Economy of Third Reich was a socialist economy

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
4,394
Caribbean
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 are going to define everything short of invading Germany as 'doing nothing,' then yes, I concede the point that France and England did nothing about Hitler incorporating his home country into his sphere. They also did nothing when Stalin invaded Poland, Finland and the Baltics; and had plenty of colonies of their own that they acquired by Anschlussing Africa, while the US did nothing. And France and Britain did nothing when Lincoln Anschlussed the CSA. And everyone did nothing in 1945 when Stalin Anschlussed.

What do you suppose it is, out of a world history that is largely the story of territorial aggression, that yout think these two particular countries were supposed to do something about an aggressive neighbor, that at some point, was capable of kicking their combined asses?

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
INot years. Fifty-one days from Jan 30 to Mar 23.

The Vatican certainly could have done more... revocation of the Concordat would probably send a clear message to German Catholics
So, you are agreeing with me that the Vatican was in more of a position to slow Hiter than France or Britain? The problem is, they are not on opposite sides. Isn't Von Pappen already a Knight of Malta? To see that they are not on opposite sides, I suggest the following books - off the top of my head: Mary Cusack, The Black Pope; Cornwell, Hitler's Pope; Loftus, Unholy Alliance; Dreshner, God and the Fascists. And probably a dozen others.

You'd need to present some evidence that Gamelin's "mistakes" were intended
Why? I didn't claim his mistakes were intended. I said he took the head fake; fell for the feint (a fencing. Do you know what that means? For some reason, you are just desperate in trying to make a distinction that somehow superior generalship is not part of superior military.

America built its war machine in America, not in Germany or in France
The facts say otherwise. The same people built more than one. You need to come to grips with reality. American financiers and industrialists with government blessing created, for example, IG Farben (which produced most of Germany's explosives, by itself, as well 100% of other critical war materials). US-German companies gave money to the Nazi's in the late 20s, and the relationships continued. A few of them were exposed and had to pay a public price, like the Union Bank in 1943 Yes, 1943. You know whose bank that was?

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.
Surely "madman" is a colorful exaggeration, and like every other political memoir writer, Manstein is self-serving. However, that doesn't make the essence of his argument wrong. Again, the broad-brush and obvious inference is that Hitler destroyed Germany, Prussia in particular. That, again, is just 20-20 hindsight.

It's not a "FDR is stupid" defense. It's FDR is a democratic leader that lacks total control over every company in America
That's really the genesis of all your other denialism. Your boy, FDR, has his fingerprints all over this stinking mess.

First, he doesn't have to control every company. As I have explained, this interlocking and interrelated network of German-American cooperation is a cartel of a finite number of companies, with a finite number of directors each of whom sits on the boards of several of these companies - and it is a relatively finite number of banks, mostly out of the federal-reserve/JP Morgan orbit (as if the federal reserve is not part of JP Morgan).

Second, you statement is factually false. Just look at Proclamation 2040, and its reference to the enabling legislation, the "amended" 1917 Trading With The Enemies Act. It was specifically created to allow the President to seize German property, amended to apply to all This is the very act by which they are pursuing the New Deal, seizing banks (EBA), seizing farms (AAA), etc. Of course, he can seize any German-American and or any company I mentioned - but then he would be prosecuting, bankrupting and humiliating his friends, business partners and political sponsors. Sorry, I don't live in fantasy land and I don't cease thinking and following the money because of words like "socialism" or "fascism" or "democracy." The people who rule don't care about labels and are not bound by your definitions. FDR did what he did, whether you call him a democrat a capitalist or a space alien.

Look at the Neutrality Acts of 1936, and the companies that were exempted from trading with belligerents. It includes the same three US companies I already identified as critical to the Nazi war machine. Right from the Wiki page, "nor did it cover materials such as trucks and oil. U.S. companies such as Texaco Standard Oil, Ford and General Motors." And don't be surprised, London, Paris, Moscow, Rome know exactly what was going on.
 
