Capitalism and the Second World War cont.

[Heathen Hammer]

You have refuted no single argument from Kriteas so long. The only thing you have done so far is reciting Temins thesis again and again.

Temin has no clue, what he is talking about, as for example Panther and Panzer IV were built only by some firms which had the license from MAN/Krupp, which was unnecessary for the T 34 in the Sovietunion, as there was a centralized socialistic economy without private property.

And? T-34s were running on fuel supplied by American capitalists, made from industry American capitalists built and fought alongside lend-lease M4A American tanks.

Engineers were invited from abroad, many well-known companies, such as Siemens-Schuckertwerke AG and General Electric, were involved in the work and carried out deliveries of modern equipment, a significant part of the equipment models produced in those years at Soviet factories, were copies or modifications of foreign analogues (for example, a Fordson tractor assembled at the Stalingrad Tractor Plant).In February 1930, between Amtorg and Albert Kahn, Inc., a firm of American architect Albert Kahn, an agreement was signed, according to which Kahn's firm became the chief consultant of the Soviet government on industrial construction and received a package of orders for the construction of industrial enterprises worth $2 billion (about $250 billion in prices of our time). This company has provided construction of more than 500 industrial facilities in the Soviet Union.^[23][24][25]
A branch of Albert Kahn, Inc. was opened in Moscow under the name "Gosproektstroy". Its leader was Moritz Kahn, brother of the head of the company. It employed 25 leading American engineers and about 2,500 Soviet employees. At that time it was the largest architectural bureau in the world. During the three years of the existence of Gosproektroy, more than 4,000 Soviet architects, engineers and technicians who have studied the American experience passed through it. The Moscow Office of Heavy Machinery, a branch of the German company Demag, also worked in Moscow.
The firm of Albert Kahn played the role of coordinator between the Soviet customer and hundreds of Western companies that supplied equipment and advised the construction of individual objects. Thus, the technological project of the Nizhny Novgorod Automobile Plant was completed by Ford, the construction project by the American company Austin Motor Company. Construction of the 1st State Bearing Plant in Moscow, which was designed by Kahn, was carried out with the technical assistance of the Italian company RIV.
The Stalingrad Tractor Plant, designed by Kahn in 1930, was originally built in the United States, and then was unmounted, transported to the Soviet Union and assembled under the supervision of American engineers. It was equipped with the equipment of more than 80 American engineering companies and several German firms.
American hydrobuilder Hugh Cooper became the chief consultant for the construction of the DneproGES, hydro turbines for which were purchased from General Electric and Newport News Shipbuilding.^[26]
The Magnitogorsk Metallurgical Plant was designed by the American firm Arthur G. McKee and Co., which also supervised its construction. A standard blast furnace for this and all other steel mills of the industrialisation period was developed by the Chicago-based Freyn Engineering Co.^[27]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indust...t_Union#GOELRO

[Lord Thesaurian]

Cool, the US built tanks already in the Civil War? Were the dragged by horses?

Yeah, you know, when the Bolsheviks freed the slaves from the Whites.

The T 26 and the BT series was built on british and US designs, but the T 34 is a unique soviet design.

From your own source:

The T-34 was powered by a Model V-2-34 38.8 L V12 Diesel engine of 500 hp (370 kW),[notes 3] giving a top speed of 53 km/h (33 mph). It used the coil-spring Christie suspension of the earlier BT-series tanks, using a "slack track" tread system with a rear-mounted drive sprocket and no system of return rollers for the upper run of track, but dispensed with the heavy and ineffective convertible drive.

The Christie suspension was inherited from the design of American J. Walter Christie's M1928 tank, versions of which were sold turret-less to the Red Army and documented as "farm tractors", after being rejected by the U.S. Army.

I'm still waiting for an explanation, why the other german firms needed licences from MAN/Krupp to produce Panzer IV and Panther in a socialistic economy.

