Youtube hearted comments of Nattygsbord (@nattygsbord).
-
71
-
64
-
46
-
43
-
30
-
The war led to state-led economies all over the world - which was a total shift away from the laissaz faire dogma that previously had ruled the world.
Countries had become more self-sufficient because the war had forced countries to make their own stuff instead of importing products from other countries. Europe had started to use tractors and invented artificial fertilizer, so there was no longer any need for importing food from South America.
Free trade had died already with World war 1 and the German uboats and the British naval blockade of German ports. And the fascist regimes of the inter-war years were more interested in self-sufficiency than free trade. And WWII did not help free trade either. It was not until the 1980s and 1990s that free trade would start to come back to the same levels as before 1914.
And countries like Argentina that had relied heavily on free trade and exporting food to Britain. That trade was very hard hit by WWII, and when Britain had become self-sufficient in food production as I earlier mentioned.
Soldiers, factory workers and farmers were paid by the government, but they got no opportunity to spend their money during the war because rationing prevented them from buying stuff, so when the war ended did Americans have lots of cash and people were eager to spend it after years of harsh war time restrictions that prevented people from buying what they wanted.
The huge war debts countries had piled up during the war was paid off by inflation. And higher prices did make it more profitable to sell products for corporations, and wages for workers could increase. And rich people saw their artificial wealth being wiped out. So economic equality improved greatly in society.
The higher household incomes allowed people to spend more money - which led to more sales for businesses, so they could start to hire more people, and unemployment then fell. And the low unemployment helped to create even more equality.
To win the war against the nazis it was necessary to get people willing to fight and risk their own lives. Men also needed to feel that they had some reason to care about fighting a rich mans war against the Commies during the cold war.
So welfare state programs were created all over the industrialized world. And free healthcare because a right for every citizen as the NHS was created in Britain, and similar institutions was created in both western and eastern Europe.
Societies were generally well organized with the heavy state control, and protectionism allowed countries to build up their own infant industries. Governments had Keynesian doctrines of full employment that helped to keep unemployment away and pressing up wages thereby. Governments began building roads (like the interstate highway system under the statist leftwing Communist president Eisenhower in the USA).
Oil was cheap which helped economic growth, and the new wartime inventions could also perhaps have helped a bit.
And high wages and low unemployment created a large consumer base. And mass consumption allowed mass production.
Many countries like Germany had built lots of factories during the war, so they were more industrialized after the war than before it despite all allied bomb raids... so Germany only needed to switch over production from war time material towards civil production instead.
While Soviet Russia on the other hand lost about half their GDP in the wartime destruction and therefore did not have an easy economic recovery. Russia won the war but lost the peace. While Germany, Italy and Japan did the opposite.
Russias economic structure had also changed during the war. The economy was much more militarized after the war, and factories in western Russia had been transported to huge industrial complexes in the Ural mountains. Russia started the war with many small factories, but at the end of the war did have huge factories in a few cities instead, where mining steel smelting and tanks building happened all in the same town.
And it was difficult for Russia to switch over production to civilian goods. Partly because of the lobbyists of their military industrial complex, but also because Russia had lost over 20 million people under the war and was determined that a similar thing would never happen again. Russia would never again stand unprepared of a German invasion.
18
-
14
-
10
-
9
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Nationalists exists in all countries. They exaggerate their own countrys importance and turn a blind eye to embaressing set backs.
Russian nationalists do this however to an extreme degree not seen in any other country in Europe - which is why I regard every russian "history book" as worthless sci-fiction. They ignore all genocide and opression. They do not call World war 2 for World war 2 in Russia. For russians did world war two not start in 1939 with Germany and Russia invading Poland, the Baltics and Finland.
But instead do Russians use the term "The Great Patriotic war" and say that world war two began in 1941, and they ignore everything that happened before that year and pretend that Russia somehow was the defender and victim in this war, and not the aggressor that criminally helped to start this war.
Nor have Russia apologized for the wars and occupation of Finland. No attempts have been done to deal with the crimes of the Soviet union like Germany did with their Nazi past.
And russian history ignores military failures. For them did nothing happen during the Great Northern War until the battle of Poltava in 1709 which they won. And they try to pretend that they did not lose 19 out 20 battles for the rest of that war despite having 4 times numerical superiority against a country with limited manpower reserves that was fighting a two front war against an enemy coalition with a population 40 times larger.
Russian nationalists refuse to talk about the war with Finland, and even less about all battles. But instead they narrow everything down to the peace settlement in their attempt to make the russian military look competent, while everyone in the world knows that they got themselves completely humiliated against Finland in 1939 and in 1944.
Russian nationalists produce fake statistics in an attempt to make their own combat losses against Nazi-Germany seem less humiliating for Russia. And they try to pretend that lend lease played no role at all for Russias victory. But fact is that Russia suffered the worst military defeats in history in humiliating military disasters like the battle of Kiev in 1941, where 600.000 troops were captured by the Germans in just a single battle. Any other army in history would have lost the war after suffering such hard losses.
But the russians have not performed impressivly in other wars either. They lost the Crimean war. They suffered a humiliating loss in the russo-japanese war. World war 1 was a catastrophic defeat for russia. Russia failed to conquer Poland in the 1920s. They lost the war in Afghanistan. They failed in Chechenya. The Georgian army did do well against the russian forces, but a small country with 3.8 million people with no western help stood no chance against Russia. So not so much of a victory to brag about for Russia.
Indeed defeating Finland when it was the poorest country in Europe, and now doing so badly against Ukraine today (the country with the lowest GDP per capita in Europe) is not that impressive either.
Its a country that has always brought stone age equipment to war. During the Great Northern War (1700-1721) was Russia and Sweden the two most oldest equipped armies in Europe, and the only ones still using pikemen and big heavy muskets with bayonets built for close combat with bayonets rather than lighter muskets for firing that was easier to carry. During the Crimean war in the mid 1800s, did Russia not have any industrial base so its troops were often equipped with muskets from the early and mid-1700s as they lacked modern muskets to fight against Britain and France.
During World war 1, did the Russian artillery quickly run out of ammunition after the first months of the war. And for the rest of the war could russian industry only produce a tiny number of shells each month. A German artillery piece on average fired more shells in 2-3 days than what a russian one did in a month. And so few rifles were made that many russian units often had to share 1 rifles for 2 men, and do attacks in the same style as in the movie "enemy at the gates".
And such meatwave attacks are still common in later wars, such as World war 2 and in the war in Ukraine.
Not only have russia lost most wars it have fought the last 200 years. It have usually been beaten further back in history, and its few victories were usually won when it fought in coalitions with other countries - like against Poland, Sweden and Napoleon. Russian nationalists loves to call russia for "the destroyer of great armies" but Charles XII still had a good chance of winning the Great Northern War even as late as 1718. The performance of the Russian army against Frederick the Great was rather one of humiliation in my opinion. The battle of Zorndorf have falsely been remembered as a russian victory, while in reality did Russia lose that battle.
Kunersdorf was a great defeat for Frederick, but what russian nationalists forgets to mention is that Frederick did crush the Russian army in that battle and forced it into a wild retreat and demoralized it for months to come. The Prussians did run behind the russian army and chasing it, and then did the Austrian army under Laudon see an opportunity for a counter-attack against the scattered and exhausted prussian troops and inflicted a painful defeat on Frederick. So did Russia win a great victory in this fight? Nope. They suffered a humiliating defeat, but could participate in the victory parade after the battle anyways.
Also Gross-Jägersdorf was really just non-victory for Russia in the seven years war. So they had nothing positive to show for their participation in this war.
2
-
1
-
1