How did the USSR manage to innovate in an environment characterized by government censorship and high...












12















Despite the high bureaucracy in the Soviet Union, some design bureaus still achieved spectacular feats in science and engineering (mostly in defense and aerospace) e.g. Mir space station, Soyuz rockets, Mil V-12, Caspian Sea Monster, Antonov 225 Mriya etc.



Free flow of ideas and criticism are important for innovative ideas to be realized. How did the scientists in these bureaus manage to innovate despite Soviet censorship and bureaucracy. Take for example a scientist disagreeing with the head of a design bureau on a certain design prototype. How was such criticism handled? Or was the best design prototype chosen from a scientist who had more political connections.










share|improve this question







New contributor




Kevin Muhuri is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
















  • 2





    Science was not free from political interference, with terrible examples like Lysenkoism. More examples here. Also it is important between science and engineering...

    – SJuan76
    10 hours ago











  • @SJuan76 Those are some very good examples you've given. I guess fundamental sciences were more prone to political ideologies than applied sciences which are closely related to fields of engineering. All my examples are in fact engineering feats.

    – Kevin Muhuri
    9 hours ago











  • Lest we forget, many of the successes of the USSR space programme were down to the procurement of German scientists after WWII; en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Osoaviakhim. They also (and continuing into the present day) focused on scientific and engineering espionage.

    – Richard
    7 hours ago













  • The things on your list don't seem like innovations to me. They seem like incremental improvements on previous technologies, most of them not really super special except that they were bigger than their predecessors. Mir was bigger than Salyut, the Mil V-12 was bigger than previous helicopters, and the Antonov 225 Mriya was bigger than previous fixed-wing aircraft.

    – Ben Crowell
    2 hours ago
















12















Despite the high bureaucracy in the Soviet Union, some design bureaus still achieved spectacular feats in science and engineering (mostly in defense and aerospace) e.g. Mir space station, Soyuz rockets, Mil V-12, Caspian Sea Monster, Antonov 225 Mriya etc.



Free flow of ideas and criticism are important for innovative ideas to be realized. How did the scientists in these bureaus manage to innovate despite Soviet censorship and bureaucracy. Take for example a scientist disagreeing with the head of a design bureau on a certain design prototype. How was such criticism handled? Or was the best design prototype chosen from a scientist who had more political connections.










share|improve this question







New contributor




Kevin Muhuri is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
















  • 2





    Science was not free from political interference, with terrible examples like Lysenkoism. More examples here. Also it is important between science and engineering...

    – SJuan76
    10 hours ago











  • @SJuan76 Those are some very good examples you've given. I guess fundamental sciences were more prone to political ideologies than applied sciences which are closely related to fields of engineering. All my examples are in fact engineering feats.

    – Kevin Muhuri
    9 hours ago











  • Lest we forget, many of the successes of the USSR space programme were down to the procurement of German scientists after WWII; en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Osoaviakhim. They also (and continuing into the present day) focused on scientific and engineering espionage.

    – Richard
    7 hours ago













  • The things on your list don't seem like innovations to me. They seem like incremental improvements on previous technologies, most of them not really super special except that they were bigger than their predecessors. Mir was bigger than Salyut, the Mil V-12 was bigger than previous helicopters, and the Antonov 225 Mriya was bigger than previous fixed-wing aircraft.

    – Ben Crowell
    2 hours ago














12












12








12








Despite the high bureaucracy in the Soviet Union, some design bureaus still achieved spectacular feats in science and engineering (mostly in defense and aerospace) e.g. Mir space station, Soyuz rockets, Mil V-12, Caspian Sea Monster, Antonov 225 Mriya etc.



Free flow of ideas and criticism are important for innovative ideas to be realized. How did the scientists in these bureaus manage to innovate despite Soviet censorship and bureaucracy. Take for example a scientist disagreeing with the head of a design bureau on a certain design prototype. How was such criticism handled? Or was the best design prototype chosen from a scientist who had more political connections.










share|improve this question







New contributor




Kevin Muhuri is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












Despite the high bureaucracy in the Soviet Union, some design bureaus still achieved spectacular feats in science and engineering (mostly in defense and aerospace) e.g. Mir space station, Soyuz rockets, Mil V-12, Caspian Sea Monster, Antonov 225 Mriya etc.



