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

[phattonez]

You'll have to point out at which period France invaded and occupied and then dissolved the German government, turning the entire territory that constituted Germany and all her people into a conquered nation.

France didn't need to fully invade Germany in WWI. The government fell and they were able to impose a harsh peace on Germany. Are you seriously arguing that the end of WWI wasn't effectively a conquered Germany?

Second, both Britain and France had by the 1930s expressed their desire to have Germany return to the common market to the point that they even suspended payments of reparations.

Therefore what? The rearmament program wasn't such that Germany was by far the leading military power of Europe. France was about on par, at least in terms of personnel. The Germans were lucky that France fell as quickly as it did, or else they would have had another WWI stalemate on their hands.

Comprehensive financial reform that didn't destroy the mainstay of the of the American economy and then required the mass persecution of an entire segment of the population in order to steal money from private savings in order to finance military expenditures.

National Socialist economics (not rearmament) requires persecution of a small minority of the population?

Except for the people who just weren't counted on the employment rolls. Funny how you keep leaving that out.

Because these weren't significant numbers!

Because basically all you're doing is grasping at a handful of statistics and arguing that's all the information you need and then ignoring everything else. A healthy German economy doesn't require the government to steal money from retirement funds and local governments, which the Reich did. Good economic policies don't force the government to ban private construction, institute wages restrictions and price controls, ban people from carrying currency outside the country, or force banks to buy bonds under threat of retribution. Good economic policies don't undermine the foundation of the national economy and cause a currency crisis, but there are all things that happened and you want me to ignore them in favor of your narrative.

The Nazis inherited an economic disaster in the early 1930's. They weren't going to turn it around overnight. The US still had significant numbers of bank failures even up to the 1940s.

[quote... Though the inflationary spike could still be broken, this involved risks. An excessively sharp reduction in the volume of credit could easily turn the difficult transition into a disastrous ‘deflationary crisis’. Instead, the Reichsbank proposed to drain off excess purchasing power by issuing long-term bonds, enabling the Finance Ministry to consolidate its precarious budgetary situation. More importantly, however, there was an urgent need to ensure a rapid increase in the production of consumer goods. Only a supply of real goods to absorb at least some of the excess purchasing power could stem the inflationary threat. What the Reichsbank was calling for, in short, was a dramatic shift in priorities: a sharp reduction in ‘non-marketed output’ for the purposes of the state, which according to contemporary estimates accounted for 30 per cent of industrial production in 1938, in favour of the production of household consumer goods.4 A precondition, however, for all further action was the need to raise exports. The most serious threat to the German economy was the possibility of an acute balance of payments crisis. A sudden interruption of the import of essential raw materials and foodstuffs as in 1934 would be fatal for public confidence and might well jeopardize the delicate process of adjustment that the Reichsbank was trying to manage."
[/QUOTE]

I'm sure that US consumers would have loved some "excess purchasing power" and "rapid increase in the production of consumer goods" during the depression.

 

[Jredbaron96]

The whole point of Barbarossa was to invade before they got any stronger. I'm not saying that they were ready in 1941.

The point of Barbarossa was to seize living space and destroy "Jewish-Bolshevism". Hitler would go on to say that if he had known how many tanks the Soviets possessed he would not have invaded.

I'm saying that given that he actually did it, then why should I believe that he never would have done it?

The Soviet Union invaded Eastern Europe because it was at the time under the control of Nazi Germany and it's allies. Why do you think Stalin would just wake up one day and think "I should invade Eastern Europe today."? There's a lot of things you can level at Stalin, his brutality, complete lack of empathy and disregard for the sanctity of human life, but he wasn't an idiot.

Yet that poorly managed army actually ended up conquering Eastern Europe.

Yeah after a massive war that killed tens of millions of Soviets. It's not like Germany peacefully withdrew from Russia and the Soviets decided they weren't done conquering.

Probably not, which is why I don't think the Red Army was going to do it in 1941. Would they have done it a few years later? I think there's good reason to believe that they would have at least expanded bit by bit, if not fully invading the entire continent.

With what Army? Without the threat of the Wehrmacht what reason does the RKKA have to expand?

Then why keep anything but an insignificant number of troops in the east?

