Nazi Germany had a socialist economy

Discussion in 'History & Past Politicians' started by Anonymous.Professor, Jan 9, 2020.

  1. Farnsworth

    Farnsworth Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,956
    Likes Received:
    834
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As for Hayek, in his The Fatal Conceit, he criticizes what he calls 'rational constructionism' as fatally flawed, and has praise for traditionalist Christian religious beliefs as generally positive and far more effective than 'rationalism' as an influence on society and culture, though he is an atheist himself. Hayek is no more a fan of right wing Social Darwinism than he is of Marxist bullshit.
     
  2. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Fascism is a jampot of joviality because of its multiple definitions. To highlight its right wing nature, however, there are several elements we can refer to. I'd first refer to Keserich's definition of fascism as 'the reactionary and terroristic dictatorship of finance capital'. I'd then describe how fascism is incompatible with socialist political economy. Zanden (1960, American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol 19, pp 399-411) is a good source. First, the movement is characterised by anti-intellectualism ('obedience, discipline, faith and a religious belief in the cardinal tenets of the Fascist creed are put forth as the supreme values of a perfect Fascist. Individual thinking along independent lines is discouraged. What is wanted is not brains, daring ideas, or speculative faculties, but character pressed in the mold of Fascism'). That is closer to a worship of alienation. Second, we have the belief in the distribution of innate ability (i.e. the Theory of the Elites where those with a natural talent for ruling rule over the masses). A socialist, on the other hand, appreciates the destructiveness of class. Third, we have a reaction against democracy: 'the mass of men is created to be governed and not to govern; is created to be led and not to lead, and is created, finally, to be slaves and not masters: slaves of their animal instincts, their physiological needs, their emotions, and their passions'. That ain't participatory socialism! Fourth, we have 'fascism is in its broadest meaning a revolt against the modern age, against democratisation, secularisation and internationalism'. That is conservatism! Fifth, we have corporatism where fascism is defined as 'a system of political and economic decision-making based on the representation of organised interest groups in government' (Sarti). Ultimately fascism and economics, unlike socialism, do not go well together. The economics of fascism is actually 'economics by mistake, not design'. But isn't that the case with most right wing schools?

    But the Nazi economy itself? Try Buchheim and Scherner (2007, The Role of Private Property in the Nazi Economy: The Case of Industry, Journal of Economic History, Vol 66, pp 390-416) note:

    "Private property in the industry of the Third Reich is often considered a mere nominal provision without much substance. However, that is not correct, because firms, despite the rationing and licensing activities of the state, still had ample scope to devise their own production and investment profiles. Even regarding war-related projects, freedom of contract was generally respected; instead of using power, the state offered firms a number of contract options to choose from. There were several motives behind this attitude of the regime, among them the conviction that private property provided important incentives for increasing efficiency".

    Naff all to do with socialism. Capitalist exploitation was maintained. They just shifted it eventually to working people to death because they could.
     
  3. Farnsworth

    Farnsworth Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,956
    Likes Received:
    834
    Trophy Points:
    113
    the Nazi Party intellectuals, like the Strasser brothers, Goebbels, and Himmler were all fans of the Marxist theories. When Hitler took over the Party they had to choose loyalty to him over ideological fantasies. Those that chose ideology over Hitler were killed or marginalized. In 1932-33, Hitler had to choose whether to appease the Junkers and industrialists or his left wing allies; he chose to pander to the Junkers and industrialists.
     
  4. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    More unsubstantiated guff! The Nazis were fascist thugs who, through historical accident, rose to power. There is no common ground with Marxism. Indeed, left wing radicals were killed and labour rights eliminated.
     
  5. Farnsworth

    Farnsworth Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,956
    Likes Received:
    834
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Those who educated themselves know for a fact that Goebbels, the Strassers, and Himmler were left wingers both socially and economically, and there is nothing the fans of Lenin and Marx can do to change the historical record. The Peanut Gallery can amuse themselves looking up biographies of Goebbels, Himmler, the Strassers, etc., themselves. For starters ...


