Ok so why were some SSRs like Belarus, Ukraine, Estonia etc. a part of the Soviet Union, but other ones like Poland, Romania, Bulgaria not part of the Soviet Union and just in the Warsaw Pact.
Would the Soviet Union have lasted longer or been more stable if all the SSRs were independent?
Or would it have been better if they were integrated into a single state?
>>2282091
>Ok so why were some SSRs like Belarus, Ukraine, Estonia etc. a part of the Soviet Union, but other ones like Poland, Romania, Bulgaria not part of the Soviet Union and just in the Warsaw Pact.
Because the USSR was pretty much just the remnants of Russian empire after Poland and Finland left. Other countries like Romania or Czechoslovakia were sovereign even before the USSR was created.
>>2282094
Yeah but why not integrate them after the war?
>>2282095
What would be the point? They existed specifically as a buffer zone against NATO.
>>2282091
>Would the Soviet Union have lasted longer or been more stable if all the SSRs were independent?
No, if anything they should've joined the USSR to properly coordinate economic planning. That would've been in the spirit of socialist internationalism and was the goal of the Comintern. An international Soviet republic.
Although Russia would need to be limited to stop Russia exploiting the other states.
>>2282116
>Ever heard of the Comintern?
I thought it was more a political organization than an economic one no? Sorry I might be retarded
>>2282095
strong anti russian sentiment without previously part of the russian state
they dont speak russian
they dont like russians
they have different habits
etc
probably more trouble than gain to reign them in
>>2282147
That's true, but the USSR had plenty of ethnic minorities like Kazakhs and Georgians.
>>2282296
which were part of russia for a long time and brought a minimal improvement to their life
>>2282091
the USSR wouldnt have lasted past 1960 if the satellite states were independent