Because you recently fought a border conflict with Japan and they've demonstrated imperialist expansionist desires before. You seem to think the only two options in this situation is either A)The Far East is Vital and Must be Defended or B)There's nothing of value so why bother even defending it?

It's still Soviet territory and home to Soviet citizens. It's got a major port on the Pacific that while not absolutely vital to the survival of the Soviet state is still pretty important.

Instead he gets the Soviet Union right on his eastern border. This makes no sense.

Why is it hard to understand? That's not what Hitler wanted, but that's what he got.

The invasion of Poland was not some deeply coordinated plan. Hitler didn't know what the Soviets were planning until the 14th of September. And judging by the ad hoc nature of the Soviet forces that entered Eastern Poland, Moscow wasn't entirely sure what the Germans were doing either.

And he was partially right. While they declared war, there was no real war until the invasion of France. So again, what's the point of that Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?

Because the USSR had previously expressed opposition to Nazi expansionism at Czechoslovakia. Your claim that Hitler wouldn't invade without it though is foolish, he began planning in April and didn't get MRP until August. That indicates a way of tying up a loose end, not a show stopper.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Are you seriously arguing that the end of WWI wasn't effectively a conquered Germany?

It was a Germany that had fought a major war in which it had played a significant role in starting and lost, and had to pay the consequences. Are you really suggesting this was somehow new or unexpected?

Now if you're arguing Versailles was a bad treaty, than sure. I'm not disputing that.

The rearmament program wasn't such that Germany was by far the leading military power of Europe.

Man, you would have a really good point if the Wehrmacht hadn't from day one been designed as a force of aggression designed to take what Germany wanted by force and kill anyone who opposed them.

National Socialist economics (not rearmament) requires persecution of a small minority of the population?

First off, you can stop trying to separate economic policies from re-armament. Economic policies of Nazi Germany were framed around re-armament. Why do you think the industrial work force grew? Guess what they were building? Armaments!

Because these weren't significant numbers!

2 million isn't a small number? News to me.

The Nazis inherited an economic disaster in the early 1930's. They weren't going to turn it around overnight. The US still had significant numbers of bank failures even up to the 1940s.

So in other words the Nazis get a pass because not everything was perfect, but the US was terrible because it wasn't perfect. Got it.

I'm sure that US consumers would have loved some "excess purchasing power" and "rapid increase in the production of consumer goods" during the depression.

That was such a ****ty dodge I can't even tell if you're being serious or not.

Either way, it's irrelevant. By 1938 the Nazis were heading towards economic disaster and as the above quote proves their Reich's economy minister was well aware of it. But the Nazis chose to ignore it. So much for recovery.

 

[phattonez]

The fact that it managed to half unemployment without resorting to measures like mass conscription and dropping segments of the population from the employment list, that it didn't force the United States to engage in currency wars to sustain it's international trade, and it didn't cripple the economy in the long run as the Nazis did. Because as it's been said countless times by now, German rearmament was absolutely a drain on the economy that was leading Germany to financial ruin. We can argue all day on the effectiveness of the New Deal but that doesn't change the nothing the New Deal provided a drain on the American economy as did Germany spending more than 10% of her GNP on the Wehrmacht by 1936 and 70% of the Reich's spending was dedicated to rearmament.

I'm still waiting for you to answer this:

I'm still here unconvinced that the New Deal was better than Nazi economic policy. I'm far better off as a German worker where I'm guaranteed work and a paycheck, I have the KdF providing cheap vacations, I get subsidies for starting and raising my family, etc. What was the American experience? High unemployment, little relief, and a stagnant economy.

So Germany by 1935 had reached the average income of 1930. The US didn't do that until nearly 1940. Plus, and we cannot ignore this fact, Germany did that with everyone working. The US still had 15% unemployment, which ought to lower their average wages, yet that's not accounted for in this graph.

Germany wins here easily.

 

[phattonez]

The point of Barbarossa was to seize living space and destroy "Jewish-Bolshevism". Hitler would go on to say that if he had known how many tanks the Soviets possessed he would not have invaded.

Have you read Hitler's speech given on the data Barbarossa was launched? It's all about protecting Germany from the threat of Soviet aggression. Propaganda or not, this was the stated justification. As for that second sentence, well, what is that supposed to prove? Who goes into a battle where you expect to lose?

