/lit/ - Literature

>>6269626
>And why is it exactly that some countries grew as a percentage of the previous value, while others did not? Ever ask yourself that?
All did retard. Pic related, the graph of an imaginary country growing 0.05% per year.

>Political, of course. Soviet Russia was completely isolated until ww2, and even post-ww2 its relations with other countries were very cold.
Are you seriously arguing that imperial russia had more external influence than soviet russia? You're so fucking retarded. They basically controlled the communist parties in most of the world, intervened in internal affairs everywhere, were central protagonists in every major event of the century, etc. Not to mention they had a hold of half of europe. Struggling to get de jure recognition until WW2 is pretty irrelevant, escpecially considering they still managed to get de facto recognition and early treaties with germans (rapallo), brits, etc.

>Military? Yes. Imperial Russia was considered one of the best militaries in the world. The red army most mostly made up of underfed peasants.
Imperial russia was a joke, and the WW1 shows this pretty clearly. They couldn't handle a smaller german army that had to fight on two fronts. They were unable to use modern fighting equipment, of using the trains to deliver resources effectively, of assigning effective military leaders, of mantaining internal order, etc.

You're defending claims no historian would make, i'm not even sure why i'm even responding.