Comments by "Gabor Rajnai" (@gaborrajnai6213) on "TIKhistory"
channel.
-
1. Well, I would stop at your first point. You say, that socialism is state control of economy. I don't know where you got this definition, but in that case every state controlled economy would be socialist. That means that from the Caesars of Rome to the absolutist kings, certainly controlled the state, and by having the right from giving and taking back nobility and lands, which were actually the backbone of production until the industrial age, and have the right to impose such taxes as they wanted to to anyone who they wanted to, give and refute exclusive trading rights to individuals or groups, hell even they could determine the official measurement units in commerce, so in one word they controlled the state and every aspect of economy, thatswhy by your definition they would be qualified as socialist. From August to Henri the VIII. Well, nope, they werent, because state controlled economy is a wider paradigm than socialism. But not even every socialism is state controlled. In the swedish socialist model the factories aren't supposed to be owned by the state but by the trade unions, which is different.
2.Public and state is not the same, that is politely saying a ridiculous argument. In that case any firm which shares are traded publicly on the stock market would be qualified as state owned firms. No those are publicly owned firms, because the company is owned by a group of shareholders in a completely capitalistic scenario. But then what makes it a good thing that a factory is owned by shareholders, and what makes it bad, that a company is owned by its workers? Is there any difference? And what does the state has to do with all of this? It is a sidepoint that if Hitler hated the stockmarket, which is run by shareholders, and, according to your own words a state in the state, then you just proved, tha according to your logic Hitler was indeed, a capitalist. Ok that would be a cheap shot, but shows how convoluted this logic really is, that a firm owned by shareholders isn't a privately owned firm. But I try to hang on, so if there is more than one owner of one posession then it is socialism, according to your argument. But in real life it is very rare, that one posession has one and only one owners. Of course if someone is living in a cave without any kind of company then the person can own his cave but as soon as this said person would have some male/female company, worse children, then the family would also gain ownership on the aforementioned cave.Maybe it is not on the cave ownership papers yet, however every single jurisdiction would rule that the cave is not the posession of alfa male or female, but the family, and if some of them wants their share, it has to be compensated. So by this definition there is only a theoretical possibility, that someone acutally doesn't live in socialism. Besides there comes the question of what gives the cave owner the right to own the cave. There can be two things, a shotgun in his shoulder, in that case he is either the owner, or a robber, so it is not entirely a sure thing. The only thing what can give the cave owner the absolutely legitimateownership of the cave is actually the society or the horrid/putrid state. Because in the case a cave robber wants your cave and maybe you don't want to fight it down, you need at least your neighbours to legitimize your ownership claim, but you and your neighbours would form a group, what is a state in a state, according to your argument.
3. You are actually somewhat right about Marx, and on the other hand not right about him too. Yep, Marx is outdated, his views mostly are intrinsically XIX. century ones, the good old times when the last remnants of those absolutist "socialist" kings were raging on and putting their subjects on whom they had divine rights to prisons, or some guys who thought because they born is some European countries they would count as more civilized than others, and in the name of private ownership, they simply took other people's lands, or just simply thought it is a good idea to use that pesky state and in the name of progress get other people's lands for their own projects in a discounted price. So in that world Marx came into the conclusion that an individual, no matter where he born, or how much he have, has no absolute right over that pesky state, but rather a collective has the right to govern that pesky state, which is actually democracy. Not the XIX. century version of it, where some wealthy guys could go and vote some friend of theirs beside their aristocrat buddies to rule, but that basically anyone has that right. By today's standards, there were not a single country or city or community in the world which would be considered democratic in the XIX. century. Yes of course you can tell, but we can't make judgement of XXI. century stadards on