Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Just look at any weapons plan, and you will see that many German companies jumped to make bids and prototypes.
I'd rather look at your proof that Hitler was hands-off the German economy.
Or you can look up the finances of any German company, like Messerschmitt, and you will see high profits during the war.
Go ahead, post that shit up.
Reasonable request.
I do not have much time, but start with this:
{...
The German economy, like those of many other western nations, suffered the effects of the Great Depression with unemployment soaring around the Wall Street Crash of 1929.[1] When Adolf Hitler became Chancellor of Germany in 1933, he introduced policies aimed at improving the economy. The changes included privatization of state industries, autarky (national economic self-sufficiency), and tariffs on imports. Although weekly earnings increased by 19% in real terms[2] in the period between 1932 and 1938, average working hours had also risen to approximately 60 per week by 1939. Furthermore, reduced foreign trade meant rationing in consumer goods like poultry, fruit, and clothing for many Germans.[3]
The Nazis believed in war as the primary engine of human progress, and argued that the purpose of a country’s economy should be to enable that country to fight and win wars of expansion.[4] As such, almost immediately after coming to power, they embarked on a vast program of military rearmament, which quickly dwarfed civilian investment.[5] During the 1930s, Nazi Germany increased its military spending faster than any other state in peacetime,[6] and the military eventually came to represent the majority of the German economy in the 1940s.[7] This was funded mainly through deficit financing before the war, and the Nazis expected to cover their debt by plundering the wealth of conquered nations during and after the war.[8] Such plunder did occur, but its results fell far short of Nazi expectations.[9]
The Nazi government developed a partnership with leading German business interests, who supported the goals of the regime and its war effort in exchange for advantageous contracts, subsidies, and the suppression of the trade union movement.[10] Cartels and monopolies were encouraged at the expense of small businesses, even though the Nazis had received considerable electoral support from small business owners.
...}
Economy of Nazi Germany - Wikipedia
and its war effort in exchange for advantageous contracts, subsidies, and the suppression of the trade union movement.[10] Cartels and monopolies were encouraged at the expense of small businesses, even though the Nazis had received considerable electoral support from small business owners.
Weird, this doesn't sound very hands-off.
It sound like exactly what it was, a conspiracy of the corporations, military, and aristocracy.
Aka, the wealthy elite.
Who else is going to benefit from "Cartels and monopolies were encouraged"?
Who else is going to benefit from "Cartels and monopolies were encouraged"?
You lied and said he was an ultra-capitalist who did more than "just cutting taxes, reducing regulations, and letting them produce what they wanted at the prices they wanted"
Everything you've linked has disagreed with your claims.
Wrong.
The link clearly shows that not only were cartels and monopolies encourages, but unions, strikes, etc.,were not only made illegal, but slave labor was provided by the government, for free.
He certainly murdered a shit ton more than Batista did. He also imprisoned waaaaay the hell more too.
So, you are either a moron of the first order. Or you support dictatorships that murder their people.
True ignorance is common in the land of the (not) free. The billionaire’s media sees to that. This is yet another perfect example. This myth is believed by many on the right and left. The 1% who run everything don’t much like Bernie, so their media makes sure to dupe millions into thinking as they do.
MARCH 5, 2020
The Myth of Sanders’ “Socialism”
by M. G. PIETY
Fox News has an all-out frontal assault on Bernie Sanders’ purported “socialism.” It is a sad statement on the level of ignorance in this country that anyone could take seriously the charge that Sanders is a socialist. What Sanders is advocating is something approaching the social-welfare systems of other economically developed countries and that’s a far cry from the socialism Fox News is using as a boogeyman to frighten conservatives. The “socialism” Fox is decrying is the old-fashioned Stalinist-Maoist kind where all important industries are nationalized, most of the private property of the wealthy is seized by the state, and there are no such things as individual rights and freedoms because the very idea of “individuals” is considered capitalist propaganda.
The Myth of Sanders' "Socialism" - CounterPunch.org
Someone please advise the OP of the elephant in the room, which is Sanders describes himself as a socialist.
And all good governments are always socialist.
