Thoughts on Zimbabwe, Rhodesia, the ZANU-PF, Mugabe, etc.?
Do you think the ZANU-PF/ZAPU-PF were actually marxists or liberals in red?
Why is Zimbabwe in the state it is today?
How could history have gone better for this country?

Attached: mugabe.jpg (645x645, 69.61K)

Other urls found in this thread:


Not going into IMF

Why do Commies go into IMF

While whole Bush War has been memed into this ebin tacticool performance by Rhodesian Army, prolonging the conflict was the cause behind the shit that goes on in Zimbabwae today. Had Ian Smith negotiated with pic related much early, may be Mugabe had never came to power.

Attached: 200px-Joshua_Nkomo_(1978).jpg (200x267, 14.41K)



he asked landlords nicely to give their land to the state instead of forcibly taking them which led to them leaving and taking their capital with them which crashed the economy then to restore things he gave green light for rioting against the farmers which damaged the agricultural production leading to even more economy damage + a famine.
again another example of why kulaks should be gulaged and how moderate non radical revolutionaries suck ass and destroys everything


Mugabe is bad but Ian Smith was definitely the bigger evil don't let any Zig Forumsshits tell you otherwise. And from what little I do understand the guys that removed Mugabe are even more neoliberal than he was.

Attached: rhodesia memeball.png (1080x1111 250.84 KB, 1.3M)

Honestly I wonder how different things would've gone if Nkomo was in charge. Mugabe was just plain bonkers.

What’s the difference between ZANU and ZAPU?

ZANU was Maoish, and ZAPU was Sovietish.

this is why we need another hitler who can cut through the politics stuff and just lead a second revolution lol

Revolutionary turned crook
Pwned some white settlers and ended their retarded regime.
Probably one of the more successful attempts at de-colonization.
I told you about the IMF bro, I told you bro.

My god the cold war was a mistake.

Mugabe never in power

Attached: 9ny82s.jpg (754x1616, 208.65K)

The toothbrush mustache is cursed


Attached: ClipboardImage.png (640x398, 378.97K)

Holy mother of kek

in current economics money (capital) doesn't necessarily represent any resource or service and with capital i meant money. when currency A gets converted to Currency B the international value of currency A decreases and to make things worse they sold their land to the government which led to even more conversion.
if he was fully marxist this wouldn't have happened just like the ussr, china, burkina faso, etc

Zig Forums loves nigger hominids and would love to be murdered by them some time! You lot are all honorary niggers to me, so I'd love to put as many ANTIFA and leftists to death as humanly possible. I want to torture all of you to death and sacrifice you to up and coming Nature Spirits because I really love you that much. MURDER ALL LEFTISTS.

Attached: rhodesiansneverdie.webm (480x360, 4.37M)

ZAPU's leader (Joshua Nkomo) was basically the father of the Zimbabwean independence movement, and was mainly concerned about getting independence with ideology as an afterthought. His forces were trained by the Soviets, but their strategy didn't work: ZAPU basically built up its army in Zambia, preparing to invade Rhodesia like in a conventional war, but the Rhodesian airforce was simply able to attack ZAPU troops in Zambia and destroy Zambian transport infrastructure.

ZANU's leadership (including Mugabe) were generally younger and more radical politically, being influenced by Maoism. They felt Nkomo was out of touch and was treating his party as his personal property, obstructing any criticism. Likewise, in military affairs ZANU studied Mao's approach, infiltrating cadres into Rhodesia's countyside, establishing connections with villages, and carrying out a guerrilla warfare.

There were also tribal differences: Nkomo belonged to the Ndebele people, Mugabe and others to the more numerous Shona, so there were accusations by both sides of favoritism toward their respective peoples.

Ooga Booga. Unga bunga binga bunga bonga bing.

Right-wing ideology has always and will always kill more white people than anyone else. This is because rightists are absolutely obsessed with what they shouldn't be, instead of what they should be.
Here's a list of people rightists think you should not be;
Slavic, as Hitler hated slavs and wanted to enslave them
Nordic, as nordic people are cumskins and ruined Rome
Anglo, as Anglos killed Germans in WWII and Churchil was evil
Spanish, because Spanish people are part-moor
Portuguese, and Portuguese people are part-moor
Italian, because Italians are tainted with African heritage
Greek, because Greeks are eternally cucked by the Turks who own Istanbul
Balkan, as people living in the European Balkan region are part slavic, or worse, part-Albanian, who are honorary Arabs for their Islamism
Finnish, because Finnish people are part-mongol
French, because French are cucks who believe in ebul Gommulism and were the first Democracy
Swiss, because Swiss are a mix of Italians, French, and Germans, making them impure mutts
Germans, because the Gauls ruined Rome
Americans, because Americans are mutts
Mexicans, because Mexicans are largely part-native American rape-babies
Central Americans, because they have a large african population after freeing the slaves
South Americans, especially brazilians, because brazilians are mutts. Except, this isn't a bad thing, because Brazilian fascism promotes muttery, so that's okay. They have a mutt waifu too.
Carribeans, because carribeans are not white.
Canadians, because Canada is Chinese
Irish, because it goes without saying that Irish Hiberno-Negroids are not white and came from Africa.
White middle-easterners, because they are probably mutts too.
Jews, because Jews aren't white.
And don't even think about disagreeing with rightoids, because that makes you an "honorary non-white". Don't think Hitler is good for Germany? Honorary Jew. You are not white. Don't like Capitalism? Honorary Commie, unless you think Nazi Social Democracy counts as anti-Capitalist of course.
Basically, nobody is white and everyone will be killed for their impurity.

Attached: culturalmarxism.jpg (800x583, 306.55K)

As a pure-blooded Iberian with Aragonese blood it is not tainted, unless you count the fact that I am Anglo-Saxon on the other side. There is no nigger or arab blood you filthy little lying animal. Celt-Atlantid-Aryan blooded if you want a real look at how these races of Europa really are, not how you judenvermin call them. You are a piece of shit and follow the Left-Hand path like I do. I will make sure to spite and murder as many of you faggot animals as I can before I die. I don't really care if you point out people with tainted blood because those people have their own shit to sort out, but not I. I just want to nuke Israel and torture every single leftist to death while the animal hoards starve to death. I am pure when it comes to Aryan-Atlantid stock. You are a fucking cunt. May you and your lineage be cursed like the followers of Moloech for all time upon this wretched Earth.


If I was some angry Hong Konger who loved NutSac or some Indio, I'd still want to murder you niggerjewleftist. Where do you live piece of trash?

Where do you get this information? You don’t “convert” a currency into another. You exchange it. It doesn’t disappear. The economy went to shit because they depended on agricultural production which they could no longer do after they kicked the white farmers out and realized running a farm is hard work which doesnt come naturally to the congoloid. That’s why Mugabe had to publicly beg whitey to come back (spoiler: they didn’t).
You don’t have to come up with a complex abstract explanation for simple cause and effect relationships.

Or because there weren't enough incentives to farm, or because the new farmers couldn't acquire things like fertilizer that would increase productivity (either because it was too expensive or just didn't exist due to problems in the economy), etc.

If it was a question of just "Zimbabweans aren't used to hard work" then white landowners would have been screwed well beforehand considering how many relied on African labor to get things done.

Did whitey require special incentives to farm?
The Rhodesian farmers didn’t rely on black labor, they relied on machinery which requires skilled maintenance and upkeep which Ngoboko couldn’t provide- not that they ever tried. As soon as the farms were abandoned by their original operators, the equipment was scrapped by the new “owners” for quick cash. As a result of this glorious people’s revolution, the country went from supplying the entire region with food to requiring imports and food aid provided by white countries. This is called high time-preference thinking. It’s directly correlated to Autism Level, and it’s the fundamental reason this group of people will never build a first-world society.


Nice autism there son

2019 and you leftyniggers still don't quite grasp just how stupid niggers actually are

you can leave them an entire city running on nuclear power with enough fuel for a century and every street paved with gold and five years later they'd still manage to turn it into a brown reggaton shithole

The fatal flaw in right-wing ideology is treating stupid people like they should act just as responsibly as smart people. This applies to everyone who grew up without an education. Embrace paternalism faggot.

