To go off on a tangent from the Obama-Hitler? thread, what were Hitler's economic principles, and how were, or weren't they reflected in his policies, or the policies of other Nazi officials?

Originally Posted by Moff Jerjerrod
Just want to point out a small mistake: Hitler was a Fascist, Obama is a Communist

Other than that continue with the discussion.

Originally Posted by Camikaze
But Hitler's economic principles were, in fact, quite socialist.

Originally Posted by Dachs
Outlawing trade unions? Banning strikes? The tax cuts in the Reinhardt Plan? Close partnerships with big businessmen? Patronage of major firms such as Messerschmitt and IG Farben? Hell, workers even lost the right to quit their jobs, and needed their employer's permission.

Originally Posted by Cutlass
No they weren't. German and Italian fascism of the 20s and 30s was built on co opting the language and groups of socialism while ruthlessly crushing the reality of socialism.

Originally Posted by Cheezy the Wiz
Aaand reality comes smashing back one post later.

Interestingly, some of their other policies were quite leftist in nature, including pension and retirement money, health care, and unemployment compensation for all citizens. Of course, to be a citizen one must be "ethnically German"...

My original point was that many of Hitler's, or more to the point, the NSDAP's, economic principles, were quite socialist. Principles, not policies. I got this from the 25 Point Program of the National Socialist German Workers' Party, albeit published in 1920, well before the Nazi's had a chance to realise any of their goals.


[9] All citizens (see points 4-8) of the nation must have equal rights and obligations.
[10] The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually and physically. Citizens work for the benefit of the nation.
[11] We demand the abolition of uneraned incomes.
[13] We demand the nationalisation of all industries.
[14] We demand a division of profits of all industries.
[15] We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.
[17] We demand a land reform suitable to our needs ... abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.
[20] The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education.
[21] The state is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labour, by the encouragment of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organisations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.


Firstly, was the 25 Point Program a reflection of Hitler's personal beliefs?

And, again, how were these economic principles transformed or not transformed into policy by the Nazi government?

Also, to what extent are they socialist, or socialist-like, principles, and later on, socialist, or socialist-like policies?

And, taking a structuralist approach, was Hitler himself merely opposed to communism on a race basis, and in fact favourably disposed to socialist economic principles, with the chaotic Nazi government misinterpreting these race based anti-communist beliefs as economically based anti-socialist beliefs in their decision making?

Other than the ignorant Obama comment, all of your quotes are theoretically accurate, save for one small detail: Hitler wanted a reversion of the Versailles Treaty and that, to him, meant war. Also his virulent anti-semitism had a strong economic component. (On a micro-economic scale however, Nazi economic "principles" were all about self-enrichment - not of the nation, but of leading Nazis in person.) Finally, Hitler cared little for German people or economics, other than what was needed to create his "1000 year Reich".

Yeah. Hitler himself was really only interested in foreign policy, not domestic policy. Many of the 25 points were imperialist, and, of course, against the Treaty of Versailles:
[2] Cancellation of the peace Treaty of Versailles.
But he himself was not lavish and worried about personal wealth, as was, say, Goering. But, taking a structuralist viewpoint, his personal non-interest in personal wealth wouldn't have mattered towards Nazi policy, as he wouldn't have developed any policies pertaining to it.

Finally, Hitler cared little for German people or economics, other than what was needed to create his "1000 year Reich".

Germany was almost bankrupt before attack to Poland, which one was of the decisions leading to war.. and of course looting Jewish possessions helped.

Also his virulent anti-semitism had a strong economic component. (On a micro-economic scale however, Nazi economic "principles" were all about self-enrichment - not of the nation, but of leading Nazis in person.)

Dr. Hjalmar Horace Greeley Schacht was Minister for Finance under Hitler till 1937. Mefo Bills (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mefo_bills)and the deals he hammered out with a slew of nations that allowed payments in Reichmark was what allowed Germany to run a huge CAD and re-arm at the same.

Mefo Bills effectively allowed the state to issue secretly bonds, in contravention of the Treaty of Versailles allowing both a larger deficit (4.5% interest was the limitation) than was technically possible and a mass of spending on re-armament which was able to be hidden.

The yawning German CAD, was also effectively closed, allowing the purchase of raw materials in Reichsmarks which of course had to be spent in the Reich. These raw materials including rubber and other crucial war materials further assisted in Germany's rearmament.

Of course Mssr. Schacht was also instrumental in allowing Hitler to ascend to power in the first place, who polled all the industrialists and got their endorsements for Hitler? Granted that was a mistake, one he remedied later by being active in the resistance to Hitler later in the game. Hitler was no economist, he relied in his early pre-war years on the services of Mssr. Schanct, Germany's economic policy in large part was Mssr. Schancts.

I also call bull on the second assertion, some certainly profited, and amassed substantial fortunes. But for a dictatorial state it was remarkably parsimonious, find me a dictatorship which has taken less, for that matter find me a dictator that has taken less.

*

Nazi economic principles were fairly similar to German Socialist economic principles, sure they crushed and brutalized the Socialists... but they were not all together dissimilar. They did tend to aim towards militaristic purposes, but in a German political party that was not exactly uncommon. In any case, it is to simplistic to call them socialist, but they certainly owe alot to the German left (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Year_Plan)(although as mentioned above, Mssr. Schanct was from the German right). They oscillated and changed... as time went on and its very hard to know how they would have ended up had they won the war.

But he himself was not lavish and worried about personal wealth, as was, say, Goering. But, taking a structuralist viewpoint, his personal non-interest in personal wealth wouldn't have mattered towards Nazi policy, as he wouldn't have developed any policies pertaining to it.

