How was it a bad take? I'm sceptical of some things, but overall he makes an extremely good point about how 20th century socialist states usually had to compete on uneven access to resources compared to capitalist states.

Thank you for reuploading

It wasn't a bad take at all not every take is bad simply because you disagree with it

a thing or two could've been added but to say that this is a bad take is far from the truth. dude literally stated objective facts (like GDR being much smaller and less developed), therefore came to the obvious conclusion that comparison between these two countries which are not even close when it comes to industry or population to be unreasonable. this is the moderate take. acting like these two greatly different nations are somehow polar opposite versions of the same country is mind bogglingly stupid. it's the ultimate brainlet take

10/10 video

In Germany, we call this westfalen city thingie just Ruhrpott because of the river Ruhr flowing through

Overall a great video even if it has some flaws, idk why people hated this so much

its not bad at all, its only because you disagree with it

How much of it was communism and how much socialism?

Worked with a man whose wife and her mother left East Berlin just prior to the wall being built. The brother/son remained in East Germany. When the family was reunited after unification the bro./son said socialism had made those in the east lazy and unambitious. He said only with the passing of the older generation would the differences between west Germans/east Germans become lessened.

Insufficient, but very good, still. From an anarchist this is pretty nice praise of a socialist nation.

Upload his sources as well. His best video hands down.

It's good for the most part

The real reason it failed was because it acted like a industrialized society without industry😂

Hmm. You make interesting points but I’d say the truth is more nuanced than you let on. Especially in terms of discussing the arms race, east to west migration, economic trade between East and West Germany and of course post Cold War economic turbulence. Regarding the arms race it wasn’t one side that started building itself up and the other had to simply follow suit. Both sides even prior to end of ww2 did not trust one another and knew that once the fascists were defeated that they would have to face off against one another. Regarding East to West migration whilst many migrated because west Germany offered them better economic opportunities it was equally about escaping the repressive nature of the GDR government. Furthermore East Germany wasn’t completely boxed in with Comecon as Western countries like West Germany did trade with them throughout the Cold War. Furthermore you are wrong about the Marshall Plan as the the money the US gave the Western bloc did not need to be paid back but rather was placed into a counter part fund that was held by European governments. Whatever was repaid which was 5% of the total funds was to cover administrative costs of the fund. Again this wasn’t a loan. Furthermore the Marshall Plan was extended to Eastern Bloc countries and was equally offered to the Soviet Union who block them outright because they feared being indirectly incorporated into the capitalist world economy. Lastly regarding the economic turbulence following the Cold War I would say a lot of this has to do with globalisation and neoliberal economics as western nations went through the same experiences throughout the 1970s. Had capitalist economies maintained a mixed market approach under institutional economics we would still have a more equitable than it is currently. But this is what happens when you allow central banks control over the market.

I thought this was lost forever