Manchu five-year plan of the Japanese military

Manchu five-year plan of the Japanese military

Fushun coal mine, the largest in Manchuria and the world


This part stories World War II is little known due to the almost complete absence and rarity of literature, especially in Russian. This is the military economic development of Manzhou-Guo, a state formally independent, but actually controlled by the Japanese, or, more precisely, the command of the Kwantung Army. The Japanese captured a very large part of China, a kind of Chinese Siberia, with booming agriculture and agrarian resettlement from other provinces of China, and conducted industrialization there.

The industrialization of Manchuria was carried out, of course, in the interests of the Japanese military. However, its methods, goals, and general appearance were so similar to industrialization in the USSR that research on this topic was clearly not encouraged. Otherwise, it would be possible to get to the interesting question: if Soviet industrialization was for the people, and Manchu was for the Japanese military, then why are they so similar?

If we abandon emotions, then it should be noted: two extremely similar cases of industrialization of territories previously underdeveloped in industrial terms are of great scientific value for the study of the general laws of initial industrialization.

Manchuria is a good trophy


Torn away from China in late 1931 - early 1932 by Japanese troops, Manchuria was a very significant trophy for the Japanese. Its total population was 36 million people, including about 700 thousand Koreans and 450 thousand Japanese. From the moment when in 1906 Japan received the South Manchu Railway from Russia (Port Chanchun-Port Arthur) from Portsmouth Peace to Russia, relocation from Japan and Korea began to this part of Manchuria.

Manchuria annually produced about 19 million tons of grain crops, mined about 10 million tons of coal, 342 thousand tons of pig iron. A powerful railway was operating, the large port of Dairen, while the second most powerful port on the entire coast of China after Shanghai, with a capacity of about 7 million tons per year. Already in the early 1930s there were about 40 airfields, including in Mukden and Harbin, the airfields were with repair and assembly workshops.

In other words, by the time of the Japanese capture, Manchuria had a very well-developed economy, which had huge and almost untouched reserves of all kinds of minerals, free land, vast forests suitable for river construction. The Japanese took up the transformation of Manchuria into a large military-industrial base and were very successful in this.

A characteristic feature of Manchuria itself was that the command of the Kwantung Army that actually controlled it was categorically against attracting large Japanese concerns to its development, since the military did not like the capitalist element typical of the Japanese economy, which was difficult to control. Their slogan was: "Development of Manzhou-Guo without capitalists", based on centralized management and planned economy. Therefore, the Manchu economy at first was undoubtedly dominated by the South Manchu Railway (or Mantetsu) - a large concern that had exclusive rights and owned everything from railways and coal mines to hotels, opium trade and brothels.


"Asia-Express" South Railway at the station, most likely in Mukden

However, for large-scale development capital was needed, and the Japanese militarists in Manchuria had to agree with a large Japanese concern Nissan, established in 1933 as a result of the merger of the DAT Jidosia Seizo automobile company with the Tobata metallurgical company. The founder of Yoshisuke Aikawa (also known as Gisuke Ayukawa) quickly found a common language with the Japanese military, began to produce trucks, planes and engines for them. In 1937, the concern moved to Manchuria and adopted the name “Manchurian Heavy Industry Development Company” (or “Mangyo”). Two companies, Mangyo and Mantetsu, divided the spheres of influence, and industrialization in Manchuria began.

First Five Year Plan


In 1937, the first five-year development plan was developed in Manchuria, which provided for an initial investment of 4,8 billion yen, then, after two revisions, plans increased to 6 billion yen, of which 5 billion yen went to heavy industry. Just like in the first five-year plan in the USSR.

Coal. Manchuria had 374 coal-bearing districts, of which 40 were under development. The five-year plan provided for an increase in production to 27 million tons, then to 38 million tons, but it was not implemented, although production increased to 24,1 million tons. However, the Japanese tried to get the most valuable coal in the first place. The Fushun coal mines, created by the Russians during the construction of the Chinese Eastern Railway and South Ural Railway, acquired the largest open-pit coal mine at that time producing high-quality coking coal. He was taken to Japan.


And more Fushun coal mines

Coal was to become a raw material for the production of synthetic fuel. Four synthetic fuel plants were built with a total capacity of up to 500 thousand tons per year. In addition, there were reserves of oil shale in Fushun, for the development of which a plant was built. The plan provided for the production of 2,5 million tons of oil and 670 million liters (479 thousand tons) of gasoline.

Cast iron and steel. In Manchuria, a large Siova metallurgical plant was built in Anshan, which the Japanese regarded as an answer to the Kuznetsk Metallurgical Plant. He was well endowed with reserves of iron ore and coal. By the end of the first five-year plan, it had ten blast furnaces. In 1940, the plant produced 600 thousand tons of rolled steel per year.

In addition to it, the metallurgical plant in Bensihu was expanding, which was supposed to produce 1200 thousand tons of pig iron in 1943. It was an important plant. He smelted low sulfur cast iron, which went to Japan for the smelting of special steels.

Aluminum. To develop aircraft manufacturing in Manchuria, mining of shale containing alumina was started, and two aluminum plants were built - in Fushun and Jirin.

In Manchuria there was even its own DneproGES - the Shuyfinskaya hydroelectric station on the Yalu River, bordering between Korea and Manchuria. The dam, 540 meters long and 100 meters high, gave pressure to seven Siemens hydraulic units, 105 thousand kW each. The first unit was put into operation in August 1941 and provided current for supplying the large Siova metallurgical plant in Anshan. The Japanese also built the second large hydroelectric power station - Fynmanskaya on the Sungari River: 10 hydraulic units of 60 thousand kW each. The station was launched in March 1942 and gave current to Xinjin (now Changchun).

“Mangyo” was the core of industrialization, it included: “Manchurian coal company”, metallurgical plants “Siova” and Bensihu, production of light metals, mining and production of non-ferrous metals, as well as automobile factory “Dova”, “Manchu joint-stock company of heavy engineering ”, An industrial engineering company, an aircraft manufacturing company, and so on. In other words, the Japanese equivalent of the People’s Commissariat of Heavy Industry.

