Would you rather have the Soviets or Nazis rule the world?

[Herargon]

Yup, in Stalin's time, everyone - even the most communistic communist - feared the knock on the door. It was a hard time for them. After Stalin, it got a bit easier for the people, but they still were oppressed harshly.

Yeah.
If it could've continued existing with someone like Gorbachev in power, it'd be much better off.

Or Lenin. I have read that he was against Stalin harsh policies. But Lenin did arrest non-communists if I recall it correctly.
Whether he did that out of his ideology or on survival grounds is not sure.
The country essentially was in civil war and he had to stop revolts against him to make the early USSR stable and ready for growth. Most people revolting were anti-communists or non-communists, so it is possible that he indeed really had no other choice but to arrest them to prevent the country from becoming even worse from the civil war.
However, he was a fierce communist that believed in Marx's ideas. So it could be just a purge too.
We never will know..

[Grand Britannia]

Soviet Nazis.

[The Bolshevik State]

Soviet's for sure. Not only do I have a small degree of support for Marxism-Leninism, but if we're going by post-Stalin era Soviet Union then it is a far better place to live than in Nazi Germany.

[Valourium]

I sense a moderator interference in the near future.

[Roelandia]

the term "free market" only referes to the way the means of production and distribution is organized. It doesn't say anything about what kind of labour that is used to produce the goods that will end up for sale on the market. Look at the southern states of America for example. They utilised slave labour to produce their goods (mainly tabacco and cotton) but even so, it was a free market economy. Free market basicly means that private citizens can create goods that thay may sell these goods to practically anyone for a price dependent on supply and demand. That's it! Ethics have nothing to do with this. You seem to automaticly assume that "Free market" means "Democracy" and "Equality". That's where you are wrong.

Arresting business owners and seizing their assests to produce goods for solely the state is very free market.

No it is not but I imagine the nazi's seized that particular plant out of desperation. Look at the nazi economic policies throughout the war for example. When the tiger tank program was started they ran a competition between various manufacturers like Porche and Henshel. Holding competitions between competitors for a contract is a basic activity of a free market economy and a free market minded regime. The US does the same today and we all know that the US is a textbook example of a free market economy.

[Imperium Sidhicum]

I'd much rather stick with the Nazis. I'd most likely be a second-class citizen, but a citizen nonetheless - which is better than being dead or imprisoned simply for having educated middle-class (read: bourgeois) family members.

Besides, the Nazis were far more civil than the Soviets during their stay in my country. Provided you didn't belong to the wrong nationalities and didn't resist the occupation authorities, life was tolerable, the German soldiers being very civil and cultured compared to the Russians - which is something that every living member of the older generation who experienced the war first-hand can attest.

Yet for some reason, your grandparents and parents managed to give you life despite the Soviets, something that would have been unlikely to happen under Generalplan Ost.

Perhaps. Either way, we won't ever know now, will we?

[Densaner]

I would put myself into the shoes of the Poles in 1944/45. That was the exact choice they faced. The USSR after Stalin died wasn't anywhere near as bad as Nazi Germany. With Stalin they were the second worst regime in modern world history. Either way I vote Commie. ☭

[Moderate Republican]

Death by starvation or death by bullet/gas. I'd probably take bullet/gas for quickness. Then again there's the possibility of death by slave labour in either one...

I'd probably just chose cyanide tablet.

[Stormwind-City]

Arresting business owners and seizing their assests to produce goods for solely the state is very free market.

No it is not but I imagine the nazi's seized that particular plant out of desperation. Look at the nazi economic policies throughout the war for example. When the tiger tank program was started they ran a competition between various manufacturers like Porche and Henshel. Holding competitions between competitors for a contract is a basic activity of a free market economy and a free market minded regime. The US does the same today and we all know that the US is a textbook example of a free market economy.

In 1933? They had no need to do that. They did that to expressly to use Hugo Junker's company and factories with no compensation to him.

[Laerod]

Second last sentence specifically.

Ok, than may I ask what your actual assumptions about free market are. It will make things easier when I don't have to guess. (no offence intended)

Not the topic of the thread, so I'm afraid I won't be elaborating.

[Laerod]

I sense a moderator interference in the near future.

It's not very impressive to be able to predict things that have already happened.

[Second Blazing]

Nazis.

Two words, Sargent Schultz.

[Roelandia]

No it is not but I imagine the nazi's seized that particular plant out of desperation. Look at the nazi economic policies throughout the war for example. When the tiger tank program was started they ran a competition between various manufacturers like Porche and Henshel. Holding competitions between competitors for a contract is a basic activity of a free market economy and a free market minded regime. The US does the same today and we all know that the US is a textbook example of a free market economy.