    National Bolshevism as a term was first used to describe a current in the Communist Party of Germany (KPD) and then the Communist Workers' Party of Germany (KAPD) which wanted to ally the insurgent communist movement with dissident nationalist groups in the German army who rejected the Treaty of Versailles.[5] They were led by Heinrich Laufenberg and Fritz Wolffheim and were based in Hamburg. Their expulsion from the KAPD was one of the conditions that Karl Radek explained was necessary if the KAPD was to be welcomed to the Third Congress of the Third International. However, the demand that they withdraw from the KAPD would probably have happened anyway. Radek had dismissed the pair as National Bolsheviks, the first recorded use of the term in a German context.[6]

    Radek subsequently courted some of the radical nationalists he had met in prison to unite with the Bolsheviks in the name of National Bolshevism. He saw in a revival of National Bolshevism a way to "remove the capitalist isolation" of the Soviet Union.[2]

    During the 1920s, a number of German intellectuals began a dialogue which created a synthesis between radical nationalism (typically referencing Prussianism) and Bolshevism as it existed in the Soviet Union. The main figure in this was Ernst Niekisch of the Old Social Democratic Party of Germany, who edited the Widerstand journal.[7]

    A National Bolshevik tendency also existed with the German Youth Movement, led by Karl Otto Paetel. Paetel had been a supporter of the Nazi Party (NSDAP), but became disillusioned with them as he did not feel they were truly committed to revolutionary activity or socialist economics. His 1930-formed movement, the Group of Social Revolutionary Nationalists, sought to forge a third way between the NSDAP and the KPD, emphasising both nationalism and socialist economics.[8] He was especially active in a largely unsuccessful attempt to win over a section of the Hitler Youth to his cause.[9]

    Although members of the NSDAP under Adolf Hitler did not take part in Niekisch's National Bolshevik project and usually presented Bolshevism in exclusively negative terms as a Jewish conspiracy, in the early 1930s there was a parallel tendency within the NSDAP which advocated similar views. This was represented by what has come to be known as Strasserism. A group led by Hermann Ehrhardt, Otto Strasser and Walther Stennes broke away in 1930 to found the Combat League of Revolutionary National Socialists, commonly known as the Black Front.[10]

    After the Second World War, the Socialist Reich Party was established, which combined neo-Nazi ideology with a foreign policy critical of the United States and supportive of the Soviet Union, which funded the party.[11][12]


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bolshevism

    The Wiki article has been modfied to edit out the role and beliefs of Goebbels and Himmler, for some reason, probably leftist embarrassment and shame, but the majority of it can be found in Riemann's biography of Goebbels below, which can't be censored.

    .... and, a more detailed exegesis:

    https://libcom.org/files/NATIONAL BOLSHEVISM IN WEIMAR GERMANY.pdf

    But, the most definitive proof of the ideological brotherhood of sociopaths is Viktor Reimann's Goebbels -Doubleday, 1976. It gives the ideological history of the Nazi Party, and from the Communist 'Annalist' school of historical analysis there are Detlev Peukert's excellent series of books on Nazi Germany, noteworthy for his assembly of statistics and data and politics of the period, including a book on Wiemar Germany. His political views are open and easily determined and its not a problem to separate his data and stats from his ideological bent, otherwise I would not recommend his books.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detlev_Peukert
     
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2020
    Ddyad likes this.
  6. Anonymous.Professor

    Anonymous.Professor Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2020
    Messages:
    211
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Well in Wikipedia under 'Adolf Hitler' you can read also: After World War I, Hitler returned to Munich. Without formal education or career prospects, he remained in the army. In July 1919 he was appointed Verbindungsmann (intelligence agent) of an Aufklärungskommando (reconnaissance unit) of the Reichwehr, assigned to influence other soldiers and to infiltrate the German workers party (DAP) - which aimed to establish 'classless socialist Germany'. But what is not told is what happened just before this. During Bavarian soviet revolution after WW1 Hitler was collaborating with communists and was even a delegate in local Soviet military council. So his new job at Reichwehr as their agent was in fact also a way to 'clean' himself. Later Hitler claimed how Jews were behind Bavarian soviet revolution, yet he collaborated with Bavarian communists at that time. It is true he was not a member of communist party, but surelly as a representative of his group of soldiers he comformed to communist and before socialist government, did not defect from Red army, joint right-wing free corps units etc. but rather he helped on the area of red propaganda as historian Mathias Mesenholler analyzed more in details. So he tried compromise with marxism himself.
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2020
    Ddyad and Farnsworth like this.
  7. Farnsworth

    Farnsworth Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,956
    Likes Received:
    834
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes. He eventually rejected an alliance with the Soviets in favor of conquering them later on, mostly due to paranoia over Stalin, but Goebbels was still determined to guide Germany along National Bolshevism lines to the end. Hitler changed his ideologies to suit himself and the current situation he was in, a true existentialist.
     
