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

[Jredbaron96]

Significant progress was made during those discussions, with Germany's demands being aggressive but much less than what they would attain by invasion. Whether it was last minute cold feet by Hitler to explore options, or a ruse to lull the allies into being unguarded (which it did) I am uncertain.

Well to be fair, a principle of Hitler's foreign policy apart from specific certainties (his disdain of communism and Judaism) was his general lack of commitment to any one idea in particular. His early rule showed several times when he postulated various different offers to varied parties, sometimes even self-contradicting, primarily to see which one was the best received and whichever turned out the best.

Geoffery Roberts in his article (and later expanded into a book) "The Soviet Decision for a Pact with Nazi Germany" gives the most detailed review that I have read. Normally I would have been very suspect of any thesis that suggested Stalin was less calculating, purposeful, and strategic on the fate of Poland than the Germans, but I admit that he has convinced me on many of his views.

It's interesting to note that Stalin's position was one of complexity and contradiction. He was simultaneously in a position of strength (the Western Allies wanting his support in a showdown with Hitler, while the German dictator was also trying to gain access to Soviet resources), but also in a state of weakness; he commands a nation that is still industrializing and modernizing, has few actual allies, his Red Army is far from being the potent force it will one day be recognized as, and is only two options are a fascist state who's leader has repeatedly expressed his opposition to communism and two Western nations who's previous escapades involved leaving Czechoslovakia to it's fate.

 

[bongsaway]

Well, one of them would be that there is no ideology of killing millions. All there is is a bunch of americans here who are still living in the cold war of the 1950's.

Oh no. I see folks at trump rallies wearing t-shirts that read they would rather be russian than a democrat. That proves the cold war is over. Doesn't it?

 

[Jredbaron96]

Had Stalin remained an enigma and dismissed all German overtures as insincere, and make no assurances on how they might react, who knows.

I would wager that by 1939 Hitler's situation would've been forced not just by ideological intentions but also economic reality.

Several Russian authors and writers I've studied have indicated the primary reason for Hitler's expansionist endeavors were economic in nature, driven by the Reich's need for resources and wealth. I don't entirely buy this, since too often this reasoning as served as a segue into blaming capitalism for the outbreak of war in Europe. But I do believe it is worth considering.

By 1939 Nazi financial policy and economic efforts had more or less reached the culmination point in their validity. As mentioned before in this thread Germany's focus on re-armament had collapsed her normal export market of manufactured goods, leading to a depleted currency exchange that by now was robbing the Reich of it's ability to pay for imports of needed raw materials. We can see this in the form of the decline of German armament production starting in 1939 as reserves of raw materials began to dry up, which in turn explains Hitler began pursuing trade ties with the Soviet Union in earnest in the early half of 1939.

Although he had previously stated that economic considerations were second to his military goals Hitler must have at least understood the basic idea that Germany's economy was not on the right path by 1939, otherwise his efforts to secure access to Soviet raw materials make even less sense. Stalin's subsequent efforts to shackle German ambition by tying the Reich to Soviet supplies of resources therefore would make strategic sense, even if in the end it didn't save the Soviet Union.

But if economic concerns were a major priority in mid-1939 (which I would argue were given the urgency of Hitler's desires to achieve an agreement with Stalin) then it suggests that the invasion is almost an inevitability. Hitler's privately stated desire for invading Poland was in fact living space, which isn't just territory on a map; it's arable, farmable land that can be used for production. As we saw in Austria and Czechoslovakia financial matters were a priority, given how quickly the Nazis seized Austrian reserves and Czech gold, and if the situation is even worse in 1939 then it suggests that Hitler's desire to invade Poland isn't just a desire, it's increasingly an economic necessity.

Mind you this is speculation based on limited evidence, I after all do not know exactly what Hitler was thinking when this all went down, but I do believe this indicates that invading Poland at this point becomes increasingly needed in the event of a failure to meet an economic agreement with the Soviets.

Mind you, I stand by the point (that I believe you agree with) that had overt measures been taken by Stalin to indicate the USSR would not accept German occupation of Poland, then it's quite possible Hitler is stopped in his tracks in Fall of 1939.

