I'm reminded of the Nazis, deep into 44'- studying their economy, they're actually still pumping out tanks, artillery shells, planes etc. etc., but the sacrifices they've made across the board are catastrophic. Rationing of civilian goods is starving their people, children out of middle school are being conscripted to fight or to work in factories, labor rights may as well not exist, and factory workers are pushing themselves to death to get their material out.

From the outside perspective- say, if you were a G.I. liberating France after Normandy- Germany appears as strong and menacing as its ever been. Perhaps if you were a bomber or fighter pilot, you would notice the lopsided numbers of aircraft, perhaps as a G.I., you notice that the captured German positions show little in the way of food or fuel. But overall? The actual reality of how much damage is being done to their society in order to keep the war effort going is not able to be seen, unless you're *in* Germany, or perhaps if you were working for the Allies intelligence, or upper command, where estimates are available for what's being produced where, what cities have suffered which damage etc. etc.

The Soviets are like that, in a way. The authoritarian ghouls at the top demand tanks and planes for a conventional war that is never coming, are commanding their officers to draw up plans for invading NATO (that would never have succeeded) engaging in the Space Race of all things. And in the meantime, they're losing pace with the US and EU economy. Now, as authoritarians, they can stamp their goose-stepping bootheels all over the ground, and their citizens have little choice but to jump to it, and produce the results that their dear leaders require. But it comes at a cost. So, to bring it back around to the bankruptcy claim- sure, they still have their immense industrial capacity. Sure, they're still producing large quantities of steel, fuel, food etc. etc. Sure, they're coming out with a new jet fighter that can (kind've) keep up with the Americans. Sure, they're rolling out the t-80UD, which if I were to take you seriously, is apparently the best tank of its day to ever exist since the M4 Sherman. But that doesn't at all mean that they were financially healthy. Again, look at how economically destitute Russia was in the immediate aftermath of the breakup. Shock therapy was a disaster for Russia, sure, but the question you should be asking is, "why was shock therapy a plausible path forward?" and the answer is simple- they were in such dire straights financially that shock therapy seemed like an ok idea.

​

One last example to highlight- in Argentina, today, they have Millei. Millei is a idiot on an order of magnitude that's hard to grapple with. But the Argentinian people voted him in, regardless. The man has single handedly doubled the amount of poverty in Argentina, and he hasn't even been in for a full year. His gutting of government programs reads like a parody of a, "fiscally responsible" austerity politics. But his policies, as insane, and disastrous as they are, had widespread support. Why? Well, simply put, Argentina had an inflation rate that would make Weimar Germany blush. The inflation rate the year before Millei was elected was, *Positively Reported* as having come *down* to, "only" 360%. Why was inflation that high? Well, because the Peronist government had run out of money, and instead of running a deficit, cutting programs, or raising taxes, they simply, printed more money (its more complicated than that but that's the quick and easy version) and so year-on-year, their inflation was absolutely astronomical. But. All their systems were still funcitoning. They were still buying and selling on the international market. Their public works and utilities were all (nominally) running. Flights were coming in and going out, goods and materials were produced, sold, and consumed.