In July 1942, a meeting was held in Xinjing that summed up the results of the first five-year plan. In general, the plan was implemented at 80%, but for a number of points there was a good effect. Iron smelting increased by 219%, steel by 159%, rolled products by 264%, coal mining by 178%, copper smelting by 517%, zinc by 397%, lead by 1223%, aluminum by 1666% . The commander of the Kwantung Army, General Umezu Yoshijiro, could exclaim: “We did not have heavy industry, we have it now!”


Commander of the Kwantung Army General Umezu Yoshiziro

Weapon


Manchuria acquired large industrial capacities and now could produce a lot of weapons. There is not much data about this since the Japanese, with the outbreak of war, classified them and published almost nothing. But something is known about this.

According to some sources, the aircraft factory in Mukden could produce up to 650 bombers and up to 2500 engines per year.

Dova automobile plant in Mukden could produce 15-20 thousand trucks and cars a year. In Andun in 1942, the second car factory, an assembly plant, also opened. There was also a rubber products factory in Mukden that produced 120 thousand tires every year.

Two steam locomotive plants in Dairen, another steam locomotive factory in Mukden and a carriage factory in Mudanjiang - with a total capacity of 300 steam locomotives and 7000 wagons per year. For comparison: in 1933, South Ural Railway had 505 steam locomotives and 8,1 thousand freight cars.


Japanese officers next to a tank "Shinhoto Chi-ha." Manchuria, 1944

In Mukden, among other things, the Mukden arsenal emerged - a conglomerate of 30 manufactures that produced rifles and machine guns, assembled tanks, and produced ammunition and artillery. In 1941, the Manchurian Powder Company appeared with six factories in the main industrial centers of Manchuria.

Second Five Year Plan


Very little is known about him, and only from the works of American researchers who studied documents and materials captured in Japan. In Russia, in principle, there should be trophy documents from Manchuria, but so far they have not been completely investigated.

The second five-year plan in Manchuria was not a separate plan, like the first, but was developed in close integration with the needs of Japan and was, in fact, part of the general plans for military-economic development of Japan, including all occupied territories.

In it, greater emphasis was placed on the development of agriculture, the production of crops, especially rice and wheat, as well as soybeans, and on the development of light industry. This circumstance, just as in the second five-year plan in the USSR, was due to the fact that the industrial swing should nevertheless be based on the proportional development of agriculture, which provides food and raw materials. In addition, Japan was more in need of food.

The details of the second five-year plan and the development of Manchuria in 1942-1945 still require research. But for now, you can point out a couple of strange circumstances.

Firstly, a strange and yet inexplicable decline in production in 1944 compared with 1943. In 1943, iron smelting amounted to 1,7 million tons, in 1944 - 1,1 million tons. Steel smelting: 1943 - 1,3 million tons, in 1944 - 0,72 million tons. At the same time, coal mining remained at the same level: 1943 - 25,3 million tons, 1944 - 25,6 million tons. What happened in Manchuria that steel production declined by almost half? Manchuria was far from the theaters of operations, it was not bombed, and this cannot be explained by purely military reasons.

Secondly, there is interesting evidence that the Japanese for some reason created huge steel production capacities in Manchuria. In 1943 - 8,4 million tons, and in 1944 - 12,7 million tons. This is strange, since steelmaking capacities and rolled metal production capacities are usually balanced. The capacities were loaded by 31% and 32%, respectively, which yields rolled products in 1943 of 2,7 million tons, and in 1944 - 6 million tons.

If this is just not the mistake of the American researcher R. Myers from the University of Washington, who published these data, then this is an extremely interesting military-economic fact. In 1944, Japan produced 5,9 million tons of steel. If in addition to this there was still production of 6 million tons of rolled metal, then Japan in total had very significant resources for steel, and, consequently, for the production of weapons and ammunition. If this is true, then Japan should have received from somewhere outside a significant amount of steel suitable for processing into rolled products, most likely from China. This point is still unclear, but it is very intriguing.

In general, in the military-economic history of the Second World War there is still something to explore, and the military economy of the Japanese Empire and the occupied territories here comes first.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

120 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. mat-vey 9 March 2020 06: 09 New
    • 5
    • 12
    -7
    "Otherwise, it would be possible to get to the interesting question: if Soviet industrialization was for the people, and Manchu was for the Japanese military, then why are they so similar?" - especially collectivization.
    1. 210ox 9 March 2020 06: 35 New
      • 8
      • 3
      +5
      There is no question. And in Manchuria and in the USSR, the goal was a sharp increase in military potential. That's just the goals of the military were different. Personally, I was intrigued by a photo of a Japanese locomotive. Is that a steam locomotive?
      1. mat-vey 9 March 2020 06: 40 New
        • 12
        • 3
        +9
        And where does Manuria in general mean? Who asked it? What did the colonial conquerors need, then they did. It was the USSR that increased its military potential for itself, and in Manchuria the metropolis pumped out what it needed from the conquered territory. And for all sorts of social issues in Japan it was deeply spit. So, in principle, there cannot be any similarities.
      2. Sergey M. Karasev 9 March 2020 07: 18 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Indeed, it looks more like a locomotive. And electric traction on open pit railways was undeniable. Interestingly, electric locomotives and diesel locomotives in Manchuria were their own or imported?
      3. svp67 9 March 2020 07: 36 New
        • 16
        • 0
        +16
        Quote: 210ox
        .Personally I was intrigued by a photo of a Japanese locomotive. Is that a steam locomotive?

        Yeah, Kawasaki

        for Asia-Express from Dalyan (Far) to Harbin, and even there are similar points, look at our IS super locomotive
        1. mat-vey 9 March 2020 07: 49 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: svp67
          there are similar points, look at our super-locomotive "IS"

          Maybe the fashion was like that then?
          1. svp67 9 March 2020 08: 08 New
            • 13
            • 0
            +13
            Quote: mat-vey
            Maybe the fashion was like that then?

            Yeah, the fight for speed and aerodynamics was called
            1. mat-vey 9 March 2020 08: 11 New
              • 5
              • 0
              +5
              Yes, I already asked.). In the USSR, the casing on the IP was purged specially in the pipe, but it was not possible to translate into metal for a long time.
        2. maidan.izrailovich 10 March 2020 09: 37 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          ... take a look at our IS super locomotive

      4. Freeman 10 March 2020 12: 53 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: 210ox
        Personally, I was intrigued by a photo of a Japanese locomotive. Is this a steam locomotive?


