Soviet ("Muscovite") vs. Nazi posters - amazing 100% similarity!

[Jredbaron96]

If you're arguing that Barbarossa was ultimately doomed, I'm not going to disagree.

Conceding a minor point isn't earning you any brownie points.

Let's not pretend like Bagration, Vistula-Oder, or any of the major Soviet offensives late in the war were accomplished just by masses of Soviet troops throwing themselves at German lines until they cracked.

One side got progressively smarter as the war went on, the other didn't.

 

[Jredbaron96]

I'm more content with this than 100% Hitler. Still, Communism was a destabilizing force throughout the world, and we saw the effects of that for decades.

And blaming it for starting WWII is stupid.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Just how much were they rationing?

You cite a graph from 1942 when Germany controlled much of Europe and was able to literally just steal foodstuffs from occupied territory, whereas I explicitly stated 1937.

You keep dancing around this issue because it's a huge reason why their foreign reserves were dropping.

No I'm ignoring it because it's stupid. The idea that the Jews held such a vital lump sum of the German economy that their expulsion was responsible for the aforementioned financial woes is ridiculous for several reasons.

Number one, even the combined wealth of Austrian and German Jews didn't add up to a meaningful part of the Germany economy.

2, German financial woes were already clear in 1935, and Jewish emigration didn't reach it's zenith until 1938.

And lastly, by the time the Jews had left, most of their wealth had already been stripped from them. By the time they left the Nazis would've already been in control of most of their wealth, meaning the money was leaving Germany with them.

Emigration of people caused a huge drain of foreign currency. Who were the people that were leaving Germany? And is this really indicative of an economic problem, or perhaps a social one?

Seriously dude, what the **** is your beef with the Jews? I know they killed your God but come on man, bygones be bygones.

I have been trying to find this information for a while. Yes, they had ambitious goals when it came to housing that never really worked. Still, how did the housing situation change in the peacetime years?

It's funny how every time I point out a stupid or counterproductive Nazi policy you try to explain it away by saying "Well it was ambitious," or "Well, they tried and it didn't work out as they planned"

No, it didn't work because it was ****ing stupid. The Nazis didn't ban private construction because they were trying to solve their housing crisis, they did it so that the Reich, not the private sector, owned the vast majority of the German people's private savings, so they could use the cash to finance their armament production.

These don't work because they aren't good economic policies.

And again, the entire world was in a terrible position. The West still had massive unemployment and was still mired in depression. So when my alternatives are Western Europe, the US, and Nazi Germany, how do your honestly argue that Germany's economy was really the worst?

The rest of the world was recovering slowly because they weren't pursuing radically stupid policies.

 

[phattonez]

Hans von Seeckt.

So you don't need war to develop your army. Got it.

 

[phattonez]

This entire chain has been you trying to prove that the Red Army was designed from the get go to be an instrument of invasion and the spreading of communism. When are you actually going to provide some evidence of that instead of just suggesting it?

They were obviously in no position to be doing that in the 1920s. What they were doing before WWII was trying to spread Communism through proxy. Are we supposed to ignore China and Spain?

Further, spreading Communism is what they were doing even prior to Barbarossa. Am I supposed to forget that they invaded Poland? Am I supposed to forget Finland? Why do you continue to act as though we should ignore these acts of naked aggression?

What about them?

Do those victories happen if the Soviet Union has millions of troops held up in the east?

It's almost like the strategic situation in 1945 was entirely different than it had been in the previous decade.

It's almost like Stalin was crucial to initiating hostilities and then manipulated his way into annexing all of Eastern Europe. It was devious as hell, and you want to give him a pass for being a major contributor to the outbreak of the war.

 

[Tigerace117]

That seems like exactly the justification that the Nazis had, right? Invade before the Soviet Union got any stronger.

Again, the Nazis "justification" was nothing more than "the Soviet Union has land, we want it, therefore war".

Just like the rest of their acts of aggression.

 

[phattonez]

Because it's just you trying to pin the blame on Jews, without any actual evidence to back that up.