The Soviet Union invaded Eastern Europe because it was at the time under the control of Nazi Germany and it's allies. Why do you think Stalin would just wake up one day and think "I should invade Eastern Europe today."? There's a lot of things you can level at Stalin, his brutality, complete lack of empathy and disregard for the sanctity of human life, but he wasn't an idiot.

And no one blames the allies for invading Western Europe. The problem is what came after. The allies relinquished control. The Soviets did not. Had the Soviets not held onto Eastern Europe, I don't think we'd be having this discussion.

With what Army? Without the threat of the Wehrmacht what reason does the RKKA have to expand?

The entire point of this discussion: to extend control over other lands.

Because you recently fought a border conflict with Japan and they've demonstrated imperialist expansionist desires before. You seem to think the only two options in this situation is either A)The Far East is Vital and Must be Defended or B)There's nothing of value so why bother even defending it?

It's still Soviet territory and home to Soviet citizens. It's got a major port on the Pacific that while not absolutely vital to the survival of the Soviet state is still pretty important.

And if troops are held up there, Germany very well may seize control of the Caucasus.

Why is it hard to understand? That's not what Hitler wanted, but that's what he got.

The invasion of Poland was not some deeply coordinated plan. Hitler didn't know what the Soviets were planning until the 14th of September. And judging by the ad hoc nature of the Soviet forces that entered Eastern Poland, Moscow wasn't entirely sure what the Germans were doing either.

Because the USSR had previously expressed opposition to Nazi expansionism at Czechoslovakia. Your claim that Hitler wouldn't invade without it though is foolish, he began planning in April and didn't get MRP until August. That indicates a way of tying up a loose end, not a show stopper.

There are plans for all kinds of scenarios. If it wasn't necessary to ally with the Soviet Union, then why do it? Why go through the hassle?

 

[phattonez]

It was a Germany that had fought a major war in which it had played a significant role in starting and lost, and had to pay the consequences. Are you really suggesting this was somehow new or unexpected?

Now if you're arguing Versailles was a bad treaty, than sure. I'm not disputing that.

No, I'm arguing that this is why they viewed France as a threat.

Man, you would have a really good point if the Wehrmacht hadn't from day one been designed as a force of aggression designed to take what Germany wanted by force and kill anyone who opposed them.

Was the French army designed as a force of aggression designed to take what France wanted by force and kill anyone who opposed them?

First off, you can stop trying to separate economic policies from re-armament. Economic policies of Nazi Germany were framed around re-armament. Why do you think the industrial work force grew? Guess what they were building? Armaments!

Why can't I separate them? If we're looking at the success of their economic programs, then I'm clearly separating armament production. Trying these policies in say, Venezuela, doesn't require an armaments program.

2 million isn't a small number? News to me.

0.75% of a population isn't significant when it comes to unemployment numbers.

So in other words the Nazis get a pass because not everything was perfect, but the US was terrible because it wasn't perfect. Got it.

The Nazis get a pass because they dealt with the economic problems better than the US.

That was such a ****ty dodge I can't even tell if you're being serious or not.

Either way, it's irrelevant. By 1938 the Nazis were heading towards economic disaster and as the above quote proves their Reich's economy minister was well aware of it. But the Nazis chose to ignore it. So much for recovery.

What was that disaster? Their economy would look like the US already did? I don't see why I should ignore the economic gains.

 

[Rich2018]

When did the war start? 1939. When did unemployment start significantly dropping? 1940....

When did the USA join the war ?

US unemployment was significantly dropping before 1939


As is was in other capitalist economies like the UK


The USA didn't need WWII to come out of depression.

...are you seriously comparing US influence over West Germany to Soviet influence over East Germany?

Did not West Germany have a FEDERAL REPUBLIC form of government after WWII (remind me again the form of government exercised in the USA)

But since you ask no I'm not.

You seem to claim that because the Red Army invaded Germany in 1945, then it must have had a pre-war plan to do so.

Well the USA invaded Germany in 1945...are you saying that the USA had a pre-war plan to do so?
Are you saying that Germany was justified in declaring war on the USA because 4 year in the future, US forces would invade German soil ?

