/int/ – No shittings during wörktime
„There is no place like home“

File (max. 4)
Return to
  • Allowed file extensions (max. size 25 MB or specified)
    Images:  BMP, GIF, JPG, PNG, PSD   Videos:  FLV, MP4, WEBM  
    Archives:  7Z, RAR, ZIP   Audio:  FLAC, MP3, OGG, OPUS  
    Documents:  DJVU (50 MB), EPUB, MOBI, PDF (50 MB)  
  • Please read the Rules before posting.
  • Make sure you are familiar with the Guide to Anonymous Posting.

No. 14664
800 kB, 2362 × 1509
Do anglos really believe in Mackinder's World Island thesis? Do they really believe that Germans would become world super powa if Germans managed to have access to the "heartland" of Eurasia, AKA Russia? I always thought this thesis was silly but I could see why Brits would be thinking like this in late 19th and early 20th century, Germany seemed unstoppable in their growth except that it lacked resources, Brits controlled the seas but lacked direct access to Asian's heartland, it could only try to keep coastal regions from accessing it. One can see why Brits would be worried about anyone having access to the big piece of land that they couldn't, specially if this someone was the fastest industrializing country of that time and if this country stood in between Britain and the "heartland" geographically. Still thinking that Germany would become world super powa by controlling the "world island" seems to be a bit of a stretch, it seems to me brits were merely thinking on how to stop German growth and expansion.

And what about today, is USA really trying to keep germans from doing business with Russia based on the same idea? NATO seems to be more and more a project of polarizing Europe against Russia, but why would USA be so hellbent on that after the collapse of USSR? Sure USA is also resource rich and it all can be seen as an attempt to make of Europe a market reserve for USAian commodities, but they can't seriously expect that Russia will accept being eternally alienated from Europe, which is where it historically belongs.

I don't know, maybe I'm missing something about this thesis, but reading about recent happenings regarding Russia you always stumble on references to this thesis, apparently a good deal of Russian strategists also believe in it or at least believe that this is how USA and England try to keep them away from Europe. But the thesis to me seem to be silly and outdated.
No. 14666
Germany was almost superpower as it was, giving them more land and resources would only make them stronger. They were very close to winning the war anyway, simply not having to fight Russia would have enabled them to easily win.
No. 14667
Paranoia is a natural symptom among superpowers. Once you've been at the top for long enough, the prospect of someone else being merely equal is terrifying.

USA is run by morons who were adults when the Cold War was still going on. They're just slotting themselves back into the old comfortable worldview after taking a short break from it.

The World Island thesis was always a stupid meme - there are far more natural resources outside of Inner Asia than within, and the exterior could be completely denied to Russia with ease. Germany + Russia would be unstoppable only because of demographic and industrial reality, but even together, a WW2 of the Anglo world vs. Germany and Russia would have ended in an easy Anglo victory due to America's industrial and scientific might.

Even if we never got a beachhead in Europe, after we discovered the atom bomb we would have just laid waste to the entirety of European civilization until the krauts and russkies cried uncle.
No. 14670
Not familiar with it but as Aussie said, Germany had once for a brief time controlled almost all of Europe or had its allies in Europe. Hitler basically almost had a GG conquest victory. Not to mention, the alleged "Holy" "Roman" "Empire" that was once the superpower.

What I think that you should actually look at is a combination of control of trade routes and key resource/strategic nodes around fringes of Europe mixed with the France/Germany duality. I think that it should also be mentioned France had once nearly conquered the whole of Europe.

You will notice it is usually Russia thwarting these plans. I think that the EU, IMHO, is some sort of realization of combined effort of these centuries old rivals that they are better of combining forces to simply ally vic GG rather than see who can beat the other for control of it. So now they also realize, hey why would we even bother with a military victory when we can both simply lash them all to debt slavery and through a web of banks, trade, loans, treaties and economics? Which because hey it has been working. And of course then you control whole of Europe you control most of these strategic points eventually.

But any of these powers always want to expand into Russia, which makes Russia rightfully paranoid.
No. 14673 Kontra
7,5 MB, 640 × 360, 1:16
As for USA, we are just a paranoid superpower. Well honestly we are simply paranoid people in general, and honest to God always have been since the beginning. Do you not remember the Salem witch trials? That was long before our independence. Be it witches, Masons, the Illuminati, Catholics, Jews, central banks, the federal government, immigrants, the Spanish, the Cubans, the Japanese, name any group or thing and Americans were once or still are paranoid of them.