  8. Anonymous.Professor

    Anonymous.Professor Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2020
    Messages:
    211
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    I should add this youtube video about G. Reimann's book Vampire economy. It explains well how socialism is older than marxism and means state control/or ownership over means of production. Marxism is class version of socialism and Nazism is racial socialism or race based socialism, but both are forms of socialism.

    Reimann was marxist himself, but he explains well in details how private property in Nazi Germany was only de iure in the hands of private owners, but de facto it was under the control of totalitarian state. However because the working class was not in full control of Nazi totalitarian state in his opinion this was not real socialism. He errs here because this is not a proper definition of socialism, just of its marxist form. But as i said he demonstrated well state control over German economy during pre-war Nazi years. Plus he shows how Nazi German state control over economy was already before war oriented toward militarism.



    Vampire economy in pdf form:

    https://mises.org/library/vampire-economy
     
    Ddyad likes this.
  9. Farnsworth

    Farnsworth Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,956
    Likes Received:
    834
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, when everyone can make up their own definitions of words and concepts, they are arguing different points and not really debating or discussing the same things any more.



    Yes. The 'black armies' were created earlier than even Hitler's domination of the Nazi Party, by Hindenburg, Papen, and the Kruppe man who ran the Prussian police, under the guidance of the Wehrmacht commander General Streicher, all right wingers. The irony here is limiting the Army to 100,000 troops was a bad mistake without the occupation of Germany by the allies after the war; the Wiemar Republic had no way to impose any rule of law and the street armies took over, essentially gangsters and thugs.
     
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2020
    Ddyad likes this.
  10. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    36,749
    Likes Received:
    19,217
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Inflation was about 25% under Hitler, compare that to inflation in the stratosphere before Hilter came to power.
    Hayek was a hard right winger, and naturally he wants to associate Naziism with the left.

    First, let's get something straight:

    Dems do not advocate totalitarianism.

    But the right sure loves their strawman.

    You want a strawman, two can play that game, but this one is actually much truer:

    Unfettered classic liberalism (talkin' Ayn Rand here ) leads to plutocracy/oligarchy.


    The point is, either extreme, left or right, is bad. and Hitler is more associated with right ring fascism, the 'socialism' was used because at the time, it sounded good.

    As for the 'German socialist worker's party' it's propaganda trick, really. There is nothing egalitarian about Nazism. Without egalitarianism, you cannot claim 'socialist' ( nor can Soviet Russia, or any of the other so-called 'socialist' regimes, they just use the term because of the propaganda value of it, but they are in fact, nationalist totalitarian fascist dictatorships.

    Nazi germany was an oligarchy/plutocracy run by a military industrial complex largely owned by the Krupp family. A plutocracy with a dictator as leader is the essence of fascism, and traditionally is held to be on the extreme right. So, Hayek is talking nonsense.

    IF Nazis were socialist, the would have confiscated the entire industry, and they must certainly did not.

    https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/09/05/were-nazis-socialists/

    According to historians, the complicated moniker [NAZI] reveals more about the image the party wanted to project and the constituency it aimed to build than it did about the Nazis’ true political goals, which were building a state based on racial superiority and brute-force governance.

    I know right desperately tries to associate democratic socialism with NAZI - ism , but only a moron would believe it, and, of course, Trump's fans have plenty of those.

    Hitler did not repossess the military industrial complex, the Krupps, etc. It was an oligarchy.

    Given that Nazism is traditionally held to be an extreme right-wing ideology, the party’s conspicuous use of the term “socialist” — which refers to a political system normally plotted on the far-left end of the ideological spectrum — has long been a source of confusion, not to mention heated debate among partisans seeking to distance themselves from the genocidal taint of Nazi Germany.

    The debate has heated up to the point of critical mass in recent years, thanks to the rise of nationalist political movements reacting in part to stagnant economic conditions and the perceived threat of globalism, and also in part to a flood of immigrants and foreign refugees pouring into Europe and the United States because of war and economic crises abroad.


    A subset of these groups, identified as ethno-nationalists, hold racially-tinged views ranging from nativism (the belief that the interests of native-born people must be defended against encroachment by immigrants) to full-on, hate-mongering white supremacy. Some of the latter openly align themselves with historical Nazism, to the point of waving swastikas, spouting anti-Semitic rhetoric, and imitating the tactics of Adolf Hitler.