XIX. century countries, but there is a serious flaw with that argument. Either we can make that judgement, and we can call British parlamentarism, or the US constitution a bunch of rosy lies in the shadow of slavery and poverty, but then we told that those systems, aka the capitalist system was horrible inhumane, and outright worse than what even the totalitarian states were, because in a totalitarian state the police is not as enthusiastic to imprison you for his well earned monthly salary, than an individual slaver to imprison you for his daily profit. What Hitler or Stalin did is comparable to nothing that what those people did, who set out to rule 5 continents and claim every bit of land. Of course you are a historian, but this carnage is well underdocumented, because it is literally written by the victors. Thats just simple math, there are more potential slavers than policemen. Or we can tell that those weren't lies at all, because we have nowadays more or less democratic societies and it was found back then when these ideals were just rosy lies. But then on what ground would we criticize Marx more than lets say Thomas Jefferson, who wrote down that every man born free, and then went back to his little plantation to enjoy the literal blood sweat and tears of his slaves. We can't give Jefferson the great statesman and visionary card, and at the same time call a marxist someone who believes in rosy lies, because the one who believed that f.e. the USA is founded on these principles is believing a rosy lie too. Ok, the USA is nowadays more or less democratic, but there are a ton of social democratic parties governing, who are intrinsically Marxist, but doesn't operate a totalitarian state. So if we tell that the USA made it above its founder's mistakes and lived up to its ideals, then we have to say, that the socialists more or less learned from the fallacies of Marx and lived up to the ideals of socialism. So to cut it short yes Marx was a horrible human being with reactionary views, as well as Most ot the XIX. century people, and every single politician or political theorist were horrible human beings with reactionary views. You can't condemn one and console another. Well, you can do, but then you also have your rosy picture about your favorites in history, what is a subjective belief and not an objective assessment.
4. I know it is called Marxism, but it wasn't just written by Marx. So Marx was an antisemite yes thats totally right, but to tell, that marxists are all anitisemites, or socialists are all antisemites is just ridiculous, like saying that pope Francis I was antisemite, so then every single catholic is an antisemite. Besides that socialism and antisemitism are related in any way is kindof BS, worse than that it is actually nazi thinking. Because that would involve that assumption that the jews are greedy assholes, or jews are intrinsically capitalist money men and therefore they must be hated for it, while the capitalists are so nice guys, that they overlook their greediness, which is not even true, I look at you Henry Ford. Well most of the marxists I guess are not nazi and know that jews are humans, there are good guys, there are bad guys amongst them, some of them is rich some of them is poor. There is no such thing as money men jew, because thats exactly the nazi thinking. Yep Marx was antisemite, and he have to be condemned for it, but that doesn't mean that marxism is antisemite, because it is not just Marx.
5. Ok, I see the Oxford dictionary definition of a state, what is a territory or a nation as it is written down, but here actually you again contradict yourself, because earlier on you told, that a group of people is considered as a state. Well a group of people is certainly not a territory, it could be a nation, but come on, a group of shareholders is not a nation, because there is nothing in common them except that they happen to own something together. They don't have the same belief systems, the same origin story, nothing what makes a nation a nation. So a group of workers/shareholders is not a state according to Oxford dictionary.
6. Well, its nice that you don't fear the company owner.... Except when you fear that Youtube, the company owner would shadow ban your account, because there is a graphic violence scene in a described historical content, so you rather self-censor yourself just to monetize a little more and don't get into trouble with the private god. So don't lie to each other, you DO FEAR the company owner, just not all of company owners, and play by their book. Besides yes the grocery owner guy could have you as a slave back in the days of Marx, that was called slavery, and it was worse than if a bored police guy was going after you, because the grocery owner guy was actually financially motivated to go after you, while the police guy get his monthly check regardless of finding you or not.
