The myths of WWII (Eastern Europe)

its easy definition of capitalism- "
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market" Key things that set capitalism apart form nazi economic policy. "investments that are determined by private decision, prices, production, and distribution that are determined by the free market" well going back to my original link - "Private property rights were conditional upon the economic mode of use; if it did not advance Nazi economic goals, the state could nationalize it.[SUP][168][/SUP] Nazi government corporate takeovers, and threatened takeovers, encouraged compliance with government production plans, even if unprofitable for the firm. For example, the owner of the Junkers aeroplane factory refused the government’s directives, whereupon the Nazis occupied the factory and arrested Hugo Junkers, but paid him for his nationalized business. Although the Nazis privatised public properties and public services, they also increased economic state control.[SUP][169][/SUP] Under Nazi economics, free competition and self-regulating markets diminished; nevertheless, Adolf Hitler’s social Darwinist beliefs made him reluctant to entirely disregard business competition and private property as economic engines.[SUP][170][/SUP][171" Now the core of capitalism is the right of private ownership un controlled by the state. How does Germany have a free enterprise system if they seized any business that ran for personal profit other than for the benefit of the state. Its called national socialism sir. thats what nazism was. to give people as much freedom as possible as long as their freedoms benefit the state. in other words its between communism and capitalism incorporating elements of both while leaving elements of both out.

 

Nazism is not capitalism. it is national socialism.

 

Interesting book and read

The German captured figures look around the same as what I had for the start of Barbarossa (approx 1000 engines with only half usable + the mix of wide gauge and standard gauge from the Baltic states).

The German estimates of track and type were pretty much the same as published by the Soviet authority with 20000 engines available in 1935 and the Germans estimating 25000 in 1941 (some quite old and many different types so we could expect some new additions and some retirements, plus the wagons were a mix of new good ones all the way down to virtual scrap ones).

The Germans estimated that 25% of Soviet railway stock had been captured or destroyed by Jan 1st 1943 (I assume by ground forces) with a further 30% by air attack. Thats almost halving the Soviet rolling stock.
Captured
1338 locos
2315 passenger cars
81817 freight cars
Some pretty significant figures. The LL kit seemed to take be of a major importance when the Soviets started to advance further forward both in the permanent way and rolling stock.

 

The Locos did not START arriving until late 1944.

700,000 railcars even minus 50% is 350,000.
Factor in 11,000 LL and it is still a max of 3%

I would give up on the Locos/Rolling stock. The figures just dont match the claims.

 

I know when the locos etc arrived and it was when the Soviet forces were moving further forward. With 50% losses to Locos though the 2000 LL ones would make a big difference as they would be down to around 12000 with an increasing amount of permanent way to cover. From one old Soviet era source I read Bagration required 450000 wagons (I assume that it actually meant wagon loads though so counted them being used more than once). Even something like 11000 wagons would become welcome as they would be new and would help to alleviate strain as the forces moved west on the rapidly extending supply routes.

Pure percentages taken as a whole are fairly meaningless, you need a context and timeline to put them into. Hence I like lots of sources to peruse and collate.

I tend to be more interested in engineering and how a problem is overcome by different methods and ideas than logistics.

 

One of the greatest myths of WW2 is the postwar one that Adolf hitler was of German extraction.

In fact, this is probably the state of Austria's principal achievement, post-war.....convincing the rest of the world that Adolf wasn't Austrian.

 

About Hitler and economy:
1)It is a fact that the nazi economic doctrine (in sofar it existed) was determined by what Hitler was saying, and DOING,and not what people as Federer(not the tennis player) were saying about interest slavery.
2)About anti big business statements and measures,if I am following the Jager doctrine (if that would be possible),than would Bob Taft (from Ohio!) be a very anti capitalist president ,because of his anti trust legislation,and,than would the state of Wisconsin with its 'Wisconsin Idea" be a capitalist hostile state.I don't know if Joe MacCarthy would agree .
The nationalizations in Britain and France after the war,would thus prove that capitalism was out in these states ? I don't think that Dassault would agree,or that the business croonies of Harold Wilson would agree .
3)And,about privatisations(mentioned by the author of Jageronomics),I suppose that the existence of a large public ownership in Spain during the rule of Franco,would prove a anti capitalist attitude by Franco ? Or that the de facto taking over of the railways by the state under Bush, would prove something ?
I could continue,but the Jageronomics have to wait .