        Locomotive Pashina SL 7Designed and built by Japanese engineer Nobutarō Yoshino.

        Read more here:
        https://matsam.livejournal.com/2666650.html
    2. Boris55 9 March 2020 07: 38 New
      • 6
      • 5
      +1
      Quote: mat-vey
      if Soviet industrialization was for the people, and Manchu was for the Japanese military, then why are they so similar? "

      How can one equate Soviet industrialization carried out in the territory of his country in the interests of his citizens with what the Japanese did in the occupied territories using the slave labor of enslaved?
      1. mat-vey 9 March 2020 07: 44 New
        • 15
        • 2
        +13
        Well, Overton’s window should be started from somewhere. Then, it must be assumed that slave labor in the USSR can be developed.
      2. svp67 9 March 2020 08: 14 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Quote: Boris55
        How can one equate Soviet industrialization carried out in the territory of his country in the interests of his citizens with what the Japanese did in the occupied territories using the slave labor of enslaved?

        and in the interests of your people ... And you did not notice that the goals can be similar for different political systems, which means that the methods will be similar
        1. Boris55 9 March 2020 09: 03 New
          • 6
          • 3
          +3
          Quote: svp67
          You didn’t notice that goals can be similar in different political systems.

          According to the results of labor in the USSR, prices were reduced every year and every worker understood that the better he would work, the better he would live. What about the Chinese under the Japanese occupation?

          About the goals:
          - the goal under socialism is to increase the welfare of all citizens.
          - the goal under capitalism is to increase the well-being of individual citizens at the expense of all.
          1. svp67 9 March 2020 09: 14 New
            • 9
            • 1
            +8
            Quote: Boris55
            What about the Chinese under the Japanese occupation?

            But what about the representatives of the "former oppressive classes" in the USSR?
            Quote: Boris55
            About the goals:
            - the goal under socialism is to increase the welfare of all citizens.

            Good goals. But what about in the USSR those who were defeated in their rights at that time?
            Quote: Boris55
            - the goal under capitalism is to increase the well-being of individual citizens at the expense of all.

            Everyone has his own. In the same Germany, the main task was to increase the welfare of an individual Nation, at the expense of others
            1. Boris55 9 March 2020 09: 36 New
              • 5
              • 6
              -1
              Quote: svp67
              But what about in the USSR those who were defeated in their rights at that time?

              Could you list the reasons why so?
              Maybe you should return this practice?

              Quote: svp67
              Everyone has his own.

              Under capitalism, the same thing is everywhere - the desire of some to live at the expense of others.
              1. svp67 9 March 2020 09: 42 New
                • 9
                • 2
                +7
                Quote: Boris55
                Could you list the reasons why so?

                In different ways, some for crimes, some for previously belonging to the "ruling and ruling class", and someone for simply being unlucky to be born in a Soviet village ... what or not in Moscow and Leningrad
            2. EvilLion 12 March 2020 09: 38 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              If a citizen impedes social. construction, then he is punished. At that time they resisted in various ways, terrorism, for example, sabotage. What other questions?
        2. fk7777777 9 March 2020 20: 16 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Absolutely different goals, from an economic point of view, after 3 years passed after the first Soviet five-year period, the country rose from 17% to 80%, the rest was imported, and it became clear that the Stalinist USSR was doing everything for the people, which is why the depression began in 1929, then the hitler project. And on the Yap, on the contrary, they made a colony and import import. Therefore, as soon as the Manchuria fell, the Yapi capitulated, and the atomic hits of the Yap elite were before the lantern ... Therefore, it is completely stupid to compare completely different economies, it’s like one on its own feet and the other on prostheses.
    3. knn54 9 March 2020 08: 58 New
      • 6
      • 1
      +5
      - the military did not like the capitalist element typical of the Japanese economy, which was difficult to control.
      The USSR and Manzhou-Guo were agrarian states. And the SOCIALIST policy of industrialization was uncontested.
      For the USSR, that would stand in the midst of a capitalist environment. For Japan, the continuation of the wars of conquest. And time does not wait
      For me personally, this article is like opening .Dmitry, GREAT gratitude for the article.
      1. fk7777777 9 March 2020 20: 20 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Bullshit, the USSR had its own State Bank, and the article in the article went into credit for the full, no matter how the military wanted, But the spheres of influence were discussed at first, and not the return of debts. Any freshman in economics is giving you.
    4. fk7777777 9 March 2020 21: 51 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      So, we have the first Manchuria of go, where the property is zero, the company itself and the company owe the watchman, and the USSR, which owes nothing to anyone, has property, etc., etc., in general, is measured. And it’s real in a normal state for such muddies I give a real criminal term or a psychiatric hospital, but without the right to exit.
  2. tihonmarine 9 March 2020 06: 22 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Thank you for the article, born to me in Transbaikalia, all that was very interesting there.
    Japan was supposed to receive from somewhere outside a significant amount of steel suitable for processing into rolled products, most likely from China. This point is still unclear, but it is very intriguing.
    Yes, the question is very intriguing.
    1. mat-vey 9 March 2020 06: 30 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      An even more "intriguing" question about the "five-year plans" is that Japan still has five-year planning.
  3. bessmertniy 9 March 2020 06: 30 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    The fact that the Japanese did not manage to do the land industrialization in Manchuria at the time, the Chinese did well, making the main bet in the development of their entire economy on the creation of modern industry. And the Northeast continues to be the most developed part of China in this regard.
    1. tihonmarine 9 March 2020 06: 33 New
      • 0
      • 3
      -3
      Quote: bessmertniy
      The fact that in Manchuria for the industrialization of the territory the Japanese did not have time to do at one time, the Chinese did well

      In vain, of course, Stalin gave Manchuria to China. But the deed is done.
      1. mat-vey 9 March 2020 06: 44 New
        • 2
        • 2
        0
        Why in vain?
        1. tihonmarine 9 March 2020 22: 08 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: mat-vey
          Why in vain?