5
-
13. Well, sorry to inform you, but Jeff didn't hard worked and spared hard for what he gained. He simply found the right investors, and convinced them to pay for him. I don't even know that Jeff can write a single line, or know from what his shop works. But thats the better case. The worse is Elon, who didn't work hard for what he gained. He actually gained money on the ground, that Compaq bought his website knowing full well, that even if its worth nothing, Californian taxpayers, you know the roofers and programmers, and postal people, who bring out the package instead of Jeff, will pay for Compaq, so they can just win on the business, and only taxpayers can lose on it (of course they lost it was worth shit). Now if you think, that it would work for you as well, then I can assure you, it wouldn't, because nto everyone can be Jeff or Elon. Ok maybe Im wrong because Jeff and Elon are billionaires so they pay horrendous taxes, you would think, so this money would be coming from one of them. Well noooo, because Jeff and Elon don't have any income on paper, they have billions of worth of shares, and their company is so generous that it gives them loan to their credit, but you don't pay taxes after your debt. So, while Elon Jeff and Donald are on paper the world most richest mans, they actually pay less taxes, than the capitalist hero guy in his corner shop, whose shop is killed by Jeff. You know it was actually Hitler who first realized, that he can break the glass of the corner groceries, and noone cares, but if he fucks with Elon, Jeff, the IG Farben, the Krupp steelworks, or the Hugo Boss, then he will be in trouble. Ok, but paying taxes is a sooooo commie thing, but when it comes to actually spend those taxes Jeff and Elon misteriously appears, taking state sponsored (aka, the roofers, programmers, and delivery guys, in whom Jeff's spirit is giving you your books) Californian carbon incentives, NASA money, and who the hell knows what else just like Werner did in the good pioneering days. Or Ferdinand, jeez, they both have the hoax car , just this time its not the VW bug, but the Tesla Roadster, what actually costs more then what it is sold for. Because you know capitalist guys are actually lazy, and they don't hate as much state sponsorship as you do (they didn't have any problems with it in the concentration camps either. Ok, Oscar did, but he was a loser). Ok but they know something what nobody else knows, how to build rockets, except that a dozen or so companies knows how to build rockets in the USA, because they have a space program for nearly 60 years, but they were all closed out, in the name of bigger competition, because they are not Elon, or Jeff. And when Elon won the commie money then what does Jeff? Do he build his own rocket out of the wealth of a banana republic? Nope, he sues NASA, because they didn't let him close to the commie honeypot. And I still don't hate Elon or Jeff, because they just do what is rational and rob the people blind, and just use and idiotic system to their own benefit, but don't try to manufacture an ideology behind it (ok Elon does, but atleast not the capitalist hero tale).
14. Well, if you were so point on with that little Hayek quote, I will be so point on with some George Carlin quote. Why are we talking about McDonald's employees airline pilots and other losers, when we could talk about the most valuable commodity thatswhy the most rated by the community: America’s most profitable business – the manufacture, packaging, distribution, and marketing of bullshit. And thats so spot on, that there is basically no economic reality behind the most valued companies, their value is completely based on the fact that who is the better scammer. And we can all guess, that not Jeff's spirit will pay the price when the whole pile of shit implodes rather than the real postal guy. Ok, maybe it will be pushed down to the Ethiopian at the end, if the postal guy is lucky enough.
15. You know where I heard much about this subjective theory of value tale? In crypto forums, poor idiots tried to convince themselves, that their fantasy money actually worth something, when it was crystal clear, that it is a pyramid scheme, where the last guy who tries to sell his crypto will bear the burden of anyone's profit before them. They are quite desperate nowadays, since the market actually told them, that their crypto worth shit. Now we can argue, that how much a diamond worth, or how much a slice of bread worth, but with any kind of reasoning a share of a car manufacturer cant worth more than thousand times its annual revenue means literally that you have to wait a thousand years to even gain back your initial investment. Now we can argue that the paper in itself worth something, but in reality it worth exactly as much as a sheet of paper. You can gain on it I don't say you can't but in that case you will also play a pyramid scheme, where the last guy who owns the paper will loose. It is exactly like walking onto the Casino and put some number on roulette. Can you win with it? Sure you can, but if you stick long enough near the table, you will loose, thats a fact, because even if you put just red and black there isn't even a 50-50 chance, because of 0. Yes in a very theoretical level things don't have intrinsic value. In practical level all of us know, that what is the worth of an ounce of gold besides some random flucuations, and more or less foreseeable trends, something galactic has to happen to change that. And gold diamond and art stuff is a subjective commodity. If you buy a car yo can calculate how much you will use it, how much you have to service it, how much profit will it make for you per mile, calculate amortisation, and tell objectively, that is it worth or not. Some companies even do that for their car fleet. Nothing galactic has to happen to everybody realize that their bitcoin worth shit, and just move on. And the best way to actually assess a company's net worth is to