 

[phattonez]

When did the USA join the war ?

I never said it dropped because the US entered the war. It dropped because of the war and the US supplying arms to its allies.

US unemployment was significantly dropping before 1939

Citation needed. In 1940 unemployment was still above 14%.

The USA didn't need WWII to come out of depression.

Unemployment remained above 14% between 1931 and 1940. If it didn't need the war, it sure was taking its sweet time getting out of it.

Did not West Germany have a FEDERAL REPUBLIC form of government after WWII (remind me again the form of government exercised in the USA)

But since you ask no I'm not.

You seem to claim that because the Red Army invaded Germany in 1945, then it must have had a pre-war plan to do so.

My claim is that since the Red Army invaded Germany, occupied it, and never relinquished control, that there's a good possibility that they were always going to invade it.

The US relinquished control of Germany.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Have you read Hitler's speech given on the data Barbarossa was launched? It's all about protecting Germany from the threat of Soviet aggression.

And his actual published books and statements in meetings clearly outline the actual reason.

As for that second sentence, well, what is that supposed to prove? Who goes into a battle where you expect to lose?

If his goal was to stop them from getting stronger and he said afterwards that had he known how strong they were he wouldn't have invaded, then he had already failed.

And no one blames the allies for invading Western Europe. The problem is what came after. The allies relinquished control. The Soviets did not. Had the Soviets not held onto Eastern Europe, I don't think we'd be having this discussion.

And anyone with a basic understanding of the difference between strategic opportunity and strategic intentions can tell the difference between the Soviets maintain control over Eastern Europe to ensure they would never suffer a repeat of Barbarossa and the idea they secretly always wanted to do it.

Your reasoning is entirely circular; they did it, therefore they always wanted to do it, and you just ignore the whole part WW2 had in shaping the situation.

And if troops are held up there, Germany very well may seize control of the Caucasus.

No, they don't. Case Blue was beyond the ability of the Ostheer from the get-go.

There are plans for all kinds of scenarios. If it wasn't necessary to ally with the Soviet Union, then why do it? Why go through the hassle?

You're forgetting the backdrop of German-Soviet economic discussions that were ongoing throughout this period. The MRP was much the apex of German and Soviet discussions regarding trade.

Remember that impending financial crisis Germany is facing in 1938? A big part of that was the shortages of oil and rubber Germany needed, which it could no longer procure through normal means, but the Soviets could provide.

Stalin thought that a Germany economically dependent on the USSR would never risk war due to the loss of raw materials. It proved to be one of his biggest mistakes.

 

[Jredbaron96]

No, I'm arguing that this is why they viewed France as a threat.

Was the French army designed as a force of aggression designed to take what France wanted by force and kill anyone who opposed them?

The French Army was so aggressive that it's funding was cut to save money and resources for the economy and the French government spent millions of Francs in defensive fortifications.

Why can't I separate them? If we're looking at the success of their economic programs, then I'm clearly separating armament production.

Are you serious? German growth and drop in unemployment was based almost entirely on armaments spending. Are you trying to deny that too?

0.75% of a population isn't significant when it comes to unemployment numbers.

It's also more than Jews, genius. 1.5 million conscripts and half a million married women.

The Nazis get a pass because they dealt with the economic problems better than the US.

What was that disaster? Their economy would look like the US already did? I don't see why I should ignore the economic gains.

What the Nazis did was pursue a bunch of radical short term solutions that did nothing to solve their long term problems and your refusal to admit it doesn't change it. Germany at one point was being financed by 90 day loans, but apparently that's okay because look! Unemployment dropped to nothing, never mind we also stopped counting 2 million members of the work force.

Germany's own economic ministry recognized what was happening both in 1936 and 1938 and your utter refusal to admit it is nothing short of historical revisionism or flat out willful ignorance.

It's amazing how you bitch about viewing history as a comic book when you literally trot out every possible explanation and excuse for Nazi Germany while attacking everyone else, and then complain when I call you a Nazi apologist.

 

[Jredbaron96]

I'm still waiting for you to answer this:

Jesus dude, pay attention.

If the US government tomorrow declared that everyone in the US would get a check in the mail that would pay for everyone's rent, food, and utilities, then of course everyone would be doing better than today.