 

About the railways,there is also on the AHF the following on the production of rails:
view topic.php?f=66&t=119848
Russian production of broad gauge rails(in thousands of tons):1.123(for 1941-1945),for narrow gauge rails (same period):455

 

You should read the Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith. He talks of all the characteristics of capitalism. However in every case in order for something to be capitalist it has to have 2 constants no matter the case. Free Enterprise and Free Trade. Without these it is not capitalism. There have been numerous presidents that were "anti- capitalist" as you would say. Even the Current Obama is labeled as a socialist by most americans. I wrote a 52 page piece comparing Adam Smith's capitalism to America's. America is actually a mixed economy now. It has freedom but is continually regulated by the government. This began changing in the early 1900's when the government intervened to disintegrate mass monopolization. However, the US government can not legally seize property without proper process. Nazi Germany could seize any property or use teh threat of seizure to get what it needed. The US can do no such thing. The US can however implement taxes or subsidies that encourage businesses to do certain things. Taxing the hell out of states who refused to have a 21 year old drinking law convinced all states to do so. However, the US could not simply seize all liquor outlets or force all liquor outlets to only sell to 21 year olds. In Germany this was possible. Free Enterprise and trade does not mean the government can not intervene. It means the governemnt can not do anything without due process. What your saying is like saying america does not really have freedom of speech because the government can convict people in certain situations. That however is far from reality as we do ave freedom of speech but it conflicts with other freedoms resulting in intervention. As opposed to Germany who could convict anybody against the state.

 

You still fail to understand that democracy and capitalism are not identical .Capitalism can flourish in democracy,and in dictatorships.In WWII,there was no free trade/free enterprise in Britain:they were limited by government ,while in Germany,nothing was free,but,both had a capitalist economy .
To say that free enterprise and free trade means that government can not do anything without due proces,is wrong :free enterprise and free trade are possible in a domocratic and non democratic society.
If government can not do anything without due process,that means that means that the people are living in democracy ;nothing more,and nothing less .
Free enterprise and free trade are not indespensable for capitalism (never heard of state capitalism?)

 

I should not use a dinosaur as A.Smith,the prophet of economic liberalism, in 2011,to prove something .
He was writing (235 years ago) about a lot of things which did not exist:democracy,capitalism,free trade,free enterprise,common wealth.
You also are mixing a lot of things which have nothing to do with each other:exemple:free trade and capitalism,or capitalism and democracy.
It is also almost impossible to define these things:ex:what is democracy? We could discuss till the cows dance on the ice,and, whithout any result .
About free trade (very commended by Smith):I think that opinions are differing:as far as I know,there was (still is ?) a lot of opposition to the NAFTA,which was held responsible for the loss of a lot of jobs in the US.
I don't want to start a discussion about capitalism(perish the thought),but, I am sure that here also opinions will differ .

 

There is another reason why I should not use Adam Smith in a discussion about capitalism:because the word capitalisl was used for the first time by the French Author Loius Blanc,in .....1850.

 

You are completely wrong here. Yes Capitalism can exist in a dicatorship if one allows it. However Nazi Germany did not. Free enterprise and free trade are the 2 biggest parts of capitalism. if Germany did not offer such then it could not be a capitalist economy. During war it is common for most freedoms to be limited or taken even by democratic governments. Even in the US this occurs. If what you are saying is true then i guess the US was really communist in world war II because widespread agriculural collection and full mobilization was in effect. that is irrelevent and the reasons the government can do so is because in democratic society it is the governments responsibility to protect its citizens and in war it often results in limmitations of rights. in germany it is different. whatever hitler wanted happened. If hitler owuld of allowed free enterprise and free trade then maybe you could say germany was capitalist. however it was not so there is really no arguement if you cant even get the basic fundementals of capitalism to exist. and BTW Adam Smith is completely relevent considering there is no other work as definitive on capitalism as the wealth of nations. and despite its age it needs no update. if so then please find something in the book that makes his work obselete. and why your at it please prove that germany was capitalist. please find one authority figure that agrees with you.

