Economy of Third Reich was a socialist economy

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
4,260
Caribbean
It's FACT that no one stood up to Hitler in a reasonable way, among any of the powers outside of Germany.
First, we have been down this road before on other issues. That is your opinion, not a "fact." That should be obvious. For example, one does not have to qualify facts with limiting conditions like "in any reasonable way."

But at least you have whittled it down from that original Pollyanna prescription of - when they came for the communists, when they came for the Jews - which sounded like you are talking about German citizens. Now, you have "doing nothing" to stop Hitler down to the French and the Rhineland. I agree that may be something of a 'last best chance.' This is also good, because it forecloses the necessity of entertaining ideas of how history could have been different, if only - if only Lichtenstein had stood up, if only Luxembourg had stood up. Though, speaking of small countries, 'if only the Vatican had stood up' might be a bone that has some meat on it.

Since you want to play these what if games - what if Manstein stuck to the Schliefen Plan, what if the French had invaded the Rhineland, etc. - play this one. What if, in 1934, the Pope pronounces the Nuremberg Laws a grave sin, excommunicates Hitler, revokes the Concordat, warns German Catholics that their souls are in peril if they participate in these crimes against their departed brethren (Jews), and exhorts Catholics all over the world to follow the Vatican lead in making no treaties of friendship with Hitler? Why is it I have this 'crazy' idea that this would have put more of a spoke in Hitler's wheel than Britain ever could?

Not necessarily easily... and you're again confusing strategic/tactical mistakes on the part of the Allies with German ability
No, I am not. There is no perfect execution. Everyone makes strategic and tactical mistakes.This is why acronyms like SNAFU come into existence. German victories are no more or less marred by Allied errors, than Allied victories are marred by Hitler's errors in my book. Your book doesn't seem to work that way. Also, in my book, I consider the possibility that some of errors may be deliberate. There are ALWAYS traitors somewhere. I have a feeling your book doesn't do that, either.

Germany had the capacity to produce more, yes. But if you look into the economic side of things through WW2, that capacity was never at full efficiency and managed its resources poorly.
It's nice of you to acknowledge, finally, that the US built a big war machine in Germany, and not in France. However, are you not now making the same mistake you accuse me of - confusing capability with errors of strategy/tactics?

You do realize that "Triumph of the Will" was pure propaganda
I recognize propaganda, even when people insist it is "fact." Do you not recall my earlier mention of Goebbels/Riefenstahl film propaganda being good, but the Pentagon/Capra film propaganda (Why We Fight) being better? You do realize, don't you, that both are propaganda? Perhaps you should watch the Capra film and assess how much of that you believe is "fact."

As to the specific point to which you respond, I also recognize when one country's psyops constitute propaganda advantage. The French did not have the advantage over the Germans. IMO, the reverse was true.

No, this is more recognizing actual facts and evidence that the Wehrmacht was not this super organization that only lost because Hitler was an idiot.
I didn't say "super" and I didn't say Hitler was an "idiot." I said he was an Austrian. However, I do say it is an "actual fact" that the German Army did roll over a bunch of other counties. I expressed the opinion that did so "quickly." Others have expressed the opinion that it was quick, like lightning, calling it Blitzkrieg. And for some reason, this bothers you.

[QUOTE="Sam-Nary, post: 3203755, member: 16452"The US was not, and still is not, a totalitarian dictatorship where Roosevelt was privy to all the information on what American companies were doing. [/QUOTE]So, we are back to the 'FDR-is-stupid' defense. Not a snowball's chance.
 
Last edited:
Oct 2019
95
West Virginia
It is political attack, for sure, but it is not wholly wrong. You see, socialism requires state control. Totalitarianism is defined by state control. I think you can see where I am going.
This sounds like something Glen Beck would say. Very simplistic, and loaded with rightwing bias.
 
Oct 2019
95
West Virginia
It is irresponsible to throw around the word "socialism" in a time when a certain political party uses that term to demonize the other Party on just about every issue, and never using the term accurately.

So which "socialism" are we discussing here? That of the USSR? That of today's Denmark? That of FDR?

In the "conservative" laissez-faire fantasy, govt "does nothing", yet of course this ignores that govt sets up the structures and the parameters of economic activity, whether from the right or the left.

And I have to ask the anti-socialists... are we better off with unelected corporate power running the country (as they virtually do run the USA today), or a liberal govt with the interests of the people at heart?
 
Oct 2019
95
West Virginia
Try reading the thread. That way you won't have to ask a question that has already been answered.
You missed my point, which is that the term "socialism" is being mis-applied.

I'm saying that inventing a meaning for it is not suitable. Words have meanings, and "socialism" is being misused in this thread.

"Socialism" does not equal "Soviet Communism", any more than "Western Civilization" means Nazi Germany.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tulius
Sep 2019
182
Slovenia
Socialism here is used by its definition. So that society prefers public property over private property or that it wants to control private property like for the benefit of the society.

However marxists and communists also claimed contrary to you that they are the only real socialists.
 
Oct 2019
95
West Virginia
No, I didn't miss any of them, nor the orientation that gave birth to them.
Yes, you apparently did miss the point, as you ignore it and move toward "arguing" by calling me a socialist? communist? or whatever pejorative you're currently assigning to anyone to the Left of the Archduke Ferdinand.
 
Oct 2019
95
West Virginia
Socialism here is used by its definition. So that society prefers public property over private property or that it wants to control private property like for the benefit of the society.

However marxists and communists also claimed contrary to you that they are the only real socialists.
Well, when your term can be construed to include such disparate systems as that of today's Denmark and of yesterday's USSR, then it is virtually meaningless.

You cannot reasonably conflate Denmark with the USSR, sorry.

That conflation is a trick of the right by which they seek to demonize anyone left-of-center by a spurious and bogus association of them with "Communists".

Let's be more honest.
 

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
4,260
Caribbean
"arguing" by calling me a socialist? communist? or whatever
You devolved into current politics, which are you are not supposed to do. Your posts are their own calling card. I didn't "call" you anything.

Had you read the thread, you would be familiar with what I did write.
1. All these terms (socialism, communism, fascism and capitalism) are vague, almost to the point of meaningless. Right and Left don't coney a lot of meaning for me either.
2. All regimes employ ideas and practices that could be associated with any of the four above labels, or that could be called bastardizations of the label. (And WW2 is not a clash of these isms, just look at who is in bed with whom).
3. Nobody wants to be linked with Nazi's, so people who like ideas that they associate with "socialism," are not going to want to admit that National Socialism is socialism.

Let's be more honest.
OK, let's Are you included in #3?

The post that put you on the warpath said that one of the four isms I mentioned requires central control. I'd argue they all entail central control. If they were never enforced, we wouldn't have labels for them. They wouldn't be four "isms."
 
Last edited: