright war and proxy wars and military spending races with the most advanced countries in the world”.

[cryptonector]

No. A number of successful countries started off "as a poorly-developed state engaged in outright war and proxy wars". The U.S. itself, for example. And Israel, for another. Stop making excuses.

And, as if the arms race of the Cold War did not involve choices made by the Soviets! Come off it. They could easily have chosen not to get dragged into an arms race. But instead they chose no only to play that game, but to then start quite a few expensive proxy wars... Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, a number of civil wars in Africa, Nicaragua, ... These were their choices.

[FRex]

So? The original point being disputed was that SU and Soviet people "never achieved much" which is not true in many areas, one of which is becoming a militarily powerful country able to engage in a stand off with USA while 100 years ago Poland beat Soviet Russia in a war a year after gaining its own independence.

Saying that "they are stupid because they were still communists" or that other countries were successful is moving the goal post.

Israel was a very special situation due to UN, Holocaust, ties to the West, etc. and USA is on outright easy mode in comparison because of their remote placement, size and abundance of everything and it has had tons of quiet time to develop and attracted the brightest people from the world for a while to come to live and work there. I'd say Japan or Prussia or Singapore were better sudden (under 100 years) success stories.

[gandhium]

> The original point being disputed was that SU and Soviet people "never achieved much"

But they didn't achieve much in reality. That's why they have to copy most of their technologies from other countries during all their 70 years.

[cryptonector]

They did not achieve much in comparison to the rest of the world. Come on, it's obvious:

     - a non-hungry society?  NO
     - wealthy society?  certainly not
     - advanced and commercially successful airliners?  no (but you'll pick a nit here, I'm sure)
     - advanced medicine?  no (cue BS about how wonderful medicine is in Cuba, but still no)
     - advanced computing devices?  no, certainly nothing like those available in the West by 1991, much less anything since
     - the Internet?  NO
     - putting a man on the moon?  (hardly important, but) no
     - a myriad of consumer products of varying technological content, from the trivial to the highly advanced?  NO, see the first item
     - how about... cars... anti-lock brakes, catalytic converters, airbags...?  no

I could go on. But really, no, the USSR did not come close to the U.S. as to innovation, not because the USSR lacked talented people (it had them in spades) or a decent tech education system (it had a very good tech education system), but because its economic system could not make the best of those resources. It's that simple.

[toomanybeersies]

It's easy to make exclusive lists to try and make one country or another look better.

And who is the rest of the world? The USSR achieved a lot in comparison to Africa, South America, the Middle East, and SE Asia.

[cryptonector]

If you consider the gulag an achievement, sure!

I would definitely NOT say that the USSR achieved more than Latin America. People in much of LatAm are happy and reasonably free -- very free by comparison to the USSR. But I guess you wouldn't consider freedom an achievement -- too easy, perhaps? or maybe not to your liking?

[toomanybeersies]

Argentina was throwing dissidents out of planes into the Atlantic ocean in the 1980's. Chile had Pinochet. Colombia only just recently signed a peace treaty with FARC, drawing down a 50 year conflict that has killed >200,000 people. Guatemala had an almost 40 year civil war. El Salvador had a 12 year civil war. I could go on...

One thing that a lot of these conflicts and situations had in common is that the USA covertly overthrew a democratically elected, socialist leaning government using the CIA. Thousands of people were killed due to the meddling of the USA and the CIA.

[dragonwriter]

> A number of successful countries started off "as a poorly-developed state engaged in outright war and proxy wars". The U.S. itself, for example

The US did not go through a long period of active direct and proxy conflict with the most advanced contemporary nations at it's founding. It fought a brief war to separate (which it was losing until a major power opposed to Britain intervened), and then not much with any major power till it decided to take advantage of the Napoleonic Wars and the pretext of impressment to seize British Canada (unsuccessfully). The US was a sideshow isolated by oceans for the major powers for almost as long after it's formation as the USSR existed.

[simula67]

> The US did not go through a long period of active direct and proxy conflict with the most advanced contemporary nations at it's founding

Yes it did : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_Wars

[dba7dba]

But instead they chose no only to play that game, but to then start quite a few expensive proxy wars... Korea, Vietnam

Actually the Korean War was started upon strong insistence of Kim, Il Sung of North Korea. Sure Soviets gave the approval, but only reluctantly.

[abakker]

That is certainly one way of rephrasing, but the fact remains that of those things you list, many are the result of the ideological focus on spreading communism. So, in a way, the parent post is right that they failed to get past the downsides of communism.