look for their output and their revenue and compare it to their share prices, and then someone becomes from a greedy amateur to a conservative shareholder, who is actually interested in the company's success rather than to buy and sell papers randomly and try to get goddamnrich. But shall I ask, if the companies are conservatively evaluated based on their output, then why not a worker can be evaluated that way. Yes, if Tesla worth 1/2- of its value because they dont produce enough cars to be on its peak price, then why cant we say, that a Tesla worker, who actually manufactured that amount of cars worth that much of money. Ok, its capitalism they can have arguments about their salary, but on what right Elon can tell, that his workers cant talk to each other and organize a trade union, and talk about wages collectively. Does it change his position? Cant he just say no as easily to a single worker than a collective? What would motivate him to say no? Well in the borderline if his workers ask more then what he can ask for his car. Thats correct. Now he can also say no, if his workers asks more than when he asks for his car plus his profit, that is the case in your video, and I also would say that is correct. But the problem is that Elon doesn't want his workers to unionize, because he wants the price of his car, the profit margin he thought AND an extra which he could exploit by turning the workers against each other, and THAT money would count as exploitation. Besides OK, we have Elon, and Jeff, the great innovators and thinkers, who dreamed their companies, and they have the workers who have nothing to do with the cars made there, thats not even true because they are just marketing brands and in one case weren't even around when the company was founded. But shall I ask that what Elon junior, or Jeff junior put into the company more than a worker who actually work on the car? And what their children their great great grandchildren put more into the company more than a worker who actually builds the car?
16. Seriously after billions of government incentives, too big to fail bailout packages billions payed for employment which never asked back HE IS TAKING THE RISK? Again Elon just made 500 million to vanish in the upstate New York Solar City factory, which employed noone, and noone asked a question, but even the Delorean guy walked away after Maggie Thacher spend billions on him. And she called herself a free market supremacist, then how does a real commi work. And that virtually happens daily in every single country around the globe, because the free market economy and the whole responsible capitalist myth is just that, a myth. You can guess who is taking the risks. Again I could refer to Hitler and the VW bug, when it turned out, that it is unprofitable to manufacture was Ferdinand went bankrupt and roamed Berlin streets in despair? Nope he got his new government money for the Tiger tank, which wasn't even the best plan offered, because it was overcomplicated, but he was the favourite of Dolphie, so he won. Because its not the average grocery store guy capitalist hero is the one, who gets the government money, or bailout but the sharks with good connections. Thats the way it works. And if capitalism would work for a minute as you describe it this would never happen, but thats such an utopia as communism, which has nothing to do with human nature. Of course the government guy will admit that he spent half a billion on a laughing scammer, or the scammer will ask for his posessions to be seized, and he moves to work down the taxpayers money he owes.
3
-
3
-
2
-
Churchill at the time was an utterly failed politician and a populist. He made the Gallipoli catastrophe when he was the first lord of admiralty, it took the british 10 years to forget that and when he climbed back he was appointed as financial minister... in 1929 and in one month time the world economy collapsed, and he was the man in Britain to blame. Noone even him would ever imagine, that he will ever have a political future after those blunders, and his last chance was to become a warmonger and push for a war, and he took it. Not that taking part in WWII was a bad idea, but even if it would Churchill would go for that, because that was the key of his political survival. He was so unpopular, that he was ousted at the first time, when an election happened, so in practice he wasn't an elected leader during the war.
2
-
2
-
@dondajulah4168 Sure, but atleast the locals profit some from it, and it is not robbed entirely from them in the name of some colonial/racial superiority. The hard truth is, that during the 30's Hitler's Germany wasn't that much different from the USA or Britain from a racial perspective. British thought they are superior than their colonial subjects, actually they even used kindof a slave labour in South Africa, which later developed into the Apartheid, in USA racial discrimination was very common and protected by law. Sure there were some colonies, actually very few, where the locals were content, but in most places there were famines, especially in India and Egypt. The situation was so dire, that the Japanese had a ton of Indians and Bhurmanese fighting on their side against the British. Sure it is mostly missing from today's history books, and actually people don't understand why Britain was left alone in 1940-41 and noone really wanted an alliance with her. The USA had conflicting interests, because it wanted to trade on the British colonies, they even considered the British as a potential enemy and had a serious war plan against her during the 30-s. The colonial system was on the brink of collapse, only Gandhi could stop massive uprisings in India, because he felt they would stab the brits in the back if they would fight for their independence when she is in mortal danger. In Egypt there was a high chance if Rommel could break through in El Alamein, then local police forces and paramilitary units would side with him.