I'm actually not quite sure what got us to this thinking. Maybe it has partly to do with being such a multi ethnic multicultural and multi ideological soups since the beginning. You know, our Revolution wasn't even that popular. We had tons and tons of these Loyalist scum who were backing the British Empire, and ours was a nation born in blood and fratricide, and nearly divided and then reunified until WW2 our new narrative from yet another extremely blood fratricide. We have used code words and signals since our very beginning. Ours is a nation born of conspiracies and let me tell you, it truly must be a hell for even more ernst/bernd tiers who have not grown used to it. The subtlest eye movements, change in posture or breath, the way they it's hard to explain but even among coworkers, doctors, professionals, family, you must always be on guard and watch for those shifty eyes or them remaining still but having a different look in their eyes. And you learn to be conspiratorial.

I learned eventually the great conspiracy of Santa Claus and not til later age like 12-11-10. I even proved my work to my parents and just where they got sloppy: a single signature, one single tag that said "to: ernst, from: Santa" I took this one package and compared it to a card I had received from my uncle. I recognized immediately firstly that it was different from some other packages, and secondly I was able to trace each letter to that card and I showed it to my parents. All these fake "Santas" in shopping malls, all of these news programs like this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpDa-i8gDsU that I had seen on TV every night before Christmas, all these things every single December.

And as such I had finally ripped the mask off and force my parents to confess to the truth. That Santa wasn't real. That they themselves were Santa Claus. That all these people had been in on it. That this was an ancientnot reallyconspiracy that has been passed down the generations. And then I was in on the secret, and then I began doing the Christmas presents for my siblings who still did not know, who had yet to be initiated into the secret.

And so each and every one of us has that kind of deception and conspiracy in our blood, and because of it, we each, all of us, sees conspiracies and possibly warring factions absolutely everywhere. Even some of the dumbest of us can wordlessly look at one another and try and counter another's anticipated moves of counter conspiracy and shitposting.

We are each of us a color revolution unto ourselves. We do not have bullet ants. In my culture, they teach us how to be strong from conspiracy and deception as well as gift giving and giving aid from the youngest of ages. And so our mottoes becomes "for by way of deception you will wage war, and the truth shall set you free"
No. 14674 Kontra
7,0 MB, 640 × 360, 1:25
Oh and I should mention but forgot, it is a constantly reinforced thing, from schooling to jobs in adult life. It is not just being a superpower that keeps us on age, but the mentality of citizenry. The speaking in codes. The very way you will hear an American say something like "stat's rights is code for racism/segregation" and be right about it. Tribalism, family, idk. And then when you see such things as our red cups, keep in mind that playful looking scene is just frat brothers first hazing the shit out of and possibly killing by bullying a new fraternity member, and rivalry instilled by fraternities to be carried into adulthood as professional/personal contacts.

Or keep in mind, when you see us playing handegg on TV and it just looks like mindless entertainment, that all of those sport players, basketball players, each and everyone one of them has been trained since youth to coordinate in secret as a team in the open against another team.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1a7BO1tjNIU To understand a kitten's play, you have to understand it as a predator adult.
No. 14678 Kontra
Sounds like another quick pol thread. This can be disscused in news thread or not disscused at all.

We have recently already too much new threads and this one smeels dangerous.
No. 14695 Kontra
Your autistic whining smells dangerous, please stop it. You're the biggest shitposter now.
No. 14705
27 kB, 599 × 400
>frat brothers first hazing the shit out of and possibly killing by bullying a new fraternity member, and rivalry instilled by fraternities
that's not exclusive to the usa and at this point i'm not sure whether our traditional frat boys with their historical mannerisms, costumes and traditional rituals of mandatory binge drinking/vomiting and fencing/duel culture with the sole purpose of getting injured etc. aren't actually more cancerous than american/anglo frat boys with their in comparison kinda funny/immature rituals. in my opinion the only good thing our fraternities do is providing cheap housing for financially less privileged students.
No. 14731
>and the exterior could be completely denied to Russia with ease.
But this is the core of the issue that I'm talking about. It seems that this is USA's permanent strategy for Russia, and I don't know why they would make so much effort to alienate Russia from Europe. Russia doesn't seem to be that much of a threat to anyone other than small neighbours. But it can provide Europe with lots of resources, as well as pivot Europe's orientation a bit more to the east rather than Atlantic.
No. 14739
Like I said, USA elite are narrow-sighted morons. At some level they acknowledge the need to pivot to Asia and focus on the growing threat of China, but for the most part they can't get over the same old stupid cold wars they've been fighting for the last 40 years.

Russia is evil because it's in Europe and doesn't act like our bitch. To an extent, a monopolar world order cannot recognize even a regional hegemon, which is what Russia now insists on being. But we could have potentially worked out an amicable neutrality or even an alliance, with a no-go zone between US and Russian interests, if we didn't expand NATO to the east.