          The border with China would be further, and Port Arthur, Dalyan would be Russian, and better see on the map.
          1. EvilLion 12 March 2020 09: 40 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            Port Arthur gave Khrushchev.
      2. Aviator_ 9 March 2020 09: 22 New
        • 3
        • 3
        0
        In the late 40s, Gao Gang, the communist leader of Manchuria, even requested to join the USSR as a union republic, but Joseph naturally did not agree to this. Why are we in the war-ravaged country and several tens of millions of hungry Chinese?
        1. mat-vey 9 March 2020 11: 46 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Well, I would also add that if an ally has something of his own, then you also need to tear less of yourself to help.
          I just wanted to hear the arguments of tihonmarine (Vlad). Another person, a different look.
          1. Aviator_ 9 March 2020 11: 50 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            I would also like to hear from him a more reasoned explanation.
            1. mat-vey 9 March 2020 11: 58 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Well, so I asked. But they saw the question as tactless.
              1. The comment was deleted.
                1. mat-vey 9 March 2020 16: 46 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: fuxila
                  Maybe it meant maintaining the status quo, i.e. the existence of a Manchu state, separate from China (Manzhou-Guo)

                  yes it’s golovnyak again. they’re half a life there for a “crown fight”
        2. Operator 9 March 2020 14: 36 New
          • 2
          • 4
          -2
          Stalin made a strategic mistake when he went about the occasion of the Chinese Mao Zedong and rejected the offer of the Manchu Gao Gan to join Manchuria as a union republic in the USSR. There were all legal grounds for this - after the 1911 revolution, China fell apart into several independent states, including Manchuria, which did not become part of the Kuomintang China.

          At the end of 1945, the indigenous population (the Manchus - the blood relatives of the Mongols) amounted to about 5 million people, the rest of the inhabitants (Chinese, Koreans and Japanese, brought in from 1931) would have received the status of migrant workers, could be evicted and actually evicted in the place of the former residence. Moreover, in the region, after the end of the Kwantung operation, there was a multi-million military contingent of the Red Army.

          After the entry of industrial Manchuria into the USSR, agrarian China would turn into a controlled country like Mongolia.
          1. strannik1985 9 March 2020 14: 41 New
            • 5
            • 2
            +3
            After the entry of industrial Manchuria

            We get pro-American China in the Far East, as a result, a real quarter of the tanks / third of the SV / five air armies that the Union kept in the Far East will seem like babble if there is Kuomintang China on the other side of the border, with US supportgood
            1. Operator 9 March 2020 16: 47 New
              • 2
              • 4
              -2
              And to hell with him, pro-American China - at least for the whole of 1940-60 (at least) we would have had a neighboring agricultural state walking along the line, and there the Soviet thermonuclear and missile weapons in commercial quantities would arrive in time (including with taking into account the expansion of the industrial base of the USSR due to the Manchu capital investments of Japan).

              And it is not a fact that the rest of China had to be presented to Mao Zedong on a silver platter (by transferring Japanese trophies and Soviet rear support during the civil war until 1949). It could well be limited to dosed help with the aim of prolonging the military conflict until the end of the 1950s with the goal of weakening China as much as possible.

              In real history, China has become pro-American anyway since 1972 after Nixon’s visit.
              1. strannik1985 9 March 2020 20: 05 New
                • 2
                • 1
                +1
                Hell with him

                In the sense? All of China will be under Chiang Kai-shek, for 1950, 542 million people (minus Manchuria). And a sea of ​​weapons, his own and captured. The ideal ally against the USSR good
                1. Operator 9 March 2020 20: 58 New
                  • 0
                  • 4
                  -4
                  Not under Chiang Kai-shek, but under him and Mao Zedin - in the process of a sluggish civil war. And since 1961, the tsar-bombs generally did not care about the population in China.
                  1. strannik1985 10 March 2020 14: 45 New
                    • 2
                    • 0
                    +2
                    Not under Chiang Kai-shek

                    Mao used Manchuria as a base in the war with Chiang Kai-shek if the war in China did not end within a few years after WWII (real 1949), the Kuomintang, against the background of the outbreak of the Cold War, would receive a bunch of American resources. At a minimum, China will provide airspace and airfields for the United States Air Force SAC (by the end of 1949, 840 strategic bombers in combat units, 1350 in reserve, over 300 nuclear bombs).
                    1. Operator 10 March 2020 15: 25 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Than China (more than 10 thousand km distant from the USA with an undeveloped transport infrastructure and a multi-million SA strike force in Soviet Manchuria, Mongolia and East Turkestan) in terms of a bridgehead for an attack on the USSR is better than Western Europe (located 5 thousand km from the USA and excellent transport infrastructure)?

                      And where does the US get funds to the background of Marshall, who in the case of China will not rely on a ready-made industrial base and trained industrial staff like in Europe?
                      1. strannik1985 11 March 2020 06: 08 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Than china

                        1. There is no large group yet, for 1947 in 5 military schools (West Siberian, East Siberian, Trans-Baikal, Far Eastern Federal District, Primorsky) there are only 20 SD, 5 MD, 5 TD, 2 VDD, 1 CD, 14 SBR. For comparison, as of June 1970, only in the Far Eastern Federal District 18 MSD and 2 TDs. To place, build, most of it from scratch, one BAM cost the USSR 17 billion rubles.
                        2. A very long border (4209 km) which under those conditions cannot be closed by a continuous radar field, air defense missile systems and fighter aircraft. American bombers will calmly pass and bomb cities beyond the Urals.
                      2. Operator 11 March 2020 13: 46 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        I'm talking about the end of 1945, when Manchuria (as well as Mongolia and East Turkestan) had to be annexed to the USSR, and already in the USSR it was possible to keep an adequate contingent of SA in these territories.

                        But you did not answer the main question - the fig goat (USA) bayan (Manchu bridgehead for the deployment of strategic aviation) with a much more convenient Europe?
                      3. strannik1985 11 March 2020 15: 33 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        I'm talking about the end of 1945

                        To "keep" you need to place on an ongoing basis, military camps, roads, related infrastructure (training grounds, ranges, military warehouses, equipment, ammunition, airfields and much more). At the same time, the number of NE PLA in 1950 amounted to 2 650 thousand people in the composition of 230 divisions.
                        But you did not answer the main question

                        He replied that Europe is relatively tightly covered, there are a lot of troops, corresponding to the radar and air defense planes, plus a buffer from the ATS countries, it is more difficult to break through to important objects in the USSR.
                      4. Operator 11 March 2020 15: 42 New
                        • 0
                        • 2
                        -2
                        What kind of ATS was in 1945-55 and why did the American B-17 break through from central China to Siberia / the Far East - bomb bears? laughing
                      5. strannik1985 11 March 2020 15: 53 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        What is ATS

                        Ordinary, all the allied countries and until 1955 had armed forces, even the GDR (barracks people's police).
                        to bomb the bears?