Not with the central party certainly... but with everyone else I think it was a given that corruption and malfeasance were less than desirable (war profiteering et al were all punishable by death). It's not like they could fleece the public purse or accept the corporate dollar to much or the leader might get annoyed sufficiently at the abuse to act. We need to view the state at least at the top as a system of personal links not as a system or institution unto itself, that was yet to develop. Personal links as in a new Monarchy were the glue which kept the central party together... not institutional relationships between at least nominally indifferent Ministers.

Germany was almost bankrupt before attack to Poland, which one was of the decisions leading to war.. and of course looting Jewish possessions helped.

It didn't matter if it defaulted to be completely honest on its conventional bonds. Most were not held by Germans (hyper inflation) and were low interest in any case 4.5% as per the Treaty of Versailles. Mefo Bills were never meant to be on-sold or redeemed in any case. I also don't think Jewish possessions counted for a significant portion of German expenditure.

Dr. Hjalmar Horace Greeley Schacht was Minister for Finance under Hitler till 1937. Mefo Bills (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mefo_bills)and the deals he hammered out with a slew of nations that allowed payments in Reichmark was what allowed Germany to run a huge CAD and re-arm at the same.

Mefo Bills effectively allowed the state to issue secretly bonds, in contravention of the Treaty of Versailles allowing both a larger deficit (4.5% interest was the limitation) than was technically possible and a mass of spending on re-armament which was able to be hidden.

The yawning German CAD, was also effectively closed, allowing the purchase of raw materials in Reichsmarks which of course had to be spent in the Reich. These raw materials including rubber and other crucial war materials further assisted in Germany's rearmament.

Of course Mssr. Schacht was also instrumental in allowing Hitler to ascend to power in the first place, who polled all the industrialists and got their endorsements for Hitler? Granted that was a mistake, one he remedied later by being active in the resistance to Hitler later in the game. Hitler was no economist, he relied in his early pre-war years on the services of Mssr. Schanct, Germany's economic policy in large part was Mssr. Schancts.

I also call bull on the second assertion, some certainly profited, and amassed substantial fortunes. But for a dictatorial state it was remarkably parsimonious, find me a dictatorship which has taken less, for that matter find me a dictator that has taken less.

You can bull all you want, but:

1. Hjalmar Schacht never was a member of the NSDAP
2. You seem to forget that WW II rendered huge amounts of plunder, both to the Nazi state and to leading Nazis (Hitler certainly not excluded, although Goering topped the bill. The Nazi state may have depended on personal relations in governance and other administrative matters, but ultimately those relations were only important because of their link to the Führer, who was both head of the party and of the state, and ultimately of the army - through the infamous Führer oath of loyalty and by assuming supreme command in the course of the war. The Nazis in fact couln't have lead the country if it wasn't for the willing assistance of leading economists and especially industrialists, something Hitler realized quite early on and fit him well, as he was totally uninterested in labour interests, having never worked a day in his life.)

Germany was almost bankrupt before attack to Poland, which one was of the decisions leading to war.. and of course looting Jewish possessions helped.

Being "almost" bankrupt was probably a massive improvement over much of Weimar era. ;)
IIRC, at times 2/3 of Weimar Republic's budget was spent on paying unemployment benefits (which weren't exactly big to begin with).

1. Hjalmar Schacht never was a member of the NSDAP

He was the Reich Minister of Economics, from August 34' to November 36' and was a Minister without portfolio until 43'. It doesn't matter that he wasn't a member of the NSDAP, he was a key player in the rise of Hitler, the re-armament of Germany, and was the person most responsible for the stabilization of the German economy. He setup the system of 'Nazi economics' that predominated in Germany in the lead up to the war, the only deviation from his model was the increased re-armament via the Four Year Plan in October 36'. Public works including the autobahns, the 'new plan', 'mefo bills' and the trade deals with like-minded 'fascist' regimes in South America and Europe were all accomplished under his watch. The only thing he opposed out of 'Nazi economics' was re-armament, and even that is strictly speaking not true, he opposed it at the time, he did not oppose it on principle.

He was also according to Wikipedia:

was awarded honorary membership of the NSDAP and the Golden Swastika in January 1937.

It's also important to note that a fair few members of other German right wing parties who served and supported the Nazi's did not become members. Didn't help them at Nuremberg, Nazi Party membership was not a precondition to trial.

*

You seem to forget that WW II rendered huge amounts of plunder, both to the Nazi state and to leading Nazis (Hitler certainly not excluded, although Goering topped the bill.

As to your second point, go figure it was a totalitarian regime, to paraphrase a certain English Gentleman who conquered large swathes of India, when called to Court on charges of corruption, "I am honestly surprised, considering the circumstance that I did not take more" . Leading Nazi's certainly made a killing, but its not like they diverted all the wealth of Poland to their own pockets to the detriment of the army and the regime. They indulged in a little bit of skim which on the whole considering the windfall to the state mattered not a whit to the war effort. It is therefore logical to assume that if they didn't completely loot everything they took for their own personal gain some sort of counteracting agent existed... in this case Hitler.

[QUOTE=JEELEN]The Nazi state may have depended on personal relations in governance and other administrative matters, but ultimately those relations were only important because of their link to the Führer, who was both head of the party and of the state, and ultimately of the army - through the infamous Führer oath of loyalty and by assuming supreme command in the course of the war.