Until it comes time for the Government to figure out where that money comes from.

I mean seriously man, how can you pour so much focus on this and ignore the big picture? Yes, wages were good were a few years and unemployment was low. In the meantime, 70% of the Reich's spending is going into defense, Germany's ability to pay for the imports it needs to survive is skydiving, and the country's gold reserve is being melted down to be sold for tanks?

I mean for once just stop with the microeconomic focus and think about the big picture for once? What happens when the Textiles industry (Germany's largest employer) can no longer get wool and cotton (Which Germany imports entirely)?

Plus, and we cannot ignore this fact, Germany did that with everyone working.

Minus 2 million people, which doesn't change no matter how much you ignore it.

 

[phattonez]

Jesus dude, pay attention.

If the US government tomorrow declared that everyone in the US would get a check in the mail that would pay for everyone's rent, food, and utilities, then of course everyone would be doing better than today.

Until it comes time for the Government to figure out where that money comes from.

I mean seriously man, how can you pour so much focus on this and ignore the big picture? Yes, wages were good were a few years and unemployment was low. In the meantime, 70% of the Reich's spending is going into defense, Germany's ability to pay for the imports it needs to survive is skydiving, and the country's gold reserve is being melted down to be sold for tanks?

I mean for once just stop with the microeconomic focus and think about the big picture for once? What happens when the Textiles industry (Germany's largest employer) can no longer get wool and cotton (Which Germany imports entirely)?

Then you come back to the economic reality in the US. Maybe they would have had a correction, but I'm not seeing how this approach is worse than effectively 10 years of massive unemployment.

Minus 2 million people, which doesn't change no matter how much you ignore it.

The German population in 1939, for the entire Reich, was more than 80 million. 2 million is small.

 

[phattonez]

The French Army was so aggressive that it's funding was cut to save money and resources for the economy and the French government spent millions of Francs in defensive fortifications.

And still they had about the same size as the Wehrmacht.

Are you serious? German growth and drop in unemployment was based almost entirely on armaments spending. Are you trying to deny that too?

Which is eventually what fixed US unemployment as well. So why was it obviously unsustainable for Germany but fine for the US? Because they transitioned. Why wouldn't Germany have been able to do the same?

It's also more than Jews, genius. 1.5 million conscripts and half a million married women.

In a country of 80 million+ doesn't drop your unemployment from over 30% in 1932 to effectively 0 a few years later.

What the Nazis did was pursue a bunch of radical short term solutions that did nothing to solve their long term problems and your refusal to admit it doesn't change it. Germany at one point was being financed by 90 day loans, but apparently that's okay because look! Unemployment dropped to nothing, never mind we also stopped counting 2 million members of the work force.

Germany's own economic ministry recognized what was happening both in 1936 and 1938 and your utter refusal to admit it is nothing short of historical revisionism or flat out willful ignorance.

It's amazing how you bitch about viewing history as a comic book when you literally trot out every possible explanation and excuse for Nazi Germany while attacking everyone else, and then complain when I call you a Nazi apologist.

Because you're refusing to look at context. Outside of the Great Depression and if other countries have good economies then these arguments hold more water. What you want me to do is accept that the US with 10 years of 15% unemployment had a better economy than Germany with effectively 0 unemployment. You're stubbornly refusing to accept that the capitalist economies effectively failed.

 

[phattonez]

And his actual published books and statements in meetings clearly outline the actual reason.

Which is fine, I don't deny that Germany was aggressive. My point is that the threat of Soviet aggression was real.

If his goal was to stop them from getting stronger and he said afterwards that had he known how strong they were he wouldn't have invaded, then he had already failed.

So should he have attacked earlier?

And anyone with a basic understanding of the difference between strategic opportunity and strategic intentions can tell the difference between the Soviets maintain control over Eastern Europe to ensure they would never suffer a repeat of Barbarossa and the idea they secretly always wanted to do it.

Your reasoning is entirely circular; they did it, therefore they always wanted to do it, and you just ignore the whole part WW2 had in shaping the situation.

Having buffer states doesn't require keeping control of countries and refusing them any sovereignty.

No, they don't. Case Blue was beyond the ability of the Ostheer from the get-go.

Germany made a lot of tactical mistakes there.