                        Well, if bears live in Omsk, Novosibirsk and other cities, then bears laughing
                      6. Operator 11 March 2020 16: 02 New
                        • 0
                        • 1
                        -1
                        Check out the US nuclear war plans with the USSR, developed from 1945 to 1955 - the lion's share of bombing attacks fell on the European and Ural parts of the Soviet Union, where more than 90 percent of the country's population, production and armed forces were concentrated (excluding all kinds of Caucasus and Central Asia).

                        Therefore, Europe as a bridgehead for basing the B-17 was uncontested (despite the concentration of the SA in eastern Europe), and what could they do with the enemy bombers of the army of the NDP, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and the working militia of the GDR?
                      7. strannik1985 11 March 2020 16: 57 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Therefore Europe

                        Distance Chelyabinsk (which is Tankograd) -Burkin (Xinjiang-Uygur Autonomous Okrug) 1936 km in a straight line, combat radius B-17 3219 km with 2227 kg of bombs, combat radius B-29 3413 km, B-50A 3528 km.
                      8. Operator 11 March 2020 17: 52 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        And the Xinjiang Uyghur District (East Turkestan) also had to be included in the USSR laughing
  • Aviator_ 9 March 2020 14: 51 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    Well, why is it a "strategic mistake." How could he have foreseen Khrushch Kukuruzny at the head of the USSR? If Joseph had adequate followers of his policy, then our country would not be in a confrontation with China and mutually beneficial policies for both countries (without a break of 60-80 years) would continue uninterrupted from the 50s to this day.
    1. Operator 9 March 2020 16: 56 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Stalin’s mistake was not that he couldn’t foresee something there, but in ignoring the facts of Mao Zedong’s violent nationalism, the latter’s claims to lead the entire communist movement and attempt to seize power in the USSR and the CPSU by entering multiple The PRC and the CPC are respectively members of the Soviet Union and the Soviet Communist Party (such an offer was made by Mao during a personal meeting with Stalin during his stay in Moscow for 2,5 months from December 1949 to February 1950).
      1. Aviator_ 9 March 2020 17: 40 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        Stalin knew what Mao was like; he repeatedly said that Mao-Zedong - like a radish - was red on the outside and white on the inside. That is, ideologically, this was not a communist, but a nationalist, and he had opposition within the CCP, which he had been eliminating since the war with the Kuomintang (see Vladimirov, “Special Region of China”). Under the harsh leadership of the USSR, he would not dare to behave like that as the head of the PRC (the tough leadership could well apply his methods to him), if there were pro-Soviet leaders of the CCP (Liu Shaoqi, Lin Biao, Peng Dehui ...) in the history between our countries would not have the tragic pages of the 60s. And in the beginning of the 80s they crap to us in Afghanistan. But Khrushchev Kukuruzny does not pull on a tough leader devoted to the communist idea.
        1. Operator 9 March 2020 17: 50 New
          • 2
          • 3
          -1
          The tough Soviet leadership of China - accession in 1945 of Manchuria to the USSR (with the transfer of local Japanese, Koreans and Chinese to the status of migrant workers), East Turkestan (Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region) and Mongolia (to create a strategic bridgehead), dosed support for the CPC and the Kuomintang ( representing China as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, by the way) in the civil war, not a penny of subsidies for the development of China's industry.

          And so until 1972, so that the United States would have to raise China from scratch, rather than relying on hundreds of industrial enterprises and trained technical personnel donated by the USSR in the 1950s.
          1. Aviator_ 9 March 2020 17: 53 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Of course, it looks attractive to your option, but the United States has never raised anyone of such proportions as China from scratch.
            1. Operator 9 March 2020 17: 56 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              All the more interesting would be my option laughing
          2. gsev 9 March 2020 20: 39 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            Quote: Operator
            the annexation in 1945 of the USSR to Manchuria (with the transfer of local Japanese, Koreans and Chinese to migrant workers status), East Turkestan (Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region) and Mongolia (to create a strategic bridgehead),

            If this happened, now from Korea to Tarim south of Russia there would be a powerful Muslim belt. If the USSR could not hold Belarus and Ukraine in 1991, then East Turkestan would be even more difficult to keep.
            1. Operator 9 March 2020 21: 00 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              I do not understand about where you found Muslims in Korea, Manchuria and Mongolia.
              1. gsev 9 March 2020 22: 45 New
                • 0
                • 1
                -1
                Quote: Operator
                I don’t understand about where you found Muslims in Korea, Manchuria.

                As far as I know, Islam spread very much in Manchuria after 1945. Even in Beijing there are about 300 mosques. I wrote from Korea, considering this country not part of the Muslim world. I agree that Mongolia is not a Muslim country, but in the north of China there are a lot of Muslims.
              2. Operator 9 March 2020 23: 30 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Chinese Muslims do not live in the north-east of the country in Manchuria, but in the north-west in the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region (along the old East Turkestan).
              3. gsev 10 March 2020 00: 31 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: Operator
                Chinese Muslims do not live in the north-east of the country in Manchuria,

                David Nicole in 2003 noted the growth of Muslims precisely in Manchuria. As I understand it, having run through the Internet, the influence of Islam in Manchuria has been reduced in China.
              4. Operator 10 March 2020 01: 39 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                As for the religious situation among the 2003 Manchu, I do not know anything.
  • gsev 9 March 2020 20: 36 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Aviator_
    Under the harsh leadership of the USSR, he would not dare to behave like that as the head of the PRC (the tough leadership could well apply his methods to him), if there were pro-Soviet leaders of the CCP (Liu Shaoqi, Lin Biao, Peng Dehui ...) in the history between our countries would not have the tragic pages of the 60s.