Last edited:

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,627
The facts say otherwise. The same people built more than one. You need to come to grips with reality. American financiers and industrialists with government blessing created, for example, IG Farben (which produced most of Germany's explosives, by itself, as well 100% of other critical war materials).
How did US fincaers and industrlaists create IG Farben a cmpany formed by merger of German companies. It seems to teh results of German actions, German finacers and industralists. Whats the bais of that claim?
 

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
4,394
Caribbean
How did US fincaers and industrlaists create IG Farben a cmpany formed by merger of German companies.
You didn't answer my question of how socialism creates equality. I like your style. This is the second time you declined to answer my question, but just keep firing your own. If I keep providing work to you for free and get nothing in exchange, does that makes us equal?

Maybe I should answer your question with questions. How does your "historian" tell you IG Farben was created? How do financiers create new companies? With loans?

Just so you know, there was an American IG as well as its German affiliate. I mentioned that before. Remember?

it has a Wiki page.
"The Farben cartel was created in 1925, when Hermann Schmitz, the master organizer, with Wall Street financial assistance, created the giant chemical corporation, combining six already giant German chemical companies — Badische Anilin- und Sodafabrik Ludwigshafen (BASF), Bayer, Agfa, Hoechst, Weiler-ter-Meer, and Griesheim-Elektron. These six companies were merged into Interessen-Gemeinschaft Farbenindustrie AG or, IG Farben, for short."​
The last few years have been very interesting for me. So many former "tin foil hat conspiracy theories' now have their own Wiki page,

Anyway, thank you for your cooperation in responding to my inquiries.
 
Last edited:

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,627
You didn't answer my question of how socialism creates equality. I like your style. This is the second time you declined to answer my question, but just keep firing your own. If I keep providing work to you for free and get nothing in exchange, does that makes us equal?

Maybe I should answer your question with questions. How does your "historian" tell you IG Farben was created? How do financiers create new companies? With loans?

Just so you know, there was an American IG as well as its German affiliate. I mentioned that before. Remember?

it has a Wiki page.
"The Farben cartel was created in 1925, when Hermann Schmitz, the master organizer, with Wall Street financial assistance, created the giant chemical corporation, combining six already giant German chemical companies — Badische Anilin- und Sodafabrik Ludwigshafen (BASF), Bayer, Agfa, Hoechst, Weiler-ter-Meer, and Griesheim-Elektron. These six companies were merged into Interessen-Gemeinschaft Farbenindustrie AG or, IG Farben, for short."​
The last few years have been very interesting for me. So many former "tin foil hat conspiracy theories' now have their own Wiki page,

Anyway, thank you for your cooperation in responding to my inquiries.
read a book on socialism. There's endless variations and way.

Wkii pages are cheap.

Created by Germans, in Germany. Aiistance, thats a step back from created by. 1925 long before the Nazi regime. Whats so sinister about US investment in the 1920s in a chemical company?
 
Jan 2012
442
South Midlands in Britain
The great difficulty that socialism has is the concept of the socialist state. In reality this is an oxy-moron. The socialist idea is of an egalitarian society in which all individuals are free from exploitation. Yet a state cannot by definition impose equality - as who will police it - and where there is inequality there will be exploitation.

Hayek, whom I met over fifty years ago was a very likeable, polite intelligent man who showed this young man as I then was great courtesy. I have never forgotten it. However, every philosopher is the product of his or her time and what he writes has to be understood within the historical context of his or her time. Hayek faced the corporate horror of the Nazi state, the corporate horror of the Soviet state and the belief within post-war Europe that social democracy was the answer to everything. `The Road to Serfdom' is a critique of the illusion that social democracy appears to provide.

If anything Hayek was opposed to the corporate state however it defines itself.

Sadly, but inevitably every philosopher becomes abused by his very disciples - much like John Maynard Keynes in the same period. Certain aspects of Hayek's point of view are taken out of context, expanded beyond any understanding that he provided, becoming exaggerated into a travesty of what was originally meant. The same has happened to George Orwell whose `Animal Farm' and `1984' have been plagiarised by individuals and organisations acting wholly outside the context in which Orwell wrote.