Perhaps even now we could work things out with Russia if we permanently ceded Belarus, Ukraine, and other ex-Soviet republics bordering Russia to the Russian sphere of influence. But the moment Russia tries to exercise influence in her neighbors, the liberal hypocrites in our establishment get flashbacks to Prague and Budapest and Afghanistan and go apeshit (forgetting how much we fuck with random countries' independent political process, or excusing it because it's ok if done in the name of human rights).

And so we will permanently alienate Russia, driving it into an alliance of necessity with China. While in the Middle East, we whore ourselves out to Israel and Saudi Arabia in a never-ending cold war against Iran and friends (in this case, don't forget that Israeli and Gulf money exercise huge influence on our politics; part of our Russia paranoia is probably due to Russia's support for Israeli and Gulf enemies in the Middle East).

tl;dr America is a stupid corrupt dying shithole of a superpower, and the world is fucked because of us
No. 14750
> the liberal hypocrites in
Wtf are you talking about you moron those are neocons, like say George HW Bush. Those are not liberals. Wtf is it with you people.

>Perhaps even now we could work things out with Russia if we permanently ceded Belarus, Ukraine, and other ex-Soviet republics bordering Russia to the Russian sphere of influence.
It's called national self determination and seemingly every country but Belarus doesn't want that. It isnt exactly out business anyway and except for Ukraine and Belarus being in their sphere anyway your idea is completely retarded. That's basically like saying let's erect the Iron Curtain for Cold War 2 electric boogaloo.

Last paragraph and sentence are mostly true except China is going to be an important partner to them anyway. I think you are hinging a lot of his on some stupid and naive idea that Russia just wants free trade and to be happy friends with everyone, possibly out of some misguided sense of huwyteness.

As for national policy alignment regarding not polishing the dicks of Saudis and Israelis that is literally never ever going to happen so long as we have Republicans in charge of anything.
No. 14752
Democrats are now just as enthusiastic about foreign intervention as neocons were, and neocons weren't in power for most of the last 10 years.

>It's called national self determination and seemingly every country but Belarus doesn't want that.
The US has a poor track record with respecting national self determination, and it's none of our business if Russia tries to do the same shit with her border countries that we've done literally all over the world. We should not be the world police, and recognizing a natural sphere of influence for other major powers is a necessary part of making peace with them. Russia will always be our enemy if Ukraine joins NATO.

It's possible that Russia would never have aligned with us anyway, but sentiment there was very pro-American until we bombed Serbia, and it started to become clear just how complicit we were in the mass looting of Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union. The expansion of NATO after promising not to move it further east put the nail in the coffin. I'm skeptical that we can do a full reset on relations, but at the very least we could reach a mutual understanding.

I don't care what happens on the Ukraine, or Belarus, and even if I like Georgia, I don't think as an American it's our business to protect them. It's not like our influence has helped any of these countries anyway. Putin wouldn't have annexed Crimea or supported Donbass rebels if he didn't think Ukraine was moving out of his orbit - and despite all the protests and sloganing, Ukraine is still ruled by corrupt oligarchs, and it will continue to be ruled by corrupt oligarchs, no matter which foreign dick they suck. And Georgia wouldn't have had the 2008 war without Saakashvili getting cocky because of his close relationship with the US, which ultimately led to no help at all when Russia decided to kick his shit in, because we don't actually care about these countries enough to go to war for them.
No. 14770 Kontra
Who gives a fuck, politicians in every country are deluded old men (and now women also) with much less power than they think they have and much more than they need. They're worse parasites than NEETs and a waste of oxygen.
No. 14797
Russia intervened in Chechnya two times. In response, Clinton only patted Yeltsin's shoulder. Yeltsin used tanks to fire at his own parliament and the US did nothing. Yeltsin didn't want to support the intervention in Yugoslavia and it didn't affect the Russian-American relations. Keep in mind that I'm talking about time when Russia was more irrelevant and poor than London, or Taiwan, the island with 20 million people. The West did nothing when Litvinenko, Politkovksaya and dozens of other political figures were killed by unidentified persons, the West didn't react strongly enough when Khodorkovsky was imprisoned on shaky ground and his company nationalized.
Non-existing reaction to the Ryazan bombing is pretty interesting too.

The West did nothing when Russia used its gas pipes to politically influence Ukraine after the pro-Western Orange revolution.

Do you remember what happened after the invasion of Georgia? Did the Russian officials got any punishment? No, Obama was a goddamn dove, he tried to improve relations with Russia. The guy actually achieved what he wanted, until Putin became el presidente for the 3rd time (which is prohibited by the Russian constitution, btw) and increased his own term from 4 to 6 years.