    I suppose that the Chinese leaders from Gao Gang to Peng Dehuai were Chinese patriots and could also respond tough to tough politics. Mao was ready to conduct relations with the United States, but in 1944, US diplomats took a tougher stance against the CCP and as a result received an uncomfortable opponent in the person of China.
    1. Aviator_ 9 March 2020 20: 51 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      I will assume that the Chinese leaders from Gao Gang to Peng Dehuai were Chinese patriots

      Pen Dehuai was the commander of the PLA, until the end of the 50s he unconditionally supported Mao, but Gao Gang, with all of Manchuria, requested the USSR, and hardly by order of Mao-Zedong. He was a patriot, but not a Maoist, which he later recalled.
      Mao was ready to conduct relations with the United States

      Maybe, of course, Mao would be glad to receive help from the USA, but the war with Japan ended, and the situation when both the USA and the USSR fed the Kuomintang (before 1941) so that he fought with Japan also ended. The Civil War began. And the United States also had to feed the communist who fought with the Kuomintang? They and the Kuomintang cost a pretty penny.
      1. gsev 9 March 2020 21: 00 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Aviator_
        Gao Gang with all of Manchuria requested in the USSR

        Most likely he strove for greater independence. I believe that Gao Gang was an intelligent man and did not seek to fall under the millstones of the Stalinist MGB. Mao sought sole power and destroyed independent naughty politicians. Gao Gang turned out to be a bargaining chip of Stalin.
        1. Aviator_ 9 March 2020 21: 03 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          that Gao Gang was an intelligent man and did not seek to fall under the millstones of the Stalinist MGB.

          Well, I got "under the millstones" of Chinese bodies.
      2. gsev 10 March 2020 00: 41 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Aviator_
        here Gao Gang with all of Manchuria requested in the USSR

        As far as I know, the actions of Gao Gang leading to his death consisted only in sending gifts to Stalin from Manchuria, and not from all of China. The USSR insisted on the exclusion of foreigners in North China and Manchuria, in particular, demanded that not only the Japanese, but also the Koreans be evicted from there. Mao then told Stalin that the Koreans are the original inhabitants of Manchuria and it’s stupid to relocate them somewhere. The USSR tried to obtain concessions in the PRC for the cultivation of rubber and freedom of movement of troops in the PRC, but Mao agreed to this while providing similar rights to the Chinese in the USSR. Accordingly, all remained at their own. Stalin and Mao were smart people and did not allow voiceless tactics to be voiced like the accession of Manchuria.
        1. Operator 10 March 2020 01: 41 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          Mao in 1945 was nobody and his name was nothing.
        2. gsev 12 March 2020 23: 09 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Operator
          Mao in 1945 was nobody and his name was nothing.

          I will assume that it was until 1945 that Mao’s life was the most difficult time. By 1945, he was apparently the only representative of the communist opposition with whom US diplomats had official negotiations. The greatness of the CCP and the PRC was largely laid down during the Northern Campaign and the communist guerrilla war against the Japanese. So we can say that there was no one Kutuzov before Napoleon flee from Moscow, or Stalin until the victory at Stalingrad was an unfortunate leader in the war.
        3. Operator 12 March 2020 23: 55 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          The USSR had every opportunity to extend for Mao "the most difficult times" beyond 1945.
        4. gsev 13 March 2020 00: 01 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Operator
          The USSR had every opportunity to extend for Mao "the most difficult times" beyond 1945.

          Soviet leaders did a lot of stupid things. Thank God that Stalin did not do stupidity and did not quarrel Russia and China, and in the late 1980s, diplomats began to restore relations between the USSR and China.
  • Aviator_ 10 March 2020 08: 03 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    in particular, he demanded that not only the Japanese, but also the Koreans be evicted from there.

    It seems that you brought the propaganda stuffing of the time - why would it be to expel Koreans from Manchuria? Did Kim Il Sung have manpower? The Japanese are aggressors, everything is clear with them, like the Germans in Europe they were subject to deportation.
  • gsev 12 March 2020 23: 00 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Aviator_
    It seems that you brought the propaganda stuffing of the time

    Earlier, Stalin expelled from Primorye the Chinese and Koreans under the pretext that they sympathized with Japan. Why do not you think that in 1949 Stalin did not come up with yet another stupidity?
  • Aviator_ 13 March 2020 07: 58 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    I, unlike you, did not see stupid things in Stalinist politics. Firstly, this is not stupidity, but the norm of that time - a little earlier, because of the supposedly "suffering" of the Silesian Germans from the Czechs, Hitler occupied the Czech Republic. This is the reason for the pre-war deportation of Koreans from the Far East - it was impossible to leave the population of the neighboring side on the border territory. Secondly, in 1949, the Civil War in China ended and the PRC was formed, with which good-neighborly relations were established.
  • gsev 14 March 2020 16: 58 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Aviator_
    I didn’t see stupid things in Stalin’s politics

    The reason for any war is the aggressor’s confidence in the weakness of the victim of aggression. Reason to find is easy. For example, the murder by a citizen of Austria-Hungary Gavrila of another citizen of this country Ferdinand was the reason for the war. Reason: the end of rearmament by Germany with heavy artillery and the possibility of rearmament by Russia only in the year 1920-1924. Koreans and Chinese in Primorye hated the Japanese and could not be their fifth column. The Japanese relied on white emigrants close to Semenov. Now, for example, in Russia among Russian businessmen there are much more supporters of modern Ukraine than among Afghan ones.
  • fuxila 9 March 2020 16: 41 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    Such an option could hardly have been realized, even if Stalin had wanted, the ethnic Manchus themselves by that time were already much smaller than the Chinese, and they themselves were pretty much huddled and felt like part of a single Greater China.
    1. Operator 9 March 2020 17: 54 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      The Chinese, Japanese and Koreans could be transferred to the status of migrant workers (which they were in Manchur-Guo anyway). And the opinion of individual Chinese Manchu could be neglected, since the Manchu leadership itself wanted to become part of the USSR.
      1. gsev 9 March 2020 22: 28 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Operator
        Chinese, Japanese and Koreans could be transferred to the status of migrant workers

        Koreans have lived in Manchuria for thousands of years, the Chinese are more than the Russians in Siberia. In addition, the Manchus and the Chinese were very mixed. The Japanese very artificially highlighted Manchu. Manzhou-Guo was about the same entity as the Lokot Republic. The strength of the USSR was that the peoples inhabiting it could not be called state migrant workers.
        1. Operator 9 March 2020 23: 40 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Manchus differ from the Chinese in the Turkic language, shamanism and their phenotype - facial features and taller stature. According to the census of China in 1953, 2,5 million people called themselves Manchus.
          1. gsev 12 March 2020 23: 31 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: Operator
            they differ from the Chinese in the Turkic language, shamanism and their phenotype - facial features and higher growth.