Free flow of ideas and criticism are important for innovative ideas to be realized. How did the scientists in these bureaus manage to innovate despite Soviet censorship and bureaucracy. Take for example a scientist disagreeing with the head of a design bureau on a certain design prototype. How was such criticism handled? Or was the best design prototype chosen from a scientist who had more political connections.







soviet-union government






share|improve this question







New contributor




Kevin Muhuri is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|improve this question







New contributor




Kevin Muhuri is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question






New contributor




Kevin Muhuri is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 11 hours ago









Kevin MuhuriKevin Muhuri

612




612




New contributor




Kevin Muhuri is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Kevin Muhuri is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Kevin Muhuri is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








  • 2





    Science was not free from political interference, with terrible examples like Lysenkoism. More examples here. Also it is important between science and engineering...

    – SJuan76
    10 hours ago











  • @SJuan76 Those are some very good examples you've given. I guess fundamental sciences were more prone to political ideologies than applied sciences which are closely related to fields of engineering. All my examples are in fact engineering feats.

    – Kevin Muhuri
    9 hours ago











  • Lest we forget, many of the successes of the USSR space programme were down to the procurement of German scientists after WWII; en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Osoaviakhim. They also (and continuing into the present day) focused on scientific and engineering espionage.

    – Richard
    7 hours ago













  • The things on your list don't seem like innovations to me. They seem like incremental improvements on previous technologies, most of them not really super special except that they were bigger than their predecessors. Mir was bigger than Salyut, the Mil V-12 was bigger than previous helicopters, and the Antonov 225 Mriya was bigger than previous fixed-wing aircraft.

    – Ben Crowell
    2 hours ago














  • 2





    Science was not free from political interference, with terrible examples like Lysenkoism. More examples here. Also it is important between science and engineering...

    – SJuan76
    10 hours ago











  • @SJuan76 Those are some very good examples you've given. I guess fundamental sciences were more prone to political ideologies than applied sciences which are closely related to fields of engineering. All my examples are in fact engineering feats.

    – Kevin Muhuri
    9 hours ago











  • Lest we forget, many of the successes of the USSR space programme were down to the procurement of German scientists after WWII; en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Osoaviakhim. They also (and continuing into the present day) focused on scientific and engineering espionage.

    – Richard
    7 hours ago













  • The things on your list don't seem like innovations to me. They seem like incremental improvements on previous technologies, most of them not really super special except that they were bigger than their predecessors. Mir was bigger than Salyut, the Mil V-12 was bigger than previous helicopters, and the Antonov 225 Mriya was bigger than previous fixed-wing aircraft.

    – Ben Crowell
    2 hours ago








2




2





Science was not free from political interference, with terrible examples like Lysenkoism. More examples here. Also it is important between science and engineering...

– SJuan76
10 hours ago





Science was not free from political interference, with terrible examples like Lysenkoism. More examples here. Also it is important between science and engineering...

– SJuan76
10 hours ago













@SJuan76 Those are some very good examples you've given. I guess fundamental sciences were more prone to political ideologies than applied sciences which are closely related to fields of engineering. All my examples are in fact engineering feats.

– Kevin Muhuri
9 hours ago





@SJuan76 Those are some very good examples you've given. I guess fundamental sciences were more prone to political ideologies than applied sciences which are closely related to fields of engineering. All my examples are in fact engineering feats.

– Kevin Muhuri
9 hours ago













Lest we forget, many of the successes of the USSR space programme were down to the procurement of German scientists after WWII; en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Osoaviakhim. They also (and continuing into the present day) focused on scientific and engineering espionage.

– Richard
7 hours ago







Lest we forget, many of the successes of the USSR space programme were down to the procurement of German scientists after WWII; en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Osoaviakhim. They also (and continuing into the present day) focused on scientific and engineering espionage.

– Richard
7 hours ago















The things on your list don't seem like innovations to me. They seem like incremental improvements on previous technologies, most of them not really super special except that they were bigger than their predecessors. Mir was bigger than Salyut, the Mil V-12 was bigger than previous helicopters, and the Antonov 225 Mriya was bigger than previous fixed-wing aircraft.

– Ben Crowell
2 hours ago





The things on your list don't seem like innovations to me. They seem like incremental improvements on previous technologies, most of them not really super special except that they were bigger than their predecessors. Mir was bigger than Salyut, the Mil V-12 was bigger than previous helicopters, and the Antonov 225 Mriya was bigger than previous fixed-wing aircraft.

