So what's wrong with fascism?

[Tee Kay]

That's a cool sculpture. Seems to symbolise a society trying to march forward but in reality a thing not quite well-formed, its existing parts not quite in step with each other, and moving in different directions. Or something.

 

[metatron]

As to your question; "fascism" (we'll use the term, even though it's not technically accurate) was terrible for Germany. The German economy was rotten to the core, and it was the successes of the German military - which managed to maintain a large degree of independence from Nazism, unlike civil authorities - which kept Germany alive for as long as it did. Whenever the German army - or occasionally diplomats, as in Munich - captured a territory for the Reich, the NSDAP immediately stripped it of its wealth and extorted ridiculous loans from occupied territories in order to keep itself afloat. As it was, Germany operated under huge deficits for the entirety of Nazi rule, and was essentially to become an economic satellite of the USSR if it hadn't invaded shortly before it was required to pay for the raw materials Stalin had sold the Nazis since 1939.

"But this long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead."

Why do i have to do other people's work here? Why are the American "conservatives" on this board not even any good at trolling?
Letting opportunities like this go to waste... *shakeshead*

 

[Lord Baal]

You're gonna break my heart

I'd rather break that sculpture.

"But this long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead."

Why do i have to do other people's work here? Why are the American "conservatives" on this board not even any good at trolling?
Letting opportunities like this go to waste... *shakeshead*

I'm afraid I don't know the quote. I don't know about you, but in the long run I intend on having myself frozen, then returning in the future, preferably to bang a Chinese Martian physicist and a cyclops. That's how I roll.

In the short-term Hitler's rule was terrible for Germany as well. The initial 18-24 months of Hitler's rule were good for the German economy, but that was largely due to reforms enacted by his perdecessors, not Nazi policies themselves (though one could argue that the Nazis were at least smart enough not to halt those policies). After 1935 everything got worse in Nazi Germany; living conditions, prison overcrowding, the economic well-being of all but the absolute pinnacle of the upper-class - and even they felt the pinch by 1938 - and even health-care, which is somewhat astonishing considering the emphasis the Nazis placed on medicine. Education suffered in particular.

While most people see the military as improving during this time, it was only doing so quantitatively. With the exception of the luftwaffe - Goering's baby, and as Hitler's appointed successor he had the pull to ensure he got the best of everything - the military's qualitative increases, especially regarding new technology, was behind that of most nations. What gave the German military its image of an unstoppable force is that its officer class, ridiculously top-heavy, was very, very experienced and very, very good at keeping up with advances in military theory (or even proposing those advances themselves). Only the Soviets had a similarly talented and experienced officer class - the French were mostly terrible, though they had exceptions, and the British weren't much better - in the European theatre. The Soviets threw much of this advantage away in Stalin's purges.

It's a well-known fact that France had the advantage in both the numbers and quality of tanks during the German invasion; they simply deployed them terribly, due to a lack of knowledge of tank warfare. The wehrmacht, however, had kept up with the interwar discussions on how best to use armour in warfare, and so did a far better job. Most of that is at the feet of Manstein and Guderian.

So even in the short-run, the Nazis were terrible masters of Germany. They got incredibly lucky to last as long as they did, and much of that was due to Hitler's personal charisma, rather than any qualities of fascist or Nazi government.

 

[Gucumatz]

Question, who do you all think were the most "successful" [Arbitrary, but I am curious to see how you all define it], fascist states of the 20th century? The most "successful" for Europe/Americas/Asia/Africa

 

[Dachs]

Question, who do you all think were the most "successful" [Arbitrary, but I am curious to see how you all define it], fascist states of the 20th century? The most "successful" for Europe/Americas/Asia/Africa

I think this board will have more trouble defining "fascist" than "successful".

 

[Tahuti]

Education suffered in particular.

If the Nazis survived into - say - the 1960s, given they could even last that far, how would Nazi Germany's technological development be by that time?

 

[Lord Baal]

If the Nazis survived into - say - the 1960s, given they could even last that far, how would Nazi Germany's technological development be by that time?

They wouldn't have lasted that far; their economy was in the toilet. They essentially survived by stripping wartime conquests of their assets and getting huge amounts of aid from the USSR, which hoped that Germany and the West would destroy each other. The quick German victory over France shocked and concerned Stalin very much, as on paper it should have been a much more prolonged contest.

Assuming the Nazis somehow reform their economy but maintain as much of the rest of their political/ economic structure as possible, Germany would be a backwards hell-hole. People make much of the "wonder weapons," the best known being the V1 and V2 missiles, but Germany only produced these in small quantities, took tremendous sums away from more important projects to do so and tended to not understand the importance of capital investment in research.

Rocketry was probably the only area in which Germany had an obvious, indisputable lead over other nations in all areas, but the lack of German investment in consumer goods and their failure to use the by-products of their military research for commercial purposes - this wasn't due to the war; the Nazis were refusing to use artificial rubber for non-military purposes in 1934 - means that they would quickly be overtaken by others, especially the Soviets, who had infiltrated the Germans quite well (which makes the failure to be adequately prepared for Barbarossa more astounding). Germany's incredibly short-sighted deficit-spending would force the Nazis to cut back on all but necessary expenditures before too long had passed, and that would include research.

