Economy of Third Reich was a socialist economy

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
4,260
Caribbean
Then you insist that Nazism is "socialism"
I didn't insist Nazism is anything. There is a quote feature. Feel free to use it.

If I were to "insist" something at this point, it would be that your posts provide no evidence that National Socialism is not socialism; no evidence that they self-identified wrongly.

First, you make my case for me, that those political labels are misused, vague and seldom defined.
Actually, making the case that you didn't read the thread, as the definition case was made before you got here, and cannot suddenly be yours.

"socialist", as if that is a pejorative. So, yes, I support the political system of Denmark, NZ, Israel, Germany and Canada... how reprehensible.
None of those are on the Wikipedia list of socialist states.
 
Last edited:

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
4,260
Caribbean
Fcatually correct, Historians and those studying the period are pretty clear the Nazi were not socialists
Whether the National Socialists were socialists or were not socialists is a matter of opinion. Neither opinion - or any interdediary opinion that they were somewhat or partially socialist - would be "factually correct." Opinions are not facts.

Since this is you second attempt at appeal to authority - let me ask you directly. Would it be fair and accurate to say that you don't think National Socialists were socialists, but you have no argument of your own?
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,477
Whether the National Socialists were socialists or were not socialists is a matter of opinion. Neither opinion - or any interdediary opinion that they were somewhat or partially socialist - would be "factually correct." Opinions are not facts.

Since this is you second attempt at appeal to authority - let me ask you directly. Would it be fair and accurate to say that you don't think National Socialists were socialists, but you have no argument of your own?
No it would not. Socialism is about equality. Fascism is against that. They are diametrically opposed systems.

People making the argument that socialism is about state control are using poor and misleading definitions.

When the professor posts stuff form teh mises site you don;t say he is appealing to authority.

You very selective in how you apply your arguments.

There is nothing wrong with reference experts in the field and their opinions. People solely referencing the one propaganda site is another matter,
 

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
4,260
Caribbean
No it would not. Socialism is about equality. Fascism is against that. They are diametrically opposed systems.
And how do you suppose this equality is achieved? (And I ask, suspecting that there may be as many definitions of equality as there are of socialism).

When the professor posts stuff form teh mises site you don;t say he is appealing to authority.
Because he didn't in any post addressed to me. You did.
But, if it makes you feel better - nothing is true just because the von mieses site says so. Despite your claim otherwise, I am an equally-opportunity skeptic.

This may sound strange, but if there were one infallible source who wrote all truth in one tome, there would be nothing left to discuss on forums like this. Given how shaky all the definitions are, I wonder how others can imagine with some sort of scientific certitude. Even vertebrates and invertebrates are not diametrically opposed systems. Just like individual organisms, governments have much more in common with each other than they have that makes the "opposites."
 
Last edited:

Sam-Nary

Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
6,846
At present SD, USA
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."
The "limiting condition" is to describe the actions in question. People made various comments and protests about things the Nazis did, but they never went further than that. The French and British protested the Anschluss but did nothing that would make the Nazis think twice about the decision. If you say something is wrong and that you don't like it, but take no action that would essentially counter what is done... the person perpetrating the action is going to keep doing it because you're not doing anything more than giving verbal protests. And that's what happened historically. Even with all the worries over British/French statements following the occupation of Czechoslovakia in 1939 and the build up to the pressure put on Poland, Hitler didn't think the British and French would actually declare war... He expected them to protest and shuffle papers and let him go about his ultimate plans for war in the east, which the Nazis economically needed to gain "self-sufficiency."

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.
That quote was in relation to the German people, and is attributed to a member of the German Resistance. The Nazis only gained around 33% of the vote in Germany when they came to power. This means they DIDN'T have overwhelming support and only benefited by the fact that German politics were so fractious that the other parties didn't get along with each other and thus couldn't unite against Hitler. And yet in the years immediately after Hitler became Chancellor and before the Enabling Act Germany did still have elections the Nazis still didn't gain much in the way of votes. Supposedly Hitler called for another election in the hopes of gaining more support and that first election after becoming Chancellor saw support for the Nazis go from 33% to 32%. That's a decline and shows that support for Hitler wasn't universal.

It's from there that the Nazis began to engage in the actions that would steadily strip away the rights of German civilians and the ability of other parties to even campaign against him. And things like the Reichstag Fire played a big role in that. For that soon lead to the Enabling Act and once that was passed, Hitler didn't have to worry about governing at the head of a coalition. He could outlaw any party that opposed him and effectively govern as a dictator. Especially if the people of Germany didn't rise up as a group and say, "this is wrong." The Nazis could not arrest or murder every German citizen, for doing so would bring Germany to a standstill. But within Germany this was never done, because many Germans had their other worries and enemies that they were happy to see dissappear and didn't recognize that Hitler might one day come for them.


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.
The potential for help from smaller nations is always welcome, though the point in issues relating to the major powers... that issue with regard Nazi Party foreign policy goals of expansion in the mid to late 30s that would lead to WW2 in 1939 has to come from the major powers. France, Britain (and obviously their empires), and the US could have all done more than sit on the sidelines as it were.

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?
The Vatican certainly could have done more... revocation of the Concordat would probably send a clear message to German Catholics... but would likely create internal issues and fears. But because of the potential for increased internal issues... the threats to Germany's neighbors would be lowered while the internal issues lead to either chaos within Germany or Hitler and the Nazis expanding the Catholic Church to be among the groups targeted. Which if acted on would only increase the perception of the Nazis being a threat.