Lessons learned.

At great cost, unfortunately.

 

[soylentgreen]

Oh no. I see folks at trump rallies wearing t-shirts that read they would rather be russian than a democrat. That proves the cold war is over. Doesn't it?

You only have to look through threads like this on the subject of socialism to see how deeply some americans are still under the influence of cold war propaganda. It really is a good example of how education in america is about teaching americans what to think rather than how to think.

 

[phattonez]

Look with your special eyes.



And he doesn't state the whole female work force was employed. But half a million women were taken out of the labor force by means of the marriage allowance paid by the Government to entice them away.

You mean women got to stay home and raise their children? And you want me to see this as a bad thing? LOL!

Not forever. Because there comes a point when your currency will mean nothing, especially after people realize the gold reserves have been sold off and the government has been deficit spending to the tune of tens of billions of Marks, putting Germany hopelessly in debt and unable to actually pay for the imports she needs.

And was there significant devaluation of the Reichsmark? Or was it offset by increased production leading to a relatively stable currency?

 

[Jredbaron96]

You mean women got to stay home and raise their children? And you want me to see this as a bad thing? LOL!

I saw that deflection coming a mile away.

And was there significant devaluation of the Reichsmark? Or was it offset by increased production leading to a relatively stable currency?

A currency so stable that by 1939 the Reich's economic ministers were begging for a change in policy.

At this point you're not even debating, you're just flat out denying the mountain of evidence presented to you showing why Nazi economic policies were not good in the long run and you've just elected to ignore it.

 

[phattonez]

I saw that deflection coming a mile away.

If more women can afford to stay home and raise their children, I'd call that economic progress.

A currency so stable that by 1939 the Reich's economic ministers were begging for a change in policy.

At this point you're not even debating, you're just flat out denying the mountain of evidence presented to you showing why Nazi economic policies were not good in the long run and you've just elected to ignore it.

They absolutely were worried about inflation, but we're arguing from the unknown here. It didn't happen, and we'll never know if it would have. The proposals were to increase consumer goods production and it may have contained it.

It's easy to argue against a plan when you get to dictate what the consequences would have been.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Oh no. I see folks at trump rallies wearing t-shirts that read they would rather be russian than a democrat. That proves the cold war is over. Doesn't it?

Yea, that was 2 people. So you are claiming that 2 individuals are typical of everybody?

And yes, the Cold War is over. It ended in 1992. What we are entering now is Cold War II.

 

[Jredbaron96]

If more women can afford to stay home and raise their children, I'd call that economic progress.

Nazi payment to married women to stay home was to cut down on the unemployment figures, which was the whole point of this tangent. 500,000 women out of the labor force and therefore not officially "unemployed".

They absolutely were worried about inflation, but we're arguing from the unknown here. It didn't happen, and we'll never know if it would have. The proposals were to increase consumer goods production and it may have contained it.

It's easy to argue against a plan when you get to dictate what the consequences would have been.

Regardless of how much you try to spin it as "We'll never really know" anyone who has the basic understanding of economics would tell you otherwise, and your adamant refusal to accept it is nothing more than denial.

What you seem to have forgotten (or just chose to ignore) was the consensus in 1938-1939 by the Reich's economy ministry was the impending trouble Germany was about to find itself in. You solely focused on wages and unemployment, so then answer me this: what happens when the textiles and armaments industry, the largest employers in Germany, have to lay off their workers because the imports they need to sustain production can no longer be acquired?

 

[Oozlefinch]

You actually can if you are the issuer of a currency.

Yea, tell that to Venezuela. Their trade in the International currency markets was suspended when it hit over 500,000 Bolivar to US$1. Quite literally, it is cheaper to wipe your bottom in Venezuela with bank notes, because it is cheaper than spending those notes to buy toilet paper. Quite literally nobody knows what the Bolivar is worth anymore, it is essentially worthless.

https://www.boredpanda.com/things-c...oogle&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=organic

When you control the currency, you can only play games like that for so long, then all control is lost. Without some form of hard assets to back the currency (or having a currency fixed to a single or group of commodities) a government literally has no control of the value of their currency.