So then you will agree that handing over the reigns of a burgeoning first-world nation like Soutb Africa to the chimpanzees in the communist party was a bad idea, since these stupid people (a racial group with intelligence quotient ratings in the 70’s) can not reasonably be expected to exercise the level of responsibility required to maintain a society built by those who possess an intelligence level around two standard deviations (30 points) higher than their own.


Reminder that Rhodesia was off the IMF and was put on it, and South Africa was 2nd in the World in terms of Government-Economy after the Soviet Union and ANC made private EVERYTHING

While Sankara faced no sanctions or repercussions from the 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸global community🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸 for running a dictatorship, South Africa was at this very moment being systematically cut off from international diplomacy and trade for the high crime of giving the niggers their own ethnic enclaves, complete with the largest hospital in the world and a starter kit of civilization that they would never in ten thousand years be able to implement on their own.


USSR didn’t even exist by the time anc won the elections
Although you are correct that in South Africa the neoliberal policies were 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸successful🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸

He was literally couped by France you idiot
USA and Israel supported apartheid till the end of the cold war(Israel till the end period )

Attached: a83ea6f14d2896d2e096cf279d062998ec797ba9e7ad8c0f00d7d7ae7a0cc791.jpg (700x915, 120.61K)

Well DPRK had the biggest stadium in the world so Koreans must be very good at sports

Sankara brought the literacy rate of the country from 13% to 73% in the span of four years, engaged in the large scale vaccination of more then 2 million children in the country, engaged in an ambitious infrastructure and railroad project that saw all of the regions of the country connected, redistributed land to the populace which saw the production of wheat more then double in the country (I suppose this is what you were talking about), improved the general security and stability of the ecountry, and worked to reduce desertification. And this is all while rejecting the use of monetary foreign aid.
Or if you actually looked into it, getting killed by the French.
Sankara was working to make the country self-sufficent and refused foreign aid. Sanctions would do little in this regard, although regardless France opposed him from the onset and worked fervently to have him removed.
The South African government kept them in "enclaves" while utilizing them for outside labour before depositing them back in said "enclaves". They were literally used for cheap, near-slave labour through a practice in which companies would pick up and dump workers whenever they needed to. And because of how the enclaves worked, unpaid or underpaid wages could never be disputed and people had deal with what limited resources they had within them.

There’s no way you’re this retarded. The US officially sanctioned SA in 86, after having tried to do so since 72. Israel, an apartheid state itself, only continued trading with them because they could buy gold at discounted rates as they were the only buyer available.
Don’t you find it interesting that while the commie niggers are constantly threatening to take a white mans apple orchard away from him, they never talk about nationalizing all of the jew-owned gold and diamond mines, or the fact that public land and infrastructure is being sold off to India and China at bargain bin prices. I wonder why?

I’m sorry the niggers had to work for a living. I know it’s the ultimate injustice in the commie mind. Were they forced to work for whites at the barrel of a gun? If it was as bad as you claim, why not work in their own territory?

After much prodding by the international community, as well as protests inside the US. Reagan's government continuously dragged its feet.

Israel was a major ally of South Africa, even investing in its bantustan scheme.

Because that would go against the compromises the ANC agreed to make in the 90's in return for the National Party agreeing to give up power. If it had been up entirely to the SACP, and if the Soviet Union sill existed, South Africa under Black majority rule would have likely looked very different.

not "special" incentives, just incentives that African farmers lacked due to stuff like hyperinflation and promises of inputs that the government never provided.

Also in addition to what I wrote, landless peasants and agricultural laborers would be interested in acquiring what you term "a white mans apple orchard". The struggle for land was an important part of the ANC's appeal to rural Africans just as it was for ZANU in Zimbabwe.

