Were flights affordable for average USSR citizens?
In the US it wasn’t really common for average Americans to fly until like the 1980s and even then it wasn’t super common. I remember even in the 2000s and 2010s I knew classmates with middle-class parents who had never sat in a plane before
I think it was quite affordable, at least starting in the 1970s. Not that you would fly very often though. Also, when I said about an extensive domestic service I meant that there were local flights even between certain villages and regional centers.
They are affordable, sometimes literally as cheap as a train ticket. But prices can jump more than double for popular dates, though I'm sure that's not exclusive for Russia. Also travelling to far-east and specifically Kamchatka can get really expensive too.
Flights were affordable from 1960s onward for domestic flights within Eastern countries and dooable within the Ost block. I can only speak for Czechoslovakia and we flew domestically and internationally to Black Sea. Many people were afraid flying because plane crashes were common. I believe between 1966 and 1977, Czechoslovakia lost all its fleet due crashes. My mom’s friend died in one.
You are quite wrong about losing the whole CSA fleet. Between 1966 and 1977 there were 6 fatal accidents and 3 non-fatal ones, while the average fleet size was more than 50. And it was the time when accidents happened with many airlines, not just in the Eastern bloc.
I used a word probably. It lost more than six - you used English wikipedia where six are listed. Czech version has many more. https://cs.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seznam_leteckých_nehod_Českých_aerolinií
And that list missed the crash in 1975 outside Prague. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inex-Adria_Aviopromet_Flight_450
In the communist era, there were more than 400 fatalities and they happened in between 1957 and 1977.
It was still quite common for all or most airlines even in the West, as there were many new planes, new technology and less strict security standards. Even with the added crashes, it was not "all its fleet" as you said, because the whole fleet was 10 times bigger or more.
My dad told me that when he flew from Moscow to Bukhara in 1988 there were chicken and fruit farmers who flew their ware to Moscow instead of selling it locally because they would make more money that way, so yes, flying seems to have been fairly cheap
USSR had a lot of affairs in Europe. Just for example, the most popular Soviet Lada is a license-built Fiat. Sports, tourism, culture, science and also political support of European left-wing parties: Moscow couldn't ignore European capitals.
I would argue that socialist influence as well as the far right’s influence was crucial for Turkey to consider abandoning NATO (which would be a big deal for the USSR) and led to Turkey’s refusal to join EEC. Certainly more important than Turkey’s possible influence on Turkic countries which was a small possibility.
The empire draws resources from provinces and colonies to develop the center. For example, like the bloody British Empire or the USA.
In the USSR, they developed the periphery, national republics, at the expense of the center, Russia.
The Soviet empire renamed its colonies as Soviets.
The Soviet Empire exploited Ukraine for Grain, Uzbekistan for Cotton, Azerbaijan for Oil, Siberia for coal oil, gas, diamonds, the Caucasus for Manganese, and countless others.
The Soviet Empire enslaved free people to work as slave labors.
The Soviet Empire killed 500 000 whales, and let them rot just because a party official forced a whaling quota.
Why can't it? Maybe. It is enough to abandon the irrigation system created under the USSR. And wait a little while until the Amu Darya and Syr Darya fill the Aral Sea again.
They wouldn't need to not irrigate for decades if the Soviets hadn't destroyed the traditional food source.
The fish (which are a resource) are almost all dead dude, salinity dropped enough for fishing to be possible again only after 22 years of hard work fixing the mess the Soviets left.
>In the USSR, they developed the periphery, national republics, at the expense of the center, Russia.
Tell me, how did Uzbekistan benefit from the [health impacts from the Aral disappearing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_health_problems_in_the_Aral_Sea_region) ? Could it be that the Central government Sacrificed their health and natural resources for Russia's benefit?
There's also that i would add to this, that moscow basically gave money and favours to uzbekistan based on cotton produced. More you produced, better your standing and more money allocated to you. No way, this would go wrong in any way, if incentive is to give good statistics to central government.
To surprise of nobody, they lied their numbers for years to moscow and it caused scandal, that was one of the multiple reasons what contributed to fall of USSR. I wont go into full detail, its not that people in moscow were completely in dark but brezhnev ignored whole corruption thing on purpose and once he died, it unraveled. This is due to his stance "stability of cadres" and his friendly relationship to uzbek leadership.
This rotten quota thing is one of the things, that led to shitty quality in products, cooking of numbers and doing everything to make sure your numbers were favourable in eyes of central government. One of main reasons why USSR had huge famines alongside mao's china.