    The Nazi problem comes down to this: As an ultra-nationalist, socially conservative, anti-egalitarian and fascist ideology, Nazism naturally falls on the extreme far-right end of the political spectrum;


    Democratic socialism is not a 'planned economy' no more than Denmark, or Norway is . iT'S ABOUT AS FAR AWAY FROM NAZISM AS ONE CAN GET.







     
  11. Bjorn

    Bjorn Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2017
    Messages:
    125
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Nazi Germany didn't take over control of the means of production or services, so no, it was not Socialist. All the major German production and service companies at the time remained in private hands. In order to benefit the most financially you needed to remain in good standing with the government, sure, but this was true in pre-capitalist mercantilist Europe as well, and yet we don't call The British East India Company "Socialist", do we? Nor was feudalism "Socialist". The Nazis did not aspire to a classless society, but a society where the upper class or capitalist class had the right and privilege to their wealth, provided that they also advance the interests of the Nazi party, which was equal to the interests of the state. That has nothing to do with Socialism.

    The reason National Socialists called themselves something with "Socialist", was simple a fashion statement similar to how Americans on both sides of their political isle will insist that having a welfare state means being a "Socialist" country. Because it was a popular and fashionable term. It would be like if you advocated that you were a "Protectionist Monopolistic Capitalist" to gain political supporters. Sounds fancy... but if you support a protectionist monopoly, calling yourself a capitalist after that, is more of an indicator that you just call yourself that because you want to be seen as supporting capitalism, without actually doing so in the slightest.

    And also, the origin of the word "Socialist" going back to the 18th century was as a response to "individualist". By putting "National" in front, and allowing for the upper classes to remain in the same position as they always have, Nazis are of course not Socialist in any sense of the word except their own, personalized, definition of the term.

    All in all, you should have learned by now that someone self-identificating as X does not equate actually being X. Just ask the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea.
     
    Last edited: Jun 30, 2020
  12. DEFinning

    DEFinning Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2020
    Messages:
    15,971
    Likes Received:
    7,607
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Very interesting. Though, " Socialist, " is part of their name, I (and I'm sure most others) have never considered NAZIs from that perspective. Nevertheless, if this is meant to suggest that a government following socialist policies w/ regard to, e.g. healthcare, is straying dangerously near the edge of totalitarianism, I refer you back to both the end of your opening paragraph, where you summarize the author's definition of socialism as State ownership/ control of former PRIVATE PROPERTY, as well as to the last book excerpt I included in my quoting of your post, naming, "the most important guarantee of freedom, " as private property, once more. And going from a country's providing a social safety net for its citizens, to its government preparing to seize control of all private property is a bridge far too far, especially considering that we have numerous contemporary examples in Europe of state socialism which have NOT led in that direction (examples, I'll add, that are more comparable to our current United States than post- WW1, reparation-crippled, Great Depression era Germany).
     
  13. Daniel Light

    Daniel Light Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2015
    Messages:
    31,455
    Likes Received:
    34,891
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The sad thing is that right now the Capitalist system of the US is carrying one of the worst Debt to GDP ratios in the modern world.
    Neither capitalism or socialism or communism seem to be very long term solutions to economic problems. It's going to take
    a mixture of the three.
     
    gabmux likes this.
  14. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is no mixture of the three. Capitalism and socialism are mutually exclusive. Communism, in contrast, is an evolutionary economic prophecy.
     
  15. Horhey

    Horhey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2010
    Messages:
    5,724
    Likes Received:
    1,026
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Nonsense. Hitler was anti socialist and anti communist. Nazi Germany had a fascist economy.

    [​IMG]

    Adolf Hitler was not a socialist - Vox

    [​IMG]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2020
  16. Anonymous.Professor

    Anonymous.Professor Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2020
    Messages:
    211
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    As an example what happened if an owner was blocking the goals of National socialist regime to put economy under state control and with this also following the goal that German race will like ejnoy greater equality and being like stronger - which is of course variance of socialism ( not class but racial form of socialism ), we can look at mr. Hugo Junkers who was an engineer and aircraft designer.

    When the Nazis came into power in 1933 they requested Junkers and his businesses aid in the German re-armament. When Junkers declined, the Nazis responded by demanding ownership of all patents and market shares from his remaining companies, under threat of imprisonment on the grounds of High Treason. In 1934 Junkers was placed under house arrest, and died at home in 1935 during negotiations to give up the remaining stock and interests in Junkers. Under Nazi control, his company produced some of the most successful German warplanes of the Second World War.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Junkers

    Also of course business owner could be immediately denounced to the Labor office which was the official organization for workers in Nazi Germany and replaced old trade unions if he was complaining about state regulations which were making him as we explained only de iure owner.
     