 

Here are some quotes from other people and what they think. the thread on this forum reads "why is nazi germany sometimes called capitalist?" "
[h=6]The short answer is, whoever thinks Nazi Germany was capitalist, doesn't really understand what capitalism is." "[/h]

 

"
[h=6]ince the German government de facto controlled all aspects of the economy, even calling it 'corporatism' is misleading. It was socialism, pure and simple."[/h]

 

"
[h=6]Early on, the Nazis also disbanded all businesses that did not have a certain amount of capital and prohibited the creation of new enterprises at even lower levels. Essentially, they eradicated about 20% of the countries firms and destroyed small business. Definitely not capitalism."[/h]

 

"
[h=6]<<<Nazi Germany was capitalist because it served the interests primarily of capitalists>>>

Which capitalists? Obviously we have an issue of not agreeing on the definition of capitalism, because your argument is basically structured as so: if capitalism and fascism are the same and free(r) markets are not part of capitalism, then Nazi Germany was capitalist (which is the one of the most absurd things I've ever heard). Therefore, if you don't believe that free markets are characteristic of capitalism, then do you at least believe that private property is an element of capitalism? The rest of your argument is contingent on this misconception.

<<<So; fascism was directed and supported by capitalists>>>

So now you contradicting yourself by acknowledging fascists and capitalists aren't the same? The point I'm trying to make (or will make after you answer my question above) is that fascism and capitalism are distinctively different."[/h]

 

Once again refer to my earlier post with the definiton of capitalism and re-read it. Free enterprise, and free trade are what i sums down to. Therefore the only way Capitalism could exist in a dictatorship or democracy is if these rights are given. Democracy or dictatorship simply refers to who gives the rights. In america the rights were given and sometimes limited but not taken by congress representing the people. (therefore america would be a democratic government, with a capitalist economy) In germany these rights were limited or taken by Hitler (making germany a dictatorship and non capitalist.) you cant be capitalist if you dont have free enterprise and free trade. A free market is different and debatable as even in capitalism the market can be driven by larger businesses but free enterprise and free trade always exist. As the quote said "anybody who thinks germany was capitalist surely does not understand capitalism."

 

Germany was national socialist. It was for the people (a characteristic of capitalism) as long as the people were for the state (a characteristic of communism). Think about the word nationalism and socialism and put the 2 together. Germany was not capitalist simply because it had a characteristic. That is like saying apples are oranges because they are both fruits.

 

A.Smith was talking about things that did not exist:there was no free trade in 1776,and thus no free enterprise:as an American,you should know that the absence of free trade was one of the causes of the revolt against Britain .
And in 2011:let's take the European Union(a capitalist organisation):the whole agricultural sector is totally subsidizied by Europe,but,the EU is deciding what the farmer must produce,how much,is also determining the prices,there are milk quota,etc,Europe is even controlling by aircraft if the farmers are obeying,there also are export subsidies,etc ..Thus this proving the existence of free enterprise,free trade ? No.Thus this means that the EU is a socialist organisation ? No.
And,let's look to the motherland of capitalism :the US:why do you think that,(an ex.) Strom Thurmond remained 50 years senator of SC? The answer is easy:because of Thurmond,the cotton and tobacco from SC were heavily subsidized.If cotton and tobacco were subsidized,but the shoes industry not,can one speak of free enterprise,and free trade ?And,what about the heavily subsidized US agriculture ? And Lockheed /Boeing ?
Do you think that in the thirties,there was ONE capitalist country practising free trade? free trade meaning that there were no import taxes or export subsidies ?
Free trade/enterprise are not indispensable to talk of a capitalist economy .Private property of the means of production is.
And,as this existed in Nazi Germany,we can say that the economy of nazi Germany was a capitalist one.