You really believe the ANC cares about honoring a 25 year old agreement they made with DeKlerk, while they publicly encourage raids and murders of white farmers? Was that part of the agreement?
They aren’t leaving the mines alone out of respect for fair play. They have free reign to destroy the white and colored minorities without fear of repercussion. Yet they know as soon as they try and interfere with mining interests the media blackout on the SA situation will conveniently come to an end, and the current monkey in chief will be replaced by a new monkey who knows his place.
Selling the country piecemeal to Indian and Chinese companies… what a glorious revolution.

Were the previous owners receiving any of these handouts? No. So why is it suddenly an excuse for blacks?
You’re delusional thinking blacks are interested in becoming farmers, but yes of course they are “interested” in getting free land. And every time one of them gets land from the government as a result of a historical grievance handout, they immediately sell it for the cash value.
There’s no shortage of agricultural land in Africa, yet the particular plot of acreage that Ngoboko needs to lift himself up from his downtrodden existence always happens to be a pre-existing farm built from scratch by whites.

P.S. I was just banned for three weeks for “racism”. And you people claim you’re not liberals. That’s rich, reddit.

sorry that your deep explanation and analysis of "lazy niggers" and "retarded low intelligence niggers" arguments got banned.
too much for the tolerant left

They were barely compensated for the work they did and were used in a process in which they had little to no bargaining power in regards to their wages and where all the power in regards to who could leave or stay was in the hands of the white bourgeoisie. Communists aren't against "working for a living", fundamentally all socialist countries required people to work. What we are against is objectively exploititaive capitalist arrangements in which people are enclosed in areas and cultivated to work the low-income jobs which they may not even be paid for.
If you actually read about the conditions in those areas, then you would know that the South African bourgeoisie actually owned multiple companies, casinos, and resorts as well as the rights to build on land in those areas. A large portion of the "occupations" that were offered in many of the Bantustans involved things which were considered immoral by the South African government but we're deemed allowable in the Bantustans, and as such many Bantustan townships became the equivalent of casino slum cities. Given that multiple indigenous people were forced to move to these areas from where they initially lived and had little in initial assets, many accepted the labour offered from the outside as a way to survive in the immediate present.
Why the hell do you feel the need to lie? Agricultural land was objectively less plentiful in many of townships in the Bantustans and much of it was owned by South African companies who set themselves up with them by ultizing the already corrupt Bantustan governments to buy up land. The wealthiest Bantustan, Bophuthatswana, which had large deposites of platinum to mine had a majority of it's mines owned and operated by South African companies. While the mines did see the country aquire a better standing above the other Bantustans (and a better relationship with SA), little of the income made by the mines saw their way into the hands of the workers.
Not an argument. Dumping a bunch of populaces arbitrarily into half-hazardly constructed areas with little in the way of prior finances and education does not equal a future projection of stability or prosperity, especially when SA companies were allowed to run free in them. Reality is not some god simulator where you can just build a bunch of empty buildings and roads and drag-n-drop an already poor and purposely uneducated people in them.
Not moving ethnic groups arbitrarily into territories in which South African companies who are cozy with the ruling South African established government buy up land, territories in which people are trapped in a situation of living in casino slums or taking risky outside labour which they may not even be compensated for?
Not even close
Are you unironically defending the IMF? The thing which every actually previously successful African project from Libya to Burkina Faso rejected? Are you implying that the IMF doesn't purposely keep countries in debt, not only in Africa?

Learn what liberal means faggot

Because white farmers had access to capital, African farmers didn't.

Yeah almost as if there's no longer a Soviet Union to protect socialist transformations in South Africa.

I wouldn’t get my information about rightists from fucking Zig Forums you do realise the vast majority of posters on there are trolling or dividing and conquering to watch the fun unfold.

The whites acquired capital from the agricultural industry by selling produce. Blacks are not farming either because they don’t know how, they don’t want to invest the effort and money into farming, or a combination of both, but due to greed they don’t want to sell or give that land away to someone more competent and instead keep it without working it.

The Soviet Unions closest allies during WW2 were capitalists and imperialists, sometimes you will take whatever help you can get when your being offered it.

Save for the fact that the whole reason Nazi Germany even became a thing was because of Western foreign financing and support and countries like Britain seeking a buffer. And how they planned to bomb USSR oil sites, stalled opening up an eastern front until the Soviets had already pushed back Germany, and offered little material assistance to the USSR compared to what they already had. Now tell me where Israel tried to purposely work against SA and sabotage it?



Germany was a capitalist nation, it did trade with the rest of the capitalist world, and the rest of the world had investments in Germany because it was very privatised, and the NSDAP did have many sympathisers abroad such as Henry Ford, but that doesn’t translate to the entire capitalist world including it’s governments supporting and actively funding them like they did with the Soviets. Lenin and his revolution was funded by literal German fucking imperialists, but your more than happy to ignore that minor detail, your argument falls apart when you realise just how much bourgeoisie support communism has gotten.

Just because a nation has plans doesn’t mean shit, the British had plans for a lot of different things and the vast majority were never used, Germany planned on the communists taking Russia out of the war, and it worked.

If Israel was working against them we would never know, they never tell anyone what they are doing.


Whites used machinery you retard, like the rest of the world and farm hands aren’t really that necessary in a modern country and Rhodesia was well on it’s way to becoming one, but that shouldn’t be a problem because blacks are in control so they should obviously be running things much better now and they should be treating their people much better, right?

Probably due to machinery, returning whites and possibly Chinese assistance.


Before the Germany began taking territory, they actively were. And knowingly allowing companies that are based in your borders to do so as well is to be complicit in such.
In what way? The only times I can think of such support was during the NEP in which certain companies were allowed to station themselves in the USSR (and then summarily kicked out after it ended) and Lend-lease which was proportionally small and largely inconsiquential.
Barely any.
Germany did back Lenin to get Russia out of the war, but never did it with the point of supporting communism or any already established government. When the revolution did happen, most countries that did back it supported the provisional government, not the Bolsheviks.

No, at most there were those financed the February Revolution and the provisional government. Jewish bankers and capitalists like Jacob Schiff backed the establishment of the capitalist provisional government, specifically the menshviks, liberals, and "progressive" nationalists. Heand many others were harshly opposed to the Bolsheviks, and after the October revolution cut off all financing and began bakcibg anti-bolshevik groups in Russia.

*The Germans

Germany was not getting direct funding and support from capitalist governments you imbecile, having foreign companies on your soil does not mean the country those companies came from actually supports you, the US was capitalist and it’s companies were more than capable of creating a branch in Germany.

The Soviets were being funded and backed by capitalists and imperialists the entire war like a giant fucking golem, and the land lease while making up a small amount of TOTAL production was extremely helpful in certain sectors such as aviation fuel which at one point over 90% of the aviation fuel came from land lease or vehicles in which hundreds of thousands of trucks, cars, tanks and other vehicles were given to the Soviets, this allowed for widespread mechanisation and don’t forget all the food, clothing, raw resources, refined resources, machinery, weapons etc, this freed up millions of workers and farmers to be recruited for fighting, and don’t forget all the other occasions when capitalists were more than happy to help their eternal enemies like Lenin’s revolution or east Germany getting funding from the west, the Americans helping mao or the numerous industrialists in the west handing out support throughout history.

If you call all that “barely any” then your either extremely delusional or incredibly dishonest, by comparison Germany got fuck all and this is strange because communists call fascism just a tool of capitalism, but history has clearly shown otherwise and in reality capitalism has shown far more support for communism than fascism ever got.

But he was funded by imperialists? And this entire argument started when I said that Rhodesia taking any support they could get even if it was from Israel was the smartest thing for them.





but of course they are all capitalist good boys who didn't do nuffin :^)

Lets just compare the goods USSR received from the Lend Lease to the goods they manufactured on their own:

Lend Lease / Russian product (1941–1945)

aircrafts: 14,795/134,100

tanks: 7,056/102,800

artillery cannons: 8,218/825,200

oil: 2,670,000/110,600,000 (tons)

steel: 1,500,000/39,680,000 (tons)

food: 733,000/64,121,000 (tons)


Lend lease sent to the USSR:

Aircraft - 7.411 (CW) + 14.795 (US) = 22.206


— 1.5 ton trucks 151.053 (US

— 2.5 ton trucks 200.662 (US)