The problem is that Venezuela essentially tied their entire economy on a single commodity, oil. And when the price of oil fell, their economy crashed.

 

[bongsaway]

Yea, that was 2 people. So you are claiming that 2 individuals are typical of everybody?

And yes, the Cold War is over. It ended in 1992. What we are entering now is Cold War II.

With whom? Russia? Didn't you know our president sees opportunities everywhere being friends with russia. North Korea, rocket man? He's been tamed because our president went there and talked with him, they got a bromance going, nuclear problem solved. I hear he's going to visit his old friend again? Maybe 'the worm' can go too? And china, those currency manipulators, I'll impose tariffs on them that our american companies will have to pay. If you are referring to russia interfering in our elections as a cold war...fake news.

 

[Oozlefinch]

With whom? Russia? Didn't you know our president sees opportunities everywhere being friends with russia. North Korea, rocket man? He's been tamed because our president went there and talked with him, they got a bromance going, nuclear problem solved. I hear he's going to visit his old friend again? Maybe 'the worm' can go too? And china, those currency manipulators, I'll impose tariffs on them that our american companies will have to pay. If you are referring to russia interfering in our elections as a cold war...fake news.

Maybe you should put down the bong, and try to use some actual logic and consistency in your attempts to communicate.

Yes, the President wants to be "Friends with Russia". As opposed to what, getting into a war with them? Is that a better solution?

And yea, funny how one moment he is their puppet according to accusations, then he wants to start WWIII with them in the next moment by attacking Syrian bases that have Russian troops on it.

And you fail to even comprehend what happened in 2016. They did not manipulate the election, what they wanted to do was to cause doubt and uncertainty in the election. They really did not care who won, they simply wanted people to question if it was accurate-fair-honest.

And in case you did not notice, the talks with North Korea broke down months ago. In essence nothing was accomplished, things are pretty much as they were when President Obama was in office. It is basically impossible to negotiate with them, because they will not negotiate in good faith. That is something South Korea learned decades ago, and why the two nations are still technically in a state of war.

 

[phattonez]

Yea, tell that to Venezuela. Their trade in the International currency markets was suspended when it hit over 500,000 Bolivar to US$1. Quite literally, it is cheaper to wipe your bottom in Venezuela with bank notes, because it is cheaper than spending those notes to buy toilet paper. Quite literally nobody knows what the Bolivar is worth anymore, it is essentially worthless.

https://www.boredpanda.com/things-c...oogle&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=organic

When you control the currency, you can only play games like that for so long, then all control is lost. Without some form of hard assets to back the currency (or having a currency fixed to a single or group of commodities) a government literally has no control of the value of their currency.

The problem is that Venezuela essentially tied their entire economy on a single commodity, oil. And when the price of oil fell, their economy crashed.

Then the problem isn't the currency. It's their economy being based exclusively on oil.

Sent from my HTC6545LVW using Tapatalk

 

[phattonez]

Nazi payment to married women to stay home was to cut down on the unemployment figures, which was the whole point of this tangent. 500,000 women out of the labor force and therefore not officially "unemployed".

And when women were forced to work in the US out of economic necessity, is that progress?

Regardless of how much you try to spin it as "We'll never really know" anyone who has the basic understanding of economics would tell you otherwise, and your adamant refusal to accept it is nothing more than denial.

What you seem to have forgotten (or just chose to ignore) was the consensus in 1938-1939 by the Reich's economy ministry was the impending trouble Germany was about to find itself in. You solely focused on wages and unemployment, so then answer me this: what happens when the textiles and armaments industry, the largest employers in Germany, have to lay off their workers because the imports they need to sustain production can no longer be acquired?

They move to other consumer goods industries.

Sent from my phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Then the problem isn't the currency. It's their economy being based exclusively on oil.

Then why do other countries that have an economy based almost exclusively on oil not have this problem?

Venezuela has an economy that is only 4% more based in oil than Kuwait. But the Dinar has remained remarkably stable. As is the currency of Saudi Arabia. Even Libya and Iraq currencies are more stable. And both have been involved in civil wars and other conflicts for most of the last 10 years.

