Nazi Germany and limited government

[Tahuti]

While I am aware that this thread could be potentially a bash-libertarians thread, I have no intention of such, despite I do not agree with libertarianism itself. Anyway, here goes.

Nazi Germany is often considered a totalitarian state. It attempted to create genuine support for Nazi policies among the populace, thus gaining a sense of democratic legitimacy. For that reason, it often mentioned side-by-side with Stalinist Russia and Maoist China.

However, unlike Maoist China and Stalinist Russia and like the Confederate States of America and Somalia, it had a highly limited government and a non-centralised structure. For instance, it liberalised gun laws, making it easier for Germans to acquire guns. It also had more libertarian drug laws than almost any country today, allowing for legal possession and production of cocaine, for instance. It had the lowest tax rates in the world, and marginal income tax rates stood at around 15%.

Now, moreover, the most repressive elements in Nazi Germany did not came from directed state intervention (which certainly existed to be sure), but by rendering the state absent from certain endeavours. One key Nazi concept was 'Gesundesvolksempfinden' (healthy common sense of the people) that essentially boiled down to legitimised mob rule and allowed for the Kristallnacht, by not prosecuting Germans involved in vandalism and murder against Jews, which would otherwise be required by law. Furthermore, the SS was essentially a non-state actor, subsuming key elements of a state, without having all of them, or being even a state organ. It was far more comparable to the Somali Islamic Courts Union than the Soviet NKVD. The SS could go on with its repression, including - worst of all - the Holocaust, not because it was directed to do such by the Hitler cabinet, but because the German state exempted the SS entirely from the law. In the occupied territories, regional governments were installed of which the governments (that had real autonomy) would engage in repeated bickering with each other.

I am opening this thread to discuss the possibility that Nazi Germany possibly had more in common with Somalia than the Soviet Union. So, let's discuss.

 

[Azale]

I will concur softly (for now) on most of your post Kaiser.

All I have to contribute is a paper done, showing how the Nazis were pioneers in privatization long before it become all the rage.

Therefore, libertarians = nazis and everything they say is poo poo

 

[Agent327]

Hm. For starters the SS wasn't the Nazi secret police; that would have been the Gestapo - which was very much like the NKVD. The 'Reichskristallnacht' was very much organized by the Nazis and had little to do with private citizens' initiative. Another term is 'gesundes Volksempfinden'; empfinden doesn't translate to çommon sense'. It was primarily used to show that what the Nazis thought right was in accordance with what 'the people' thought (hence the utterly vagueness of the term). To a certain extent this was of course true: the stepping up of anti-Jew measures were perfectly possible because of the pervasiveness of antisemitism. That doesn't imply that the final extermination decision was somehow 'dictated by the people': Hitler made sure there were no written records showing his approval of such. The euthanasia campaign against 'undesired elements' in society was conducted in utter secrecy and eventually discontinued, showing the Nazis were full well aware that what they thought 'right' was not always in accordance with what the people thought. The same applies to anti-Catholic initiatives by local party members; this was discontinued on direct orders by Hitler. Hitler didn't have a 'cabinet', by the way (nor a functioning parliament); he couldn't be bothered with such trivialities as everyday political routine. (Possibly it reminded him too much of actual work.)

I've heard gun rightists claim that the Nazi regime is what you get if you have strict gun control; I don't know if that is any closer to the truth than claiming that the Nazis had 'liberal gun laws'. Neither statement seems to make much sense when compared to the reality of Nazi rule. Saying that the Nazi regime was 'decentralized', however, is rather missing the point. It suggests that there was a general idea behind it rather than it being something like organized chaos. The Nazis didn't set out to decentralize the state, but to make the state National-Socialist. They didn't completely succeed, but this may, possibly, more likely be attributed to unclear ideas about the state's functions in Nazism rather than for lack of trying. 'Law' under the Nazi regime meant very much a perversion of the very concept; if a law turned up that didn't agree with how Hitler thought 'the law' should be he would issue a Führer decree annulling such a law. 'Law' tends to mean very little under dictatorships, whether they are rightwing or leftwing.

I find the idea that the Nazis were pioneers in privatization...original. I'm not sure, however, if that is the best way to discuss either privatization or libertarianism.

 

[Tahuti]

Hm. For starters the SS wasn't the Nazi secret police; that would have been the Gestapo - which was very much like the NKVD. Some sources for other claims would also be nice if you don't want a totally abstract discussion.

Well, the Gestapo was originally the secret police of Nazi-controlled Prussia and even hostile to the SS at its inception, since it was controlled by Hermann Göring at the time, and not Himmler. However, it became later a component of the SS, alongside the SD which was founded to be the SS secret police.

