You helped your ex develop a secret tank testing and development program and shared data with her and then decided between you to invade and carve up another country as well as coordinated which countries you individually could invade without stepping on each others toes??? Man, your relation with your ex is certainly…interesting. In the Chinese sense of the word!
I think you are seriously underplaying the pre-war relationship between Germany and Russia. It was a lot more than you are making it out to be. Sure, both sides were going to betray the other at some point (obviously Germany much quicker than Russia was…or than Stalin thought), but until that happened it was much more than sharing some loot and talking together about what’s new.
I mean she made it clear that I wasn’t allowed to so much as visit my previous ex’s instagram page (even if she herself prompted me to), if that’s what’s you’re askin’ :o.
What’s an alliance that both parties fully intend to betray soon as it’s convenient ?
My point is,** Scylla **was evidently trying to suggest some sort of ideological proximity between Hitler and Stalin that extended to their countries being buddy-buddies ; but that’s an insane reading of facts. They hated each other with a fiery passion, and were very strange bedfellows at best.
I mean half of Hitler’s entire raison d’êtrewas to obliterate Slavs and replace them with Germans for fuck’s sake. And he only got anywhere in politics because he hated Communists and had buddies who would go out to hit Communists in the head with bricks. Then when he got into power what German Communists were left were packed up and sent to the camps. To suggest any sort of ideological proximity between Nazism and Communism is, well, insane.
You and GIGO sure read a lot into my posting the name of their pact. “Hating each other with a fiery passion” and analogies to your ex-wife are historically irrelevant hyperbole.
They were early allies. They did work together. Was there going to be betrayal based on evolving circumstances? If those circumstances called for it. They were ideologically compatible. Both countries were Socialist. The Nazis were right wing Nationalist Socialists. The Russians leftists. What they shared in common was the Evil socialist belief that one’s group identity was more important than their individual identity.
Not so much. China and Russia hated each other and they were both communist. Hitler thought his brand of Socialism was the true kind and Russia’s perverted. You rarely hate someone more than when they don’t quite agree with you. There was a definite love/hate thing going on between Germany and Russia.
The motives for Hitler’s betrayal probably have a lot to do with WWI. He was one of those guys who believed the Schliefan Plan would have worked fine if it had been followed perfectly. In WWI the Russians were a “half-armed rabble” in Hitler’s own words (referring to the fact that they were sending two untrained soldiers into battle with one rifle between them.). They were poorly trained peasants with commanders who actively hated each other. Germany embarrassed and destroyed them easily, but in many opinions (including the Fuhrer’s) overestimating Russia and committing too much pulled troops from the Western Front at a critical time was the big mistake leading to Germany’s losing the war.
Hitler faces the same problem Germany faced in WWI. How do you win a bar fight against two people on either side of you?
In WWI the plan was to commit everything to knockout one right away, but the Russians came on much faster than expected, and Germany reacted too strongly.
Hitler’s strategy was to buy one a beer and make a friend while dealing with the other.
It was clearly an uneasy alliance as things could have gone several ways as all parties were aware.
Russia sips its beer while Germany takes out the western enemies. Germany is still strong, but not strong enough to attack Russia, but too strong to be attacked by Russia (my reading suggests that this is what Russia and Germany both thought most likely when they signed.)
Germany gets fucked up while fighting in the West. Russia finishes its beer and pounces on Germany.
Germany one punches the West and turns around and sucker punches Russia who is still sipping there beer waiting to see which way the wind will blow.
Scenario 3 is Germany’s perfect world and fulfills the Schliefen Plan (which Hitler admired) in spirit. But, to pull it off requires delicate timing. Once you win in the West Russia is on guard for hostilities, so you have to turn and smack Russia before the fight in the West is quite over.
Hitler thought that moment had been reached, because things went very well, indeed early on.
If Hitler has a tougher go of it, (but not too tough) the alliance would have likely persisted as it would have been in both country’s interest for it to do so.
Were they friends, no. Uneasy allies? Was betrayal likely? Yes. Did they share some ideological aspects with each other? (Absolutely.)