You're forgetting the backdrop of German-Soviet economic discussions that were ongoing throughout this period. The MRP was much the apex of German and Soviet discussions regarding trade.

Remember that impending financial crisis Germany is facing in 1938? A big part of that was the shortages of oil and rubber Germany needed, which it could no longer procure through normal means, but the Soviets could provide.

Stalin thought that a Germany economically dependent on the USSR would never risk war due to the loss of raw materials. It proved to be one of his biggest mistakes.

How does this help your claim that Germany would have invaded anyway?

 

[Jredbaron96]

Then you come back to the economic reality in the US. Maybe they would have had a correction, but I'm not seeing how this approach is worse than effectively 10 years of massive unemployment.

It amazes how determined you are to ignore the fact that the New Deal halved unemployment, yet it was a complete failure because it didn't drop to 0% unemployment.

The German population in 1939, for the entire Reich, was more than 80 million. 2 million is small.

Lying with statistics isn't helping you.

We're talking about unemployment rates, not population. The entire population of a country doesn't work, those in the work force do.

Germany's work force that was unemployed reach 6 million at it's peak. Of those 6 million, 2 million were dropped from the unemployment records through either conscription or other methods.

So a third of Germany's drop in unemployment had nothing to do with actual economic growth, but drafting and record manipulation. Funny how that works.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Which is fine, I don't deny that Germany was aggressive. My point is that the threat of Soviet aggression was real.

Not the level you're trying to imply.

So should he have attacked earlier?

He should of attacked never.

Having buffer states doesn't require keeping control of countries and refusing them any sovereignty.

Of course not. It's just easier to do it that way.

Germany made a lot of tactical mistakes there.

Case Blue's problem was the same as Barbarossa and later Citadel. It asked the German armies in the east to conduct operations who's goals were beyond the capability of them to actually accomplish. German manpower shortages were already present at this point, as German casualties had outpaced reserves by October 1941. Increasing usage of Romanian, Hungarian, and Italian troops covered the deficits but not the underlying issue, that the Wehrmacht didn't posses the capability or the combat power to actually pursue their strategic aims.

How does this help your claim that Germany would have invaded anyway?

Well firstly it's not a claim, it's a fact. If Hitler would've refused to attack Poland without MRP he wouldn't have waited months after planning the invasion to actually cement the pact. MRP was the icing on the cake, not the essential cog you're trying to present it as such.

 

[Jredbaron96]

And still they had about the same size as the Wehrmacht.

And bigger than the Red Army! Funny, it's almost like numbers don't tell the whole story.

Which is eventually what fixed US unemployment as well.

American unemployment had been declining before hand.

In a country of 80 million+ doesn't drop your unemployment from over 30% in 1932 to effectively 0 a few years later.

Lying about statistics isn't helping your case.

You're stubbornly refusing to accept that the capitalist economies effectively failed.

They didn't "fail". The "failed" because they didn't mean your ridiculous and uneducated definitions of what constitutes economic success. None of them were willing to embark on the same suicidal policies as the Nazis.

If the choice is between a slower recovery vs a short burst that eventually leads to disaster, it's not hard which to pick. It's a good example of why populist kneejerk reactions are good long term solutions.

 

[phattonez]

It amazes how determined you are to ignore the fact that the New Deal halved unemployment, yet it was a complete failure because it didn't drop to 0% unemployment.

I don't see the massive improvement here that you're talking about.

Lying with statistics isn't helping you.

We're talking about unemployment rates, not population. The entire population of a country doesn't work, those in the work force do.

Germany's work force that was unemployed reach 6 million at it's peak. Of those 6 million, 2 million were dropped from the unemployment records through either conscription or other methods.

So a third of Germany's drop in unemployment had nothing to do with actual economic growth, but drafting and record manipulation. Funny how that works.

Let's assume then that none of those people would have been able to find work if not for conscription and these "other methods" (which is quite dubious). You're still talking about a 66% reduction in unemployment. Did the US get anywhere near that?

 

[phattonez]

Not the level you're trying to imply.

He should of attacked never.

Fine, but the Soviets weren't coming across as a country that would never do it.

Of course not. It's just easier to do it that way.

This is a cope, not an unbiased assessment of their actions.