– Ben Crowell
2 hours ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















12














The USSR didn't tend to go in for economic competition, but it made good use of intellectual competition and competition for prestige. It was also relatively good at creating organisations that did a specific thing, and kept on doing that.



The competition between the MiG and Sukhoi fighter design offices, for example, was quite significant, driven by rivalry and prestige. They designed pretty good aircraft for far less money than the Western aircraft companies, and kept on doing it until the fall of the USSR meant that the money supply dried up.



In the same way, the OKB-1, OKB-52 and OKB-586 design offices competed fiercely, with different ideas of how the space and missile programmes should be organised. Political influence was important in these rivalries, but it wasn't measured on a single scale, and the virtues of designs were also significant.



The system had some definite flaws. One of them came when one ministry's organisation needed something that the relevant ministry did not produce.



For example, one of the problems with the unsuccessful N-1 moon rocket was the excessive weight of the first stage. That was because the USSR did not make aircraft-grade aluminium in thicknesses greater than 13mm. That wasn't thick enough to make a first stage whose outer skin was also the wall of the propellant tanks. So the tanks had to be spherical to make them stronger, and the rocket needed a separate outer skin for streamlining. That weight disadvantage meant that all kinds of other things had to be pared to the bone, the rocket needed extra stages, and things got harder and harder from there.






share|improve this answer



















  • 6





    This is a great answer, though it's probably worth noting that command innovation tends to do the predictable well, but is pretty bad at the genuinely new. The one scientific area where the USSR really excelled and genuinely innovated was in mathematics and mathematical physics -- otherwise, their greatest strength (and it was great) was in engineering.

    – Mark Olson
    9 hours ago











  • Thanks for the additional info on the N1 rocket. I already knew certain technical difficulties prevented them from building large cylindrical tanks but I did not know what it was specifically. But overall, a trip to the moon in the 1960s required so many technological developments that they would literally have to start from scratch just like the US. In the US, the Moon project received a lot of political support and funding but in the USSR it didn't receive enough of either.

    – Kevin Muhuri
    9 hours ago



















2














Genuinely like John Dallman's answer, but I'll add some to it:




  • Outside of Party political games, one way to live a better life in the USSR was to hold a position prized by the Party. And something that was very much rewarded was anything that allowed the Communist system to get ahead of their enemies in fields that could lead to military advances. So it tended to attract bright people.


  • WW2 probably did an excellent job of weeding out excessive political criteria in judging which design bureaus were worthy of backing. Pretty much any tank that was not T34-based at the start of the war wasn't getting made much later on, so there was some ruthless pruning. If anything, they were much more disciplined at cutting off flakey systems than the Nazis. Later on, new tank families got added, but they never went back to the menagerie of weird tanks that they had in 41. The AK-47 was designed by a "random tank guy", for example, so they had mechanisms to recognize good work.


  • Russian scientists and engineers could be brilliant. Given resources they could get pretty good results. And remember that they could access Western publications too - https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/vol1no4/html/v01i4a05p_0001.htm , which also mentions some things about internal Soviet science publications.


  • At the end of the day, whatever the USSR managed to have as spare resources (after essentials and corruption) tended to be assigned to technical fields allowing scientific, industrial and military competition against the West. So they could throw lots of capacity at these type of problems. Including nurturing an education system that pushed clever people into these fields instead of say, becoming lawyers or doctors.



It wasn't always rosy. I seem to remember that Stalin didn't believe in those new-fangled electric computers but recognized the potential of machine-based calculator engines. So he pushed pneumatic logic gates (this is similar to his rejection of Mendel's work). They never quite recovered from that.






share|improve this answer


























  • When I was in university in the 1960s some of our physics and math textbooks were translated from Russian. We were encouraged to take a "scientific Russian" language course. The CCCP would name ships after scientists.

    – Keith McClary
    1 hour ago












Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "324"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});






Kevin Muhuri is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhistory.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f51978%2fhow-did-the-ussr-manage-to-innovate-in-an-environment-characterized-by-governmen%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes








2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









12














The USSR didn't tend to go in for economic competition, but it made good use of intellectual competition and competition for prestige. It was also relatively good at creating organisations that did a specific thing, and kept on doing that.