Anything a good government does is not for the profit motive, like roads, post office, etc., so then is always socialist.
Socialism is always good.
It is only the profit motive of capitalism where greed causes abuses, like slavery, feudalism, etc.
Hilarious..........................
Slade was just telling us how it's CONSERVATIVES who don't know the meaning of socialism.
He certainly murdered a shit ton more than Batista did. He also imprisoned waaaaay the hell more too.
So, you are either a moron of the first order. Or you support dictatorships that murder their people.
Okay, so if you are a Cuban who lived in the misery of Batista, who was selling his own country out to the US, and the best thing you can say is, "he hasn't killed us", that's not saying much.
You fucking retard, Castro murdered ten times more people than Batista.
No, Hitler was an evil capitalist, so was not a good guy.
actually capitalism is when economy is free; Hitler had total control as did Stalin and Mao. Do you have your ABC's straight now?
Reasonable request.
I do not have much time, but start with this:
{...
The German economy, like those of many other western nations, suffered the effects of the Great Depression with unemployment soaring around the Wall Street Crash of 1929.[1] When Adolf Hitler became Chancellor of Germany in 1933, he introduced policies aimed at improving the economy. The changes included privatization of state industries, autarky (national economic self-sufficiency), and tariffs on imports. Although weekly earnings increased by 19% in real terms[2] in the period between 1932 and 1938, average working hours had also risen to approximately 60 per week by 1939. Furthermore, reduced foreign trade meant rationing in consumer goods like poultry, fruit, and clothing for many Germans.[3]
The Nazis believed in war as the primary engine of human progress, and argued that the purpose of a country’s economy should be to enable that country to fight and win wars of expansion.[4] As such, almost immediately after coming to power, they embarked on a vast program of military rearmament, which quickly dwarfed civilian investment.[5] During the 1930s, Nazi Germany increased its military spending faster than any other state in peacetime,[6] and the military eventually came to represent the majority of the German economy in the 1940s.[7] This was funded mainly through deficit financing before the war, and the Nazis expected to cover their debt by plundering the wealth of conquered nations during and after the war.[8] Such plunder did occur, but its results fell far short of Nazi expectations.[9]
The Nazi government developed a partnership with leading German business interests, who supported the goals of the regime and its war effort in exchange for advantageous contracts, subsidies, and the suppression of the trade union movement.[10] Cartels and monopolies were encouraged at the expense of small businesses, even though the Nazis had received considerable electoral support from small business owners.
...}
Economy of Nazi Germany - Wikipedia
and its war effort in exchange for advantageous contracts, subsidies, and the suppression of the trade union movement.[10] Cartels and monopolies were encouraged at the expense of small businesses, even though the Nazis had received considerable electoral support from small business owners.
Weird, this doesn't sound very hands-off.
It sound like exactly what it was, a conspiracy of the corporations, military, and aristocracy.
Aka, the wealthy elite.
Who else is going to benefit from "Cartels and monopolies were encouraged"?
Who else is going to benefit from "Cartels and monopolies were encouraged"?
You lied and said he was an ultra-capitalist who did more than "just cutting taxes, reducing regulations, and letting them produce what they wanted at the prices they wanted"
Everything you've linked has disagreed with your claims.
Wrong.
The link clearly shows that not only were cartels and monopolies encourages, but unions, strikes, etc.,were not only made illegal, but slave labor was provided by the government, for free.
The link clearly shows that not only were cartels and monopolies encourages, but unions, strikes, etc.,were not only made illegal, but slave labor was provided by the government, for free.
I agree, your claim that he was hands-off the German economy was a ridiculous error (or a lie).
He certainly murdered a shit ton more than Batista did. He also imprisoned waaaaay the hell more too.
So, you are either a moron of the first order. Or you support dictatorships that murder their people.
Okay, so if you are a Cuban who lived in the misery of Batista, who was selling his own country out to the US, and the best thing you can say is, "he hasn't killed us", that's not saying much.
You fucking retard, Castro murdered ten times more people than Batista.