From the Wages of Destruction:

But if prosperous Jewish families had emigrated en masse from Germany in 1933 and 1934, the effects on theReichsbank's foreign currency reserves would have been disastrous. At a conservative estimate German Jewish wealth in 1933 came to at least 8 billion Reichsmarks. Transferring even a modest fraction of this amount was clearly beyond the Reichsbank. As it was, the drain was serious enough. According to a detailed account compiled by the Reichsbank, the hard currency losses due to emigration between January 1933 and June 1935 came to a total of 132 million Reichsmarks, of which Jewish emigrants accounted for 124.8 million Reichsmarks. Transfers had peaked in October 1933 at over 11 million Reichsmarks, but throughout the first half of 1934 they ran at around 6 million Reichsmarks per month. With total currency reserves standing at less than 100 million Reichsmarks, this was a drain that the Reichsbank could ill afford.

Because Chinese economic policies are better than Nazi ones.

Gee that was easy.

Easy because you didn't state anything. Be specific. What about Chinese policies are better?

 

[phattonez]

Conceding a minor point isn't earning you any brownie points.

Let's not pretend like Bagration, Vistula-Oder, or any of the major Soviet offensives late in the war were accomplished just by masses of Soviet troops throwing themselves at German lines until they cracked.

One side got progressively smarter as the war went on, the other didn't.

How many soldiers were even left by "late in the war"? In Vistula-Oder the Wehrmacht had 450,000 men compared to the Red Army with 2.2 million. They didn't get "progressively smarter". They just, as you eloquently put it, threw masses of soldiers.

 

[phattonez]

You cite a graph from 1942 when Germany controlled much of Europe and was able to literally just steal foodstuffs from occupied territory, whereas I explicitly stated 1937.

The ration was set to 2500 calories in 1939, prior to the invasion of Poland.

No I'm ignoring it because it's stupid. The idea that the Jews held such a vital lump sum of the German economy that their expulsion was responsible for the aforementioned financial woes is ridiculous for several reasons.

Number one, even the combined wealth of Austrian and German Jews didn't add up to a meaningful part of the Germany economy.

Jews had 8 billion Reichsmarks of wealth in 1933. What was German GNP in 1933? A little more than 60 billion Reichsmarks. So Jews, which were less than 0.75% of the population, had wealth of more than 10% of GNP. "Not a meaningful part of the German economy"? Laughable.

2, German financial woes were already clear in 1935, and Jewish emigration didn't reach it's zenith until 1938.

Again Tooze "Once the initial violence of the seizure of power had passed, Jewish emigration dwindled to only 23,000 in 1934 and 21,000 in 1935." And let's not forget, the Nazis were stealing massive amounts of wealth from Jews by the time you get to Kristallnacht. By that point, they weren't losing much wealth from emigration. Jews were just getting out to save their lives, even though they lost much of their wealth.

And lastly, by the time the Jews had left, most of their wealth had already been stripped from them. By the time they left the Nazis would've already been in control of most of their wealth, meaning the money was leaving Germany with them.

That's true around the time of Kristallnacht, not early after the seizure of power.

Seriously dude, what the **** is your beef with the Jews? I know they killed your God but come on man, bygones be bygones.

Silly.

It's funny how every time I point out a stupid or counterproductive Nazi policy you try to explain it away by saying "Well it was ambitious," or "Well, they tried and it didn't work out as they planned"

Trying to make housing more affordable isn't stupid or counterproductive. It ought to be the goal of every economy.

No, it didn't work because it was ****ing stupid. The Nazis didn't ban private construction because they were trying to solve their housing crisis, they did it so that the Reich, not the private sector, owned the vast majority of the German people's private savings, so they could use the cash to finance their armament production.

These don't work because they aren't good economic policies.

Trying to guarantee good, affordable housing is a laudable goal. They weren't able to achieve their goal, but as always you neglect the context of a worldwide depression. What was happening in the US? Increasing homelessness. Shanty towns. There wasn't much relief for American workers. Now the Nazis didn't reach their goal, don't get me wrong, but should I really be criticizing them for trying?

The rest of the world was recovering slowly because they weren't pursuing radically stupid policies.

Getting unemployment below 15% quickly is stupid, while remaining there for a decade is smart? Sweetie . . .

 

[phattonez]

Again, the Nazis "justification" was nothing more than "the Soviet Union has land, we want it, therefore war".

Just like the rest of their acts of aggression.

No, I provided their stated justification. It was Soviet aggression, especially outside of their designated sphere of influence.

I'm not defending Nazi invasions. I'm just pointing out that the Soviets were no angels.