Oddly enough both Hayek and Orwell were in Barcelona during the Spanish revolution and saw anarchist-communism in its glory days. If anything, this was the place they were both coming from.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Picard
Sep 2019
301
Slovenia
An example from Nazi agriculture how deeply was socialist economy applied in this area. As historian Clifford R. Lovin put it Nazi minister for agriculture Walther Darré felt that farmers were only free if they could till the soil without fear that this right could be taken away from them. One of the ways to guarantee this freedom was to withdraw the farmer from the free market. This was achieved with Hereditary Farm Law. Under this law, farmers were protected from having their land foreclosed on, but they were also permanently legally bound to their land. According to this law, any plot of land above 308 hectares could never be divided, sold, or used as collateral for loans. With this law farmers were owners just de iure as Ludwing von Mises wisely says this is also true for other areas of German economy under National socialists.

So called Food estate was established by the state with big bureaucracy. This institution controled everything from agricultural education, credit practices, soil maintenance, forestry, household economy, animal husbandry, youth organizations, agricultural propaganda, exports and imports, and every agricultural product produced, which was each governed by its own sub-bureaucracy.

In more recent literature, historian Tiago Saraiva has written about the Food Estate’s Seed Decree, which exercised considerable control over the development and regulation of new strains of crops. New varieties of any crop had to be approved by a sub-bureau of the Food Estate, the Biological Imperial Institute for Agriculture and Forestry, before being allowed to go into cultivation. Out of the several hundred new varieties of seed that were inspected, only sixty-four were approved for German production and consumption, and those that were approved were given legally fixed prices. As Saraiva puts it, “it was not for the market to decide the value of a variety; such value was defined at the [Biological Imperial Institute] in accordance with the general food policy of the regime.

In agreement with Lovin, Saraiva writes that “the truth is that the setting up of [the Food Estate], taking over the numerous pre-existent associations and societies of agriculture in Germany, by establishing fixed prices and controlling production, marked the end of the free market for agriculture in the country.” Neither Lovin or Saraiva would be considered capitalist apologists (extremely far from it, in fact), but they recognize, just as Mises did, that the Nazis paid only lip service to property rights, while in reality, they established a command economy that fully fits Mises’s description of “socialism of the German pattern.”


 

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
4,394
Caribbean
read a book on socialism. There's endless variations and way Wkii pages are cheap.
So, you have no answer? Not a surprise. You know it will be subject to peer review.

rCreated by Germans, in Germany. Aiistance, thats a step back from created by. 1925 long before the Nazi regime. Whats so sinister about US investment in the 1920s in a chemical company?
Created by Germans with JP Morgan's money run by American directors, and financed the Nazi rise. And try t keep in mind that just a few years earlier, the US and British government were not demonizing Nazi's, the were demonzing Germans - and suddenly Americans are going to pour more money into Germany than the owe reparations? I think you left a few things out in your summary of my testimony.

Now, I never said "sinister," I am not doing politics However, if you think it is not sinister, why deny the role of Americans? If there is nothing wrong with the rebuilding of the villain of WW1 and financing of the Nazi rise - then why is it so overlooked in the official US government version of things, and absent from the documentaries subsidized by the education foundations of the same corporations that had their fingers in the Nazi pie? For example, do you expect the Ford Foundation with the approval of the Board of Directors is going to give a Ford "historian" a research grant and license to release previously unseen documents and photos detailing their collaboration? Or are they going to burn those records because there is nothing "sinister"?

Also, as to what is sinister, if I were Jewish, I might answer Zyclon B and Auschwitz. And as to sinister, if I were the Nuremberg Commission, I might charge war crimes. The board of directors of American IG had 3 Germans and 7 Americans. The 3 Germans were charged with war crimes and the 7 Americans were charge with nothing - but then, it was the Americans doing the charging.

What? Don't you like history? I do.
 