 

[Agent327]

So, in effect, there were three agencies functioning as a semi-official secret police. That doesn't exactly point to limited government; what it does point to is government inefficiency. Which might be more of a characteristic of Nazi rule than anything else. Various ministries also had unclearly defined functions, resulting in overlap and the usual inter-Nazi rivalry. It was, if you will, a 'system' Hitler was quite happy with as it made him the sole arbitrator and ruled out the possibility of any Nazi acquiring more power than himself.

 

[Tahuti]

So, in effect, there were three agencies functioning as a semi-official secret police. That doesn't exactly point to limited government; what it does point to is government inefficiency. Which might be more of a characteristic of Nazi rule than anything else. Various ministries also had unclearly defined functions, resulting in overlap and the usual inter-Nazi rivalry. It was, if you will, a 'system' Hitler was quite happy with as it made him the sole arbitrator and ruled out the possibility of any Nazi acquiring more power than himself.

What is notable however is that neither were components of the central German state - so you cannot exactly speak of state inefficiency. The SD and Gestapo were both part of the SS, a non-state actor that resembled the Islamic Courts Union, Hezbollah and the Knights Templar in terms of functionality and relationship with the German state.

The inter-Nazi rivalry was indeed purposefully created to support Hitler. However, one must note that such intricate web did hardly exist in the USSR or Maoist China, where threats were immediately destroyed before they could gain power and a massive bureaucratic structure was created to make such possible. Again, an example of withdrawing government to empower Hitler.

 

[Agent327]

What is notable however is that neither were components of the central German state - so you cannot exactly speak of state inefficiency. The SD and Gestapo were both part of the SS, a non-state actor that resembled the Islamic Courts Union, Hezbollah and the Knights Templar in terms of functionality and relationship with the German state.

The inter-Nazi rivalry was indeed purposefully created to support Hitler. However, one must note that such intricate web did hardly exist in the USSR or Maoist China, where threats were immediately destroyed before they could gain power and a massive bureaucratic structure was created to make such possible. Again, an example of withdrawing government to empower Hitler.

Not really. If anything, state influence increased during the Nazi regime:

- any privatizations were offset by nationalizations and the general public spending (both with respect to eliminate the massive 1920s unemployment and the equally ambitious rearmament program); the elimination of labour unions, outlawing of any party other than the Nazi party can hardly be qualified as consistent with privatization (Nazi ideology contained some clear economic contradictions, but in practice largely promoted big business - a factor in Hitler's personal support as well, so why antagonize helpful supporters?);

- to the Nazis (again a similarity with the USSR) the party was the state: according to Nazi ideology they represented the 'true' Germans; in practice this, however, led to numerous competing party-affiliated power groups (the Gestapo-SD-SS rivalry being one example, in which the SS eventually won out). This was also not 'purposefully created by Hitler' - it was allowed by Hitler as it left him in ultimate control; it was not the result of a any predetermined program. Secondly, there is no sign of 'withdrawing of government' during the Nazi period; on the contrary, state control grew progressively stronger. There were no private parties, media or labour organizations allowed; in addition, one of the local party groups' functions was to keep an ear out to what the people were saying and this was regularly being reported to higher up echelons. Every kid was expected to be a member of the Hitlerjugend or the Deutsche Mädelbund.

- I don't see any similarity with such groups as Islamic Courts Union, Hezbollah and the Knights Templar: for one, any religious component is clearly missing from Nazi ideology (another that is clearly missing is a 'racial superiority' idea). I don't think such comparisons are useful in any way in analyzing aspects of Nazism.

 

[Tahuti]

Not really. If anything, state influence increased during the Nazi regime:

- any privatizations were offset by nationalizations and the general public spending (both with respect to eliminate the massive 1920s unemployment and the equally ambitious rearmament program); the elimination of labour unions, outlawing of any party other than the Nazi party can hardly be qualified as consistent with privatization (Nazi ideology contained some clear economic contradictions, but in practice largely promoted big business - a factor in Hitler's personal support as well, so why antagonize helpful supporters?);

- to the Nazis (again a similarity with the USSR) the party was the state: according to Nazi ideology they represented the 'true' Germans; in practice this, however, led to numerous competing party-affiliated power groups (the Gestapo-SD-SS rivalry being one example, in which the SS eventually won out). This was also not 'purposefully created by Hitler' - it was allowed by Hitler as it left him in ultimate control; it was not the result of a any predetermined program. Secondly, there is no sign of 'withdrawing of government' during the Nazi period; on the contrary, state control grew progressively stronger. There were no private parties, media or labour organizations allowed; in addition, one of the local party groups' functions was to keep an ear out to what the people were saying and this was regularly being reported to higher up echelons. Every kid was expected to be a member of the Hitlerjugend or the Deutsche Mädelbund.