 

[Jredbaron96]

From the Wages of Destruction:

Funny how you left out:

"Driving this disastrous haemorrhage was the increasing deficit on the current account. As we have seen, the increase in the import bill was a predictable event and had been long anticipated.17 Indeed, rising imports were the clearest symptom of the vigour of Hitler’s recovery. The truly alarming problem was the trend in exports. Whilst the German domestic economy rebounded, exports continued to decline. In every month of 1933 exports were lower than they had been in 1932 and the gap widened as the year wore on. The trend continued into 1934, with export earnings in the early summer of 1934 fully 20 per cent lower than they had been a year earlier. Without exports, Germany could not pay for its desperately needed imports, or service its foreign debts. And this was not merely an abstract financial imperative. The livelihood of thousands of firms and millions of workers depended on finding customers abroad. The light manufacturing districts of central and eastern Germany, the great commercial cities of the Rhine valley, the port towns of the Baltic and the North Sea all earned their living through foreign trade. The fact that German export volumes remained 40 per cent below their level in 1932 was one of the principal causes of unemployment both in industry and commerce. The causes of the decline in German exports were hotly disputed both inside and outside the country.19 Schacht and the officially inspired German press blamed ‘unfair’ restrictions of German trade. There is no doubt that the enormous hike in global protectionism that followed the currency crisis of 1931 made exporting very difficult.20 But Germany was not simply a victim of other countries’ protectionism. Other than Britain, Germany was Europe’s largest market for exports and Germany’s own turn towards protectionism since 1930 had played an important role in accelerating the cycle of tit-for-tat trade restriction. Furthermore, Germany’s aggressive debt diplomacy added to its problems. One of the most alarming features of the Reich’s trade statistics in 1934 was the serious fall in exports to France, the Netherlands and Switzerland. All three had responded to Germany’s default in 1933 by negotiating clearing agreements, which ensured that they recouped atleast some of Germany’s export earnings in the form of debt service. Though initially these agreements were struck on the assumption that the trade balance would remain favourable to Germany, experience showed that bilateral clearing agreements actually had the effect of equalizing trade between the parties. German exports were impeded by the bureaucratic formalities of the clearing agreements. German importers on the other hand had every incentive to take full advantage of the open account offered under the terms of the treaties. From Germany’s point of view this was a disastrous development, since it relied on the surpluses earned in trade with its European neighbours to pay for its imports of food and raw materials from overseas. Whilst the system of bilateral clearing deals was essential to expanding Germany’s trade with its poorer Eastern and South-eastern European neighbours, the proliferation of such agreements in Western Europe was regarded by the Reichsbank as nothing short of a disaster."

Jewish ownership of foreign currency only became a problem after already poor planning led Germany to face a growing problem of falling exports.

Easy because you didn't state anything. Be specific. What about Chinese policies are better?

The creation of incentivized market areas and exploitation of China's advantages (large pool of cheap labor) represent a fundamentally better understanding than the Nazi policy of destroying Germany's ability to pay for needed imports. It's really not that hard.

 

[Jredbaron96]

So you don't need war to develop your army. Got it.

What von Seckt did was provide the German Army with 15 years of continual doctrinal development aided by the retention of key officers while simultaneously ignoring the duties asked by the actual government with the intention of once again creating a massive war machine. Something the Red Army didn't have.

 

[Jredbaron96]

How many soldiers were even left by "late in the war"? In Vistula-Oder the Wehrmacht had 450,000 men compared to the Red Army with 2.2 million.

If numbers were so critical why did the Soviets lose at Kiev and Demyansk, or win at Moscow?

They didn't get "progressively smarter".

Yes, they did.

They just, as you eloquently put it, threw masses of soldiers.

No, they didn't.

 

[phattonez]

Funny how you left out:

"Driving this disastrous haemorrhage was the increasing deficit on the current account. As we have seen, the increase in the import bill was a predictable event and had been long anticipated.17 Indeed, rising imports were the clearest symptom of the vigour of Hitler’s recovery. The truly alarming problem was the trend in exports. Whilst the German domestic economy rebounded, exports continued to decline. In every month of 1933 exports were lower than they had been in 1932 and the gap widened as the year wore on. The trend continued into 1934, with export earnings in the early summer of 1934 fully 20 per cent lower than they had been a year earlier. Without exports, Germany could not pay for its desperately needed imports, or service its foreign debts. And this was not merely an abstract financial imperative. The livelihood of thousands of firms and millions of workers depended on finding customers abroad. The light manufacturing districts of central and eastern Germany, the great commercial cities of the Rhine valley, the port towns of the Baltic and the North Sea all earned their living through foreign trade. The fact that German export volumes remained 40 per cent below their level in 1932 was one of the principal causes of unemployment both in industry and commerce. The causes of the decline in German exports were hotly disputed both inside and outside the country.19 Schacht and the officially inspired German press blamed ‘unfair’ restrictions of German trade. There is no doubt that the enormous hike in global protectionism that followed the currency crisis of 1931 made exporting very difficult.20 But Germany was not simply a victim of other countries’ protectionism. Other than Britain, Germany was Europe’s largest market for exports and Germany’s own turn towards protectionism since 1930 had played an important role in accelerating the cycle of tit-for-tat trade restriction. Furthermore, Germany’s aggressive debt diplomacy added to its problems. One of the most alarming features of the Reich’s trade statistics in 1934 was the serious fall in exports to France, the Netherlands and Switzerland. All three had responded to Germany’s default in 1933 by negotiating clearing agreements, which ensured that they recouped atleast some of Germany’s export earnings in the form of debt service. Though initially these agreements were struck on the assumption that the trade balance would remain favourable to Germany, experience showed that bilateral clearing agreements actually had the effect of equalizing trade between the parties. German exports were impeded by the bureaucratic formalities of the clearing agreements. German importers on the other hand had every incentive to take full advantage of the open account offered under the terms of the treaties. From Germany’s point of view this was a disastrous development, since it relied on the surpluses earned in trade with its European neighbours to pay for its imports of food and raw materials from overseas. Whilst the system of bilateral clearing deals was essential to expanding Germany’s trade with its poorer Eastern and South-eastern European neighbours, the proliferation of such agreements in Western Europe was regarded by the Reichsbank as nothing short of a disaster."

Jewish ownership of foreign currency only became a problem after already poor planning led Germany to face a growing problem of falling exports.

I wonder how their exports would have done if not for the weak worldwide economy.

The creation of incentivized market areas and exploitation of China's advantages (large pool of cheap labor) represent a fundamentally better understanding than the Nazi policy of destroying Germany's ability to pay for needed imports. It's really not that hard.

What advantage should Germany have exploited?

 

[Jredbaron96]

The ration was set to 2500 calories in 1939, prior to the invasion of Poland.

But after the annexation of Austria and Czechoslovakia, where seizures of gold and currency were able to sustain imports.

But that's not even the problem here. Why is a nation not in a state of war or famine rationing food?

Jews had 8 billion Reichsmarks of wealth in 1933. What was German GNP in 1933? A little more than 60 billion Reichsmarks. So Jews, which were less than 0.75% of the population, had wealth of more than 10% of GNP. "Not a meaningful part of the German economy"? Laughable.

"In total, German and Austrian Jews reported 8.5 billion Reichsmarks in gross assets–7 billion net of outstanding liabilities. Of this considerable sum, only 1.19 billion Reichsmarks were active business assets. Allowing for the fact that the net wealth of Austrian Jewry was reported as just over 2 billion Reichsmarks, it is unlikely that Jewish business capital in Germany far exceeded 850 million Reichsmarks. This was, by any count, a small proportion of the total assets at work in the German economy."

Tooze, Adam. The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy (p. 276)

And let's not forget, the Nazis were stealing massive amounts of wealth from Jews by the time you get to Kristallnacht. By that point, they weren't losing much wealth from emigration. Jews were just getting out to save their lives, even though they lost much of their wealth.

And that makes it okay? Why do you insist on blaming the Jews for their persecution?

Silly.

What's ****ing stupid is blaming the Jews for Germany's economic problems or the Nazi failures of policy.

Trying to make housing more affordable isn't stupid or counterproductive. It ought to be the goal of every economy.

Oh, well that in case I guess the Nazis weren't all that bad, eh?

There wasn't much relief for American workers.

And there wasn't much relief for Jews, Communists, Socialists, Trade Unionists, Gypsies, Catholics, homosexuals or the mentally ill in Germany. Funny how you so often leave that out.

Now the Nazis didn't reach their goal, don't get me wrong, but should I really be criticizing them for trying?

The Volksprodukt projects failed and never really had the chance to succeed because Schacht's New Plan prioritized import of industrial raw materials destined for rearmament over the import of raw materials for civilian consumption.

Getting unemployment below 15% quickly is stupid, while remaining there for a decade is smart? Sweetie . . .

Unemployment dropped in the US from 30% to 14% but apparently that's not progress at all. Everything needs to be done instantly or else it doesn't matter.

 

[Jredbaron96]

I wonder how their exports would have done if not for the weak worldwide economy.