Though... historically, I think the Papacy made the compromises that it did because of the Anti-Communist statements that the Nazis made, which they saw as a plus as they also feared the generally anti-religious statements that the Marxists had made since the 1800s. Though it should also be noted that through much of Europe, including Germany, that local Bishops and Priests proved to ultimately become parts of the Resistance elements to Hitler and the Nazis, even if the Pope was making compromises with Hitler.

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.
Because in "my book," Germany's victories in 1939-1940 were almost entirely due to the mistakes made by the Allied generals. Gamelin's mistakes regarding what he expected enabled Manstein's plan to work as well as it did. And the limited amount of tactical development between 1919 and 1940, particularly on the French side made many of those situations worse for them. Thus, the French had a tank in the Char B1bis, that short of a Flak 88, the Germans couldn't penetrate its armor from the front. The French had a medium tank in the SOMUA S35 that had thicker armor, a better gun, and was more mobile than the Panzer III variant in service in May 1940 with the French tank's only real issues being a lack of serviceable radio and a small one man turret. This generally hurt French command and control and enabled the Germans to more rapidly take advantage of Gamelin's mistakes.

But when the Allies didn't make the sort of catastrophic mistakes that Gamelin made in 1940... as seen at El Alamein in 1942, in Normandy in 1944, and even in the response to the German counter attack in December 1944, the Germans lost.

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.
You'd need to present some evidence that Gamelin's "mistakes" were intended to assure Germany's win in the battle. For while men like Petain and Laval did collaborate extensively with Germany after 1940, I've never seen anything that would suggest that Gamelin purposefully lost the Battle of France in 1940. to be continued...
 

Sam-Nary

Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
6,846
At present SD, USA
continued...

It's nice of you to acknowledge, finally, that the US built a big war machine in Germany, and not in France.
America built its war machine in America, not in Germany or in France. As for the use of American companies in Germany... keep in mind that much of the original idea for the American companies was to sell individual cars to German consumers. Partially when the Nazis also raised the idea of a car for the people, what would ultimately become Volkswagen. Ford and GM likely saw that as a potential opportunity to get into the auto market in Germany and see if Germans would buy their cars over the state owned and state run models. Of course, just about everyone was tricked as the Nazis didn't allow for the building of the Volkswagen and once Ford and GM had plants in Germany, it would only be a matter of time before the Nazis turned them over to war factories, as that was what they wanted out of their economy. And unlike the US, Nazi Germany wasn't going to just let Ford and GM say what they would produce.

But as the war began, those things would become an even bigger issue. But it didn't necessarily hurt France. For France's industry had done reasonably well and in 1940 they had more tanks than the Germans did, and in many respects they even had better tanks than the Germans did. But used them poorly. And even with areas where France's production may lag... the French would have greater access to trade than the Germans would. The French could buy things they needed from America and ship them to France. The first fighter to score victories over German fighters were American built Curtis P36 Hawks flying with the French Air Force. In this the French ability to have access to trade, which Germany wouldn't have in case of war, could offset any issues in domestic production that the French might have had...

And that would be something that Germany wouldn't have, as much of Germany's own economic agenda related to "self-sufficiency" concepts that actually didn't like the idea of trade, which would mean that British blockade in 1939-1945 might not affect Germany the way it had in 1914-1918 because the German economic model was trying to get away from the idea of trading for things that were needed. It was also something that would likely create funding issues with regard to building plants in Germany as the capital wasn't there. Thus... they had to open up some measure of investment from outside companies and then take control of them once they brought their financial capital into Germany.


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."
Both were propaganda...but that wasn't quite the reasoning for my point. "Triumph of the Will" made stuff up to make Nazi Germany look more impressive than it in fact was.

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.
France was ultimately hurt in that regard because its government was largely unstable in the years after WWI and into the years going before WW2. As such with the government makeup changing so frequently it would be hard to get a consistent message out there. Particularly when French Right Wing parties were diametrically opposed to anything and everything the Left Wing parties did.

I didn't say "super" and I didn't say Hitler was an "idiot."
I didn't say you did. Much of this argument has come out of much of the military historiography of WW2. The German generals in their memoirs all wrote about how awesome the German army was and that it knew nothing of the atrocities committed by the SS and attributed German defeat in WW2 to both superior Allied numbers and the idiocy of Hitler. The "madman Hitler" argument came out of the arguments of men like Manstein who essentially threw Hitler under the bus after the war to make their own strategies seem more brilliant. And as general histories of WW2 were written and documentaries were shown of the war, you'll often find loose references to these sorts of arguments made by Germany's generals and then balanced by interviews with Allied NCOs and asking them about how hard it was to fight the Germans. It's something that effectively is used to confirm the German narrative that their military was superior and that the Allies got lucky.

What I've said you've done is trying to shape the argument in a way that perpetuates that myth and thus excusing German mistakes.

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.
What bothers me is that you're trying to shape the speed with which the Germans advanced to German superiority across the board. Ignoring the exact reason why the Germans won in 1940 and the fact that the French and British had more tanks than the Germans did.

So, we are back to the 'FDR-is-stupid' defense. Not a snowball's chance.
It's not a "FDR is stupid" defense. It's FDR is a democratic leader that lacks total control over every company in America defense. For FDR wasn't an authoritarian leader, and while the economy was more heavily regulated than in earlier years... FDR did not absolute control over things US companies did.