I didn't use the word Monarchy without a certain intent... to I don't know paint Hitler as a King with courtiers swanning around him for favor? Your also overstating the power of the Führer in a military setting, an oath wasn't enough to keep Canaris and co. honest was it? He had the loyalty of the military insofar as he maintained loyalists at the top, a certain 'lapdog' springs to mind, and managed to continue winning the war. Once that stopped he lost the loyalty of the significant parts of the upper echelons of the military. Some took a further step and drew the conclusion that he was losing Germany the war and took matters into their own hands, some may have had genuine objections on a moral level or never shared Nazi ideals... in any case it was only when the war was being lost that the majority acted.

The Nazis in fact couln't have lead the country if it wasn't for the willing assistance of leading economists and especially industrialists, something Hitler realized quite early on and fit him well, as he was totally uninterested in labour interests, having never worked a day in his life.)

When did I deny that? Your also wrong, Hitler hated organized labor unions, not because he was opposed to the notion of labor interests, but because they were tied to his chief ideological enemies, Communism and Socialism. He also hated them with the passion for their percieved links to Jews [at least for some of them] and because it had been labor unions in cahoots with others which according to his beliefs stabbed Germany in the back. He formed a state backed union organization to replace the ones he destroyed which was modeled on 'proper' German principles. He was also fond of some weird social policies, some of which included holidays in occupied Scandinavia as a means of re-connecting with German values... etc.

I've not read much in this area. I had seen these two books recently at my public library Hitler's Beneficiaries: Plunder, Racial War, and the Nazi Welfare State and The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy which might give me some further insight into an area usually not prominently discussed. The reason I didn't check them out? Opportunity costs! The second book alone looked like 800 pages on a subject that while interesting isn't sufficiently interesting enough for me to complete. :(

But this is an interesting thread I can follow...

Weren't the Strasserites socialist to an extent?

Weren't the Strasserites socialist to an extent?
The Strasser wing was certainly the more socialist in the way in which we think of socialist economic planning.

There were many socialist elements in the Nazi Party, especially in the early period. But his policies, IMO, could be described as vaguely Keynesian. Actually, considering that it is said that Nazi Germany inspired Keynes and not the other way around, we can say that Keynesianism is vaguely Hitleristic. ;)

The political compass website says that Hitler's policies were Keynesian.

I think that overrates Herr Hitler's grasp of matters economic; he was about as good at it as we was at military strategy. Personally I don't think he'd ever heard of Keynes; reading wasn't his strong suit. (For instance, he needed glasses to read - which he hardly ever wore - and consistently referred to the philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer as Schoppenhauer.)

He was the Reich Minister of Economics, from August 34' to November 36' and was a Minister without portfolio until 43'. It doesn't matter that he wasn't a member of the NSDAP, he was a key player in the rise of Hitler, the re-armament of Germany, and was the person most responsible for the stabilization of the German economy. He setup the system of 'Nazi economics' that predominated in Germany in the lead up to the war, the only deviation from his model was the increased re-armament via the Four Year Plan in October 36'.

Schacht feared it would cause inflation. Anyway with the implementation of the 4 Year Plan (how original), his role was basically finished.

It's also important to note that a fair few members of other German right wing parties who served and supported the Nazi's did not become members. Didn't help them at Nuremberg, Nazi Party membership was not a precondition to trial.

And Schacht was acquitted, partly because he'd been imprisoned in a camp following involvement in plans to remove Hitler, notably the Schauffenberg plot of '44. (Actually, Schacht was made an honorary member of the NSDAP, an offer which one couldn't refuse.)

Leading Nazi's certainly made a killing, but its not like they diverted all the wealth of Poland to their own pockets to the detriment of the army and the regime. They indulged in a little bit of skim which on the whole considering the windfall to the state mattered not a whit to the war effort. It is therefore logical to assume that if they didn't completely loot everything they took for their own personal gain some sort of counteracting agent existed... in this case Hitler.

You seem to have quite a rosy idea of Hitler's noble character. As said, Hitler took what he could; he made millions. But that's not the point: the Nazi state at war was a plunder state - conquered nations were ruthlessly exploited, especially in Eastern Europe, all to serve the greater effort towards Greater Germany's victory. (In fact the Nazi treatment of Ukrainians alienated many who initially welcomed them as liberators from the Soviet regime.)

He had the loyalty of the military insofar as he maintained loyalists at the top, a certain 'lapdog' springs to mind, and managed to continue winning the war. Once that stopped he lost the loyalty of the significant parts of the upper echelons of the military. Some took a further step and drew the conclusion that he was losing Germany the war and took matters into their own hands, some may have had genuine objections on a moral level or never shared Nazi ideals... in any case it was only when the war was being lost that the majority acted.

The oath of loyalty ensured that any soldier was subject to high treason when not following orders. The fact of the matter is, that the majority of the military never dared stand up to Hitler, let alone plot against him. (Several generals were tried at Neurenberg.) In private, notwithstanding the emasculation of the top military by Hitler's machinations, he expressed his admiration for Stalin, who could simply execute failing generals. (He never grasped that the failure of the German military was the result of his own blundering decisions - one of the reasons why the British aborted an attempt to murder Hitler.)

You can easily combine a planned economy with fascism. No need to call it socialist.

I would suggest reading this to get an idea of how well the fascist movement in Germany got along with the socialists. http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Birth-Nazis-Freikorps/dp/0786713429/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1237331633&sr=1-2

You can easily combine a planned economy with fascism. No need to call it socialist.

I think that, if you are to have fascism, you have to combine it with a planned economy.

I think that overrates Herr Hitler's grasp of matters economic; he was about as good at it as we was at military strategy. Personally I don't think he'd ever heard of Keynes; reading wasn't his strong suit. (For instance, he needed glasses to read - which he hardly ever wore - and consistently referred to the philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer as Schoppenhauer.)