            In Bashkiria, I saw Russians with Mongoloid features and Bashkirs with European ones. A nation is not only genes, but also family and culture. The Chinese have successfully assimilated even Jews, and not just Manchu.
            1. Operator 12 March 2020 23: 50 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Nevertheless, during the 1945 census, 2,5 million recognized themselves as Manchus, and after 60 years - already 10 million, and this increase occurred not only due to natural growth, but also due to "coming out of the shadows."
              1. gsev 12 March 2020 23: 54 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: Operator
                and this is not only due to growth,

                So during this time, the population of China has grown from 300 million to 1500 million. In Russia, Jews, Ukrainians, Chechens, Yakuts and Chukchi both lived and will live. The same in China with the Manchus.
  • tihonmarine 9 March 2020 22: 09 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Aviator_
    Why are we in the war-ravaged country and several tens of millions of hungry Chinese?

    And now would be useful.
  • fk7777777 9 March 2020 21: 57 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Oh well, well, and the debt to China in 1939 was written off not small, and everything was in silver bullion. By the way, you’re going for a hectare, to the Far East, so imagine that you would have been obligated to impose 10 hectares somewhere in the Gobi desert. And so that everything, at his own expense, and after a couple of years.
  • Olgovich 9 March 2020 07: 20 New
    • 8
    • 4
    +4
    Torn away from China in late 1931 - early 1932 by Japanese troops, Manchuria was a very significant trophy for the Japanese

    A significant event, considered by many the beginning of WWII: for the first time after it, the seizure of vast territories took place, and the League of Nations Could NOT resist this, despite all its decisions and the Charter.

    The world has rapidly rolled into the abyss ..

    An interesting article, however, has not been found anywhere that our 45 g was part of an industrialized region.

    I wonder how much% was made in Manchuria to the total in Japan as a whole .... recourse
    1. apro 9 March 2020 07: 52 New
      • 1
      • 5
      -4
      Quote: Olgovich
      The world has rapidly rolled into the abyss ..

      I understand that in itself .. or were there pushers? Not bloody communists by accident ..
    2. Olgovich 9 March 2020 08: 12 New
      • 4
      • 2
      +2
      Quote: Olgovich
      A significant event, considered by many to be the beginning of WWII: for the first time after her the seizure of vast territories took place, and the League of Nations COULD NOT resist this, despite all its decisions and the Charter.
      one word fell out and the meaning of the phrase turned out to be absurd, to blame: it should be "for the first time after WWI the seizure of vast territories took place, and the League of Nations COULD NOT resist this, despite all its decisions and the Charter.
      recourse request
    3. Moskovit 9 March 2020 11: 09 New
      • 6
      • 0
      +6
      I read the memoirs of our front-line soldiers about the offensive in Manchuria. They wrote that the terrifying poverty of the Chinese hit many soldiers who saw them. So the Japanese pumped resources from there for their empire, nothing more.
    4. fk7777777 9 March 2020 21: 59 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      They didn’t enter, but surrounded, how did you teach history?
    5. tihonmarine 9 March 2020 22: 11 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Olgovich
      An interesting article, however, has not been found anywhere that our 45 g was part of an industrialized region.

      Some people forget about this.
  • Very interesting article! And the numbers attached to it are generally impressive and surprising! Not every European country mined and produced so much in the indicated period!
    1. tihonmarine 9 March 2020 22: 12 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Leader of the Redskins
      Very interesting article! And the numbers attached to it are generally impressive and surprising! Not every European country mined and produced so much in the indicated period!

      And you always had to remember.
  • Undecim 9 March 2020 09: 48 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    "Asia-Express" South Railway at the station, most likely in Mukden
    Not in Mukden, in Dalian. This is a photo from the book: Edward Denison, Guangyu Ren. Ultra-Modernism: Architecture and Modernity in Manchuria.

    In 2017, the book received the Royal Institute of British Architects Award.
    Author phrase: "This part of the history of World War II is little known due to the almost complete absence and rarity of literature, especially in Russian." it is true, and that, in part, only with respect to literature in Russian, although the translation of Bisson's classical monograph "The Military Economy of Japan" in the USSR was published back in 1949.
    Today, there are a lot of publications on this issue.
  • Undecim 9 March 2020 10: 24 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    In 1937, the first five-year development plan was developed in Manchuria, which provided for an initial investment of 4,8 billion yen, then, after two revisions, plans increased to 6 billion yen, of which 5 billion yen went to heavy industry. Just like in the first five-year plan in the USSR.
    In 1937, Japan considered it possible to satisfy its military needs by expanding the industrial capacities of Manzhou, and as a result, powerful heavy industry was created in northeast China. The consequence of this policy was the deformation of the region’s economy, which led to the decline of agriculture and light industry.
    1. mat-vey 9 March 2020 11: 56 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Well, in the first five years of the USSR, the Soviet Union was building an industrial base for agriculture, and as soon as the technical opportunity arose, it began industrialization and agriculture, and for this it was just collectivization that could not be industrialized without agricultural collectivization.
      1. wehr 9 March 2020 13: 45 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Collectivization took place in 1930-1932. The first five-year plan is 1929-1932.
        1. mat-vey 9 March 2020 13: 56 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Well, that was the task by the end of the five-year period to complete collectivization.
        2. tihonmarine 9 March 2020 22: 15 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: wehr
          The first five-year plan is 1929-1932.

          Question and who credited the First five-year plans? Have not you thought?
          1. wehr 10 March 2020 00: 05 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Not only thought, but even counted. One peasantry accounted for 40% of the total investment in heavy industry.
            In general, they took from the population: taxes and loans.
            1. tihonmarine 10 March 2020 00: 09 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: wehr
              One peasantry accounted for 40% of the total investment in heavy industry.