2
-
Lol looking to the map all the rich and successful parts of Spain were the socialist, while all the dirt poor backwater desertland are the fascists. Pretty common theme all along history... Fascist anarchists, yeah sure, thats the biggest BS I ever heared. Do you even know what fascism and anarchism is? Anarchists dont march around in densely packed military packs, dreaming of an empire thats what they despise the most. Also fascists and nazies never supported any trade unions, since trade unions are self organized grassroot communities, while fascism only supports state funded upside down organizations, therefore trade unions would potentially challenge their dominance. Mussolini said that he is an anarchosyndicalist, so what, anyone can say anything, Elon Musk said that he is a socialist, while he is clearly not, just look at his stance of his worker's rights .I dont mind TIK if you mix your ideology into your videos, which is very raw, but you have a right to hold as much self judged bias and misinformation in your head as anyone else, but in order to not say total BS you should sometimes read those political theories, in this case Bakunin and thats pretty much just a startingpoint, because even if you actually read Marx commenting on 20 century leftist movemenets based solely on Marxist theory would be the same as claiming you read Edmund Burke thatswhy you know everything about modern day conservatism. I guess you dont make your Stalingrad videos based on halfased wikipedia entries, but credible sources, because you know full well, thatswhy they are demanding, yet you are commenting on political philosophy without pretty much any knowledge or afterthought. Or, if you find it overwhelming, which is perfectly OK, then stick to the facts, and leave your worldview outside.
2
-
2
-
2
-
7. A mob which takes over a factory by the definition of the Oxford dictionary cannot be a state because an angry mob is not a different nationality, nor a different territory. Ok, I know it is ridiculous, but you told, that we should use this communication, so then why do you contradict?
8. You are somewhat right that democracy is the tyranny of the majority, but it is the tyranny of the majority in capitalism as well. Lets take Singapore, a totally capitalist country, where you will be jailed if you contradict the ruling power. Thats because capitalism has nothing to do with liberal democracy, the first is an economic definition the second is a political one. But I tell you what liberal democracy is the tyranny of majority as well. If the majority thinks that what you are doing is horrendous, trust me you will find yourself in jail, in the USA, Britain, or anywhere. Just ask some Japanese Americans what they needed to do to be pushed into detention camps.
9. No capitalism is not the individal freedom of anyone. Capitalism is what it is, the rule of capital. If they can buy you, and there are still cases when they can buy you, then your individual freedom is jeopardized. Is it capitalism? Sure it is, since you were bought and capital was used in the transaction. Economics and liberal democracy is not the same. One is an economic definition, other is a political definition.
10. Yes Hayek could be right, but he is the same kind of idiot, because he trully believes (or he is well payed for to propagate) the idea, that the so called "invisible hand" of the market will regulate everything, you just have to lie back, and enjoy life. Now, if someone not a lazyass dick and thinks for the moment, its exactly the same kind of argument as if you pull a pile of bricks in front of your house, and an invisible hand will magically build it up. Sure it wont happen, because the real world doesn't work that way. Even worse it works completely the opposite. Because while you Hayek lays back and waits for the magic to happen, those pesky little capitalist, who are actually not idiots are working actively against anything which would make their profits lower. There is an independent petrolstation? They buy out, and make it their own, if the owner doesn't give it then they make him broke. They use the law gaps, because they have the capital to call lawyers, and profit from them, and going for monopolies, because on the contrary of what Hayek thinks, real capitalists are the greatest enemies of any kind of competition, because that is unpredictable, and they like to know how much will they earn at the end of the month. Its not because they are evil, but because the system and human nature works that way. And if the service becomes a monopoly then what exactly the difference between a state owned monopoly and a privately owned monopoly. The difference is that as a citizen you have actually some influence to the state, but you have exactly zero influence to Nelson Rockefeller, so Rockefeller can decide the prices, and ask whatever he wants for the commodity, and by definition he will sell you on a higher than market price, because he can do it, and he has no competition. Sure the state has the right to crush monopolies, which would keep the market going, but thats a pesky commie thing to do according to Hayek and friends.If the USA wouldn't do it for Microsoft, you wouldn't have Youtube today to make your excellent historical videos.