Nonsense. Realpolitik might be a thing, but historical allies staying buddies regardless of benefits is also a thing. To whit : Gulf War 2. The interwar German-Russian pact(s) was nothing *but *convenience, and trying to leverage it into suggesting they were anywhere close is fallacious, to be generous about it.
Ex-gf, if you please. I may be a retard and an asshole, but I’m not retarded enough nor assholish enough to marry anyone.
… not as such, no, they did not.
He really, but really did not.
Again, there really, but really wasn’t. Hitler was first and foremost a nationalist and racialist thinker (and I use that word loosely) ; he added the “socialist” thing to his party because many Völkisch voters and trench veterans happened to be working class ; and as such tended to react positively to socialist ideas.
I double doggy dare you to find anything even vaguely socialist the Nazi party enacted once it was in power. As for the “love” affair between the Nazis and Russia, Hitler didn’t even bother equipping his troops with winter gear, when invading Russia, starting in early fucking summer, because he was so convinced that if he’d just “kick the wall, and the whole edifice would come crashing down”. Does that sound like someone with any respect for the Communist system ?
I’ll say it again : he did not think it worthwhile to pack winter gear. For a fight with Russia. Let that bitch sink in.
Again, no, they did not share any fucking ideology. Fascism in general and Nazism in particular are ideologies fundamentally based on reaction against the Left. In the Nazi case specifically Mein Kampf plainly sets out the plan to a) invade Western Russia b) kill or otherwise dispose of every local on account of they’re racially inferior Slavs and c) settle good honest Germans there. This because it was Germany’s historical imperative or some such bullshit.
Can you point me where in, say, Marx & Engels’ manifesto this matches ?
There was not an “unspecified benchmark”, it was in a discussion of prices relative to the UK. UHC has around 80% of the members as the NHS and is nowhere near as successful at negotiating prices down. This suggests that things other than size are the most important part of their negotiating power.
Marketing is not what was mentioned as the difference in price between the UK and the US, it was specifically commercials. Commercials account for one eight of the total marketing budget, most of which is spent on free samples and doctor education/entertainment. Companies also spend millions marketing to doctors in the UK as well so that is also not the reason for the price difference.
The actual reason for the price difference is that if drugs cost too much money in the UK they are left off the approved treatments list and can not be used. Thus drug companies have the choice to sell drugs cheaply or not at all. This makes sense for the drug companies because of the difference between marginal cost which are low and average cost which is high. However, not everyone can pay marginal cost if there are to be any new drugs. If the US were to tell the drug companies that they could not sell their drugs in the US because the prices were too high, the patients who want to take those drugs would complain and congress would change that tout suite.
Yes, becuase by and large autocratic nations are poorly run. Venezuela is first being run by a autocrat near dictator, and secondly a kinda socialist state.
We know socialism and dictators is a sure fire recipe for disaster.
The cognitive dissonance is difficult to believe. Hitler was a socialist, the Nazis were socialists. “Socialist” appears in the full name of the Nazi party. Hitler declared himself to be a Socialist over and over.
People on the left and the right seem to both think that socialism belongs on the left end of the spectrum. Therefore those on the right are eager to place the blame for it on the left by categorizing it as leftist. Those on the left want to disown it by saying “he wa not a true socialist” or “The Nazis didn’t really mean it,” or “they were all about power and cynically used the appeal of socialism to get it.” Or any of a bunch of other similar arguments. I’ve read a lot of them on both sides.
I think a sensible definition of socialism is simply the belief that your group identity is more important than your personal identity.
Traditional western style capitalist democracy holds the enlightenment value that your individual identity is sovereign.
The Nazis were not big on individuals. It did not matter how great you were individually if you were a Jew. They were about the supremacy of their aryan race and the glory of Germany.
Naziism is what you get when the right wing goes all socialist. The Nazis were right wing socialists.
