Comments by "David Himmelsbach" (@davidhimmelsbach557) on "Battle of Smolensk (16–18 August, 1812)" video.

@sulaak Militarily both sales were wise. Russia sold Alaska because the fur trade had collapsed. The Tsar's need for cash was intense due to war spending. Seward was considered a complete fool by many, many people. He made the case that America was paying large to rid itself of another European royal power. Congress bought that argument. Napoleon was getting his cash from Haiti -- and its rum. North America was a money pit for Nappy. With the RN in his way, Louisiana was lost any way you figured it. He really sold Congress a 'quit claim' to 'French' territory. Napoleon didn't need more farmland, anyway. France was a serious agricultural power in his day -- and still.
9
@athelstan927 Nazism and Bolshevism (and Maoism) largely moved entirely away from the national currency. Instead, Top-Down economic orders were issued by fiat from the Capital. In the case of Nazi Germany, Adolf's ministers dictated what you could manufacture, what you could import, what wages you could pay, who you could hire ( not Jews, obviously, but that was just the beginning ) .... it got to the point that Reichsmarks held little meaning. You needed centrally issued ration cards for anything essential to life. The same weird 'economy' existed under Stalin. Soviet citizens were awash in Rubles -- but had nothing to buy with them. Assets were off limits. You couldn't import goods with them. You couldn't much buy from the Soviet state -- as it simply refused to put citizen oriented goods on the market in the first place. Only the insider/elites were permitted to shop for the nice imports. During the war, when banks were blown open, no-one much bothered to pick up Reichsmarks as they showered down from above. There was nothing to buy with them... same as in the Soviet state. It was a twin-fight.
4