11. Well yes, if you are actually lucky enough to own something, then you are somewhat set. Now just don't be that first worlder, and imagine, that most of humanity does own virtually nothing. And you know what, you can tell the tales to an Ethiopian that if he works tenth as much he will own a castle for his hard work, but thats a baltant lie. Your work as a british weights more in, not because you are working harder than an Ethipoina, but because you are a British. And even if the Ethipoian digs out 1 ton of salt instead of 10 kg each day, he won't earn enough money to buy a castle in 100 years. So he should make something which worth more. Even if he could someone has to mine the salt, otherwise we won't have salt anymore, so thats not a solution overall. Yes he could ask more, but if he asks more that cause inflation and he will gain the exact amount of net worth. Then what does capitalism give for you? Besides, you make an assumption that capitalists are making profits based on that they produce something. The problem is, that most of the profits nowadays doesn't made by producing something. The profits are made, because you own something. Now whats the difference. Lets say that you have a third worlder, who actually produce something. You give him your flat for money into rent, because you own it. Did you have to invent something to give your property to someone else? Did you need to put any labour to it? No you didn't you just used your capital and basically made money with money. That doesn't push for invention, or productivity gain. Now, from the profit what will you do? You will buy another flat, and another flat, and without any actual production you are making more and more capital, and thats EXACTLY whats happening nowadays, just big capitalists doesn't buy flats, they buy licences for example to your pharmacies and live off the gains, while in a pure economic sense they could sell it cheaper, but the logic of the system makes it more pricy. Thats not an extreme example thats the way the system works. If you ever played Capitaly or Monopoly or any games which actually the system gained its name, then you know, you don't make money by building things, you make money by owning things, and wait for the idiot to step into your field on the board and pay you.Thats the exact equvalent of the medieval landlords, who exploited their peons, based on the lands they rented to them. They werent at all useful, but they had the capital, at the time the lands. And because the least time consuming is to make money with money capitalism without that pesky state favours those, who have more money, and as while as they have more money, they don't have to do any other thing than to gain more money with their money, and who has more money have the more and more ability to gain more money which leads to wealth accumulation, and in the end the corner grocery store everyman hero of every capitalist will be forced out, because he simply don't have the same capital accumulation potential, and his bigger and bigger competitor will gain ground.
12. To continue Jeff doesn't OWN a product, he gives a RENT to the guy, who actually OWNS the product. It would be the same statement, that Youtube OWNS your videos. No, YOU own your own video , youtube just gives you a RENT where you can put your video thats the difference. So you work on it and Youtube cash in on it, and puts you on shadow ban or anything else, or demonetize it and still collects the money. Sure head on they had some initial investment but they pull out more, and you have no choice but to use their rent, otherwise you won't have your patreons. Do you have any chance to go to a different host? Practically no, because they don't have competition. Does it push competition/innovation/meritorcracy? Not really, it makes the internet centralized. In the case of your videos, maybe thats a little difference, but if Jeff would have real competition, then you would get your books cheaper, well according to the economists anyway. Besides, by Jeff giving a rent he actually makes the usual capitalist hero, the guy wiht a little shop in the corner, actually useless, so thatswhy it is a pathetic statement, that capitalism supports the small enterpises. No capitalism supports the big enterpises as well as Hitler did. Does that make Jeff an evil person? Nope. Did he made anything fundamental, what didn't existed before him? No, the net was full with online stores. Can you with hard work and comitment be Jeff. No you cant be even if you are the goddamn best programmer in the world working 24/7, and you have the most awesome site with the best prices. Simply because you are british Jeff is American, and in the online busines you can be big if you are Chinese or American. End of story. Ethiopians can mine salt, but can't make awesome historical videos. British can make awesome historical videos but can't make mamooth internet stores, or video sharing sites.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Well, maybe he wasnt entirely mad, but he was pretty much an idiot. Going into war against Britain and the US was an absolute blunder strategy. Even if he would have actually won against the USSR, he would still not having the naval power to win against those. The German navy was virtually nonexistent in 1939, and never ever really had the capacity to wage war on naval powers. The fact remains, that even if he could stretch the wehrmacht as far as the British Empire, a naval force and marines could pretty much deploy at any part of his territory. The bigger it is the less defendable it becomes. Besides the facts, that he could kiss the ases of the french so they didnt marched up to Berlin when virtually all of his combat troops were in Poland, and didnt end WWII in a mere month. It was a lost cause from the getgo. Yeah maybe if he could get his hands on the French fleet, if the British throw in the towel, if the Americans dont join, or if they dont care about Poland or the USSR anymore then Germany could get away with it, but those are too many ifs for a really rational thinking.A really sane and calculating person does not roll the dice on his country as many times as Hitler did. Besides the fact that he used up necessary material and troops for complete vanity projects like the Holocaust, especially when he really needed those the worst, and he literally wanted to destroy his country when he deemed them inferior.