Last edited:
Sep 2019
301
Slovenia
And about Italy...Italy under fascists nationalized the majority of industry. Only USSR went even further with nationalizations at that time.

In 1930 the Great Depression affected the Italian financial sector, seriously disrupting credit lines and making it difficult for companies to obtain loans. The Fascist regime led by Benito Mussolini, fearing a credit crunch with subsequent mass dismissals and a wave of social unrest, started to take over the banks' stakes in large industrial companies (such as steel, weapons and chemicals). At the same time, Mussolini tried to inject capital into failing businesses. Although initially conceived as a temporary measure, IRI continued to operate throughout the period of the Fascist regime and well beyond. Although IRI was not intended to carry out real nationalizations, it became the de facto owner and operator of a large number of major banks and companies. By January 1934, the IRI reported that it controlled “48.5 percent of the share capital of Italy,” and a few months later acquired the capital of the banks themselves, prompting Mussolini to declare on May 26, 1934 to Italy’s Chamber of Deputies that “Three-fourths of Italian economy, industrial and agricultural, is in the hands of the State.” By 1939 the IRI and other government agencies “controlled over four-fifths of Italy’s shipping and shipbuilding, three-quarters of its pig iron production and almost half that of steel.” Political Historian Martin Blinkhorn noted that “This level of state intervention greatly surpassed that in Nazi Germany, giving Italy a public sector second only to that of Stalin’s Russia.”



Other industry in fascist Italy was organized in cartels and corporations with great influence from the state as explained before more in details, what was not a normal capitalism for sure. And in RSI time fascists now feeling liberated from monarchy went even further with their law of socialisation from 1944.
 

Sam-Nary

Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
6,851
At present SD, USA
If you are going to define everything short of invading Germany as 'doing nothing,' then yes, I concede the point that France and England did nothing about Hitler incorporating his home country into his sphere.
Things like the Rhineland were already part of Germany and Hitler didn't need to invade it to "incorporate" it into Germany. It was already there. The reason for the region being set up as a "de-militarized zone" was to provide France with some degree of protection after WWI. After all its population was smaller, and its richest regions were all closer to Germany than to Spain, which would mean that any potential conflict between France and Germany would put those regions in danger. And after the diplomatic flak the French took over their Ruhr occupation in the 20s the threat that France posed to Germany was substantially lower as the French wanted to keep their alliance with Britain and that was what in turn allowed Germany to occupy the Rhineland... Which would then set up the massing of German troops in the region in late 1939 to early 1940, the very thing that the de-militarization of the Rhineland was intended to prevent.

They also did nothing when Stalin invaded Poland, Finland and the Baltics; And everyone did nothing in 1945 when Stalin Anschlussed.
Generally I would agree... though it should be noted that some of the French and British actions with regard to Norway were almost as much about helping the Fins as it was denying Iron Ore to the Germans. The French even floated the idea of bombing Baku from Syria as well. Though much of these ultimately came to nothing. The operations in Norway would go forward, but not until after the Winter War ended and with typical early war Allied adventures... they also moved too late to stop the Germans. The ideas to bomb Baku were never mounted at all.

And once Hitler launched Barbarossa the Allies were between a rock and a hard place... particularly Churchill. They didn't necessarily support Stalin's actions, but they also made the judgement call that they needed the Red Army to bloody itself against the Wehrmacht. By 1944/1945 when the war with Germany had clearly changed... the real mistake was more with how Roosevelt approached the dealings with Stalin. Roosevelt's plan was more to try and trick and manipulate the Soviets into things they couldn't back out of... but in order to work, that would have taken a tremendously intensive amount of negotiating and "wording" just to have a chance of pulling off... And by 1944, Roosevelt was too sick to really take on that kind of stress and thus why Henry Wallace, a fairly open supporter of Stalin, was replaced with Truman in the 1944 ticket.