I beg to differ. Castro's government regularly imprisoned political opponents and arrested dissidents. That is the very definition of "intimidation."When it comes to a politician speaking to both interviewers and the crowd, praising the policies of foreign nations, this to me is a good indicator as to where his/her political ideology stands and as throughout this particular candidates past and present, he has repeatedly praised Marxist-Leninist nations and claims to be a Socialist (I ignore his self title of "Democratic Socialist," as the Marxist-Leninists who preach to the crowds, consider themselves being Democratic when they can convince the crowds to go along with their ideas, then afterwards, the hammer drops), that says, Marxist-Leninist politician.True ignorance is common in the land of the (not) free. The billionaire’s media sees to that. This is yet another perfect example. This myth is believed by many on the right and left. The 1% who run everything don’t much like Bernie, so their media makes sure to dupe millions into thinking as they do.
MARCH 5, 2020
The Myth of Sanders’ “Socialism”
by M. G. PIETY
Fox News has an all-out frontal assault on Bernie Sanders’ purported “socialism.” It is a sad statement on the level of ignorance in this country that anyone could take seriously the charge that Sanders is a socialist. What Sanders is advocating is something approaching the social-welfare systems of other economically developed countries and that’s a far cry from the socialism Fox News is using as a boogeyman to frighten conservatives. The “socialism” Fox is decrying is the old-fashioned Stalinist-Maoist kind where all important industries are nationalized, most of the private property of the wealthy is seized by the state, and there are no such things as individual rights and freedoms because the very idea of “individuals” is considered capitalist propaganda.
The Myth of Sanders' "Socialism" - CounterPunch.org
The education and health care accomplishments of Castro in Cuba deserve to be complimented.
'They clearly were good.
And that was the extent of what Bernie said.
No one can contest that.
The education and health care accomplishments of Castro in Cuba deserve to be complimented.
'They clearly were good.
“Wherever there is a jackboot stomping on a human face there will be a well-heeled Western liberal to explain that the face does, after all, enjoy free health care and 100 percent literacy.”
The reality is that anyone at all concerned over human rights would have supported a revolution against Batista, and that Castro did not create an evil government that harmed or intimidated people. I do not like the authoritarian nature of Castro's Cuba, but it was not evil by any means.
A vast improvement over Batista's regime.
Sure the Castro regime is repressive, but not as repressive as Batista was.
You simply are contradicting well known facts.
It does not matter; Castro was totalitarian Nazi while Batista was not. Reform was very possible under Batista whereas Castro's concentration camp is permanent
He didn’t slash it for infectious diseases.Bet you didn’t know thatExcept it started in China. Do you want us to pay for their UH too?
Well, let's look at that. Trump slashed funding to the CDC, and specifically the program they use to coordinate with other countries. one of the countries we had to end cooperation with was- China. That seems a bit foolish now.
Covid-19 is Trump's Katrina.
Sure but that was because the Colonialist forced Cuba on a sugar and gambling economy, and then blockaded any sugar or tourism market.
It was the US that deliberately caused Cuban poverty, not Castro.
It was the US that deliberately caused Cuban poverty, not Castro.
Couldn't sell sugar to non-US consumers?
Couldn't get non-US gamblers into their casinos?
The US punished any other country that would trade with Cuba, except Canada, which has UK protection.
We even crushed the governments of any country that was too friendly with Cuba.
But it was only the US that had any significant interest in sugar or gambling.
The US punished any other country that would trade with Cuba, except Canada
Show me.
But it was only the US that had any significant interest in sugar or gambling.
Nobody else uses sugar or likes to gamble? Sounds like you're making stuff up again.
United States embargo against Cuba - Wikipedia
I...