— Willys Jeeps 77.972 (US)

Bren Gun Carriers - 2.560 (CW)

Boots - 15 million pairs (US)

Communications equipment:

— Field phones - 380.135 (US)

— Radios - 40.000 (US)

— Telephone cable - 1.25 million miles (US)

Cotton cloth - 107 million square yards (US)

Foodstuffs - 4.5 million tons (US)

Leather - 49.000 tons (US)

Motorcycles - 35.170 (US)

Locomotives - 1.981 units (US)

Rolling stock - 11.155 units (US)

Tanks - 5.218 (CW) + 7.537 (US) = 12.755

Tractors - 8.701 (US)

Trucks - 4.020 (CW) + 357.883 (US) = 361.903

That's the entirety of Allied Lend Lease to the Soviet Union. We did a good job, that's a lot of stuff to produce and bring to a country on the other side of the world during a maritime war effort; but that's barely 10% of Soviet production*, and it most certainly did not win the war.

*(The war was decided in the winter of 1941, before the first American trade arrived.)

Another rightist exposed as a pathological liar.
What a shock!

Attached: 3265836543985.jpg (974x1025, 218.86K)


Oh my god, corporations sold shit to a capitalist nation and they purchased it. I already said that Germany was capitalist and had support from abroad including foreign industrialists, they were a mass movement and they had millions who viewed them with sympathy, it’s not surprising that those men supported them, and nations bordering Germany supported them either because they feared getting invaded or because they thought they could make some money out of the war and millions of people fought for the Germans because they probably didn’t want their home to be taken over by communists and to be turned into nothing more than fucking serfs who didn’t own anything while the party elite who more resembled nobels could exploit those people.

Also this isn’t even remotely comparable to the amount of shit the Soviets got for free, and the reason I brought it up was because the Soviets were happy to accept shit from capitalists and imperialists who they supposedly despised.

Are you that retard who got banned from the Patriotic War Myths thread because of your bullshit? Cause you sound just like him.


No. 90% of aviation fuel produced and used for 1944 was lend lease, however that 90% was almost nothing compared to actual soviet fuel stockpiles.

10% is a pretty massive amount and it no doubt helped immensely especially In 41 and 42 to fill in gaps in production and to free up men for fighting. But I’m not arguing about how much they got or didn’t get, I’m arguing that communists have been supported throughout history by industrialists, capitalists, and bourgeoisie but this is ok for some reason, but a non communist nation getting support is somehow strange or a sign that it is just a puppet nation.

(Source: Williams, Albert Rhys. Lenin: The Man and His Work. New York: Scott and Seltzer. 1919. pp. 103-106.)

Keep manipulating

10% is not a massive amount in the slightest, and 105 is the maximum estimate, the historically accepted estimate is 4%.

Moreover 90% of this 'aid' only started coming into the USSR in 1943 AFTER THE BATTLE OF STALINGRAD by which time the Germans were already being pushed back on soviet power alone.

This is all from a compilation of information on Lend Lease and other such relevant info from

Lmao, coming from a commie that follows a meme ideology that is best known for lying constantly about even the most petty and random things on a daily basis without any shame and most impressively failing on every occasion it’s ever been tried, it doesn’t even need an invasion of disaster, it just fails because the people hate living under such a shitty system and inevitably want a capitalist one.

It is. The Soviets DIDN'T get all that much for free at all, they had to trade and bargain for these things, sometimes forming shell-companies so as to not get caught and sanctioned, as was done repeatedly throughout the USSR's existence

lmao it wasn't just selling Nazis shit, ti was strategically providing them explicit war materials often literally handcrafted for the Germans themselves, usually by the backing of CEOs who explicitly aligned themselves with Hitler and his ideology, thus aligning themselves with the actions and beliefs of the Third Reich as a whole. It wasn't just "selling them some goods", it was providing material for a political machine explicitly dedicating itself to the extermination of certain minorities as well as the military conquest of nations and the privatization of their industry that would be explicitly contracted to German allied companies, because fundamentally fascists serve the same purpose liberals do: to act as a front of power for the capitalist class. The only real difference is that liberals prefer soft power, fascist prefer hard power.