              Well, what did the Rockefellers lend to the USSR did not occur to you?
              1. wehr 10 March 2020 00: 11 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Well, if you want to say that it was the Rockefellers who organized industrialization, then you have to admit that you are a representative of the stupid people who would still pick the ground without the Rockefellers.
                Will this interpretation of history suit you? laughing
                1. tihonmarine 10 March 2020 00: 20 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: wehr
                  Will this interpretation of history suit you?

                  Learn the story.
                2. tihonmarine 10 March 2020 16: 56 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: wehr
                  Will this interpretation of history suit you?

                  Not suitable, but here's something
                  The Rockefellers came to Russia under Stalin: they credited the first Soviet five-year plans and industrialization with great benefit to themselves. There is even a version of conspiracy theorists why Stalin arranged his loud repressions precisely in the 37th. Immediately after the death of that year, John Rockefeller Sr. Say, this death untied the leader’s hands. Prior to that, he was forced to comply with certain agreements with the billionaire on the humanity of the Kremlin
                  On May 23, 1937, John the Rockefeller Sr. died, and Tukhachevsky already testified on Lubyanka on May 26.
              2. mat-vey 10 March 2020 15: 51 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: tihonmarine
                Well, what did the Rockefellers lend to the USSR did not occur to you?

                And who gave loans?
      2. fk7777777 9 March 2020 22: 02 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        That's right, the tractor was worth the money.
        1. tihonmarine 9 March 2020 22: 16 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: fk7777777
          That's right, the tractor was worth the money.

          "Universal" was made in the USSR, taking an American prototype for a penny.
  • Vovan 9 March 2020 14: 03 New
    • 2
    • 3
    -1
    However, its methods, goals, and general appearance were so similar to industrialization in the USSR that research on this topic was clearly not encouraged.

    USSR killed more than 40 million Chinese in the process of industrialization? Oh well. Another pulling an owl on the globe from a blogger - like a journalist - who has heard something somewhere, and in general, knows how to spell the word "history", but already the words "economy", "politics" cause a rash, not to mention the concept "technological structure".
    Well, everyone can independently evaluate the degree of similarity by answering questions for themselves: who? in what way? for what? by what means? who financed? who supplied the technology? who trained the staff? and where did this very staff come from?
    1. fk7777777 9 March 2020 22: 03 New
      • 1
      • 2
      -1
      Yes, this is bullshit, it’s just trying to equate the achievements of our people with Nazism.
    2. tihonmarine 9 March 2020 22: 17 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Vovan
      USSR killed more than 40 million Chinese in the process of industrialization?

      And you believed it ????
  • Undecim 9 March 2020 17: 32 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    A characteristic feature of precisely Manchuria was that the command of the Kwantung Army, which actually controlled it, was categorically against attracting large Japanese concerns to its development, since the military did not like the capitalist element typical of the Japanese economy, which was difficult to control. Their slogan was: "The development of Manzhou-Guo without capitalists"
    The paragraph shows that the author is completely not guided by the topic that he raised and is quite interesting and completely far from understanding the processes that took place in the Japanese economy of that period and has absolutely no idea about the "new economic structure", nor about the Hoshino Plan or the creators Manzhou Guo industry.
    1. Undecim 9 March 2020 17: 34 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1

      Continuation of the previous table.
      1. Undecim 9 March 2020 17: 48 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1

        Continuation of the previous table.
        1. Undecim 9 March 2020 17: 52 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2

          The table shows the dynamics of industrialization of Manzhou-Guo and its participants. Apparently, about no
          "The development of Manzhou-Guo without capitalists" is not talking.
          1. fk7777777 9 March 2020 22: 04 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            The development of a private shop, not a state.
  • faterdom 9 March 2020 20: 10 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Apparently, the Japanese expected that Manchuria to them for good ...
  • fk7777777 9 March 2020 21: 07 New
    • 0
    • 3
    -3
    In general, the article maneuvers with public opinion, which is essentially provocative, first of all, they took a loan giving everything to the sphere of influence, that is, the de-controlled territory does not belong to you anymore, you should, in fact, de facto, do what the owner says loan, and how do you think to pay off the loan if you already have nothing ?, think those who gave you a loan for such a thing will allow you to pay off?, well, only if ..
    You understand what ... Yes, yes, at the cost of your own life (by the way, therefore, neural weapons were created where only material values ​​remained) .... And the second option is where you owe nothing to anyone. The purchasing power of money is confirmed by the actual production of goods and services . Prices are actually being reduced. Compare, for example, 1947, a Kalashnikov assault rifle, instant 15, the lunar program, the nuclear industry, and this after the world massacre, where the country played a key role in the "field". So what comparison did the author want to say? ...
  • fk7777777 9 March 2020 21: 24 New
    • 0
    • 4
    -4
    And, and, and again for those who consider the ancient Yagipsyans to be a development, after you have signed such a loan agreement, you are nobody in this territory and any comparisons with what? You have 0, and a huge minus, how can you compare private with public? Try to hammer basalt with a copper chisel, huh, maybe a member ,?
  • tihonmarine 10 March 2020 00: 19 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: wehr

    Well, if you want to say that it was the Rockefellers who organized industrialization, then you have to admit that you are a representative of the unlucky people
    You’ll excuse me, but the states are difficult to call a country of “inept”.
  • EvilLion 10 March 2020 15: 39 New
    • 0
    • 4
    -4
    Verkhoshlepov, but do you want to say that the USSR was like a completely Nazi Japan? But are you Russophobe for an hour?
  • mat-vey 10 March 2020 16: 04 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: tihonmarine
    Quote: wehr

    Well, if you want to say that it was the Rockefellers who organized industrialization, then you have to admit that you are a representative of the unlucky people
    You’ll excuse me, but the states are difficult to call a country of “inept”.

    and where do the states? "Well, if you want to say that it was the Rockefellers who organized industrialization" - was there industrialization in the USSR?
  • Mihail2019 16 March 2020 15: 54 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Wolf and wolfhound have exactly the same external features! However, this does not mean that the wolf is a wolfhound, and vice versa.
    For a particular person, there is a significant difference between the two: one is harmful and dangerous, the other helps to fight this dangerous, which is beneficial.
    So the author’s approach about the similarity of industrialization methods does not at all mean similarities in essence of countries.