Case Blue's problem was the same as Barbarossa and later Citadel. It asked the German armies in the east to conduct operations who's goals were beyond the capability of them to actually accomplish. German manpower shortages were already present at this point, as German casualties had outpaced reserves by October 1941. Increasing usage of Romanian, Hungarian, and Italian troops covered the deficits but not the underlying issue, that the Wehrmacht didn't posses the capability or the combat power to actually pursue their strategic aims.

Maybe, we can't ever really know. I am saying that it's more likely Russia falls if Japan attacks. Totally hypothetical though since Japan isn't going to launch that attack with an oil embargo on them.

Well firstly it's not a claim, it's a fact. If Hitler would've refused to attack Poland without MRP he wouldn't have waited months after planning the invasion to actually cement the pact. MRP was the icing on the cake, not the essential cog you're trying to present it as such.

Why? This is dubious.

 

[phattonez]

And bigger than the Red Army! Funny, it's almost like numbers don't tell the whole story.

Do you think the Wehrmacht was built more to combat France or Russia? I know that the Soviets are the ideological enemy, but France to me is the bigger threat.

American unemployment had been declining before hand.

Building for other countries at war will tend to help your unemployment problem.

They didn't "fail". The "failed" because they didn't mean your ridiculous and uneducated definitions of what constitutes economic success. None of them were willing to embark on the same suicidal policies as the Nazis.

15% unemployment for nearly 10 years is success?

If the choice is between a slower recovery vs a short burst that eventually leads to disaster, it's not hard which to pick. It's a good example of why populist kneejerk reactions are good long term solutions.

A slow recovery where unemployment doesn't budge, or a short burst that you suppose will lead to disaster. I'm still waiting for China to crash, by the way.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Do you think the Wehrmacht was built more to combat France or Russia? I know that the Soviets are the ideological enemy, but France to me is the bigger threat.

Interesting question.

Doctrine wise the Wehrmacht was geared towards a war with France, but that has less to do with a direct assessment of France as the primary enemy and more the fact that the Wehrmacht's high mobility doctrine is designed around the heavy road networks of Western and Central Europe.

Hitler's stated opposition to France however stems largely from personal animosity, viewing France as the counter balance to Germany that was responsible for Germany's defeat in WWI and the loss of it's territory. But France never shared the same focus when it came to ideological components, the seizing of living space and establishment of the supremacy of the Aryan race. Hitler viewed a fight with France as inevitable, but his justification never seemed to go beyond personal disdain for France and it's role in defeating Germany.

The primary goal of the Wehrmacht was above all to remake the European order to Hitler's liking, and while that certainly involved subjugating France, Paris never receives the same attention as Eurasia. Living space was always the primary goal, and that could only truly be achieved in the East. Of course, to be fair, Hitler wasn't the first German to think that.

Building for other countries at war will tend to help your unemployment problem.


15% unemployment for nearly 10 years is success?

A slow recovery where unemployment doesn't budge, or a short burst that you suppose will lead to disaster. I'm still waiting for China to crash, by the way.

It truly is incredible how you can just ignore that unemployment was halved by the New Deal and say nothing changed.

 

[Jredbaron96]

I don't see the massive improvement here that you're talking about.

That drop in between 1930 and 1940 I guess just doesn't exist.

Let's assume then that none of those people would have been able to find work if not for conscription and these "other methods" (which is quite dubious).

It's not dubious. Half a million women were removed from the unemployment records.

You're still talking about a 66% reduction in unemployment. Did the US get anywhere near that?

Unemployment was nearly halved apart from a minor recession in 1937. There was undeniable progress made.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Fine, but the Soviets weren't coming across as a country that would never do it.

Invading other countries for the purpose of forcibly installing communist governments is counter to Soviet ideology.

The Marxist-Leninist ideology that guided the Soviet Union held that communist revolution wasn't just desired, it was inevitable. There was no need to export the revolution, because it would just happen by itself. They of course would support other communists across the world, as they did in Spain and China, and after WWII they elevated pre-existing communist parties in Eastern Europe to position's in power. Decades later they would go to war in Afghanistan to support the communist government there.