And at the same time by 1945, even with Germany beaten... I don't there was much that could have been done against the Soviets and won in a direct conflict. The Free French were largely dependent on America, which by that time was reaching financial strains from the war against the Axis. The British had been facing bankruptcy by late 1944. About the only thing the Allies would have had against Stalin would be the use of the atomic bomb, and given that that took two of them to beat Japan (and even with that there is some debate over whether or not the atomic attacks on Japan was what beat them). In this... the Allies could have done more... but about the only thing that Stalin would have respected wouldn't be something the Allies could try and win on.

What do you suppose it is, out of a world history that is largely the story of territorial aggression, that yout think these two particular countries were supposed to do something about an aggressive neighbor, that at some point, was capable of kicking their combined asses?
At the very least to make a stand on principle. For both had signed the Versailles Treaty and technically it was still in effect. And when Germany first began its aggression, which can come from the re-militarization of the Rhineland, Germany wasn't yet at a point where it could have beaten France, let alone France and Britain.

So, you are agreeing with me that the Vatican was in more of a position to slow Hiter than France or Britain? The problem is, they are not on opposite sides. Isn't Von Pappen already a Knight of Malta? To see that they are not on opposite sides, I suggest the following books - off the top of my head: Mary Cusack, The Black Pope; Cornwell, Hitler's Pope; Loftus, Unholy Alliance; Dreshner, God and the Fascists. And probably a dozen others.
I'm agreeing that the Vatican could have done more... more to act as Europe's conscience as it were. Though I wouldn't say that they could do more than France or Britain could have. For while much of what I've read and seen in documentaries on the Catholic Church's activities during the period s rather limited. I know the relationship was complicated in that the Vatican as a point of official policy actually favored the Nazis to some degree because they supported Hitler's opposition to Communism and that much of the resistance to Nazi Party activities during the war came more from lower ranking clergy and not from the papacy itself. And that would be something that would make trying to be Europe's conscience difficult. And that complexity is probably also something mentioned in the books you reference.

Why? I didn't claim his mistakes were intended. I said he took the head fake; fell for the feint (a fencing. Do you know what that means? For some reason, you are just desperate in trying to make a distinction that somehow superior generalship is not part of superior military.
I understand what a feint is. And with regard to what happened in 1940, I'd even agree that Gamelin took the bait as it were... but that's just a comparison between Manstein and Gamelin. My general point is that Germany's generals were not as great as they said they were in their memoirs. It strikes me too much of blaming others for their own mistakes. My reference here was more specifically to this line...

Also, in my book, I consider the possibility that some of errors may be deliberate. There are ALWAYS traitors somewhere.
If the errors were deliberate... that would have to mean that Gamelin or Weygand had no intention of beating Germany and recognized the feint and knew that would mean defeat and then bit on it anyway to assure German victory... Essentially, treason.

And while there were plenty of people who collaborated with the Nazis, I'd think the whole "5th Column" thing has been exaggerated by what happened in Norway with Vidkun Quisling. While Petain has had a long history of criticizing the 3rd Republic... I've never seen anything that would suggest that he was an admirer of the Nazis or of Germans. Petain collaborated, and extensively so, but that also came after France was put in a position where it couldn't do much. Laval, who's often gotten a lot of flak for being a collaborator, also had a long history of actually opposing the Nazis... in theory. He was tasked with trying to engineer an alliance with Italy against Germany and had success with it... until the Italians invaded Ethiopia and the French public didn't want to sacrifice the Ethiopians to stop Hitler, which then killed the agreement that might have gotten the Italians to support the French. It's only after France was defeated in 1940 that Laval tried to maneuver into collaboration... and more as a means of getting even. It would still be treason, as both Petain and Laval were convicted after WW2 for it, but not the sort where their treason assured German victory in 1940...

And I don't think that either Gamelin or Weygand ever got as far as Petain or Laval did. I think they were in a POW camp in Germany until the end of the war when the oddest battle where American GIs joined with German Army formations to take on the Waffen SS to rescue French POWs in 1945...

Thus with your line of considering the errors deliberate... I am curious to see if you're actually advocating that someone in France prior to May 1940 was actively trying to help the Germans win.

To Be Continued...
 
  • Like
Reactions: sparky