Lmao, the USSR eliminated things like poverty and homelessness throughout the Warsaw Pact with governmental policy.

The Soviet had a substantial supply of low-octane AVGAS throughout the war, what you are talking about is high-octane AVGAS which was only really important late into the war to increase the octane of their already available gas reserves during the push into Germany, which by then the war had already been won and was only a question of when.
"Widespread" is a huge overexaggeration, it allowed the use of those vehicles to immediately be allocated into certain areas but didn't contribute more then what the Soviets could already provide. Many of the vehicles provided were of no use to the front either given the horrendously muddy condtions of Russia, something the Germans had issue with as well.
No, actually look at the production numbers. Lend lease also came far later then this would actually be critically useful, and people were being moved from production into the military even before lend lease with the industrial labour population being lower then Germany's.
I already explained this, the vast majority (as in all but maybe one from the top of my head) financied the February revolution and the Mensheviks/liberal/nationalist coalition. They did not finance the Bolsheviks.
What? The west constantly attempted to sabotage East Germany and the East was already doing quite well by itself, even to the shock of Western newspapers.
Under "The Berlin Wall – Another Cold War Myth"
During the war or when the communists were in power?
When? The only time I can think of is the NEP, and that was never "handing out" and always required major compensation.
It was objectively barely any, especially when compared to Nazi Germany which was allowed to go majorly unimpaired during it's initial development while receiving major financial support while Russia was literally invaded by expeditionary forces the minute it turned communist and had the west funding the White army and other reactionary forces. You're the one being fuckjng dishonest here.


[1] 57% of Eastern Germans defend the GDR

[2] 61% of Romanians think Communism is a good idea

[3] 62% of Hungarians were happiest under Communist Rule

[4] 36% percent in Ukraine are happy with the transition from State Socialism to Market Capitalism

[5] More than 60 per cent of the respondents strongly agreed that during the communist Yugoslav period they enjoyed greater personal freedoms, the economy was stronger and their living standard was higher. Only about 20 per cent of those queried disagreed with these statements.

[6] 60% of Russians see Communism as good.

[7] A 2013 poll by Gallup showed that on average, 51% of former-Soviet citizens say that the breakup of the USSR harmed their country, with 24% saying it benefited it. The older the respondents were (in other words, the more they actually remembered the Soviet system) the more likely they were to say that the breakup was harmful.

[8] The transition to capitalism, produced countless pre-mature deaths and continues to produce a higher mortality rate than likely would have prevailed under the socialist system. A 1986 study by Shirley Ciresto and Howard Waitzkin, based on World Bank data, found that the socialist economies of the Soviet bloc produced more favorable outcomes on measures of physical quality of life, including life expectancy, infant mortality, and caloric intake, than did capitalist economies at the same level of economic development, and as good as capitalist economies at a higher level of development.

[9] As regards the transition from a one-party state to a multi-party democracy, Pipes points to a poll that shows Russians view democracy as fraud. Over 3/4 believe “democracy is a facade for a government controlled by rich and powerful cliques.”

[10] According to a relatively recent Gallup poll, for each citizen of 11 former Soviet republics, who thinks the breakup of the USSR benefited their country, 2 think it did harm. Those aged 45+ year, (those who lived in the USSR) were mostly in the latter group.

[11] A 2003 poll asked Russians how they would react if the Communists seized power. Almost 1/4 would support the new government, 1 in 5 would collaborate, 27% would accept it, 16% would emigrate, and only 10% would actively resist it. In other words, for each Russian who would actively oppose a Communist take-over, 4 would support it or collaborate with it, and 3 would accept it

[12] Only 9% of Russians think the events of August 1991 was a victory of democracy and freedom

[13] 70% of Tajikistan’s population longs for soviet power and prestige.

[14] The majority of people 35 and older believe that life was better in the USSR, compared to the post-breakup period, whilst most people 25 and under believe life is better now.

