Russia Insider
- The Soviet Union defeated the invincible German army because it created a superior economy
- Uncle Joe borrowed his war preparation plan from FDR
- Only US-inspired liberal shock therapy prevented the new Russia from capitalizing on the American post-WW II experience of turning a highly militarized economy into a prosperous consumer oriented one
- First Russian oligarchs enriched themselves by plundering the resources accumulated since Stalin’s times - forgetting dropping oil prices.
Hjalmar Schacht was the most powerful minister in Germany, an economic "wizard" with a destructive plan for growth.This post casts Schacht in a worse light than he deserves, although he was instrumental in getting the German economy into a position of strength. He opposed militarization, however, and that was his downfall.
In August 1934 Hitler appointed Schacht as Germany's Minister of Economics. Schacht supported public-works programs, most notably the construction of autobahnen (highways) to attempt to alleviate unemployment – policies which had been instituted in Germany by von Schleicher's government in late 1932, and had in turn influenced Roosevelt's policies. He also introduced the "New Plan", Germany's attempt to achieve economic "autarky", in September 1934. Germany had accrued a massive foreign currency deficit during the Great Depression, which continued into the early years of the Third Reich. Schacht negotiated several trade agreements with countries in South America and southeastern Europe, under which Germany would continue to receive raw materials, but would pay in Reichsmarks. This ensured that the deficit would not get any worse, while allowing the German government to deal with the gap which had already developed. Schacht also found an innovative solution to the problem of the government deficit by using mefo bills. He was appointed General Plenipotentiary for the War Economy in May 1934[9] and was awarded honorary membership in the NSDAP and the Golden Party Badge in January 1937.Subsequently, however, Schacht broke with the Nazis:
During the economic crisis of 1935–36, Schacht, together with the Price Commissioner Dr. Carl Friedrich Goerdeler, helped lead the "free-market" faction in the German government. They urged Hitler to reduce military spending, turn away from autarkic and protectionist policies, and reduce state control in the economy. Schacht and Goerdeler were opposed by a faction centering around Hermann Göring.[10]
Göring was appointed "Plenipotentiary for the Four Year Plan" in 1936, with broad powers that conflicted with Schacht's authority. Schacht objected to continued high military spending, which he believed would cause inflation, thus coming into conflict with Hitler and Göring.…
In November 1937 he resigned as Minister of Economics and General Plenipotentiary at Göring's request. He remained President of the Reichsbank until Hitler dismissed him in January 1939. After this Schacht held the empty title of Minister without Portfolio, and received the same salary, until he was fully dismissed in January 1943.…Salon
The Hitlerian method is this: Invent a “controversy” (for example, “ethnic Germans in Czech Sudetenland are oppressed”). Make a set of demands. If the demands are met, add new conditions. When you’ve pushed things as far as they can go and the other party finally refuses, accuse that other party of acting in bad faith and claim justification for doing what you wanted to do anyway (invade and occupy Czechoslovakia).
The Iran “nuclear weapons controversy” is an invented crisis of that Hitlerian type.
He reminds us that all US spy agencies say Iran does not appear to be after nukes (Israeli spies concur), that the IAEA does not even say Iran “might be” developing nukes, and that Iran is perfectly entitled under international law (and supported by the vast majority of the world) to a civilian nuclear program. It is the US that has no right to any say in that program whatsoever.
But the US, for reasons which are quite obvious, has imposed deadly sanctions on Iran, targeting all Iranian civilians, and changes the conditions for removing the sanctions “every time the Iranian government agrees” to meet the current conditions.
The US, including Obama, has done this numerous times. For example, Knapp notes that in March, “all parties seemed ready to sign an agreement – so the US piled on new conditions … at the last minute”, then said Iran had created the impasse.
The new US “deal” with Iran includes “up-front demands on Iran with the dangling fruit of lifted sanctions in the future.” (bold added)
Knapp then makes a prediction: that the US will break the agreement and make new demands within a few months, without ever lifting the sanctions: “the Hitlerian method in spades.”....Washington's Blog
The Estonian Conservative People's Party (EKRE), embroiled in a scandal earlier this month involving a recently elected parliamentarian's comments about the "many positive nuances" of fascism, was hit again on Saturday in an op-ed by a famous party member and national sports champion who said that he had once been told that he was just another "illiterate athlete who must first go to the nearest library and read the works of Hitler."What with the rising popularity of Stalin in Russia and Hitlers in Europe? The answer is pretty simple, although obviously different parties have divergent views that complicated a full answer. The quick takeaway, however, is that in parlous times many people look to a strong leader and more authoritarian state to assuage rising fear. While this phenomenon is usually explained by rising nationalism and based on exceptionalism, which is true to a degree, the overwhelming factor seems to me to be a reaction to events called forth by a broad perception of threat. While Stalin and Hitler are generally thought of in terms of their authoritarian excesses, they are also remembered by some for their leadership qualities based on projection of power.
Earlier this month, the EKRE was hit by scandal following local media's discovery of an old blog post by recently elected MP Jaak Madison, who noted in 2012 that he saw "fascism as an ideology that consists of many positive nuances necessary for preserving the nation-state." The young politician also noted that while "it's true that there were concentration camps, forced labor camps, and a fondness for the use of gas chambers, at the same time, [the Nazis'] 'iron-fisted' rule did bring Germany out of deep trouble as the development initially based on military industry growth made the country one of the most powerful in Europe in just a few years."....
The verdict of Russian state television on Europe's effort to save Cyprus was damning. The last week "will enter the history books of the EU as a destructive one," said Dmitry Kiselev, the presenter of the popular news program Vesti Nedili on the Rossiya channel.Spiegel Online International
Kiselev heaped criticism on the forced levy to be imposed on bank deposits in Cyprus. He said the last time a Western European government proceeded so recklessly was when Adolf Hitler expropriated the Jews.
Nazi propaganda at the time described the money held by Jewish people as "dirty," said Kiselev. That was precisely how Europe was talking about Russian assets deposited in Cyprus, he added.
"The new world order is being founded against Russia, at Russia's costs and on the rubble of Russia," said a Rossiya correspondent from the Mediterranean island nation.