When have I ever talked about Hitlers grasp of economics? Honestly, aside from making the point that he was a restraining influence in the looting for personal gains stakes I've never bought him into the argument. Schacht was the finance minister....

Schacht feared it would cause inflation. Anyway with the implementation of the 4 Year Plan (how original), his role was basically finished.

Correct he did fear it would cause inflation (which was only partially correct, he had engineered the system such that it didn't create quite as much as he thought). But the economic superstructure of the state, he created, lasted right up until the German economy had to gear up for total war. If you will, he created the playbook, everyone else followed it with the occasional deviation - re-armament and the formal creation of an industrial cartel. Just because he was no longer calling the shots, does not mean that his legacy, wasn't being followed.

And Schacht was acquitted, partly because he'd been imprisoned in a camp following involvement in plans to remove Hitler, notably the Schauffenberg plot of '44. (Actually, Schacht was made an honorary member of the NSDAP, an offer which one couldn't refuse.)

You've missed the boat. It didn't matter that he wasn't a Nazi, Nazi peacetime economics and even for a significant period wartime economics were his creation. He had the formulaic years to shape the system, and did so.

As said, Hitler took what he could; he made millions. But that's not the point: the Nazi state at war was a plunder state - conquered nations were ruthlessly exploited, especially in Eastern Europe, all to serve the greater effort towards Greater Germany's victory. (In fact the Nazi treatment of Ukrainians alienated many who initially welcomed them as liberators from the Soviet regime.)

When have I contradicted this? I'm merely stating that Nazi economics as opposed to Nazi plunder owes most to Schacht . How that plunder was used also owes alot to Schacht , you should investigate the role he played in getting the industrialists (which Hitler was wary of) on side with the Nazis.

The oath of loyalty ensured that any soldier was subject to high treason when not following orders. The fact of the matter is, that the majority of the military never dared stand up to Hitler, let alone plot against him. (Several generals were tried at Neurenberg.) In private, notwithstanding the emasculation of the top military by Hitler's machinations, he expressed his admiration for Stalin, who could simply execute failing generals. (He never grasped that the failure of the German military was the result of his own blundering decisions - one of the reasons why the British aborted an attempt to murder Hitler.)

It's treason not to obey your lawful governments orders in time of war anyway - your former enemies who at the end of the war decide what is legal and what was not legal notwithstanding. The fact of the matter is that millions were in no position to bring down a dictatorial regime (like almost every other dictatorial regime) and that it was the upper echelons of the military in a military coup who tend to do it (outside of say the Sergeants Coup and a few other African examples).

His generals certainly grasped that fact, but Hitler was just doing what a great many people do having proved everyone wrong in the early stages, he had a confirmation bias. Just because some were party animals or had other conflicting reasons not to get rid of him, doesn't mean that a great many did not actively try and bring him down.

*

You seem to have quite a rosy idea of Hitler's noble character.

You haven't countered any of my points, beyond attempting to smear me as Pro-Hitler because I correctly deduced that something had to be holding back the agents of a dictatorial regime, in this case the dictator. It's not a glowing character reference its a simple recognition that Hilter for all his faults was not as spectacularly corrupt as he could have been ala Suharto or Marcos.

Nor have you really come up with a coherent narrative or system with which to explain 'Nazi economics'. Aside from lamely trying to say that Schant wasn't a Nazi (which is irrelevant) or that he didn't have anything to do with setting up the economy (it was his creation and it had continuity till later in the war). You can argue that the plunder aspect of the economy was important during the war, but you can't remove Schacht 's influence as any less important, given that the pre-war portion of 'Nazi economics' was as long as the wartime period.

I think that, if you are to have fascism, you have to combine it with a planned economy.

You need an element of planning, I think its a given in a dictatorship. Control of the economy in reality means just that extra degree of control and safety.

I would suggest reading this to get an idea of how well the fascist movement in Germany got along with the socialists. http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Birth-Nazis-Freikorps/dp/0786713429/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1237331633&sr=1-2

I am well aware that Hitler didn't like socialists and really didn't like communists, but was this due to the 'November Criminals' myth and racial reasons, rather than economic principles? I'm starting to think that Hitler didn't really know anything about economics, and was merely opposed to socialists for the aforementioned reasons. More economically wise officials may have interpreted this dislike of socialists on an ignorant level, for a dislike of socialists on an economics level, therefore implementing anti-socialist policies, despite Hitler possibly having, in fact, reasonably socialist economic principles. That is what I'm interested in. Were his principles socialist, but the policies implemented anti-socialist?

With regards to trade unions, Dachs brought up the point that they were abolished by the Nazis. But they were replaced with the wider German Labour Front. Was this a more socialist, yet totalitarian, policy, creating organised labour under government, or was it simply a free market policy, getting rid of protection for employees?

I think that, if you are to have fascism, you have to combine it with a planned economy.

Pinochet (though I probably know much less about him than the South American :sad:)

I am well aware that Hitler didn't like socialists and really didn't like communists, but was this due to the 'November Criminals' myth and racial reasons, rather than economic principles? I'm starting to think that Hitler didn't really know anything about economics, and was merely opposed to socialists for the aforementioned reasons. More economically wise officials may have interpreted this dislike of socialists on an ignorant level, for a dislike of socialists on an economics level, therefore implementing anti-socialist policies, despite Hitler possibly having, in fact, reasonably socialist economic principles. That is what I'm interested in. Were his principles socialist, but the policies implemented anti-socialist?