Russia would have joined the EU and NATO, if it hadn't pretended to be a major power. Putin himself said in early 00 that Russia may become a member of NATO in the future.

>Russia will always be your enemy if Ukraine joins NATO.
Germany will always be your enemy if Belgium joins NATO.
The UK will always be your enemy if Germany joins NATO.
France will always be your enemy if the UK joins NATO.
Italy will always be your enemy if France joins NATO.
Poland will always be your enemy if Germany joins NATO
Ukraine will always be your enemy if Poland joins NATO

>I'm skeptical that we can do a full reset on relations
Read "From Cold War to Hot Peace" by McFaul, former American ambassador to Russia.
The US had good relations with Russia even after the Iraq and Georgia setbacks. Politics and people's mentality aren't rigid, you can change them and such things as "Russian soul", "natural sphere of influence" or "love for authoritarianism" don't exist, they are created under the influence of external conditions. Give a man all the power of russian media 1984 style, let him become an immortal being with dictatorial powers and after a hundred of years of brainwashing it would be possible for him to turn every Russian male into a sissy cock loving slut. There are dozens of cases in the history of mankind when shitholes turned into rich influental countries, great powers declined and people overthrew their dictators.
No. 14805
Russia isn't comparable to core NATO states, or irrelevant eastern Euro countries with no choice but to pick which side to take it from.

We can establish momentary good relations with Russia, but that cannot turn into a permanent understanding as long as we keep acting like short-sighted morons. Stationing missiles next door, trying to expand NATO even further, interfering in politics in Russia's immediate periphery, going insane trying to destroy the country where Russia's only ME base is - none of this can be reasonably acceptable to any Russian regime that isn't consigned to becoming our bitch (which Putin isn't), and yet we keep doing it anyway, all the while wondering why the Russians can't get along with us.

Nobody is helped by it. Not the people of the countries we try to spread freedom to, and neither US or Russian government interests. All Maidan and the US support for it got your country was a civil war, the loss of Crimea, and a new oligarch to pillage your country before the next one comes in to do the same.
No. 14810
173 kB, 1280 × 720
You act as though Russia hasn't been permanently cockwaving at us and all their neighbors. As Ukraine pointed out, this is how Russia tries to act when they think it's poor and weak. Putin has not been acting like this because "evil dirty West" Putin has been acting like this because he's a former KGB asshole. You are going into Neville Chalberlain territory. What Russia especially Putin seems to understand is strength. You will notice that Russia hasn't fucked with us or Turkey since we violently slapped their shit. You will notice they continue to penetrate and harass Swedish airspace and sea. It would be like saying the best way to prevent nuclear war with the Soviets was to simply give them everything they want and let CIS countries expand all the way to England. Or thinking Hitler would just have stopped at this or that concession. Sometimes the only way to ensure peace is a show of force, otherwise they will see your pacifism as a weakness and strike.
No. 14814
>if it hadn't pretended to be a major power
This doesn't explain much honestly.
No. 14816
12,7 MB, 640 × 360, 3:45
No. 14826
Yes, it's comparable. There's no such thing as hereditary major power status, you can't lack the influence and yet still be considered a major power if Brazilian/South Korean/Italian economy is greater than yours. Russia is a declining regional power, position that was held by the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations. Russia compensates for its lack of soft power by overinvesting in the army and invading poorer post-Soviet shitholes that spent their fortune on social safety nets and infrastructure instead of soldiers, which doesn't make Russia great alone, neither Saddam's Iraq or Mao's China became great because of its aggressive foreign policy and adventures in Kuwait, Iran, Korea, Vietnam, Tibet. Yeltsin's Russia was included in G7 as a gesture of American goodwill, not because Russia was stronk, and Yeltsin and Putin were insecure about Russian status in the international relations, they couldn't take reality and the fact that Russia lost its relevance after the fall of the USSR.
Poland, Hungary, Romania, Baltics, Ukraine, Georgia, etc escaped from Russia and it wouldn't be possible if Russia still was a major power. The country lost all the influence because of its weak level of development, and all that Russia is capable of right now is pushing itself deeper into the pit and alienating its own allies.

>Russia's immediate periphery
There's no such thing as natural sphere of influence. You either have influence and power, and you can secure your political goals in other countries, or you can't. Russia couldn't offer the same benefits that the US, NATO and the EU could offer, because Russia is not an equal force, thus Russia lost its status and its orbiters.
Russia for 10 years of its aggressive foreign policy has lost more than gained, despite that the economic power of the state has grown many times in comparison with the 90s. I repeat once again, the problems are created by the purely problematic thinking of people inside Russia and their reluctance to accept the victory of the West. There would be no problem if we could change the mentality of Russians as it happened with other countries in the European Union.