In 1933? They had no need to do that. They did that to expressly to use Hugo Junker's company and factories with no compensation to him.

Okay, it was not out of desperation than but still you are wrong. I did some quick research and 1. It was in 1934, not 1933 and 2. Hugo Junckers was a socialist Pacifist and was thus propably regarded by the Nazi's as a security risk. That has nothing to do with economic but with political/security policies

[Communist Volkstrad]

Death by starvation or death by bullet/gas. I'd probably take bullet/gas for quickness. Then again there's the possibility of death by slave labour in either one...

I'd probably just chose cyanide tablet.

Post-Stalin USSR wasn't as bad as it was under him.
East Germany and Czechoslovakia, both Satellite states, had far better living conditions than the USSR, With East Germany circa 1982 being on the same level as the UK of the year, regarding the Human Development Index.

[Roelandia]

Ok, than may I ask what your actual assumptions about free market are. It will make things easier when I don't have to guess. (no offence intended)

Not the topic of the thread, so I'm afraid I won't be elaborating.

you are welcome to elaborate in a telegram if you feel like it

[Stormwind-City]

In 1933? They had no need to do that. They did that to expressly to use Hugo Junker's company and factories with no compensation to him.

Okay, it was not out of desperation than but still you are wrong. I did some quick research and 1. It was in 1934, not 1933 and 2. Hugo Junckers was a socialist Pacifist and was thus propably regarded by the Nazi's as a security risk. That has nothing to do with economic but with political/security policies

So, free markets for only those who agree with the state politically? Sounds very 'free'.

[United Dependencies]

Soviet Nazis

*nod*

[Laerod]

Nazis.

Two words, Sargent Schultz.

That's disgustingly low, even for you.

[Roelandia]

Okay, it was not out of desperation than but still you are wrong. I did some quick research and 1. It was in 1934, not 1933 and 2. Hugo Junckers was a socialist Pacifist and was thus propably regarded by the Nazi's as a security risk. That has nothing to do with economic but with political/security policies

So, free markets for only those who agree with the state politically? Sounds very 'free'.

Like I said before "Free" in the sense of "Free market" has nothing to do with political or social freedom but with economic freedom. "Free" in this notion implies the right to own private property and to produce and sell that property to other individuals without (much) state interference in that proces. The state allows you to benefit from it economically, something the soviet union would never allow because that directly opposes the core of their ideology. Nazi germany couldn't care less that a factory owner got exceedingly rich from building war machines or selling huge amounts of food to (in nazi germany's case) the military. The fact that Nazi germany allows you to get rich makes it a free market economy, regarldess of the fact that they would remove you when you do not agree with their political agenda. It's solely about the "free" economic aspect. All other forms of "freedom" are irrelevant in this discussion. It's not because a nation is repressive when it comes to social and political freedoms that it can not be "free" in an economic sense.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

Like I said before "Free" in the sense of "Free market" has nothing to do with political or social freedom but with economic freedom. "Free" in this notion implies the right to own private property and to produce and sell that property to other individuals without (much) state interference in that proces. The state allows you to benefit from it economically, something the soviet union would never allow because that directly opposes the core of their ideology. Nazi germany couldn't care less that a factory owner got exceedingly rich from building war machines or selling huge amounts of food to (in nazi germany's case) the military. The fact that Nazi germany allows you to get rich makes it a free market economy, regarldess of the fact that they would remove you when you do not agree with their political agenda. It's about solely "free" the economic aspect. All other forms of "freedom" are irrelevant in this discussion. It's not because a nation is repressive when it comes to social and political freedoms that it can not be "free" in an economic sense.

You still haven't justified how a free market can still be considered free with slaves who obviously do not have any economic freedom.

[Anollasia]

Soviets.

[Second Blazing]

Nazis.

Two words, Sargent Schultz.

That's disgustingly low, even for you.

In the sense that they're so damn inept the whole thing would've collapsed very quickly.

[Organized States]

Just total unrelating resistance to the both...

[Laerod]

That's disgustingly low, even for you.

In the sense that they're so damn inept the whole thing would've collapsed very quickly.

Except that's fiction and John Banner being an actual refugee is not.

[Second Blazing]

In the sense that they're so damn inept the whole thing would've collapsed very quickly.

Except that's fiction and John Banner being an actual refugee is not.

What? It was a joke. Have you really been taking my posts as serious statements this whole time?