With regards to trade unions, Dachs brought up the point that they were abolished by the Nazis. But they were replaced with the wider German Labour Front. Was this a more socialist, yet totalitarian, policy, creating organised labour under government, or was it simply a free market policy, getting rid of protection for employees?


According to that book, which a read a couple of months ago, it wasn't just Hitler. ALL of the fascist movement, starting long before Hitler became the key mover in it, was acting to suppress socialism. But at the same time, a few of the early fascist leaders were co opting portions of the socialist movement and rhetoric in order to gain power over the labor movements.

As far as what Hitler knew, he really only ever knew one thing, and that was how to rile people up and get them to follow him. I've never seen evidence that he knew anything else.

As for whether Nazi Germany followed any socialist principles, they were not pro welfare, they were not pro labor, they were not state ownership for the public good, they were state corporatism for the benefit of the military.

As for whether Nazi Germany followed any socialist principles, they were not pro welfare, they were not pro labor, they were not state ownership for the public good, they were state corporatism for the benefit of the military.

And they thought what was beneficial for the military was beneficial for the German people.

And they thought what was beneficial for the military was beneficial for the German people.

Maybe so. But it still was not principles and policies that in any way resembled what most people would think of as socialism.

Maybe so. But it still was not principles and policies that in any way resembled what most people would think of as socialism.

True. But were Hitler's economic principles socialist, in regard to what he was trying to achieve by them?

With regards to trade unions, Dachs brought up the point that they were abolished by the Nazis. But they were replaced with the wider German Labour Front. Was this a more socialist, yet totalitarian, policy, creating organised labour under government, or was it simply a free market policy, getting rid of protection for employees?

Hitler was fairly paternalistic towards the German people, he pushed for Germans to holiday in Scandinavia and provided holiday resorts for youth inside Germany. the move to abolish unions was certainly a move popular with the industrialists... but it was almost a given considering that the SA had at times engaged in running battles with them. They also had links with the Socialists and Communists, had large memberships and therefore presented a possible challenge to the regime. I also don't remember any systematic attacks on German workers rights, he had Poles and Slavs aplenty for that :(.

I am well aware that Hitler didn't like socialists and really didn't like communists, but was this due to the 'November Criminals' myth and racial reasons, rather than economic principles?

I don't think economic principles were the main reason... the whole stab in the back thing had to be higher on the mind. I don't see Hitler dissecting Marx in a careful dissertation.

More economically wise officials may have interpreted this dislike of socialists on an ignorant level, for a dislike of socialists on an economics level, therefore implementing anti-socialist policies, despite Hitler possibly having, in fact, reasonably socialist economic principles. That is what I'm interested in. Were his principles socialist, but the policies implemented anti-socialist?

I don't think anyone in the Reichsbank or Finance Ministry was under any illusions as to how Hitler functioned. They assisted in the suppression of socialists and communists with all the financial weapons they had at hand... but they still engaged in large scale public works.

As for whether Nazi Germany followed any socialist principles, they were not pro welfare, they were not pro labor, they were not state ownership for the public good, they were state corporatism for the benefit of the military.

Business effectively functioned as an arm of the state. They were not pro welfare because of the Wiemar Republics experiences with welfare... that isn't to say that they didn't engage in welfare projects like large scale public works to get people back to work. I don't think they had the time to show if they were pro labor or not, they had time to crush the unions and little time to replace them with anything. The public good was conflated with the good of the state - the two should never part. The state corporatism they engaged in was not solely for the benefit of the military, but that claim becomes irrelevant the moment they entered the war the military become equal to the good of the people (they didn't go quite as far as Britain went for instance in mobilizing the economy).

True. But were Hitler's economic principles socialist, in regard to what he was trying to achieve by them?

I think you'd have to stretch awful far to make that claim. You could say that what Hitler did, he did because he thought it was best for Germany. But it's also true that he made angry rants and left his subordinates to fill in the details, and then never corrected them. Other than the wars and rearmament's, he didn't really seem to direct it at all. His subordinates were left to make best guesses of what he meant. So a few things came out for the average German, more things came out for the German capitalist. Yet more for the German militarist.

Actually, considering that it is said that Nazi Germany inspired Keynes and not the other way around, we can say that Keynesianism is vaguely Hitleristic

No. Keynes ideas were not inspired by nazi german policies. He might have picked up something from nazi propaganda, i.e. the myth of nazi work creation (which was minimal outside the massive military spending). The nazi job creation projects, such as building roads and drying swamps, were hugely exaggerated in national propaganda. Where Keynes believed in trying to employ people, the nazis simply thought of people as tools in the military machine. Hitlerian policies also pursued the suppression of private demand and the virtual enslavement of the worker to the nazi cartels.

---


I have refuted the notion that Nazi regime was socialist many times. The regime was statist, but not a social democratic welfarist government, but a predatory... warfarist... regime of the bosses. Hitler abolished labor unions, drove down wages, sacrificed economic recovery that could have helped the people so that labor and resources could be allocated to the military. etc.

I think you'd have to stretch awful far to make that claim. You could say that what Hitler did, he did because he thought it was best for Germany. But it's also true that he made angry rants and left his subordinates to fill in the details, and then never corrected them. Other than the wars and rearmament's, he didn't really seem to direct it at all. His subordinates were left to make best guesses of what he meant. So a few things came out for the average German, more things came out for the German capitalist. Yet more for the German militarist.

Fair enough. How would you describe the idea of Volksgemeinschaft?

When have I ever talked about Hitlers grasp of economics? Honestly, aside from making the point that he was a restraining influence in the looting for personal gains stakes I've never bought him into the argument. Schacht was the finance minister....