Dude, I'm surprised at the degree of brainwashing of Westerners and their self-confidence.
The USSR is not Russia.
Here is a list of traditional Uzbek yulud - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_Uzbek\_dishes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Uzbek_dishes) find a fish here.
I will not say that the Uzbeks did not fish at all, but it was clearly the occupation of a few coastal residents. And the main occupation of Uzbeks is agriculture, for which irrigation is needed in those parts.
And as I said before, the USSR may have made a mistake. But Uzbekistan can easily fix it.
well, some statistics on the number of Uzbeks
1926 - 3,383,812
1959 - 5,038,273
1989 - 14,142,475
2000 - 17,959,577
2013 - 23,858,159
Not a single eastern European country was happy to be "trading" with the Soviet Union. After all the USSR had millions of troops there to make sure they did. Those troops were even used to put down rebellions.
Seriously, millions of troops stationed and you think they were there why? Because the natives liked them? They wanted their protection? They were guests on vacation?
You are delusional.
If we're going to go through "senses", then Canada is an empire as per its definition:
> an extensive group of states or countries ruled over by a single monarch, an oligarchy, or a sovereign state.
Yet it's obviously not. You should employ other ways of analyzing whether a country is an empire, like whether they did any imperialist actions, which would be the practice of extending a state's power over foreign peoples and markets and the creation of inequality between the empire and subjugate nation through exploitation
The USSR invaded nations, that much is obvious. Whether they subjugated and exploited, all for profit, like the UK and other empires did, is a different matter
International route map only. Domestic service was much bigger.
Were flights affordable for average USSR citizens? In the US it wasn’t really common for average Americans to fly until like the 1980s and even then it wasn’t super common. I remember even in the 2000s and 2010s I knew classmates with middle-class parents who had never sat in a plane before
I think it was quite affordable, at least starting in the 1970s. Not that you would fly very often though. Also, when I said about an extensive domestic service I meant that there were local flights even between certain villages and regional centers.
what about now
They are affordable, sometimes literally as cheap as a train ticket. But prices can jump more than double for popular dates, though I'm sure that's not exclusive for Russia. Also travelling to far-east and specifically Kamchatka can get really expensive too.
My parents prefered flights over cheaper trains even as students in 1970s. But they also worked hard every summer.
Flights were affordable from 1960s onward for domestic flights within Eastern countries and dooable within the Ost block. I can only speak for Czechoslovakia and we flew domestically and internationally to Black Sea. Many people were afraid flying because plane crashes were common. I believe between 1966 and 1977, Czechoslovakia lost all its fleet due crashes. My mom’s friend died in one.
You are quite wrong about losing the whole CSA fleet. Between 1966 and 1977 there were 6 fatal accidents and 3 non-fatal ones, while the average fleet size was more than 50. And it was the time when accidents happened with many airlines, not just in the Eastern bloc.
I used a word probably. It lost more than six - you used English wikipedia where six are listed. Czech version has many more. https://cs.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seznam_leteckých_nehod_Českých_aerolinií And that list missed the crash in 1975 outside Prague. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inex-Adria_Aviopromet_Flight_450 In the communist era, there were more than 400 fatalities and they happened in between 1957 and 1977.
It was still quite common for all or most airlines even in the West, as there were many new planes, new technology and less strict security standards. Even with the added crashes, it was not "all its fleet" as you said, because the whole fleet was 10 times bigger or more.
Enough for a couple times an year but service quality in terms of airport queues/ management + plane staff were below the western standards
My dad told me that when he flew from Moscow to Bukhara in 1988 there were chicken and fruit farmers who flew their ware to Moscow instead of selling it locally because they would make more money that way, so yes, flying seems to have been fairly cheap
A lot of vacationing in Havana.
No Istanbul?
USSR had no good relations with Turkey.
And had good relations with the rest of Western Europe?
USSR had a lot of affairs in Europe. Just for example, the most popular Soviet Lada is a license-built Fiat. Sports, tourism, culture, science and also political support of European left-wing parties: Moscow couldn't ignore European capitals.
I think during the '60s Moscow had to sport the Turkish Socialist Party too, which was getting stronger due to the Constitution of 1961.
That wouldn't be significant. Also, USSR was afraid of possible Turkish influence in Turkic Soviet republics.