>nobody is helped by it
You secured the peace in the world and got the whole fucking Earth under you because of American interventionism, you became the sole world's superpower because of your policy. Poland has increased its own economy 6 times and became the most pro-American state in Eastern Europe because they hate Russians and communists so much, all Eastern European countries (except Ukraine and Moldova, which were one of the most pro-Russian countries in the 90s and early 00s, but now they aspire to the EU) flourished under capitalism and American hegemony.
>All Maidan ... the next one comes in to do the same.
Your position is defeatist by definition. First of all, both Maidans were a natural popular backlash, which is a good thing, against widespread corruption among elites, do you suggest people to sit quietly and prevent any protests in the future? Secondly, I could argue that in the long run Maidans led to a lower level of corruption and the formation of anti-corruption civil institutions that were taken under pressure from the people.
>neither US or Russian government interests
Once again, you should read "From Cold War to Hot Peace" by McFaul, former American ambassador to Russia. He rightly argues that functioning democracy in other country is in American interests, because functioning democracies tend to be more peaceful, stable and pro-American than the authoritarian regimes.
No. 14832
>What Russia especially Putin seems to understand is strength.
This is neocon-tier discourse. Putin isn't some stupid 3rd grade bully who just breaks things until you punch him in the nose.
We've been strong on Russia. We funded Maidan, we've strongly backed the anti-Russia Ukrainian government, we've enacted crippling sanctions against Russia and show no signs of letting up on them.
Has this made Putin do what we want? No. Russia still owns Crimea, Donbass and Assad still get support. What does Putin want to do to us, that he supposedly can't because we got tough on him?

How is Russia waving its cock at us, when we're the ones with missiles and troops stationed in countries that border Russia, and we're the ones actively trying to overthrow any governments that are friendly to Russia? Russia only waves its cock within its limited sphere of influence, and we go apeshit because we can't tolerate the idea of another country having a sphere of influence.

>There's no such thing as hereditary major power status
Yes, which is why Russia remains a major power, while Western Europe has been reduced to a bunch of American client states. If we wanted to bring Russia into NATO, we would have had to have started by recognizing what it regards as its vital national interests. We gave lip service to anticolonialism before and during WW2, but in the end we overwhelmingly supported the Brits and the French and the Dutch in maintaining their dying empires as we integrated them into our new system.

What have we given Russia? We helped rape their country in the 90s, we completely disregarded promises about respecting the balance of power in the former Soviet Bloc, we've stationed soldiers and missiles in countries around their borders. We've looked at Russia trying to maintain its historical sphere of influence, even in greatly reduced form, as a fundamental affront.

We haven't treated Russia with respect, and every country that views itself as a great power requires this if you're going to have a productive relationship with them. If, after WW2, we sanctioned and demonized Britain and France until they completely dismantled their colonial empires and promised to never getting involved in anything taking place outside their borders, they would have told us to go fuck ourselves, and NATO would probably never have been founded.

>You secured the peace in the world and got the whole fucking Earth under you because of American interventionism
Actually, this was because we had by far the most powerful economy and military in the world, with an extensive group of client states made up of legacy democracies, and right-wing authoritarian shitholes that we propped up with money and throat-slitting squads. Active intervention saved South Korea, but got millions of SE Asians needlessly killed. And even if intervention had worked in the past, it gets us nothing today except massive debt and ill-will.

Poland is not democratic and capitalist because of foreign intervention - if it had never joined NATO, it still wouldn't be communist. I don't give a shit how pro-American they are. Central Europe is not the axis of the world. Poland is completely irrelevant to us, and NATO would be no worse off if the entire corridor between Germany and Russia took the Finland route.

>Secondly, I could argue that in the long run Maidans led to a lower level of corruption and the formation of anti-corruption civil institutions that were taken under pressure from the people.
I'll believe you when you elect someone who isn't an oligarch. I genuinely wish your country well, but the result of Maidan and the resurgence of Ukrainian nationalism has been the dismembering of Ukraine. You are never getting Crimea back. You're probably never getting Donbass back. You lost 15% of your GDP in 2014 and 2015. Your oligarch presidents can now use the permanent national crisis to do things like declare martial law before elections.

>Once again, you should read "From Cold War to Hot Peace" by McFaul
McFaul is a hack and I'm not reading his book, especially if his thesis is that banal.
No. 14835 Kontra
>Your position is defeatist by definition.
I think Ukraine can be saved, but you need an actual revolution, or at the very least a takeover by a Putin-style bureaucrat who can put some upper limit on the rapacity of your oligarchs.