Minister of economics, actually. Before that he was president of the Reichsbank. The point is Schacht didn't agree with Hitler's preference for autarky and protectionism; it was this conflict of interests that ultimately removed him from a position of power.

Correct he did fear it would cause inflation (which was only partially correct, he had engineered the system such that it didn't create quite as much as he thought). But the economic superstructure of the state, he created, lasted right up until the German economy had to gear up for total war. If you will, he created the playbook, everyone else followed it with the occasional deviation - re-armament and the formal creation of an industrial cartel. Just because he was no longer calling the shots, does not mean that his legacy, wasn't being followed.

The "economic superstructure" was already in place before Schacht; it's a given.

It didn't matter that he wasn't a Nazi, Nazi peacetime economics and even for a significant period wartime economics were his creation. He had the formulaic years to shape the system, and did so.

Obviously Schacht shifted way to the right after he co-founded the German Democratic Party. But the wartime autarkic/protectionist system was none of his making, as I pointed out above.

When have I contradicted this? I'm merely stating that Nazi economics as opposed to Nazi plunder owes most to Schacht . How that plunder was used also owes alot to Schacht , you should investigate the role he played in getting the industrialists (which Hitler was wary of) on side with the Nazis.

You seem to overestimate both Schacht's role in the war economy and the chaotic way the Nazi state actually worked. As concerns the first, Albert Speer did much more to ensure wartime production:

While Speer had tremendous power, he was of course subordinate to Hitler. Nazi officials sometimes went around Speer by seeking direct orders from the dictator. When Speer ordered peacetime building work suspended, the Gauleiters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauleiter) (Nazi Party district leaders) obtained an exemption for their pet projects. When Speer sought the appointment of Hanke as a labor czar to optimize the use of German labor, Hitler, under the influence of Martin Bormann (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Bormann), instead appointed Fritz Sauckel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Sauckel). Rather than increasing female labor and taking other steps to better organize German labor, as Speer favored, Sauckel advocated importing labor from the occupied nations — and did so, obtaining workers for (among other things) Speer's armament factories, using the most brutal methods.[72] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Speer#cite_note-71)

By 1943, the Allies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_Powers) had gained air superiority over Germany, and bombings of German cities and industry had become commonplace. However, the Allies in their strategic bombing campaign (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II) did not concentrate on industry, and Speer, with his improvisational skill, was able to overcome bombing losses. In spite of these losses, German production of tanks more than doubled in 1943, production of planes increased by 80 percent, and production time for submarines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine) was reduced from one year to two months. Production would continue to increase until the second half of 1944, by which time enough equipment to supply 270 army divisions was being produced—although the Wehrmacht had only 150 divisions in the field.[75] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Speer#cite_note-74)

It's treason not to obey your lawful governments orders in time of war anyway - your former enemies who at the end of the war decide what is legal and what was not legal notwithstanding. The fact of the matter is that millions were in no position to bring down a dictatorial regime (like almost every other dictatorial regime) and that it was the upper echelons of the military in a military coup who tend to do it (outside of say the Sergeants Coup and a few other African examples).

His generals certainly grasped that fact, but Hitler was just doing what a great many people do having proved everyone wrong in the early stages, he had a confirmation bias. Just because some were party animals or had other conflicting reasons not to get rid of him, doesn't mean that a great many did not actively try and bring him down.

Though there were in all 42 assassination attempts against Hitler, none succeeded obviously, mostly because of poor organisation. That "millions were in no position to bring down a dictatorial regime" did not stop daring individuals from trying. But I would not say that "a great many did ... actively try and bring him down." (That just contradicts the former statement as far as numbers are concerned.) The upper echelons of the military - individual exceptions notwithstanding - completely failed to take the consequences of Hitler's disastrous leadership.

You haven't countered any of my points, beyond attempting to smear me as Pro-Hitler because I correctly deduced that something had to be holding back the agents of a dictatorial regime, in this case the dictator. It's not a glowing character reference its a simple recognition that Hilter for all his faults was not as spectacularly corrupt as he could have been ala Suharto or Marcos.

Nor have you really come up with a coherent narrative or system with which to explain 'Nazi economics'. Aside from lamely trying to say that Schant wasn't a Nazi (which is irrelevant) or that he didn't have anything to do with setting up the economy (it was his creation and it had continuity till later in the war). You can argue that the plunder aspect of the economy was important during the war, but you can't remove Schacht 's influence as any less important, given that the pre-war portion of 'Nazi economics' was as long as the wartime period.

On the contrary, I have countered several points, but you choose to ignore this. I did not suggest you being pro-Hitler, merely did I point out that you misinterpret Hitler's moderative role, if any. (You claim this, but give no examples or evidence to support it.)

If you want a "narrative or system with which to explain 'Nazi economics'", there are plenty of books on the subject; it is not my place to substitute for these. To say that the economy of the Third Reich was "his creation" is simply an exaggeration of Schacht's personal role, an understimation of the forces underlying the economy at large and shows a lack of understanding of the chaotic nature of the Nazi regime in general.

Suharto and Marcos do not compare to Hitler's totalitarian regime; that's just an underestimation of the horrors of fascism; a comparison to Franco would be more suitable. Hitler was corrupt for sure (all dictators are); he just hid it very well, as he was always aware of his public image. A man who condoned and authorized the Final Solution (and made sure no direct evidence linked him to it) is by definition not only corrupt to the extreme, but plain evil; to anyone who's ever read Mein Kampf it's crystal clear that such a man is by no means a moderate. That Hitler wasn't an extremist when it came to economics is mostly due to both his lack of knowledge of and alck of interest in the subject; he never approved a "total war" economy until late 1944, when it could make little difference anymore. (One reason for this was that it would mean a concentration of power in another man's hands, something he always was very suspicious of.)