The United States currently imposes a commercial, economic, and financial embargo against Cuba. The United States first imposed an embargo on the sale of arms to Cuba on March 14, 1958, during the Fulgencio Batista regime. Again on October 19, 1960 (almost two years after the Cuban Revolution had led to the deposition of the Batista regime) the U.S. placed an embargo on exports to Cuba except for food and medicine after Cuba nationalized American-owned Cuban oil refineries without compensation. On February 7, 1962 the embargo was extended to include almost all exports. The embargo does not prohibit the trade of food and humanitarian supplies.[1]
As of 2018, the Cuban embargo is enforced mainly through six statutes: the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917, the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, the Cuban Assets Control Regulations of 1963, the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992, the Helms–Burton Act of 1996, and the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000.[2] The stated purpose of the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992 is to maintain sanctions on Cuba as long as the Cuban government refuses to move toward "democratization and greater respect for human rights".[3] The Helms-Burton Act further restricted United States citizens from doing business in or with Cuba, and mandated restrictions on giving public or private assistance to any successor government in Havana unless and until certain claims against the Cuban government were met.
...
Since 1992, the UN General Assembly has passed a resolution every year condemning the ongoing impact of the embargo and declaring it in violation of the Charter of the United Nations and of international law. In 2014, out of the 193-nation assembly, 188 countries voted for the nonbinding resolution, the United States and Israel voted against and the Pacific Island nations Palau, Marshall Islands and Micronesia abstained.[2][14] Human-rights groups including Amnesty International,[2] Human Rights Watch,[15] and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights[16] have also been critical of the embargo. Critics[which?] of the embargo often refer to it as a "blockade" and say that the respective laws are too harsh, citing the fact that violations can result in up to 10 years in prison
...
The Helms-Burton Act has been the target of criticism from Canadian and European governments in particular, who object to what they say is the extraterritorial pretensions of a piece of legislation aimed at punishing non-U.S. corporations and non-U.S. investors who have economic interests in Cuba. In the House of Commons of Canada, Helms-Burton was mocked by the introduction of the Godfrey-Milliken Bill, which called for the return of property of United Empire Loyalists seized by the American government as a result of the American Revolution (the bill never became law). The European Council has stated that it:[69]
while reaffirming its concern to promote democratic reform in Cuba, recalled the deep concern expressed by the European Council over the extraterritorial effects of the "Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (Libertad) Act" adopted by the United States and similar pending legislation regarding Iran and Libya. It noted the widespread international objections to this legislation. It called upon President Clinton to waive the provisions of Title III and expressed serious concern at the measures already taken to implement Title IV of the Act. The Council identified a range of measures which could be deployed by the EU in response to the damage to the interests of EU companies resulting from the implementation of the Act. Among these are the following:
...}
- a move to a WTO dispute settlement panel;
- 'changes in the procedures governing entry by representatives of US companies to EU Member States;
- the use/introduction of legislation within the EU to neutralize the extraterritorial effects of the US legislation;
- the establishment of a watch list of US companies filing Title III actions.
The United States currently imposes a commercial, economic, and financial embargo against Cuba. The United States first imposed an embargo on the sale of arms to Cuba on March 14, 1958, during the Fulgencio Batista regime. Again on October 19, 1960 (almost two years after the Cuban Revolution had led to the deposition of the Batista regime) the U.S. placed an embargo on exports to Cuba except for food and medicine after Cuba nationalized American-owned Cuban oil refineries without compensation. On February 7, 1962 the embargo was extended to include almost all exports. The embargo does not prohibit the trade of food and humanitarian supplies.[1]
Yes, US exports to Cuba.
Thanks for admitting we didn't punish other countries that traded with Cuba.
He certainly murdered a shit ton more than Batista did. He also imprisoned waaaaay the hell more too.
So, you are either a moron of the first order. Or you support dictatorships that murder their people.
Okay, so if you are a Cuban who lived in the misery of Batista, who was selling his own country out to the US, and the best thing you can say is, "he hasn't killed us", that's not saying much.
You fucking retard, Castro murdered ten times more people than Batista.
capitalism pulls people out of the poverty that socialism puts them in
He certainly murdered a shit ton more than Batista did. He also imprisoned waaaaay the hell more too.
So, you are either a moron of the first order. Or you support dictatorships that murder their people.
Okay, so if you are a Cuban who lived in the misery of Batista, who was selling his own country out to the US, and the best thing you can say is, "he hasn't killed us", that's not saying much.
You fucking retard, Castro murdered ten times more people than Batista.
Not according to anyone who actually knows.
