• DessalinesA
    link
    2
    edit-2
    4 years ago

    Food was nice, except there often was no food and you had to wait in huge lines to get it…As you can see, the Soviet Union couldn’t supply its citizens with even basic items, any diversity of food,

    Nope. Even the CIA found that the Soviet food supply was near-identical to the American food supply in terms of calories and protein. Contemporary American reports indicated that, by some standards, the Soviet diet was healthier than the American one.

    Calories per person eventually passed the US by the 1960s:

    .

    Since you seem to love wikipedia as a source, here’s one even they have to admit:

    After the October revolution, the life expectancy for all age groups went up. A newborn child in 1926-27 had a life expectancy of 44.4 years, up from 32.3 years thirty years before. In 1958-59 the life expectancy for newborns went up to 68.6 years.

    Also, the people loved the USSR, which is why recent polls have shown most of the generation that lived under it want it back. 66% of Russians polled in 2015 want the USSR back.

    • @k_o_t
      link
      1
      edit-2
      4 years ago

      Nope. Even the CIA found that the Soviet food supply was near-identical to the American food supply in terms of calories and protein

      Even if we assume that this report is true (which is probably is, given that CIA had not stimuli to praise the Soviet Union), as indicated by the report itself, it only covered data from 1965 to 1984, which completely misses all the major famines occurring in the Soviet Union and the late Imperial Russia.

      Contemporary American reports indicated that, by some standards, the Soviet diet was healthier than the American one.

      That is the case because fast food (which is one of the major, if not the most important, factor contributing to unhealthy diet in the availability of healthy food) was practically non-existent in the USSR or was very bad.

      After the October revolution, the life expectancy for all age groups went up. A newborn child in 1926-27 had a life expectancy of 44.4 years, up from 32.3 years thirty years before. In 1958-59 the life expectancy for newborns went up to 68.6 years.

      That is because peasants, which contributed over 80-90 % of the population even in the 1920s, were up until that moment practically slaves under Serfdom (even though it was lifted in 1861) receiving practically no healthcare, so naturally their life expectancy was pretty low, so even the smallest change to the availability of somewhat proper healthcare (which they kind of did get after in the Soviet Union) would result in great increase in life expectancy. So yes, you could argue that the early USSR had better life expectancy than a system with slavery. It got a lot better in the 1970s of course, when healthcare got a lot better, with a lot of sport propaganda and the average life expectancy got a lot higher, but it’s hard to estimate how much of that improvement was actually from improved healthcare and living conditions, and how much of that were ceased repressions, prisoners being released from Gulags and relative lack of wars.

      Also, the people loved the USSR, which is why recent polls have shown most of the generation that lived under it want it back. 66% of Russians polled in 2015 want the USSR back.

      Have you read what I wrote about Russian citizens about loving the Soviet Union (genuine question, I edited my comment later a few times with additional information)?

      But aside from that, do you think these small improvements and positive sides in any way justify everything else?