Fair enough. How would you describe the idea of Volksgemeinschaft?

I'm not very familiar with it. It looks like mass indoctrination techniques similar to those used by other totalitarians, but with a racial/nationalist component rather that, say, the class struggle component that some of the communist totalitarians used. Or the religious component some theocratic totalitarian movements have/are using.

You can easily combine a planned economy with fascism. No need to call it socialist.
Well, but planned economy is one of the major aspects of socialism (I am thinking of marxist socialism here; I still find it wrong to call the current european systems socialism, but that is offtopic here) and thus there were common aspects of both. Also, you sincerly know (and it has been mentioned already in this thread in an indirect form) that Nazi is the short form of Nationalsozialist (national socialist) and the system is called national socialism. I don't think those words have been invented and used without reason.

Also, Gleichschaltung was a principle of the nazis that has some socialist aspects. Don't know if this word is known in english speaking countries. Basically it is about centralization and increasing the control of the state over a lot of things. That principle was a commonly used by the Nazis.

Maybe these things have been mentioned earlier. I haven't read all posts, some of them are quite long.

Hitler was a Keynesian since Keynes got some of his ideas by watching Hitler's massive spending. It is not surprising since Keynes was not concerned with the poor, saw the necessity for government spending, and was anti-Semitic.

As far as the Obama comparison, it is laughable considering the last eight years. Of course, it is ultimately a fools game comparing Hitler to an American president due to circumstances in the Wiemar Republic before Hitler took power and the fact that the Wiemar Constitution had a provision allowing for its suspension, were as our constitution does not.

Well, but planned economy is one of the major aspects of socialism (I am thinking of marxist socialism here; I still find it wrong to call the current european systems socialism, but that is offtopic here) and thus there were common aspects of both. Also, you sincerly know (and it has been mentioned already in this thread in an indirect form) that Nazi is the short form of Nationalsozialist (national socialist) and the system is called national socialism. I don't think those words have been invented and used without reason.

Also, Gleichschaltung was a principle of the nazis that has some socialist aspects. Don't know if this word is known in english speaking countries. Basically it is about centralization and increasing the control of the state over a lot of things. That principle was a commonly used by the Nazis.

Maybe these things have been mentioned earlier. I haven't read all posts, some of them are quite long.

Isn't North Korea the Democratic People's Republic of Korea?

I'm not very familiar with it. It looks like mass indoctrination techniques similar to those used by other totalitarians, but with a racial/nationalist component rather that, say, the class struggle component that some of the communist totalitarians used. Or the religious component some theocratic totalitarian movements have/are using.

To quote my textbook:
The Nazis preached the concept of the Volksgemeinschaft. This was to be a new society, a harmonious national community free from class division and social conflict. I suppose you could see either 'national' or 'class' as the key word in those sentences.

Well, but planned economy is one of the major aspects of socialism (I am thinking of marxist socialism here; I still find it wrong to call the current european systems socialism, but that is offtopic here) and thus there were common aspects of both. Also, you sincerly know (and it has been mentioned already in this thread in an indirect form) that Nazi is the short form of Nationalsozialist (national socialist) and the system is called national socialism. I don't think those words have been invented and used without reason.

I think that the original party, when creating its name (after the German Workers' Party) wanted to, firstly, expand its base, by including socialist in the title, and secondly, placate the more working class wing of the party that was effectively quashed in the Night of the Long Knives.

Also, Gleichschaltung was a principle of the nazis that has some socialist aspects. Don't know if this word is known in english speaking countries. Basically it is about centralization and increasing the control of the state over a lot of things. That principle was a commonly used by the Nazis.

Basically the Nazification of Germany.

Isn't North Korea the Democratic People's Republic of Korea?
I don't believe that works here. North Korea - and the GDR as a second example - used theword for propaganda. If Hitler does that by the same reason he would risk a loss of members, because in a way he compares himself with those he hates most: the communists. No matter how americans define socialism Germans always connect that word with communism.
Also, those 2 words are still in use. In other cases they have replaced nazi terminology, but not here. Why if there would be no similarities between those 2 systems at all?

Basically the Nazification of Germany.
Well, sure, but that is a quite simple explanation. As I said it is about bringing institiutins and a lot of other things under the control of the state.

Pinochet (though I probably know much less about him than the South American :sad:)

Pinochet embraced free market capitalism minus the copper industry which remained nationalized.

We are off-topic. :lol:

No matter how americans define socialism Germans always connect that word with communism.

German, and probably all, social-democrats do not connect socialism with communism at all. Communism is to the extreme right, while social-democrats consider themselves left of center. (Hitler ofcourse hated all socialists and communists, while having no qualms about naming his movement national-socialist - which shows off his political opportunism.)

German, and probably all, social-democrats do not connect socialism with communism at all. Communism is to the extreme right, while social-democrats consider themselves left of center. (Hitler ofcourse hated all socialists and communists, while having no qualms about naming his movement national-socialist - which shows off his political opportunism.)

Well, I suppose communism could be to the extreme right if you were looking at the spectrum in a mirror.

The connection was made due to the fact that both the SPD and the KPD were parties of the left. The connection was solidified by the fact that the KPD was formed out of a breakaway SPD faction, the USPD.

I found a nice little quote by Hitler on the topic of socialism that seems to indicate that his ignorance wasn't quite as bad as we might be thinking:
Each activity and each need of the individual will be regulated by the party as the representative of the general good. Let them own land and factories as much as they please. The decisive factor is that the state, through the party, is supreme over them regardless of whether they are owners or workers ... our socialism goes far deeper ... it establishes the relationships of the individual to the state, the national community ... why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings!