That all may be true, though the point was that Nazi Germany still relatively speaking a night-watchmen state compared to Western democracies and Communist states. We wouldn't consider 19th century Western polities to be totalitarian dictatorships, yet that had policies similar to Nazi Germany in regards to trade unions, to name one example.

I'm not sure to what degree the Hitlerjugend or Deutsche Mädelbund were controlled by the state and not by another Nazi institution that existed independently of the German state. However, if I am not mistaken, the Hitlerjugend was originally a youth organisation of the Nazi party and as such would have existed before the Gleichschaltung or even Hitler's rise to power. In fact, many German political parties had a youth division with -jugend in it, such as the DNVP's Bismarckjugend.

- I don't see any similarity with such groups as Islamic Courts Union, Hezbollah and the Knights Templar: for one, any religious component is clearly missing from Nazi ideology (another that is clearly missing is a 'racial superiority' idea). I don't think such comparisons are useful in any way in analyzing aspects of Nazism.

The comparison is functional, not ideological. Hezbollah exists independently of Lebanon, yet at the same time exerts massive amounts of control over the Lebanese state. A similar thing was true for the SS. The functional opposite of such would be the Soviet Communist party that built the Dictatorship of the Proletariat and then was equated to the state, administering every aspect in a centralised and top-down manner. The Nazi party instead "conceded" the state to non-state actors such as the SS, and also to big business.

 

[Masada]

Why do you think the Nazis were independent of the German state? Surely, after the purges and harnessing of all the major state organs to Nazi policies (e.g. health to eugenics and justice to show trials) there wasn't much, if any, difference between the two. There's also the penetration of state organs by Nazis to consider. I mean, it might be nice to talk about there being a difference, and to some extent there probably was at least in the early days, but later on?

 

[Tahuti]

Why do you think the Nazis were independent of the German state? Surely, after the purges and harnessing of all the major state organs to Nazi policies (e.g. health to eugenics and justice to show trials) there wasn't much, if any, difference between the two.

Not entirely, though several crucial Nazi institutions such as the aforementioned SS definitely were.

 

[Agent327]

That all may be true, though the point was that Nazi Germany still relatively speaking a night-watchmen state compared to Western democracies and Communist states. We wouldn't consider 19th century Western polities to be totalitarian dictatorships, yet that had policies similar to Nazi Germany in regards to trade unions, to name one example.

You seem to be unaware of the fact that the so-called 'nightwatchman state' was effectively defunct by 1900. You mentioned a police state; that is effectively what Nazi Germany was.

Also, if all you just commented is true - which we can safely assume - then your whole point falls through.

I'm not sure to what degree the Hitlerjugend or Deutsche Mädelbund were controlled by the state and not by another Nazi institution that existed independently of the German state. However, if I am not mistaken, the Hitlerjugend was originally a youth organisation of the Nazi party and as such would have existed before the Gleichschaltung or even Hitler's rise to power. In fact, many German political parties had a youth division with -jugend in it, such as the DNVP's Bismarckjugend.

Which were all abolished. You seem to be missing the point: effectively there was no distinction between official organizations and Nazi organizations - as I just argued.

The comparison is functional, not ideological. Hezbollah exists independently of Lebanon, yet at the same time exerts massive amounts of control over the Lebanese state. A similar thing was true for the SS. The functional opposite of such would be the Soviet Communist party that built the Dictatorship of the Proletariat and then was equated to the state, administering every aspect in a centralised and top-down manner. The Nazi party instead "conceded" the state to non-state actors such as the SS, and also to big business.

Not really. The point is the Nazis could allow a very limited amount of private enterprise precisely because it served their purpose. Also, the SS did not exist 'independent of the state': that's turning reality upside down. The Nazi party as a whole effectively was the Nazi state. If you weren't a Nazi you couldn't even get an official function - which, incidentally - explains the massive growth in NSDAP membership during the 1930s.

 

[Tahuti]

You seem to be unaware of the fact that the so-called 'nightwatchman state' was effectively defunct by 1900. You mentioned a police state; that is effectively what Nazi Germany was.

Also, if all you just commented is true - which we can safely assume - then your whole point falls through.

