The Ukrainian SFSR had its own seat at the UN.
I never considered that to be the result of autonomy, but the Soviets just trying to get a little extra clout in the UN. It seems silly for one state to have three seats... but then again, with the Security Council, the seats don't matter anyway.
Post-1953, there was a certain degree of cultural and religious autonomy afforded to ethnic groups.
Well that, I would figure. The USSR may have been repressive in some circumstances, but none were as horrid as Stalin.
"Warsaw Pact" nations werent "under moscow's grip" they had a fair bit of individual autonomy;
the distate of certain Soviet politicos at the DDR's system of control would indicate this, as well as every Warsaw Pact nation having its own style of communism.
Albania withdrew in 1968.
Yugoslawia was never a member.
Oh, I know there can be variation, but with the suppression of uprisings, I assumed they did take some hand in at least the northern Warsaw Pact's affairs. Yugoslavia never was a puppet because Tito established himself, rather than being put into power by the USSR. As for Albania, that'd be a great case; I imagine they were successful due to their geographic isolation.
The USSR struck a weird balance between orthodoxy and progressivism; the USSR was one of the most enlightened nations in terms of women's rights, and ensuring a basic universal standard of welfare for everyone, while sacrificing what the west would term "essential Freedoms" (which were never actually successfully wiped out).
Yes, I recall that many African Americans prior to the Civil Rights era made a point to move to the USSR, so they definitely did trump us in many categories(though they were oddly more progressive during Lenin's time, what with the gay rights). Socially, the Communist model was superior to the West's for many years, and in some respects probably still would be.
Politically, well, we all know the People didn't have much real power, but political rights aren't too important provided the government isn't too oppressive.
Economically, to my knowledge, it'd be a mixed bag depending on era. I strongly doubt the levels of economic freedom were always the same, though they were superior in the sense that if you were poor you weren't left to die as you'd be in many capitalist systems.
Ultimately, if you were a WASP, the West was better, if you weren't, the Communists were better. Funny that.
Trotsky was a violent man, so maybe not.
That'd depend if you're the "ends justify the means" communist (kill as many people as necessary to ensure the worker's state), or a "pacifistic" communist (build a worker's state, but not in a violent, bloody manner).
Though Trotsky is sometimes a little too glorified, like many a political figure. He committed his own brand of ruthless murders as I remember, but due to Stalin stealing the spotlight and killing far more, no one mentions it.
Not that this isn't a matter of dispute, but what I meant was Kruschev being born "in Russia" is a matter of dispute. He was 3km from the border, and the border can be quite wrong in some people's mind.