I suppose this shows that Hitler was not prescribing to any economic principles for economical ideological reasons, but for the benefit of his regime, and for the benefit of his other goals.

German, and probably all, social-democrats do not connect socialism with communism at all.
Although this is going offtopic I can't share this view. I never heard that a German is calling our system socialism ("Sozialismus"). Maybe this is only a question of misunderstanding. What I mean is, that americans seem to use the phrase socialism to describe a system like the german also, not only for systems like the GDRs. In Germany I never heard that oppinion. Germans call our system social democrazy or social market economy (depends on the context) and I share that opinion. By using the phrase socialism we think of systems like the GDRs (and I don't think that was much different in the 30s). By saying "connect it with comunism" I didn't mean that both are the same, although lot of people may think that here due to their level of education (in ordinary school they don't make a big difference between socialism and communism). The reason for this is, that for Germans social democrazy / social market economy is based on free market economy while socialism is based on planned economy. That's the usual definition here and as I said I share that point of view. That the members of the SPD call each other comrade is only for show. They don't plan to introduce a planned economy. Therefore it is correct to say in Germany socialism is connected to comunism (as a step towards communism). That may not be true for the american definition, but as the NSDAP and national socialism as the german version of fascism is a german "invention" we have to use the german definition here.

Well, I suppose communism could be to the extreme right if you were looking at the spectrum in a mirror.


Communism also looks like the extreme right if you see the political spectrum as a circle. Like I do.

:confused: Please explain. Personally I think the Political Compass is the most effective.

Political Compass is one way to describe the spectrum, and there are others similar to it. And I suppose they mean a lot to some people and explain things well to some people.

But consider, When you go to the far left of the most common scales you get communism as it is advocated under the theory of communism. But when you look at real world nations, there has never been a modern nation that called it's governing economic principles "communist" but had a government that was not fascist.

Look at what they have done in the real world: Both are police states. Both have government mandated ideologies and indoctrination. Both have most of the economy under control of leading party members (the fact that the government officially owns on the one hand, and private citizens own, but fully control their industry is really a trivial difference). Both suppress all dissent.

Now if you look at the economic axis of something like Political Compass, what is the difference between the extreme right and the extreme left? In both cases there is 0 economic freedom for most of the population. You do what you are told, you do it when you are told, and you do it how you are told.

I think what Cutlass is saying is that the extreme left and the extreme right can both become authoritarian, and to a degree close to indistinguishable. If they are indistinguishable, they'd have to meet on the spectrum. Imagine a strip of paper with the spectrum on it (just left-right). For the extreme left and right to meet, the strip of paper would have to be formed into a circle. I think that's how it works, anyway.

Edit: Crosspost

I'd even go a step further. I'd say that the words left and right become more and more inadequate to describe a political opinion. They may work for the parties in Germany and probably in the US, too. But look at Hungary for instance. There the socialists and the liberals (in easy words the communists and the capitalists - of course that is a bit an oversimplification) had a coalition for a long time and probably they'll have it again. An important part of their politics the last time was privatisation (of hospitals), which is okay for liberals, but not for socialists. That's actually no typical left politics. On the other side there is a party currently in opposition that is called to be right, but concerns for the ordinary people, not so much for the enterprises. They call them right, because they are conservative in terms of caring for traditions. The borders between left and right start to disappear and I think this actually becomes more and more normal in the world. I'd even have problems to describe my political opinions with only the words "left" and "right". Also, our initial topic (Hitlers politics) is an example for that. Quite conservative in terms of traditions and social aspects, but it's economy definately had socialistic aspects, although it would be too simple to only call it socialism...

Well, if you understand politics as a circle, left and right start to disappear as well. The reason is imple: where do right and left begin adn where is their end?

I think that it is a bit simplistic to place a political party on a spectrum and say that that is where they are for everything. Political parties have different positions on the spectrum for every different policy, and I guess that their designated orientation is just the average of all of these positions.

I'd even go a step further. I'd say that the words left and right become more and more inadequate to describe a political opinion. They may work for the parties in Germany and probably in the US, too. But look at Hungary for instance. There the socialists and the liberals (in easy words the communists and the capitalists - of course that is a bit an oversimplification) had a coalition for a long time and probably they'll have it again. An important part of their politics the last time was privatisation (of hospitals), which is okay for liberals, but not for socialists. That's actually no typical left politics. On the other side there is a party currently in opposition that is called to be right, but concerns for the ordinary people, not so much for the enterprises. They call them right, because they are conservative in terms of caring for traditions. The borders between left and right start to disappear and I think this actually becomes more and more normal in the world. I'd even have problems to describe my political opinions with only the words "left" and "right". Also, our initial topic (Hitlers politics) is an example for that. Quite conservative in terms of traditions and social aspects, but it's economy definately had socialistic aspects, although it would be too simple to only call it socialism...

Well, if you understand politics as a circle, left and right start to disappear as well. The reason is imple: where do right and left begin adn where is their end?

That isn't intrinsic ideology's fault. It's the fact that "socialist" parties in Europe are slingshotting rightwards.

Another thought on Political Compass, If you were to print that graph and take the opposite corners and tack them together, the only difference for the average person would be who is running the show and what they call themselves. And that's just trivia in the average life.

American news are moronic.
Often you hear fascism in what is more described as oligarchy or corporate state and often you hear socialist/communist to what is described in education as socialliberalism.


I don't know how your brains survive over there.

Infraction for trolling. - KD