The competition between the MiG and Sukhoi fighter design offices, for example, was quite significant, driven by rivalry and prestige. They designed pretty good aircraft for far less money than the Western aircraft companies, and kept on doing it until the fall of the USSR meant that the money supply dried up.



In the same way, the OKB-1, OKB-52 and OKB-586 design offices competed fiercely, with different ideas of how the space and missile programmes should be organised. Political influence was important in these rivalries, but it wasn't measured on a single scale, and the virtues of designs were also significant.



The system had some definite flaws. One of them came when one ministry's organisation needed something that the relevant ministry did not produce.



For example, one of the problems with the unsuccessful N-1 moon rocket was the excessive weight of the first stage. That was because the USSR did not make aircraft-grade aluminium in thicknesses greater than 13mm. That wasn't thick enough to make a first stage whose outer skin was also the wall of the propellant tanks. So the tanks had to be spherical to make them stronger, and the rocket needed a separate outer skin for streamlining. That weight disadvantage meant that all kinds of other things had to be pared to the bone, the rocket needed extra stages, and things got harder and harder from there.






share|improve this answer



















  • 6





    This is a great answer, though it's probably worth noting that command innovation tends to do the predictable well, but is pretty bad at the genuinely new. The one scientific area where the USSR really excelled and genuinely innovated was in mathematics and mathematical physics -- otherwise, their greatest strength (and it was great) was in engineering.

    – Mark Olson
    9 hours ago











  • Thanks for the additional info on the N1 rocket. I already knew certain technical difficulties prevented them from building large cylindrical tanks but I did not know what it was specifically. But overall, a trip to the moon in the 1960s required so many technological developments that they would literally have to start from scratch just like the US. In the US, the Moon project received a lot of political support and funding but in the USSR it didn't receive enough of either.

    – Kevin Muhuri
    9 hours ago
















12














The USSR didn't tend to go in for economic competition, but it made good use of intellectual competition and competition for prestige. It was also relatively good at creating organisations that did a specific thing, and kept on doing that.



The competition between the MiG and Sukhoi fighter design offices, for example, was quite significant, driven by rivalry and prestige. They designed pretty good aircraft for far less money than the Western aircraft companies, and kept on doing it until the fall of the USSR meant that the money supply dried up.



In the same way, the OKB-1, OKB-52 and OKB-586 design offices competed fiercely, with different ideas of how the space and missile programmes should be organised. Political influence was important in these rivalries, but it wasn't measured on a single scale, and the virtues of designs were also significant.



The system had some definite flaws. One of them came when one ministry's organisation needed something that the relevant ministry did not produce.



For example, one of the problems with the unsuccessful N-1 moon rocket was the excessive weight of the first stage. That was because the USSR did not make aircraft-grade aluminium in thicknesses greater than 13mm. That wasn't thick enough to make a first stage whose outer skin was also the wall of the propellant tanks. So the tanks had to be spherical to make them stronger, and the rocket needed a separate outer skin for streamlining. That weight disadvantage meant that all kinds of other things had to be pared to the bone, the rocket needed extra stages, and things got harder and harder from there.






share|improve this answer



















  • 6





    This is a great answer, though it's probably worth noting that command innovation tends to do the predictable well, but is pretty bad at the genuinely new. The one scientific area where the USSR really excelled and genuinely innovated was in mathematics and mathematical physics -- otherwise, their greatest strength (and it was great) was in engineering.

    – Mark Olson
    9 hours ago











  • Thanks for the additional info on the N1 rocket. I already knew certain technical difficulties prevented them from building large cylindrical tanks but I did not know what it was specifically. But overall, a trip to the moon in the 1960s required so many technological developments that they would literally have to start from scratch just like the US. In the US, the Moon project received a lot of political support and funding but in the USSR it didn't receive enough of either.

    – Kevin Muhuri
    9 hours ago














12












12








12







The USSR didn't tend to go in for economic competition, but it made good use of intellectual competition and competition for prestige. It was also relatively good at creating organisations that did a specific thing, and kept on doing that.



The competition between the MiG and Sukhoi fighter design offices, for example, was quite significant, driven by rivalry and prestige. They designed pretty good aircraft for far less money than the Western aircraft companies, and kept on doing it until the fall of the USSR meant that the money supply dried up.