    Last edited: May 10, 2021
  17. The Rhetoric of Life

    The Rhetoric of Life Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2017
    Messages:
    11,186
    Likes Received:
    3,372
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The only people Hitler ever declared war on was the United States; and when he did that, he cited America's Capitalism as a reason I believe.

    Of course Hitler saw him self as Socialist.

    Socialism's just a tool those evil Nazis idolised...

    Doesn't mean that Socialism was evil, it just means those Evil Nazis idolised it for their utopia.

    The NFL's Socialist.
    https://www.nolandalla.com/how-socialism-made-the-nfl-americas-national-pastime/
    Does that mean the NFL is evil? Of course not; but like it or not; Hitler saw himself as a Socialist.
    He hated Communists and Capitalists but was a Socialist with his 'VW Volkswagen People's Wagon in English cars; Hitler was an Evil Socialist, much like Maduro of Venezuela's one today.
     
  18. Anonymous.Professor

    Anonymous.Professor Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2020
    Messages:
    211
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    In before mentioned book by G. Reimann Vampire economy we can read also this:

    "There are terrible times coming. If only I had succeeded in smuggling out $10,000 or even $5,000, I would leave Germany with my family. Business friends of mine are convinced that it will be the turn of the ‘white Jews' (which means us, Aryan businessmen) after the Jews have been expropriated. The difference between this and the Russian system is much less than you think, despite the fact that we are still independent businessmen."

    In this racial form of socialism which Nazi Germany had even Aryan businessmen can become enemies of the regime very easly if they stick to that what is normally considered private ownership rights, free market and capitalism. Since capitalism itself was seen as Jewish invention they were also seen as judaized.
     
    Last edited: May 10, 2021
    Ddyad likes this.
  19. Anonymous.Professor

    Anonymous.Professor Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2020
    Messages:
    211
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    @The R. of Life and Horhey Hitler and other leaders of National socialism indeed hated and were fighting against other competitive forms of socialism and were also very glad that a lot of Germans warmed up for different kind of socialism ( racial one ) contrary to what marxists hoped it will happen during economic crisis.
    Yet also Lenin destroyed competitive forms of socialism but was still a socialist and marxist.
     
    Last edited: May 10, 2021
    Ddyad likes this.
  20. Anonymous.Professor

    Anonymous.Professor Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2020
    Messages:
    211
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    We can see in fact already from Reichstag Fire Decree from 28.2.1933 that there is fighting going on between different forms of socialism and also against democracy of course but surelly not between capitalism and communism as one might wrongly think. Red professors are of course trying to hide this. Hitler just became chanchellor at the time of the burning of Reichstag.

    The decree nullified many of the key civil liberties of German citizens:

    Articles 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124 and 153 of the Constitution of the German Reich are suspended until further notice. It is therefore permissible to restrict the rights of personal freedom, freedom of (opinion) expression, including the freedom of the press, the freedom to organize and assemble, the privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications. Warrants for House searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.

    ''Fighting against communism'' with attacks on private property rights??!!
     
    Last edited: May 10, 2021
    Ddyad likes this.
  21. The Rhetoric of Life

    The Rhetoric of Life Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2017
    Messages:
    11,186
    Likes Received:
    3,372
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yeah; maybe Hitler saw them as Godless heathens as he blamed the Jews for killing Jesus so, saw himself as devine; Communism doesn't do divine; so that made Hitler's Shitlist I guess; despite them both ceasing private property, they just couldn't see eye to eye.
    This had nothing to do with Hitler following in the footsteps of Napoleon in some Hell bent conquest of Russia; but Hitler hated Commies because Communism isn't Socialism despite both suppressing freedom and private ownership.
    Who told you Communism was Socialism or that they liked each other?
     
    Last edited: May 10, 2021
  22. Anonymous.Professor

    Anonymous.Professor Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2020
    Messages:
    211
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Concerning strategy of German communists at the time of Reichstag burning it was in fact a strategy which only helped Hitler and National socialists. Because they considered capitalism in Germany in its final phase and National socialism being just the ''last wild scream of capitalism'' before it crushes and ''red wave will take over Germany''. Yet that was also the policy of Comintern.

    Of course they hoped and planned that they will be able to destroy also competitive forms of socialism during the sovietization of the country like racial socialism or social democracy. Since communists considered themselves as the only real guiders and leaders of workers which they were planning to lead through socialism to communism via supposed economic boom which would happen after the abolition of private property.