An unchecked antisocial elite is the worst thing that can happen to a country. It's a form of cancer that requires extreme chemotherapy, and liberal democracy only makes it worse. Until your ultranationalists start targeting oligarchs instead of Russians, your country is doomed.
No. 14854
323 kB, 2163 × 865
I decided I'm not going to discuss everything because I don't want to waste my time writing giant walls of text on obscure imageboards for a tiny audience.
I will limit myself to just one comment: nationalists and right groups in general never ever target oligarchs and bring inequality down. The nature of any nationalist is a search for an external enemy who would distract attention from country's internal problems, Poroshenko is a nationalist and Putin is a nationalist too, both of them use Russia/The West to unite their population against someone and focus their anger on the enemies instead of their own elites that caused the low level of development in the first place. It surprises me how you manage to complain about the Ukrainian oligarchs and nationalists BUT while at the same time putting Putin as an example of a good bureacraut.
Russia didn't curb its oligarchs, Russia remains an Latin America tier shithole with rampant corruption and giant levels of wealth concentrated in the hands of 1% of population. Putin only reinforced this system and he didn't bring any change in the 18 years of his rule. Putin is an oligarch himself who lets his cronies to gain their wealth at the expense of Russian population and the state, and transfer their own money abroad, and he is the reason why Russia loses so much wealth to offshore companies.
No. 14857
I got a better idea. Why don't we just ditch the whole "I'm a major power so I get to skullfuck my neighbours" worldview instead? That way we neither have to justify Russia breaking the great taboo of the post-war international order; annexing territory in continental Europe and can also refuse to justify the US and their global adventure. Everybody wins, even the little guys who get thrown to the dogs by the big boys under the old way.
No. 14870
Hitler actually got the German economy back in order despite his many obvious problems, and Putin, while shit, is about 5x better than what Ukraine has had. Look at your GDP per capita and tell me that he's just as bad as the people who've been ruling Ukraine.

I don't actually have any faith in your own nazis to do anything but get triggered by Russians and Poles and Jews, but you need some kind of radical movement to bring about national rejuvenation. The oligarch class must be liquidated.
No. 14871 Kontra
I should mention that communists, at this point, would also probably be an upgrade, but you got to make a revolution with what you've got, and communism is dead.
No. 14874
166 kB, 903 × 689
542 kB, 5800 × 2516
350 kB, 1525 × 921
177 kB, 2340 × 1654
No, he didn't, Hitler doomed German economy even before starting the war. Read "The Wages of Destruction" by Adam Tooze.
I look at Poles and I see that they have higher wages, higher purchasing power, higher life expectancy, less suicides, less homicides, no abortions and smaller % of HIV infected, and Poland is much more equal country than Russia. I see the same happened with Baltics, Hungary, Checzhia, Slovakia, Romania. Putin's Russia didn't outperform any country outside of the most incompetent countries like Ukraine, Putin is an incompetent ruler who would shit himself if you compared Russia with the normal countries that became pro-Western and pro-American right after the fall of the USSR. No Russian ally or puppet ever became wealthy in the history of humanity.
No. 14879
Communism, while also shit, would actually probably be a mild upgrade to Russia and Eastern Europe in general. At least they used to make things and could be proud and were world relevant and feared. Now they are just a regional gas station and source of prostitutes under Capitalism.
No. 14921
Poland (and the other countries you mentioned) didn't take the disastrous shock therapy approach to capitalism, and that's why it did so much better than Russia. If your country hasn't been taken over by oligarchs, it will do rather well.

In Russia (and I assume Ukraine), almost all wealth was immediately handed over to oligarchs who didn't give a shit about their country. But in Russia, although Putin is an oligarch himself, he's also a nationalist and a life-long bureaucrat, and when he got in power, he stabilized the country and economy and made sure that the vampiric extraction had some upper limit. He's alright with looting the country, but he still wants there to be a country after the looting is done.
No. 14923 Kontra
>he's also a nationalist and a life-long bureaucrat, and when he got in power, he stabilized the country and economy and made sure that the vampiric extraction had some upper limit