In the same way, the OKB-1, OKB-52 and OKB-586 design offices competed fiercely, with different ideas of how the space and missile programmes should be organised. Political influence was important in these rivalries, but it wasn't measured on a single scale, and the virtues of designs were also significant.



The system had some definite flaws. One of them came when one ministry's organisation needed something that the relevant ministry did not produce.



For example, one of the problems with the unsuccessful N-1 moon rocket was the excessive weight of the first stage. That was because the USSR did not make aircraft-grade aluminium in thicknesses greater than 13mm. That wasn't thick enough to make a first stage whose outer skin was also the wall of the propellant tanks. So the tanks had to be spherical to make them stronger, and the rocket needed a separate outer skin for streamlining. That weight disadvantage meant that all kinds of other things had to be pared to the bone, the rocket needed extra stages, and things got harder and harder from there.






share|improve this answer













The USSR didn't tend to go in for economic competition, but it made good use of intellectual competition and competition for prestige. It was also relatively good at creating organisations that did a specific thing, and kept on doing that.



The competition between the MiG and Sukhoi fighter design offices, for example, was quite significant, driven by rivalry and prestige. They designed pretty good aircraft for far less money than the Western aircraft companies, and kept on doing it until the fall of the USSR meant that the money supply dried up.



In the same way, the OKB-1, OKB-52 and OKB-586 design offices competed fiercely, with different ideas of how the space and missile programmes should be organised. Political influence was important in these rivalries, but it wasn't measured on a single scale, and the virtues of designs were also significant.



The system had some definite flaws. One of them came when one ministry's organisation needed something that the relevant ministry did not produce.



For example, one of the problems with the unsuccessful N-1 moon rocket was the excessive weight of the first stage. That was because the USSR did not make aircraft-grade aluminium in thicknesses greater than 13mm. That wasn't thick enough to make a first stage whose outer skin was also the wall of the propellant tanks. So the tanks had to be spherical to make them stronger, and the rocket needed a separate outer skin for streamlining. That weight disadvantage meant that all kinds of other things had to be pared to the bone, the rocket needed extra stages, and things got harder and harder from there.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered 10 hours ago









John DallmanJohn Dallman

17.5k35784




17.5k35784








  • 6





    This is a great answer, though it's probably worth noting that command innovation tends to do the predictable well, but is pretty bad at the genuinely new. The one scientific area where the USSR really excelled and genuinely innovated was in mathematics and mathematical physics -- otherwise, their greatest strength (and it was great) was in engineering.

    – Mark Olson
    9 hours ago











  • Thanks for the additional info on the N1 rocket. I already knew certain technical difficulties prevented them from building large cylindrical tanks but I did not know what it was specifically. But overall, a trip to the moon in the 1960s required so many technological developments that they would literally have to start from scratch just like the US. In the US, the Moon project received a lot of political support and funding but in the USSR it didn't receive enough of either.

    – Kevin Muhuri
    9 hours ago














  • 6





    This is a great answer, though it's probably worth noting that command innovation tends to do the predictable well, but is pretty bad at the genuinely new. The one scientific area where the USSR really excelled and genuinely innovated was in mathematics and mathematical physics -- otherwise, their greatest strength (and it was great) was in engineering.

    – Mark Olson
    9 hours ago











  • Thanks for the additional info on the N1 rocket. I already knew certain technical difficulties prevented them from building large cylindrical tanks but I did not know what it was specifically. But overall, a trip to the moon in the 1960s required so many technological developments that they would literally have to start from scratch just like the US. In the US, the Moon project received a lot of political support and funding but in the USSR it didn't receive enough of either.

    – Kevin Muhuri
    9 hours ago








6




6





This is a great answer, though it's probably worth noting that command innovation tends to do the predictable well, but is pretty bad at the genuinely new. The one scientific area where the USSR really excelled and genuinely innovated was in mathematics and mathematical physics -- otherwise, their greatest strength (and it was great) was in engineering.

– Mark Olson
9 hours ago





This is a great answer, though it's probably worth noting that command innovation tends to do the predictable well, but is pretty bad at the genuinely new. The one scientific area where the USSR really excelled and genuinely innovated was in mathematics and mathematical physics -- otherwise, their greatest strength (and it was great) was in engineering.