    Communist newspapers were full of calls to arms so it was not surprising that this resulted in burning of Reichstag by a bit mentaly ill communist member.

    However you can see from Goebbles diary for example that he was calling old German parties like conservative Nationalists or liberal Volkspartei as ''bourgeois parties'' so using for them socialist terminology.
     
    Last edited: May 10, 2021
    The Rhetoric of Life and Ddyad like this.
  23. Ddyad

    Ddyad Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2015
    Messages:
    54,793
    Likes Received:
    26,712
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I suppose totalitarianism has to inevitably lead to nihilism and genocide.

    "10 A large part of these plans, based on the original documents, can be found in
    Leon Poliakov's Breviaire de la Haine, Paris, 1951, chapter 8 (American edition
    under lhe title Harvest of Hate, Syracuse, 1954; we quote from the original French
    edition), but only insofar as they referred to the extermination of non-Germanic
    peoples, above all those of Slavic origin. That the Nazi engine of destruction would
    not have stopped even before the German people is evident from a Reich health bill
    drafted by Hitler himself. Here he proposes to "isolate" from the rest of the population
    all families with cases of heart or lung ailments among them, their physical liquidation
    being of course the next step in this program. This as well as several other interesting
    projects for a victorious postwar Germany are contained in a circular letter to the
    district leaders (Kreisleiter) of Hesse-Nassau in the form of a report on a discussion
    at the Fuehrer's headquarters concerning "measures that before ... and after victorious
    termination of the war" should be adopted. See the collection of documents in
    Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression, Washington, 1946, et seq., Vol. Vll, p. 175."
    THE ORIGINS OF TOTALITARIANISM, By Hannah Arendt, Meridian Books,New York, 1958.
    https://archive.org/stream/TheOriginsOfTotalitarianism/The-Origins-of-Totalitarianism_djvu.txt
     
  24. Anonymous.Professor

    Anonymous.Professor Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2020
    Messages:
    211
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Well this is not so much of a topic here, because we want to demonstrate here how economic policy of Third Reich was a socialist one. Yet othervise politically their totalitarian model had both left and right characteristics. Concerning artificial selection and eugenics Hitler said already at Nazi party congress in Nurnberg that Germany will become strong when 1 milion babies per year will be born and when 700.000-800.000 of the ''weakest'' will be removed.

    Example from occupied Slovenia

    When parts of Slovenia came under Third Reich in spring 1941 immediately two commissions of Nazi doctors were sent to occupied Štajerska. They reviewed patients in mental hospital Novo Celje and in similair but smaller institutions Medlog, Vojnik, Slovenske Konjice, Ptuj and Muretinci. According to the data collected after war 583 mental patients were sent to Hartheim near Linz Austria. Patients were put on buses on 9. June 1941 and escorted by SS men dressed as hospital servers. There SS was performing secret plan of Nazi euthanasia. Between 20. June and 2. July 1941 they killed all the patients and then sent to the relatives letters and forged death certificates, claiming they died of natural causes. People got suspicious because they all died at the same time. Yet the whole horror was revealed after the war.

    When Germany attacked Soviet Union the program was stopped by Hitler because during war time it was to risky for public and christian churches opposition. That was valid also for occupied Slovenian teritories. SS personal which was doing the euthanasia on mental patients was later used also in Holocaust having important role in killing Jews in so called operation ''Reinhard''. Odilo Lothario Globocnik who was in charge of the SS operation was in fact Slovene by his father and mixed Serbian-Croat by his mother. Himmler considered that there were ''lost pools of German'' blood between Slavs ( and also elsewhere ) and by fighting for German race spirits of such partly German death fighters can enter into other warriors and make their souls more Aryan.
     
    Ddyad likes this.
  25. Bastiats libertarians

    Bastiats libertarians Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2014
    Messages:
    2,042
    Likes Received:
    505
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The reason the Nazis "privatized" their industries in the 1930s was because they were seeking loans and had to reduce their Debt Ratio. Easiest thing to do was "Sell" parts of their industry to Big Industry party leaders. Never at any point should you be under the illusion that the Nazi party was not under complete control of its industry. In fact it perfectly illustrates what all socialist countries do once everything is Nationalized. They give it over to people they trust as rewards for service. All ISMS be they Communism, socialism, what ever brand of economic model you want to use is just organized theft under cover of law.
     
    Last edited: May 28, 2021

Share This Page