I’m still waiting for an explanation why the Soviets needed to purchase designs and manufactured goods from capitalist firms in a socialistic economy.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Well the Diesel engine is still a german invention by Rudolf Diesel, still nobody would claim that the US battleships of the Iowa class are a german design.

Still the T 34 is a improved soviet design with better turret, armor and main gun.

But why needed the other german firms a licence to produce Panther and Panzer IV from MAN/Krupp, if the german economy was a socialistic one like in the Sovietunion, where a simple order by Stalin would have be enough to increase the production of them?

But i will roast you no longer. The license was needed, because the german economy was still a capitalistic one.

Edit: Producing a complete tank in license is something completely different than a part of it. Don't compare apples with pears.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Well the Diesel engine is still a german invention by Rudolf Diesel, still nobody would claim that the US battleships of the Iowa class are a german design.

Given you’re the one making up your own capitalist/socialist dichotomies to invent reasons the Nazis could not have been socialist, key aspects of the Soviet design were “capitalist” designs and therefore not socialist.

But why needed the other german firms a licence to produce Panther and Panzer IV from MAN/Krupp, if the german economy was a socialistic one like in the Sovietunion, where a simple order by Stalin would have be enough to increase the production of them?

But i will roast you no longer. The license was needed, because the german economy was still a capitalistic one.

Producing a complete tank in license is something completely different than a part of it. Don't compare apples with pears.

The Soviets had various forms of intellectual property law that protected individual Soviet citizens and their creative work since 1925, and purchased designs and finished products from capitalist firms all the time in order to use them. Only the State/Party could freely utilize/transfer a work without the owner’s consent. The rights could even be inherited by individual legal designation, with royalties paid to the owner for use. The USSR even joined the Universal Copyright Convention in 1973, under which copyright protections were necessarily extended to foreigners whose countries were fellow signatories.

The idea that the existence of intellectual property makes a system capitalist would necessarily mean the USSR was capitalist, which is merely the latest in a long line of absurd false dichotomies presented to argue the Nazis could not be socialist.

[Heathen Hammer]

Soviet Union was using licensed equipment from capitalist countries. So does modern China and most other socialist regimes.

[athanaric]

Imagine unironically thinking that Critical Race Theory is similar to Nazi doctrine. The only thing CRT wants to annihilate is your prejudices.

Really, defending CRT? Who are you going to praise next, ISIL or paedophiles maybe?

And yes, socialism is based on Marxism; of course there are a hundred different denominations of socialists, and not one agrees with the other ninety-nine - but most are using Marxism as an ideological framework. USSR on the other hand was Marxist-Leninist. It sounds like senseless jargon, I know, but the differences are actually important.

You missed the point that the term was appropriated by Marxists. There's no reason "socialism" should be applied only to Marxist ideologies, whether retroactively or not.

[Cyclops]

US stock propaganda is so mentally weak. Bernie=Socialist=Nazi, " achewally bLaCk PeOpLe aRe RaCiSt", "its the economy stupid" and Hope. The electorate put up with this trash?

This garbage argument that WWII was US freedom vs shades of European socialism is a as flatly stupid as the argument (famously posted on these forums, the poster had the grace to delete his account afterwards) made that WWI was an action by US Second Amendment enthusiasts to prevent gun control.

The laughs are in the belly, but the sad reality behind these bogus arguments is a political/media ecosystem that confines debate to LalaLand.

[Cope]

The war was a struggle between powers competing for control of the international order (hence world war). England and France (which were posing as global leaders while the US pursued isolationism and the USSR was experiencing extreme internal turmoil) did not declare war on Germany for ideological reasons; they belatedly determined that Hitler simply posed too greater a threat to international security and the geopolitical status quo to remain unopposed. While the NSDAP was virulently opposed to western liberalism, the primary ideological conflict was between national socialism and international socialism.

[Heathen Hammer]

FDR had no problem backing industry in both Germany and USSR. WW2 caused millions of lives but it also made lots of dollars for FDR's government, not to mention the subsequent brain drain from Europe.