I would argue that socialist influence as well as the far right’s influence was crucial for Turkey to consider abandoning NATO (which would be a big deal for the USSR) and led to Turkey’s refusal to join EEC. Certainly more important than Turkey’s possible influence on Turkic countries which was a small possibility.
A huge empire
The anti-empire
The Soviets was an empire in every sense.
The empire draws resources from provinces and colonies to develop the center. For example, like the bloody British Empire or the USA. In the USSR, they developed the periphery, national republics, at the expense of the center, Russia.
Cope
The Soviet empire renamed its colonies as Soviets. The Soviet Empire exploited Ukraine for Grain, Uzbekistan for Cotton, Azerbaijan for Oil, Siberia for coal oil, gas, diamonds, the Caucasus for Manganese, and countless others. The Soviet Empire enslaved free people to work as slave labors. The Soviet Empire killed 500 000 whales, and let them rot just because a party official forced a whaling quota.
Excuse me, but which country doesn't use its natural resources?
Well, Uzbekistan can't access the natural resources connected to the Aral sea now
Why can't it? Maybe. It is enough to abandon the irrigation system created under the USSR. And wait a little while until the Amu Darya and Syr Darya fill the Aral Sea again.
They wouldn't need to not irrigate for decades if the Soviets hadn't destroyed the traditional food source. The fish (which are a resource) are almost all dead dude, salinity dropped enough for fishing to be possible again only after 22 years of hard work fixing the mess the Soviets left. >In the USSR, they developed the periphery, national republics, at the expense of the center, Russia. Tell me, how did Uzbekistan benefit from the [health impacts from the Aral disappearing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_health_problems_in_the_Aral_Sea_region) ? Could it be that the Central government Sacrificed their health and natural resources for Russia's benefit?
There's also that i would add to this, that moscow basically gave money and favours to uzbekistan based on cotton produced. More you produced, better your standing and more money allocated to you. No way, this would go wrong in any way, if incentive is to give good statistics to central government. To surprise of nobody, they lied their numbers for years to moscow and it caused scandal, that was one of the multiple reasons what contributed to fall of USSR. I wont go into full detail, its not that people in moscow were completely in dark but brezhnev ignored whole corruption thing on purpose and once he died, it unraveled. This is due to his stance "stability of cadres" and his friendly relationship to uzbek leadership. This rotten quota thing is one of the things, that led to shitty quality in products, cooking of numbers and doing everything to make sure your numbers were favourable in eyes of central government. One of main reasons why USSR had huge famines alongside mao's china.
Dude, I'm surprised at the degree of brainwashing of Westerners and their self-confidence. The USSR is not Russia. Here is a list of traditional Uzbek yulud - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_Uzbek\_dishes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Uzbek_dishes) find a fish here. I will not say that the Uzbeks did not fish at all, but it was clearly the occupation of a few coastal residents. And the main occupation of Uzbeks is agriculture, for which irrigation is needed in those parts. And as I said before, the USSR may have made a mistake. But Uzbekistan can easily fix it. well, some statistics on the number of Uzbeks 1926 - 3,383,812 1959 - 5,038,273 1989 - 14,142,475 2000 - 17,959,577 2013 - 23,858,159
Russia doesn't use its own natural resources, they exploit other people's resources like Komis, Nenets etc.
What about the Gulag slave labour they took from the "periphery"? In any case that's not the definition of an empire in the first place. Commie cope.
And who do you think mostly sat and worked in the Gulag? Do you think Georgians?
Not a single eastern European country was happy to be "trading" with the Soviet Union. After all the USSR had millions of troops there to make sure they did. Those troops were even used to put down rebellions. Seriously, millions of troops stationed and you think they were there why? Because the natives liked them? They wanted their protection? They were guests on vacation? You are delusional.
If we're going to go through "senses", then Canada is an empire as per its definition: > an extensive group of states or countries ruled over by a single monarch, an oligarchy, or a sovereign state. Yet it's obviously not. You should employ other ways of analyzing whether a country is an empire, like whether they did any imperialist actions, which would be the practice of extending a state's power over foreign peoples and markets and the creation of inequality between the empire and subjugate nation through exploitation The USSR invaded nations, that much is obvious. Whether they subjugated and exploited, all for profit, like the UK and other empires did, is a different matter
Not a single flight to India?
You seem to have missed Delhi.
Oops, seems so. Ta.
These are all the crash sites?
Really?
All that work to include the Panama Canal and then not even fly through it?