This is entirely untrue.
No. 14931
193 kB, 807 × 639
>Poland (and the other countries you mentioned) didn't take the disastrous shock therapy approach to capitalism
Stop spouting bullshit
No, Poland did take this policy. Stop thinking that "shock therapy" is synonymous with a "disaster". The Baltic states pursued the same policy, and they didn't turn into corrupted shitholes.
>he's also a nationalist and a life-long bureaucrat
I don't understand why you consider Putin a bureacraut. Putin had little to no experience in administration prior to his appointment, if anything, even Ukrainian presidents didn't become presidents out of the blue, they had experience in managerial positions in the USSR.
You romanticize Putin, Russia, and you protect them no matter how often I refute your position. I notice that many people on imageboards were affected by propaganda that Putin is an expeirenced bureacrat (which he is not, even the Ukrainian presidents had more experience in managerial positions, because they were not KGB agents before the 90s), nationalist (this is already a double think, how you can condemn the Ukrainian nationalists and Poroshenko a couple of posts earlier, and then exhibit this characteristic in Putin as something good, although he does everything in exactly the same way).
>he stabilized the country and economy
No, he didn't. You need to stop talking about what you have no idea. Liberalisation of the market was necessary for future growth and the Western investment, which's tiny right now because property rights aren't respected in Russia (see: Khodorkovsky), and Russian oligarchs create a huge outflow of capital from the country because of this, the liberalisation created a good environment for business development, but Putin wasn't the one who did it, but Putin was already there when all the neccessary reforms were implemented, and the country went through a huge hyperinflation in 1998, which Putin wouldn't stop if he had become president instead of Yeltsin. Then, guess what, oil prices skyrocket and oil prices increase and Putin begins to reap the benefits, although the oil price didn't depend on him.

Putin was a lucky man who gained his popularity thanks to the growing economy at the beginning of 00, which was not created by him, but by the people who preceded him, but Putin was the one who slowed the growth of the Russian economy after the crisis of 2007-2008. With his retarded actions in 2014 he hurt the Russian economy even more.

"The vampiric extraction" aka capital outflow is created by Putin and his cronies, because the property rights aren't respected in Russia (see: Khodorkovsky), people are afraid to invest in Russia for a long term and Russian oligarchs keep their money in the offshores, because they perfectly understand that the wealth in Russia is created not by your skills, but by political connections. If for some reason Putin and his minions dislike you, then you would be in prison, deprived of your assets, no matter what.
No. 14935
>not fighting with russia
Having someone that understands military strategy would be enough. The only thing hitler has done correctly is motorizing the army and invest in armoured vehicle technologies. But even then it's not because of his strategic mind, it's due to his traumas in ww1 due to trch warfares often dead end clusterufuck and he personally loved the idea of 'blitzing' the enemy.
No. 14936
>Hitler actually got the German economy back in order despite his many obvious problems
stealing money of citizens just like communist venezuelo brings short term wealth, that's nothing new.

The only reason of the illusion is killing people and giving ethnic germans 'free gibs' and jobs, in long term germany would be fucked like venezuela, there is a reason why they wanted to finish the war very quickly and couldnt afford long war unlike anglos.
No. 14946
America is taken over by oligarchs
No. 14950
Could also be related to this https://www.businessinsider.com/new-knowledge-oxford-reports-russia-disinformation-campaign-senate-intelligence-committee-2018-12
I actually vaguely remember back when things were being spread and they still used "Internet Resesrch Agency" as a citation too, but this was years and years ago. I also remember the hilarity that was the sudden confusion and panic of trumptards when Trump had Syria bombed and like clockwork the bulk of memeing immediately turned against Trump. Of course to be fair, this really isnt that different from what we've been doing to Russia.
No. 15425 Kontra
Germany was hard-working, Venezuela was lazy oil-exporting.
There is a big difference in work-ethics.
No. 33692

I need gas
No. 33693
Old people sometimes just freezed to death. The Parliament issued extra money to let them buy fuel or at least improve heat insulation.
No. 33696
448 kB, 1045 × 461
Venezuela has the same problem that Iran did and Bolivia does right now, which come to think of it is ironically enough the exact same problem that Germany did and to a certain degree Russia: der ewige Anglo. You see, the problem here is that both Russia and Germany under the Soviets and the NSDAP, as well as recently Venezuala and right now at this very moment, Bolivia, have wanted to nationalize their private resources for the benefit of their own people against exploitation by greedy internationalist British and American corporate outfits. Well, in the case of Bolivia apparently that is also a German company, but the problem remains the same, which is wanting to nationalize their own resources and use it to build their own countries rather than being exploited as a neo colonial resource dump by massive British and American controlled corporate conglomerates.

Apparently right now Bolivia is having their government overthrown in a violent coup because the Bolivians were trying to nationalize their lithium supplies
Basically the National Socialists were trying ultimately to just protect themselves from this predatory international private order and so was the USSR. This exact same thing happened to Iran in the 1950s when they were trying to nationalize their oil reserves and the perfidious sea monster had convinced the United States to participate in and orchestrate the overthrow of a democratically elected secularist and install the shitty dictatorship of the Shah, a history that has left Iran pissed at us for decades and rightfully so after they successfully overthrew out shitty Wectern installed dictatorship who was basically selling out his own countrymen in exchange for living in a palace like some bydlo oligarch.