– Mark Olson
9 hours ago













Thanks for the additional info on the N1 rocket. I already knew certain technical difficulties prevented them from building large cylindrical tanks but I did not know what it was specifically. But overall, a trip to the moon in the 1960s required so many technological developments that they would literally have to start from scratch just like the US. In the US, the Moon project received a lot of political support and funding but in the USSR it didn't receive enough of either.

– Kevin Muhuri
9 hours ago





Thanks for the additional info on the N1 rocket. I already knew certain technical difficulties prevented them from building large cylindrical tanks but I did not know what it was specifically. But overall, a trip to the moon in the 1960s required so many technological developments that they would literally have to start from scratch just like the US. In the US, the Moon project received a lot of political support and funding but in the USSR it didn't receive enough of either.

– Kevin Muhuri
9 hours ago











2














Genuinely like John Dallman's answer, but I'll add some to it:




  • Outside of Party political games, one way to live a better life in the USSR was to hold a position prized by the Party. And something that was very much rewarded was anything that allowed the Communist system to get ahead of their enemies in fields that could lead to military advances. So it tended to attract bright people.


  • WW2 probably did an excellent job of weeding out excessive political criteria in judging which design bureaus were worthy of backing. Pretty much any tank that was not T34-based at the start of the war wasn't getting made much later on, so there was some ruthless pruning. If anything, they were much more disciplined at cutting off flakey systems than the Nazis. Later on, new tank families got added, but they never went back to the menagerie of weird tanks that they had in 41. The AK-47 was designed by a "random tank guy", for example, so they had mechanisms to recognize good work.


  • Russian scientists and engineers could be brilliant. Given resources they could get pretty good results. And remember that they could access Western publications too - https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/vol1no4/html/v01i4a05p_0001.htm , which also mentions some things about internal Soviet science publications.


  • At the end of the day, whatever the USSR managed to have as spare resources (after essentials and corruption) tended to be assigned to technical fields allowing scientific, industrial and military competition against the West. So they could throw lots of capacity at these type of problems. Including nurturing an education system that pushed clever people into these fields instead of say, becoming lawyers or doctors.



It wasn't always rosy. I seem to remember that Stalin didn't believe in those new-fangled electric computers but recognized the potential of machine-based calculator engines. So he pushed pneumatic logic gates (this is similar to his rejection of Mendel's work). They never quite recovered from that.






share|improve this answer


























  • When I was in university in the 1960s some of our physics and math textbooks were translated from Russian. We were encouraged to take a "scientific Russian" language course. The CCCP would name ships after scientists.

    – Keith McClary
    1 hour ago
















2














Genuinely like John Dallman's answer, but I'll add some to it:




  • Outside of Party political games, one way to live a better life in the USSR was to hold a position prized by the Party. And something that was very much rewarded was anything that allowed the Communist system to get ahead of their enemies in fields that could lead to military advances. So it tended to attract bright people.


  • WW2 probably did an excellent job of weeding out excessive political criteria in judging which design bureaus were worthy of backing. Pretty much any tank that was not T34-based at the start of the war wasn't getting made much later on, so there was some ruthless pruning. If anything, they were much more disciplined at cutting off flakey systems than the Nazis. Later on, new tank families got added, but they never went back to the menagerie of weird tanks that they had in 41. The AK-47 was designed by a "random tank guy", for example, so they had mechanisms to recognize good work.


  • Russian scientists and engineers could be brilliant. Given resources they could get pretty good results. And remember that they could access Western publications too - https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/vol1no4/html/v01i4a05p_0001.htm , which also mentions some things about internal Soviet science publications.


  • At the end of the day, whatever the USSR managed to have as spare resources (after essentials and corruption) tended to be assigned to technical fields allowing scientific, industrial and military competition against the West. So they could throw lots of capacity at these type of problems. Including nurturing an education system that pushed clever people into these fields instead of say, becoming lawyers or doctors.



It wasn't always rosy. I seem to remember that Stalin didn't believe in those new-fangled electric computers but recognized the potential of machine-based calculator engines. So he pushed pneumatic logic gates (this is similar to his rejection of Mendel's work). They never quite recovered from that.






share|improve this answer


























  • When I was in university in the 1960s some of our physics and math textbooks were translated from Russian. We were encouraged to take a "scientific Russian" language course. The CCCP would name ships after scientists.