Not really, the crux of the Reich seemed to be how the state did not move in whenever crimes were committed that served the Nazi's purposes like the gesundesvolksempfunden for instance or the legal freedoms the SS had. In other words, Nazi Germany was repressive because the state did not move in, it stayed at bay.

 

[Agent327]

That last statement is a contradiction in terms as well as undermining your claim: a state cannot be simultaneously repressive and retreating from government. The only thing 'retreating' in Nazi Germany was rule of law. (I tried to point out before that the term is gesundes Volksempfinden; the word you are using isn't even German.)

Secondly, the SS did not enjoy 'legal freedom'; that is to beg the question. Also, I have tried repeatedly already to argue how pervasive NSDAP rule was. If anything this leads to the conclusion that the state was invading people's lives rather than retreating - certainly when compared to the interbellum Republic or the postwar Republic. That is a conclusion diametrically opposed to your claims.

 

[Tahuti]

Secondly, the SS did not enjoy 'legal freedom'; that is to beg the question.

It did. The SS was actively administering the courts. That in itself does not not mean that government was receding, though since that authority was used to give SS members legal immunity in practice, you could argue that rendering parts of the state dysfunctional was just as much part of Nazi gleichschaltung as empowering state functions elsewhere.

Also, I have tried repeatedly already to argue how pervasive NSDAP rule was.

Nobody disagrees, we are debating the nature of how the Nazi party controls Germany.

If anything this leads to the conclusion that the state was invading people's lives rather than retreating - certainly when compared to the interbellum Republic or the postwar Republic. That is a conclusion diametrically opposed to your claims.

In what way that doesn't involve the SS? Unless you can argue that the SS is indeed a state organ instead of a non-state actor. Certainly, there were ways in which state power was augmented (such as making it harder for private enterprise to emerge), though generally, the Nazis' rise to power also featured recession of state powers.

 

[ParkCungHee]

What would you think of a comparison to say, Imperial Japan instead of the Confederate States, or Somalia? Because generally, those are limited geographically: The Confederate Government was faced with limited ability to enforce it's will on the various states because each maintained it's own existing apparatus (though this was less due to Confederate principles, or structure of governance. It was a testimony to how decentralized things were before the rebellion).

However the limits to Nazi rule, like the administration of Japan at the time, was based on multiple independent co-existing power structures, with overlapping responsibilities and limited ability to enforce their rule on each other.

I once heard Japan's government at the time compared to Panarchy, and I'm not sure that's entirely a bad comparison for the Nazi state either.

 

[Masada]

I've done a lot of reading on Japanese politics in the pre-and-post war period... and I still don't get it. It's a really strange beast and incomprehensible to the outsider. (I suppose it was incomprehensible to most Japanese too, given that a lot of it was happening behind closed doors and involved cliques in government and the military, often at junior(ish) levels, pulling the strings. Colonels just seem, I dunno, really important for some reason).

 

[ParkCungHee]

I had a professor who explained it to me (outside the Japanese context) that Colonels make coups because they're the highest ranking officers who still have regular direct contact with the actual enlisted men, or at least NCOs and really junior officer and can actually gauge their willingness to go along with a scheme, and actually put the scheme into effect.

A general involved in a coup has to get his information and issue his orders through his colonels.

 

[Tahuti]

What would you think of a comparison to say, Imperial Japan instead of the Confederate States, or Somalia?

I'm not too familiar with Imperial Japan, though I would imagine Nazi Germany to be alike with Imperial Japan and Fascist Italy.

Paleoconservatives and Pre-Modern states (i.e. Pre-1789 France) are both anti-capitalist and limited governments. While they are definitely not equal to Fascists overall, their economic views are comparable, which may be useful in understanding how Fascist polities work as well.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Hm I think the main difference between Nazi-Germany and the SU was that while the SU fully officially stood for an entirely new state, the Nazis were - in comparison - more sneaky about it.
Let's remember that the SU was the product of the outright annihilation of the former state. On the other hand the Nazis tried to transform the already established state. Instead of outright revolution, they made a revolution through reformation. Using formally private institutions that would not be constrained by the old state structures.

 

[Flying Pig]

I had a professor who explained it to me (outside the Japanese context) that Colonels make coups because they're the highest ranking officers who still have regular direct contact with the actual enlisted men, or at least NCOs and really junior officer and can actually gauge their willingness to go along with a scheme, and actually put the scheme into effect.

A general involved in a coup has to get his information and issue his orders through his colonels.

It might also be because the sort of people who lead coups usually get noticed by the time that promotion by board sets in and the hierarchy shrinks enough that everybody knows each other. Bear in mind that coups are also disproportionately led by JNCOs (Iraq and Sierra Leone).