When Iraq, which has the most petroleum based economy in the world and is engaged in an active insurgency has a more stable and valuable currency than a nation that relies less on oil and has not had an active internal struggle going on, then there is something else at play there.

https://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=IQD&to=USD&view=10Y

https://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=LYD&to=USD&view=10Y

https://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=VEF&to=USD&view=10Y

So sorry, that claim does not make sense when you look at the currency and economies of other nations in the world.

 

[Oozlefinch]

And when women were forced to work in the US out of economic necessity, is that progress?

Forced to work, or choose to work to maintain a higher standard of living?

It is actually very easy to get by in this country on a single income. What you end up giving up mostly is the high standard of living that many in this country have become accustomed to.

Go back even 30 years, and you will find that the household budget was vastly different. Housing, electricity, water, insurance, telephone, and vehicle was all we really had to worry about. Depending on where you lived you might have cable TV, but most of us still got our signals for free so that was strictly optional. A typical house would have 1 main TV, and maybe a second one (normally a small B&W). And most of us had cars for 20 years. For the first 10 years of my marriage in that time period we primarily only got by on my income.

Fast forward to today. That is just not enough. We need cable TV, high speed internet, every individual having their own smart phone, quite literally enough computers to have 2 or more in every room, be it a desktop, tablet, game console, or phone. We were married for almost 2 years before we replaced our single B&W TV with a nice color one. Today, we literally have 3 TVs in the house (the smallest a 32" LCD). Computers, we had 1 until mid-1990's. It was upgraded and replaced over the years, but still only one that the entire family shared.

Today, 3 desktops, 2 laptops, 3 tablets, 3 smart phones, and 2 game consoles. Then add in Netflix, Amazon Prime, and the rest.

No, it is not the "economic necessity" that causes both partners in a household to work today. It is their desire to "have stuff" that does that. I often laugh when people go out and buy new cars every 3-4 years because they want something newer. Meanwhile I keep driving my now 20 year old truck and will probably do so until it dies.

And my dad has even less income than I do, and does better. He uses an antenna for his 1 TV, has 1 laptop, and gets his internet as part of his apartment (they included a shared DSL in the late 1990s), and has never owned nor does he want a cell phone. His only utility other than electricity is for his landline telephone.

It is amazing how much of your income you can save if you simply stop spending money on things you do not actually need to survive.

 

[Jredbaron96]

And when women were forced to work in the US out of economic necessity, is that progress?

Your deflections are getting tiresome.

They move to other consumer goods industries.

Which industries?

We'll ignore the fact that you can't just transplant entire labor groups from one industry to another without some kind of retraining or reeducation, but tell me, which industries?

 

[Rich2018]

The US had nearly a decade to get unemployment before 14%. It never did. My patience has limits. 1, 2, even 3 years? Sure. Nearly a decade? Sorry, your economic program just failed...

The point remains that US manufacturing was rising and unemployment was falling.

The USA and the UK were coming OUT of depression before WWII started.

Had WWII never happened, the boom time of the 1950's would still have happened - probably even quicker since the huge wastes of fighting the world's biggest ever war would have been avoided.

Sorry, your claim that WWII was in any way economically beneficial are simply ridiculous.

...did you really cite an action from 1989 to prove the intentions of the government of the 1940s? Do you think I'm a fool?

Yes I do

Did you really cite actions in 1945 to prove the intentions of a government a decade earlier ?

The Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe in the post war period was a reaction to the devastation caused by the Nazi invasion.

The USSR didn't want to be invaded by the West again.


That was it

That was their motivation. Supporting the Eastern Bloc countries was a significant economic burden on the USSR.


Their only reason to politically control countries like Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, East Germany was to provide a protective "buffer" zone in defense of future NATO aggression.

Nothing more.

 

[phattonez]

Then why do other countries that have an economy based almost exclusively on oil not have this problem?

Venezuela has an economy that is only 4% more based in oil than Kuwait. But the Dinar has remained remarkably stable. As is the currency of Saudi Arabia. Even Libya and Iraq currencies are more stable. And both have been involved in civil wars and other conflicts for most of the last 10 years.