[15] 58% of Russians in 2017 regret the USSR’s fall, 16% had mixed feelings and only 25% did not regret its fall.
“When researchers asked those who regret the end of the USSR what the primary reasons were behind their sentiments, 54 percent said that they missed a single economic system, 36 percent said they had lost the feeling of belonging to a real superpower, 34 percent complained about the decrease of mutual trust among ordinary people, and 26 percent said that the collapse had destroyed the ties between friends and relatives. The same research showed that 52 percent of Russians think that the collapse of the USSR could have been avoided, 29 percent said that the event was absolutely inevitable, and 19 percent did not have a fixed opinion on the matter.”

[16] "In a July 2010 IRES (Romanian Institute for Evaluation and Strategy) poll, according to which 41% of the respondents would have voted for Ceausescu, had he run for the position of president. And 63% of the survey participants said their life was better during communism, while only 23% attested that their life was worse then. Some 68% declared that communism was a good idea, just one that had been poorly applied."

[17] 72% of Hungarians say that they are actually worse off now economically than they were under communism.

[18] Roughly 28 percent of Czechs say they were better off under the Communist regime, according to a poll conducted by the polling institute SC&C and released Sunday. Only 23 percent said they had a better life now.

[19] As many as 81 per cent of Serbians believe they lived best in the former Yugoslavia -"during the time of socialism". The survey focused on the respondents' views on the transition "from socialism to capitalism", and a clear majority said they trusted social institutions the most during the rule of Yugoslav communist president Josip Broz Tito. The standard of living during Tito's rule from the Second World War to the 1980s was also assessed as best, whereas the Milosevic decade of the 1990s, and the subsequent decade since the fall of his regime are seen as "more or less the same". 45 percent said they trusted social institutions most under communism with 23 percent choosing the 2001-2003 period when Zoran Djinđic was prime minister. Only 19 percent selected present-day institutions.

Selling shit to Germany just means that the owners of the company were sympathetic with Germany or simply wanted to make money any way they could, if anything the companies were more subservient to Germany and it’s ideology than Germany was to them if they were going out of their way to create custom shit and hand crafted stuff in that situation.


Attached: 5d8091c5b1d73e7a2cae4fc9fac715d41befbf31.png (950x752 166.28 KB, 212.79K)

Meant also for

Ford and several other industrialist were awarded the highest honors by Hitler and were treated as personal guests by him. Even their Swedish and other neutral factories/facilities continued to help Germany throughout the war despite having no obligation to do so.

And yet these nations have not voted for a communist government strange, you would think they would actually try to get it back, in reality these people enjoyed being part of a super power, they enjoyed being part of something relevant, and view their time as nostalgic, and just because people want a retarded system doesn’t make it work, you fail to provide any argument as to why communism has never been achieved and always ends with socialism.

They probably kept providing Germany with shit because they wanted to continue making money.

Germany showing such support to industrialists was probably to get other industrialists to invest in Germany and to create a more friendly aura to business.

Hitler literally privatised multiple state assets after receiving funds from corporations (both native and foreign) and had industrial council's and committees run by corporate heads, then removed the "left-wing" part of his party who called him out for accepting these funds and getting cozy with the capitalists. He was even willing for a while to allow the Jewish bankers in his country like the Warburgs to continue operating as they did before after he took power, and only stopped after he had a falling out with Schacht.


"Capitalism is not just an economic system, but an entire social order. Once it takes hold, it is not voted out of existence by electing socialists or communists. They may occupy office but the wealth of the nation, the basic property relations, organic law, financial system, and debt structure, along with the national media, police power, and state institutions have all been fundamentally restructured.” - Michael Parenti, Blackshirts & Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism, City Light Books, 1997, p. 119.

fucking read a book

And yet it completely fucking collapsed and for some strange reason the Russian population haven’t reformed the Soviet Union, you would think that since things were so great that everyone would be put in the streets rioting and trying to start a new revolution and yet they don’t. Why?

It's because nearly every nation gave preferential treatment to Germany.

I see, it’s actually capitalism’s fault that people don’t want to live under your retarded system, you fags always manage to blame everything on everyone else, it’s never the fault of socialism, always someone else to point a finger at.