1
-
1
-
Well actually there are minor points against this. First, the USA did try to invade Canada, that time part of the british empire of course not because of Alaska, but they were pushed back. Second the Soviets did actually left Austria and Yugoslavia after the war, and didn't intervene in Greece, when the British made an intervention there. More importantly they could seize Finland after the war, but they decided not to. Minor point about security annexation of countries, the first thing the British did, when Germany occupied Denmark was to seize Iceland for strategic reasons. Third, the western powers actually had the opportunity for an invasion of Germany when the wehrmacht was preoccupied in Poland but did almost nothing, which gives a high chance, that they wanted to struck a deal with them. Third, the Soviets were quite right that they were suspicious about western and polish intentions, as these powers all sent interventionary troops against them during the Russian civil war, and actively tried to force the poles and romanians to attack the Soviet Union, and Stalin of course knew about this. Even Churcill's favourite saying was during that time was kill the bolschie kiss the hun. Of course we have the benefit of hindsight to know, that he genuinely wanted an alliance with the USSR, but during those times it was a turncoat gesture, and Stalin shouldn't be blamed of not taking it seriously, because with a same turncoat gesture he could ally himself with Hitler as well. Heck even Roosevelt didn't trusted the man for a moment. So, while Molotov Ribbentrop pact wasn't an idealistic rosy thing to do, it was quite justified during those times, especially after the Munich conference, as well as the Polish non agression pact.
1
-
1
-
Also I would ask how come that the undistorted price system is absolutely incapable to produce 1 million artillery shells for the Ukrainian front, no matter how much money the EU is throwing on the problem? Theories are excellent on paper, while miserably failing in reality, even more than military logistics. Of course we can argue that noone can actually quantify the worth of a shell, and sincerely the soldiers dont spend their hard earned cash on it, so the state in war has to guess it, with a 0% chance to get the optimal result, since either they will offer less or more to the capitalists than its real worth, if they offer less, then there wont be production, if they offer more, they will lose money. Althogh what you are talking about was indeed tried in the greatest moneysink of history called Afghanistan, where private contractors made parts of the logistics, and where 2.4 trillion dollars disappeared into thin air. Also I would argue that in many cases it would actually be more profitable for the NHS to simply let you die and pay compensations, than to have a prepared surgical team for some rare operating procedures. Yeah capitalists are somewhat excellent in long term financial planning, but where they cant calculate their return, the whole system fails, and since noone is prepping for a constant war situation it is impossible to calculate the return of investment of production capacities on war materials on an insanely large scale for uncertain timeperiods, thats always done by the government, even in the USA.Roosevelt's very first thing was to freeze the wages and the prices when they entered the war, and he quasi nationalized the producers.
1
-
1
-
Well, some say that the American Revolution actually broke out because the slaver states sniffed out that the british wanted to officially ban slavery on their colonies, and they didn't want to be out of business. Other poor lads were fed with false propaganda, that there will be no taxes after the revolution, when they realised that the bigheads actually lied to them, Washington had to lead a military force to wipe them out. Maybe that was the time when the mob stormed the White House and throw a party there, so Mr President was forced to give up all of his wine and rum stocks, so the mob became totally drunk, and they could be handled that way, after which they installed the fence and official guards. Sorry, that latter happened under Andrew Jackson, the first great populist of modern times.
1