So invading other countries just for the purpose of installing communist government's is counter to what the Soviets believe, which is that they don't need to do that, because communist revolution will inevitably happen anyway. And they didn't. Finland and the Baltics had nothing to do with exporting communism. Putting communists in power in Eastern Europe was just the easiest way to ensure compliance.

This is a cope, not an unbiased assessment of their actions.

The unbiased assessment, or the objective reality as the Soviets liked to call it, was that strategic concerns have always trumped moral quandaries. When faced with a dilemma of the two the strategic issues always take priority.

The UK flat out invaded Iceland during WWII after the Icelandic government refused to join the Allies. It was a completely illegal invasion by any definition, but of course no one really objected.

Maybe, we can't ever really know. I am saying that it's more likely Russia falls if Japan attacks.

I don't see how. The ability to meaningfully target Soviet industry and resources is beyond the capability of the IJA.

Why? This is dubious.

No, it really isn't.

German planning for the invasion had been finalized by June and German forces were being put in position months before the Pact was signed. I see no evidence to suggest the invasion was contingent on the MRP when it was being planned and prepared long before the negotiations were even underway, which didn't start until August 10-12th. The invasion had been laid out in April and final operational planning concluded on June 15th, with German troops mobilizing the week after.

 

[phattonez]

Interesting question.

Doctrine wise the Wehrmacht was geared towards a war with France, but that has less to do with a direct assessment of France as the primary enemy and more the fact that the Wehrmacht's high mobility doctrine is designed around the heavy road networks of Western and Central Europe.

Hitler's stated opposition to France however stems largely from personal animosity, viewing France as the counter balance to Germany that was responsible for Germany's defeat in WWI and the loss of it's territory. But France never shared the same focus when it came to ideological components, the seizing of living space and establishment of the supremacy of the Aryan race. Hitler viewed a fight with France as inevitable, but his justification never seemed to go beyond personal disdain for France and it's role in defeating Germany.

The primary goal of the Wehrmacht was above all to remake the European order to Hitler's liking, and while that certainly involved subjugating France, Paris never receives the same attention as Eurasia. Living space was always the primary goal, and that could only truly be achieved in the East. Of course, to be fair, Hitler wasn't the first German to think that.

I'm not trying the equate the war aims of France with that of Germany. Obviously France wasn't interested in conquering her neighbors, occupying them, and claiming them as her own. I'm just saying that they are a real threat. If you're Germany and trying to become independent of these nations that hate you, then it makes sense that you want to defend yourself from that. It doesn't justify invading France. By no means! I'm just saying that I'm not opposed in principle to defense spending in this context.

It truly is incredible how you can just ignore that unemployment was halved by the New Deal and say nothing changed.

Sure, there wasn't as much unemployment as there was at the peak. Unemployment remaining at 15% for nearly a decade is failure. I can hear a case for 1 or 2 years, maybe even 3, but not 10. We can't be patient forever.

 

[phattonez]

That drop in between 1930 and 1940 I guess just doesn't exist.

Look at the picture and tell me where the substantial reduction is.

There's no real significant drop until WWII.

It's not dubious. Half a million women were removed from the unemployment records.

Then what do you make of this quote?

The fact that more women were not mobilized for war work is sometimes taken as one more symptom of the inability of the Nazi regime to
demand sacrifices from the German population. In this respect it has often been contrasted to Britain, where an increase in female participation in the workforce was the key to sustaining the war effort. Such comparisons, however, are completely misleading, since they ignore the fact that the labour market participation of German women in 1939 was higher than that reached by Britain and the United States even at the end of the war. 111 In 1939, a third of all married women in Germany were economically active and more than half of all women between the ages of 15 and 60 were in work. As a result, women made up more than a third of the German workforce before the war started, compared to a female share of only a quarter in Britain. A year later, the share of German women in the native workforce stood at 41 per cent, compared to less than 30 per cent in Britain. Not surprisingly, over the following years Britain caught up. But even in 1944 the participation rate for British women between the ages of 15 to 65 was only 41 per cent, as against a minimum of 51 per cent in Germany already in 1939.

Unemployment was nearly halved apart from a minor recession in 1937. There was undeniable progress made.

Do you know what I call going from 22% unemployment, to 14% unemployment temporarily, then back up to 17% unemployment nearly a decade later? Stagnation.