{...
Fulgencio Batista’s dictatorship lasted from March 10, 1952 until December 31, 1958, a time period during which over 20,000 people were killed. The majority were murdered by the police or the Cuban rural guard, normally after having been tortured in the most horrible way a human being could imagine.
On many occasions, these murders fell under the category of “massacres” because it wasn’t only one person to be killed but several at a time, after having been caught in night raids.
...}
and its war effort in exchange for advantageous contracts, subsidies, and the suppression of the trade union movement.[10] Cartels and monopolies were encouraged at the expense of small businesses, even though the Nazis had received considerable electoral support from small business owners.
Weird, this doesn't sound very hands-off.
It sound like exactly what it was, a conspiracy of the corporations, military, and aristocracy.
Aka, the wealthy elite.
Who else is going to benefit from "Cartels and monopolies were encouraged"?
Who else is going to benefit from "Cartels and monopolies were encouraged"?
You lied and said he was an ultra-capitalist who did more than "just cutting taxes, reducing regulations, and letting them produce what they wanted at the prices they wanted"
Everything you've linked has disagreed with your claims.
Wrong.
The link clearly shows that not only were cartels and monopolies encourages, but unions, strikes, etc.,were not only made illegal, but slave labor was provided by the government, for free.
The link clearly shows that not only were cartels and monopolies encourages, but unions, strikes, etc.,were not only made illegal, but slave labor was provided by the government, for free.
I agree, your claim that he was hands-off the German economy was a ridiculous error (or a lie).
You not only are totally wrong, but clearly you can not read.
It was NOT Hitler who created the monopolies and cartels, but the large corporations.
Large corporations will always create abusive monopolies, slave labor, etc., if not prevented by the government.
Hitler did nothing to stop the abuses by the large corporations.
Hitler was totally hands off of the German economy, except that he gave out huge military contracts.
He certainly murdered a shit ton more than Batista did. He also imprisoned waaaaay the hell more too.
So, you are either a moron of the first order. Or you support dictatorships that murder their people.
Okay, so if you are a Cuban who lived in the misery of Batista, who was selling his own country out to the US, and the best thing you can say is, "he hasn't killed us", that's not saying much.
You fucking retard, Castro murdered ten times more people than Batista.
Wrong.
We have the figure, and in 60 years there were only 4000 executions in Cuba under Castro.
And that is obvious as well from the fact that Castro is wildly popular in Cuba.
It was the US that deliberately caused Cuban poverty, not Castro.
Couldn't sell sugar to non-US consumers?
Couldn't get non-US gamblers into their casinos?
The US punished any other country that would trade with Cuba, except Canada, which has UK protection.
We even crushed the governments of any country that was too friendly with Cuba.
But it was only the US that had any significant interest in sugar or gambling.
The US punished any other country that would trade with Cuba, except Canada
Show me.
But it was only the US that had any significant interest in sugar or gambling.
Nobody else uses sugar or likes to gamble? Sounds like you're making stuff up again.
United States embargo against Cuba - Wikipedia
I...
The United States currently imposes a commercial, economic, and financial embargo against Cuba. The United States first imposed an embargo on the sale of arms to Cuba on March 14, 1958, during the Fulgencio Batista regime. Again on October 19, 1960 (almost two years after the Cuban Revolution had led to the deposition of the Batista regime) the U.S. placed an embargo on exports to Cuba except for food and medicine after Cuba nationalized American-owned Cuban oil refineries without compensation. On February 7, 1962 the embargo was extended to include almost all exports. The embargo does not prohibit the trade of food and humanitarian supplies.[1]
As of 2018, the Cuban embargo is enforced mainly through six statutes: the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917, the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, the Cuban Assets Control Regulations of 1963, the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992, the Helms–Burton Act of 1996, and the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000.[2] The stated purpose of the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992 is to maintain sanctions on Cuba as long as the Cuban government refuses to move toward "democratization and greater respect for human rights".[3] The Helms-Burton Act further restricted United States citizens from doing business in or with Cuba, and mandated restrictions on giving public or private assistance to any successor government in Havana unless and until certain claims against the Cuban government were met.