    – Keith McClary
    1 hour ago














2












2








2







Genuinely like John Dallman's answer, but I'll add some to it:




  • Outside of Party political games, one way to live a better life in the USSR was to hold a position prized by the Party. And something that was very much rewarded was anything that allowed the Communist system to get ahead of their enemies in fields that could lead to military advances. So it tended to attract bright people.


  • WW2 probably did an excellent job of weeding out excessive political criteria in judging which design bureaus were worthy of backing. Pretty much any tank that was not T34-based at the start of the war wasn't getting made much later on, so there was some ruthless pruning. If anything, they were much more disciplined at cutting off flakey systems than the Nazis. Later on, new tank families got added, but they never went back to the menagerie of weird tanks that they had in 41. The AK-47 was designed by a "random tank guy", for example, so they had mechanisms to recognize good work.


  • Russian scientists and engineers could be brilliant. Given resources they could get pretty good results. And remember that they could access Western publications too - https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/vol1no4/html/v01i4a05p_0001.htm , which also mentions some things about internal Soviet science publications.


  • At the end of the day, whatever the USSR managed to have as spare resources (after essentials and corruption) tended to be assigned to technical fields allowing scientific, industrial and military competition against the West. So they could throw lots of capacity at these type of problems. Including nurturing an education system that pushed clever people into these fields instead of say, becoming lawyers or doctors.



It wasn't always rosy. I seem to remember that Stalin didn't believe in those new-fangled electric computers but recognized the potential of machine-based calculator engines. So he pushed pneumatic logic gates (this is similar to his rejection of Mendel's work). They never quite recovered from that.






share|improve this answer















Genuinely like John Dallman's answer, but I'll add some to it:




  • Outside of Party political games, one way to live a better life in the USSR was to hold a position prized by the Party. And something that was very much rewarded was anything that allowed the Communist system to get ahead of their enemies in fields that could lead to military advances. So it tended to attract bright people.


  • WW2 probably did an excellent job of weeding out excessive political criteria in judging which design bureaus were worthy of backing. Pretty much any tank that was not T34-based at the start of the war wasn't getting made much later on, so there was some ruthless pruning. If anything, they were much more disciplined at cutting off flakey systems than the Nazis. Later on, new tank families got added, but they never went back to the menagerie of weird tanks that they had in 41. The AK-47 was designed by a "random tank guy", for example, so they had mechanisms to recognize good work.


  • Russian scientists and engineers could be brilliant. Given resources they could get pretty good results. And remember that they could access Western publications too - https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/vol1no4/html/v01i4a05p_0001.htm , which also mentions some things about internal Soviet science publications.


  • At the end of the day, whatever the USSR managed to have as spare resources (after essentials and corruption) tended to be assigned to technical fields allowing scientific, industrial and military competition against the West. So they could throw lots of capacity at these type of problems. Including nurturing an education system that pushed clever people into these fields instead of say, becoming lawyers or doctors.



It wasn't always rosy. I seem to remember that Stalin didn't believe in those new-fangled electric computers but recognized the potential of machine-based calculator engines. So he pushed pneumatic logic gates (this is similar to his rejection of Mendel's work). They never quite recovered from that.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 3 hours ago

























answered 3 hours ago









Italian PhilosopherItalian Philosopher

1,3811716




1,3811716













  • When I was in university in the 1960s some of our physics and math textbooks were translated from Russian. We were encouraged to take a "scientific Russian" language course. The CCCP would name ships after scientists.

    – Keith McClary
    1 hour ago



















  • When I was in university in the 1960s some of our physics and math textbooks were translated from Russian. We were encouraged to take a "scientific Russian" language course. The CCCP would name ships after scientists.

    – Keith McClary
    1 hour ago

















When I was in university in the 1960s some of our physics and math textbooks were translated from Russian. We were encouraged to take a "scientific Russian" language course. The CCCP would name ships after scientists.

– Keith McClary
1 hour ago





When I was in university in the 1960s some of our physics and math textbooks were translated from Russian. We were encouraged to take a "scientific Russian" language course. The CCCP would name ships after scientists.

– Keith McClary
1 hour ago










Kevin Muhuri is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










draft saved

draft discarded


















Kevin Muhuri is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













Kevin Muhuri is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












Kevin Muhuri is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















Thanks for contributing an answer to History Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhistory.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f51978%2fhow-did-the-ussr-manage-to-innovate-in-an-environment-characterized-by-governmen%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

How to label and detect the document text images

Vallis Paradisi

Tabula Rosettana