They would've done much better had Germany been willing to negotiate contracts and trade agreements on good faith.

What advantage should Germany have exploited?

Germany's natural supplies of lumber and coal could've been used as the basis for renewed trade agreements with both Britain and France, western Europe's largest economies, in exchange for a steady flow or raw materials for Germany's industry. Hitler's public works projects could've been given far greater emphasis, especially the Volksprodukt projects which would've solved the housing shortage while at the same time private construction initiatives could've helped curb unemployment.

Germany's fledgling automobile industry would probably have to be sidelined completely to save money by not importing large quantities of rubber and oil, but it would free up money for imports of cotton and wool that would help expand the textiles industry, already Germany's largest employer.

 

[Jredbaron96]

And is this really indicative of an economic problem, or perhaps a social one?

Yeah, a problem by the fact that Germany was run by thugs and brutes who brutalized and committed horrid acts of violence against their own people just because they were Jewish.

 

[soylentgreen]

No because cooperation in a capitalist society is different than in a socialist one. Socialism is different from capitalism.

Disagree. the only difference between communist economics and capitalist is where the profit goes. Otherwise the intent of making profit is the same.

 

[soylentgreen]

Sure. Dictatorship of the proleteriat. There you go. This kind of stuff has to mean something in actual practice. It can't be some idle concept printed on a pamphlet. It would need concrete realization.
How to do it? It's not enough for socialists to say simply we don't want to be like a Cuba or a Venezuela or a USSR. Nobody particularly argues there is such a desire.

No that is called quote mining and really does nothing more than demonstrate a lack of education on your part. The quote of dictatorship of the proleteriat in marxism means that the workers have the right to control political power rather than the elite class of royal and wealthy that controlled politics in his time. In actual practice that means that various political parties have a right to compete for the seats of government as in any democracy.

 

[Jredbaron96]

They were obviously in no position to be doing that in the 1920s. What they were doing before WWII was trying to spread Communism through proxy. Are we supposed to ignore China and Spain?

Neither China nor Spain was responsible for Germany's decision to invade the Soviet Union.

Do those victories happen if the Soviet Union has millions of troops held up in the east?

There weren't millions of troops held up in the East. The Far Eastern Front numbered just over 500,000 men.

It's almost like Stalin was crucial to initiating hostilities and then manipulated his way into annexing all of Eastern Europe. It was devious as hell, and you want to give him a pass for being a major contributor to the outbreak of the war.

Except he really wasn't. Stalin could've sat there and done pretty much nothing and it doesn't alter Hitler's desire to spread east.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Now the Nazis didn't reach their goal, don't get me wrong, but should I really be criticizing them for trying?

But that's all you're giving them credit for, trying, and not bothering to examine in deeper.

And really, this is the same problem with you over and over again. You're not a dumb ass, in fact you're a very smart man and you can debate very well. Discussions with you are far more thought provoking and interesting than 80% of the nonsense on this forum.

But debating this topic is getting really old because every time it's the same stuff from you. Every possible explanation, justification, or excuse has to be offered for the Germans. Every blatant case of irrationality or outright fanaticism has to be nitpicked or argued to the point of semantic.

Germany's Volksprodukt failed to meet the goals set for it, and a very clear problem was a lack of funding that were hampered by the government's emphasis on rearmament. But since they were trying, therefore that's okay.

If Germany's Jews held so much wealth and forcing them to leave would do so much harm, then clearly if financial and economy stability were desired then they should've been encouraged to stay and invest more, but instead they were persecuted, murdered, driven out and their money stolen. Germany's racial policy was clearly harming the country, but apparently this isn't an issue.

In 1933 29% of the workforce was working in agriculture, was dependent on foreign imports and prone to inefficiency. The Reichsnährstand was set up by the Nazis so solve this, but with the Reich cutting down on the amount of money that could be used to pay for imports of feed Germany had to make use of it's own food supply to feed it's livestock, and half a million farmers had to abandon their farms with the Reichsnährstand essentially throwing up it's hands and saying the only way to solve Germany's food problem was to seize more land. But because they were trying to become more independent, that's understandable.

Every possibly explanation or excuse is given for Germany, but none for anyone else.

The United States had within 6 years of the Great Depression had dropped unemployment from 30% to less than half of that, but apparently because it wasn't instantaneous or done so rapidly it doesn't count.