...
Since 1992, the UN General Assembly has passed a resolution every year condemning the ongoing impact of the embargo and declaring it in violation of the Charter of the United Nations and of international law. In 2014, out of the 193-nation assembly, 188 countries voted for the nonbinding resolution, the United States and Israel voted against and the Pacific Island nations Palau, Marshall Islands and Micronesia abstained.[2][14] Human-rights groups including Amnesty International,[2] Human Rights Watch,[15] and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights[16] have also been critical of the embargo. Critics[which?] of the embargo often refer to it as a "blockade" and say that the respective laws are too harsh, citing the fact that violations can result in up to 10 years in prison
...
The Helms-Burton Act has been the target of criticism from Canadian and European governments in particular, who object to what they say is the extraterritorial pretensions of a piece of legislation aimed at punishing non-U.S. corporations and non-U.S. investors who have economic interests in Cuba. In the House of Commons of Canada, Helms-Burton was mocked by the introduction of the Godfrey-Milliken Bill, which called for the return of property of United Empire Loyalists seized by the American government as a result of the American Revolution (the bill never became law). The European Council has stated that it:[69]
while reaffirming its concern to promote democratic reform in Cuba, recalled the deep concern expressed by the European Council over the extraterritorial effects of the "Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (Libertad) Act" adopted by the United States and similar pending legislation regarding Iran and Libya. It noted the widespread international objections to this legislation. It called upon President Clinton to waive the provisions of Title III and expressed serious concern at the measures already taken to implement Title IV of the Act. The Council identified a range of measures which could be deployed by the EU in response to the damage to the interests of EU companies resulting from the implementation of the Act. Among these are the following:
...}
- a move to a WTO dispute settlement panel;
- 'changes in the procedures governing entry by representatives of US companies to EU Member States;
- the use/introduction of legislation within the EU to neutralize the extraterritorial effects of the US legislation;
- the establishment of a watch list of US companies filing Title III actions.
The United States currently imposes a commercial, economic, and financial embargo against Cuba. The United States first imposed an embargo on the sale of arms to Cuba on March 14, 1958, during the Fulgencio Batista regime. Again on October 19, 1960 (almost two years after the Cuban Revolution had led to the deposition of the Batista regime) the U.S. placed an embargo on exports to Cuba except for food and medicine after Cuba nationalized American-owned Cuban oil refineries without compensation. On February 7, 1962 the embargo was extended to include almost all exports. The embargo does not prohibit the trade of food and humanitarian supplies.[1]
Yes, US exports to Cuba.
Thanks for admitting we didn't punish other countries that traded with Cuba.
You clearly did not read very well.
I will repost just a smaller portion of the quote so you do not have to read so much.
{...
The Helms-Burton Act has been the target of criticism from Canadian and European governments in particular, who object to what they say is the extraterritorial pretensions of a piece of legislation aimed at punishing non-U.S. corporations and non-U.S. investors who have economic interests in Cuba.
...}
The US most certainly DID punish other countries that traded with Cuba.
We also punished individuals or corporations that traded with Cuba, no matter what country they were in.
Fulgencio Batista’s dictatorship lasted from March 10, 1952 until December 31, 1958, a time period during which over 20,000 people were killed.He certainly murdered a shit ton more than Batista did. He also imprisoned waaaaay the hell more too.
So, you are either a moron of the first order. Or you support dictatorships that murder their people.
Okay, so if you are a Cuban who lived in the misery of Batista, who was selling his own country out to the US, and the best thing you can say is, "he hasn't killed us", that's not saying much.
You fucking retard, Castro murdered ten times more people than Batista.
Not according to anyone who actually knows.
{...
Fulgencio Batista’s dictatorship lasted from March 10, 1952 until December 31, 1958, a time period during which over 20,000 people were killed. The majority were murdered by the police or the Cuban rural guard, normally after having been tortured in the most horrible way a human being could imagine.
On many occasions, these murders fell under the category of “massacres” because it wasn’t only one person to be killed but several at a time, after having been caught in night raids.
...}