When Iraq, which has the most petroleum based economy in the world and is engaged in an active insurgency has a more stable and valuable currency than a nation that relies less on oil and has not had an active internal struggle going on, then there is something else at play there.

https://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=IQD&to=USD&view=10Y

https://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=LYD&to=USD&view=10Y

https://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=VEF&to=USD&view=10Y

So sorry, that claim does not make sense when you look at the currency and economies of other nations in the world.

Venezuela also has a better quality of life than these countries. It's expensive to do this, and financing it exclusively on oil is stupid. They ought to develop other industries if they want to advance more.

Sent from my phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.

 

[phattonez]

Your deflections are getting tiresome.

It's no deflection. When you say taken off labor records, you imply that unemployment is ignored. Women taking care of their families is work.

Which industries?

We'll ignore the fact that you can't just transplant entire labor groups from one industry to another without some kind of retraining or reeducation, but tell me, which industries?

There's services, agriculture, manufacturing, etc. Why should I assume it couldn't be done? Did the US economy fail after WWII when we switched back to producing more consumer goods?

Sent from my phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.

 

[phattonez]

The point remains that US manufacturing was rising and unemployment was falling.

The USA and the UK were coming OUT of depression before WWII started.

Had WWII never happened, the boom time of the 1950's would still have happened - probably even quicker since the huge wastes of fighting the world's biggest ever war would have been avoided.

Sorry, your claim that WWII was in any way economically beneficial are simply ridiculous.




Yes I do

Did you really cite actions in 1945 to prove the intentions of a government a decade earlier ?

The Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe in the post war period was a reaction to the devastation caused by the Nazi invasion.

The USSR didn't want to be invaded by the West again.


That was it

That was their motivation. Supporting the Eastern Bloc countries was a significant economic burden on the USSR.


Their only reason to politically control countries like Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, East Germany was to provide a protective "buffer" zone in defense of future NATO aggression.

Nothing more.

I have no time for your comic book view of history. They wanted to dominate. If it were benevolent then there's no reason to force Communism on them.

I suggest you quit getting your history lessons from comic books.

Sent from my phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.

 

[Jredbaron96]

When you say taken off labor records, you imply that unemployment is ignored.

It was you who made the repeated claim the Nazis dropped unemployment to virtually 0% and then refused to accept millions were taken off by playing with the numbers. Don't be upset with me that you made a false claim.

There's services

What services?

agriculture,

The sector of the economy where the Nazis drove off 500,000 farmers and farm hands? Why do I feel like that would be a bad idea.

manufacturing

What manufacturing? Germany can't import the raw materials needed for other consumer products any more.

Why should I assume it couldn't be done?

The idea that you can take away two of Germany's largest employers (textiles and armament industries, who rely almost entirely on imports) at this point without any the economy completely collapsing is laughable.

 

[Rich2018]

I have no time for your comic book view of history....

I have no time for your Nazi apologetics which wouldn't even make the pages of the most disreputable comic books

...they wanted to dominate. If it were benevolent then there's no reason to force Communism on them....

It wasn't benevolent

Communism was forced upon the peoples of Eastern Europe in order to create a defensive buffer for the USSR from a NATO invasion



I suggest you get some history - period.

 

[phattonez]

It was you who made the repeated claim the Nazis dropped unemployment to virtually 0% and then refused to accept millions were taken off by playing with the numbers. Don't be upset with me that you made a false claim.

This isn't playing with the numbers. Significant numbers of women were working and many others went back home. We're not talking about involuntary unemployment here.

What services?



The sector of the economy where the Nazis drove off 500,000 farmers and farm hands? Why do I feel like that would be a bad idea.



What manufacturing? Germany can't import the raw materials needed for other consumer products any more.



The idea that you can take away two of Germany's largest employers (textiles and armament industries, who rely almost entirely on imports) at this point without any the economy completely collapsing is laughable.

You're essentially saying that Germany never could have done what the US did after the war. Why?

Sent from my phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.

 

[phattonez]

It wasn't benevolent

Communism was forced upon the peoples of Eastern Europe in order to create a defensive buffer for the USSR from a NATO invasion



I suggest you get some history - period.

Why do they need Communism if they're just going to be buffer states? This isn't a serious argument.

Sent from my phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.