This is what happened with Venezuela. When they couldn't overthrow Chavez outright and failed to overthrow his successor they tried using the Saudis to flood the oil market and floor prices, selling at a loss, for no other reason than to help bankrupt Venezuela (and also hurt Russia which had already fallen to the Anglo internationalist corporatists).

That still didnt work although a sustained effort of hurting Venezeuala as much as possible had still taken its toll, but they still failed to dislodge a people's Venezuela that wasn't owned by Anglo corporations ruled by yet another shitty dictator. So the most recent step they took was trying to install some putz named Guiado and trying to pretend he was the "rightful democratically elected leader" and tried yet another coup and yet it still failed. I remember reading the hilarious report claiming that not a lot of military men rebelled and joined Guiado because they're "too indoctrinated."

Venezuela's problem is not that it is lazy, just like Germany's problem is not that it was lazy in the interbellum period: the problem is the enternal anglo and his neverending campaign of destroying and looting every country on the planet that dares to resist it's natural resources being plundered by Anglo and American corporations.
No. 33734 Kontra
pol tier babble
No. 33775
68 kB, 600 × 411
>Hitler actually got the German economy back in order despite his many obvious problems
Hitler only applied the same economic policy of the weimar governments
No. 33781 Kontra
Why is this retarded American guy even here? Take your pills
No. 33834
Autarky and moving away from money based trade were Wiemar policies?
No. 33908
This is a popular explanation with people who have no knowledge of Bolivia, and general suspicion of American foreign policy - which is justified, but America is not the sole explanatory factor in every crisis around the globe.

You can't simplify it to just lithium. The deposits are not being actively exploited, and doing so would be incredibly difficult and costly. A more nuanced explanation:

I was halfway to writing a proper essay, but I'm just going to tl;dr it. Indigenous Andean highlanders loved Evo because he massively reduced the crushing poverty that they lived under, and made them feel like they were in charge of their country for the first time since the Incas fell. White people and mestizos from the lowland eastern half of the country are butthurt that uppity Indios were nationalizing natural resources and redistributing land, and not just eating their shit like they've been accustomed to for the last 500 years. There's also a weirdo Christian fascist element to part of the opposition, inspired by American evangelical protestantism and possible Ustasha runaways. They've made a big deal about how Bolivia is a Christian country, probably because Andeans were only ever partially Christianized, and Evo openly invoked Pachamama throughout his terms.

Election formalism is just the excuse to launch the takeover. The conflict is primarily one between the two fundamentally opposed halves of Bolivia, and the lowlanders will happily trample all over democracy if it means that the Indians don't get to take over again - which they would, because they're the majority, and after Evo they're not going to want to give it up again.
No. 34050
>t functioning democracy in other country is in American interests, because functioning democracies tend to be more peaceful, stable
functioning democracies sometimes very anti imperialist and anti american. and USA will still try to fuck them up because they are against their interest.

USA would gladly choose absoulute monarchy that sucks USA dick like Saudi Arabia over a functioning anti american democracy. what you say in here is very naive, that's the kindest word I can come up with.
No. 34062
54 kB, 625 × 451
Very much this. It is actually NOT in USA's interest because the US has become an imperial state and has been that way since the late 19th century. It has never changed or shifted gears from that, only expanded.

A stable, functional, peaceful democratic nation will want things like fair terms of trade, non-interference in their personal affairs, ability to pick and choose their allies and partners. I mean just look at the recent chimpout the US has had over trade even with Germany.

This is what the US does to peaceful, stable, democratic and secular nations

Instead most governments whose creation was supported by the USA across the world are horrible, brutally repressive dictatorships and nutjob theocracies. These include
Qatar, UAE, Saudi Arabia, various central Asian dictators and shitty theocratic states like Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, formerly Iran after overthrowing their government and when the people of Iran overthrew the US puppet dictator the US switched to aiding a dictator to fight them even knowing that Saddam was using chemical weapons, the Mujahideen and Taliban, various shitty South American dictatorships including Pinochet's Chile and so on and so forth.

If you look at it the actual track record of the United States has been to overthrow whole governments and destabilize entire regions into violence as national policy. Right now Libya, while a dictatorship before, is now an even worse hellhole filled with violent Islamists. The same happened to Iraq and the only reason why Syria didn't 100% collapse into this is because Russia stopped it. The same goes for Venezuela where the only reason they still have a country is because once again, Russia stopped it. Afghanistan is what you get when Russia failed to stop it.

The United States couldn't give two shits less about anyone having a democracy and going by track record clearly prefers that they do not. The only thing the United States cares about is market liberalization and privatization. No matter where you are in the world, if you look at it with clear and open eyes the only driving agenda of the US is that and any time market liberalization and privatization or lopsided trade terms for US companies is opposed the US reacts violently.