In the 1930s Soviet defense spending as percentage of GDP was just a third of that of Germany. Meanwhile the Red Army was supposed to be on the process of modernization and mechanization, but available engineers and mechanics were being focused on infrastructure and development. It would seem rather obvious therefore that the development of the Soviet military simply wasn't as high a priority as other issues, yet you continue to insist a major Soviet buildup necessitated Hitler's rearmament.

 

[Tigerace117]

No, I provided their stated justification. It was Soviet aggression, especially outside of their designated sphere of influence.

I'm not defending Nazi invasions. I'm just pointing out that the Soviets were no angels.

Which was utter bull****......as usual.

Buddy, no one has claimed the soviets were angels. Hell, no one has claimed they were anything other than ruthless opportunists.

But your heroes managed to be a million times worse.

 

[phattonez]

But after the annexation of Austria and Czechoslovakia, where seizures of gold and currency were able to sustain imports.

But that's not even the problem here. Why is a nation not in a state of war or famine rationing food?

Because they have a lot of soldiers to feed. Look, all else being equal, yes, it's better to have a smaller army to get more production. However, when you're worried about the Soviet Union and the Western allies all being against you, you don't have much of a choice. Would they have had a smaller army if they weren't threatened? Who knows. Yes, their economy would have been better with a smaller army. That doesn't mean that their agricultural policies were stupid.

"In total, German and Austrian Jews reported 8.5 billion Reichsmarks in gross assets–7 billion net of outstanding liabilities. Of this considerable sum, only 1.19 billion Reichsmarks were active business assets. Allowing for the fact that the net wealth of Austrian Jewry was reported as just over 2 billion Reichsmarks, it is unlikely that Jewish business capital in Germany far exceeded 850 million Reichsmarks. This was, by any count, a small proportion of the total assets at work in the German economy."

Tooze, Adam. The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy (p. 276)

Why are we looking exclusively at business capital? The point is that they could have taken 8.5 billion Reichsmarks worth of wealth. That would have bankrupted the country.

And that makes it okay? Why do you insist on blaming the Jews for their persecution?

Absolutely not. I'm not going to approve of Kristallnacht. I'm just saying that the foreign currency loss through emigration situation was more stable by then. If we're looking early at the Nazi rule, yes, emigration is a major contributor to the problem. Around 1938, not so much.

What's ****ing stupid is blaming the Jews for Germany's economic problems or the Nazi failures of policy.

This is just a fact. Emigration, which was mostly Jewish, was a big contributor to the loss of foreign reserves. This isn't saying that Jews were wrong to leave, or that the Nazis were right to persecute them. Far from it. These were just the facts at the time.

Oh, well that in case I guess the Nazis weren't all that bad, eh?

Not everything that the Nazis did was pure evil. I don't take a comic book view of history.

And there wasn't much relief for Jews, Communists, Socialists, Trade Unionists, Gypsies, Catholics, homosexuals or the mentally ill in Germany. Funny how you so often leave that out.

I'm not defending their persecutions of marginalized groups. We're debating their economic policy. Is it necessary to marginalize these groups in order to get Germans in decent housing? No, therefore we can look at these issues separately.

The Volksprodukt projects failed and never really had the chance to succeed because Schacht's New Plan prioritized import of industrial raw materials destined for rearmament over the import of raw materials for civilian consumption.

I'm not disagreeing, though I don't think the Volkswagon program was anywhere close to being met. Other projects were, like their radios, which yes, were used for propaganda. I'm not saying that this was utopia. I'm just saying that it worked better than the New Deal or comparable programs.

Unemployment dropped in the US from 30% to 14% but apparently that's not progress at all. Everything needs to be done instantly or else it doesn't matter.

So 7 years after the stock market crash unemployment was still above 14%. That's enough time to start to get impatient.

 

[phattonez]

Yeah, a problem by the fact that Germany was run by thugs and brutes who brutalized and committed horrid acts of violence against their own people just because they were Jewish.

And I don't approve of their social views, so why are we even talking about this?

 

[phattonez]

Neither China nor Spain was responsible for Germany's decision to invade the Soviet Union.

You can't just ignore it. Communists were clearly intent on spreading their ideology.

There weren't millions of troops held up in the East. The Far Eastern Front numbered just over 500,000 men.

You know as well as I do that it isn't just troops. It's logistics. It's equipment.

Except he really wasn't. Stalin could've sat there and done pretty much nothing and it doesn't alter Hitler's desire to spread east.

I don't think Hitler invades Poland without that pact.