The communists in Russia were left wing Socialists. Both shared in common the belief that the group identity was more important than the individual one. The Russians shared some of the racial biases of the Nazis. The Russians disseminated the Protocols of the elders of Zion back in 1927 as part of their ongoing purged against Jews and ethnic minorities, and Hitler latched right into that as one of the cornerstones of his brand of socialism. The Nazis paid some lip service to the plight of the worker, and ran a basic textbook socialist revolution to gain power (divide the populace into groups. Paint your enemies as the oppressor/scapegoat. Destroy them for the good of “the people,” and take power.)
Like it or not the Nazis and the communists had much in common.
Repeating that conservative talking point does not make true.
I also read them and the arguments from the right are geared to ignore or deny that a National Socialist is a different beast than a socialist or a democratic socialist for that matter.
Communists in Russia, yeah, I can see it by their totalitarian outlook that also disliked groups like the social democrats or liberal groups.
But, the issue here is about the right wing canard from some sources that Nazis = Socialists = Social Democrats
Because the lesson here is that it would be a funny racket if it was not a serious matter, more than a few of the sources the right in the US is using now are extremist right wingers that love to misdirect others about items like ‘who the Nazis were’ so as to not attract too much attention on their way of trying to get more prominent among right wingers.
Is the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea a democracy? Does the Westboro Baptist Church represent mainstream Baptist theology?
The DPRK (that would be North Korea) is as democratic as Hitler was socialist, which is to say Not At All. “National socialism” was specifically in opposition to the ideals of international socialism (which, after all, was “Jewish”).
That is not a sensible definition of socialism at all.
Socialism is an economic theory (which isn’t surprising since it builds on the works of Marx who was an… economist) characterized by democratizing the ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange. It may or may not also involve the abolition of private property ; and it’s very strongly antiwar and anti-nationalism.
Quick, think of a socialist anthem !
Did you think of The Internationale ? If you didn’t, you’re probably lying. If you did, the song is explicitly about workers all over the world uniting regardless of nation-states’ borders or cultures. That is the antithesis of nationalism’s focus on one’s own nation-state, culture or ethnicity to the violent exclusion of everyone else’s (or, rather, fascism explicitly evolved as the antithesis of international socialism). Socialism has fuck all to say about “group identities”.
Words mean something. Stop equivocating like a motherfuck.
Capitalism has fuck all to say about individual identity either. Capitalism is about private property. That’s it.
No, they were not. There’s no such thing as a “right wing socialist”. Socialism cannot possibly be “right wing”, since the political right, while loosely defined, is first and foremost characterized by holding private property as sacro-sanct (also typically tradition and religion).
FFS, the Nazis explicitly gained power and got support from right-wing politicians (and the Junkers) for their violent opposition to communists, workers unions and so on. That’s who their enemies were. And they didn’t do it for the good of “the people”, they did it to follow “the Führer’s will”, which is, again, the antithesis to socialism which implicitly has a strong focus on egalitarianism and democracy.
Everything he’s proposed in relation to every other candidate is far better. He’s pushed the democratic party to adopt universal healthcare (they’re running on it, but in reality they just want a public option).
I’m aware of the false narratives about nuclear waste, although that doesn’t really matter to me. I don’t want to have what happen in Japan or Russia, happen here in America. For the same reasons I don’t want rare earth mineral mining in America. It destroys the environment, and with nuclear power specifically not many communities are going to want nuclear power or waste near them. What ends up happening is we’re forced to haul nuclear waste across America… on roadways, through cities, etc… So if we’re going to adopt nuclear power, then we must absolutely must, have our waste right by where the power plant it’s self is located, as less travel with waste as possible. Then we need to FORCE communities to hold the nuclear power and waste, then we need to create a narrative about turning America into pre-war Fallout universe. Sorry but that’s not happening, at least not right now. Maybe in a couple years or decades when our technology is better, and we’ve already started down the path to becoming 100% self sustainable.
I really, really disagree with you “not liking” him because he takes an anti-nuclear power stance at the moment.
That’s as may be, but what about the invisible and insidious waste from wind power turbines? That’s whipped air, thickened like beaten eggs, just spilled out all over everything! An breathable miasma of omelette air with diced birds!