As for education, the Nazis wre systematically destroying higher education. Himmler was considering some sort of SS university for academically-gifted Hitler Youth members, but even had this been created its teachings would have been as much ideological as factual. The Nazis were also destroying the alternative religious and Prussian education systems. In short, any children growing up under the Nazis were going to be substantially dumber than their predecessors.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Hm Lord Baal, not saying you have no decent and important points, but maybe you are little bombastic in your conclusion.

Germany would be a backwards hell-hole.

Hm, well, we luckily will never know.

Rocketry was probably the only area in which Germany had an obvious, indisputable lead over other nations in all areas

Are you not forgetting the first jet fighter? Genuine question.

 

[Mouthwash]

They wouldn't have lasted that far; their economy was in the toilet. They essentially survived by stripping wartime conquests of their assets and getting huge amounts of aid from the USSR, which hoped that Germany and the West would destroy each other. The quick German victory over France shocked and concerned Stalin very much, as on paper it should have been a much more prolonged contest.

Assuming the Nazis somehow reform their economy but maintain as much of the rest of their political/ economic structure as possible, Germany would be a backwards hell-hole. People make much of the "wonder weapons," the best known being the V1 and V2 missiles, but Germany only produced these in small quantities, took tremendous sums away from more important projects to do so and tended to not understand the importance of capital investment in research.

Rocketry was probably the only area in which Germany had an obvious, indisputable lead over other nations in all areas, but the lack of German investment in consumer goods and their failure to use the by-products of their military research for commercial purposes - this wasn't due to the war; the Nazis were refusing to use artificial rubber for non-military purposes in 1934 - means that they would quickly be overtaken by others, especially the Soviets, who had infiltrated the Germans quite well (which makes the failure to be adequately prepared for Barbarossa more astounding). Germany's incredibly short-sighted deficit-spending would force the Nazis to cut back on all but necessary expenditures before too long had passed, and that would include research.

As for education, the Nazis wre systematically destroying higher education. Himmler was considering some sort of SS university for academically-gifted Hitler Youth members, but even had this been created its teachings would have been as much ideological as factual. The Nazis were also destroying the alternative religious and Prussian education systems. In short, any children growing up under the Nazis were going to be substantially dumber than their predecessors.

What if (A) they defeated the Soviets at Stalingrad and made it to Baku, and (B) they defeated and occupied Britain? Would they have had the resources to maintain an empire? Was there any risk of them being overthrown?

 

[Tahuti]

What if (A) they defeated the Soviets at Stalingrad and made it to Baku, and (B) they defeated and occupied Britain? Would they have had the resources to maintain an empire? Was there any risk of them being overthrown?

Could they have maintained an empire? Probably for some time, but the efforts needed to keep the restive Soviet population in check would be immense. And yes, there was a chance of them being overthrown, but it would likely come from other important Germans who harbored a secret grudge against Nazism, like the 20 July plotters.

As a side note, Nazi Germany needed Baku badly. And even then, this would have bought them time at best. I wouldn't given them longer than the 1980s if they had Baku. However, before saying WWII was unnecessary - which was what I liked to think, and for which I got badly raped by Masada and especially LightSpectre - this is all easy to say in hindsight. I doubt the leaders of WWII had the insight we have.

It quite possible that factors would come into play we cannot possible foresee in case of Nazi victory. Or an alternative allied victory in which the USSR got the whole of Germany. So all those economic variables - which were ignored by the Nazis to begin - may have ceased to play a role, and Nazi Germany simply would have accepted becoming a Third world country in terms of economic development, which would fit perfectly with Nazism's anti-materialist ideology to begin with.

 

[Tee Kay]

Are you not forgetting the first jet fighter? Genuine question.

Other countries were also developing jet engines at this time, and unlike Nazi Germany had the resources and expertises to actually put them into use on a non-negligible scale.

 

[Flying Pig]

That was at least partly Hitler's fault; he insisted originally that the jet engine should be used on dive-bombers, so it got to the fighter comparably late.

 

[Tahuti]

That was at least partly Hitler's fault; he insisted originally that the jet engine should be used on dive-bombers, so it got to the fighter comparably late.

Didn't Hitler demand that aircraft production ought to decrease starting in 1940? If so, it's quite easy to imagine why Hitler ultimately lost the Battle of Britain.

 

[Lord Baal]

Hm Lord Baal, not saying you have no decent and important points, but maybe you are little bombastic in your conclusion.

Possibly. More ignorant than their predecessors might be a better conclusion.

Hm, well, we luckily will never know.

I'm going to work on my time machine for this purpose.

Are you not forgetting the first jet fighter? Genuine question.

Tk pretty much handled this. The Germans did have some legitimate technological breakthroughs, but they didn't have the capacity to actually produce anything they developed. It would be the equivalent of having 100 librarires bulbing the crap out of every tech in existence on Civ, but no production squares. Of course, the Nazis were also far behind the rest of the developed world in other areas (their knowledge of physics was embarrassing) so it's more like beelining rocketry while forgetting to upgrade your warriors. Or not being able to afford to, which is more accurate in the German case.

Didn't Hitler demand that aircraft production ought to decrease starting in 1940? If so, it's quite easy to imagine why Hitler ultimately lost the Battle of Britain.

That is true, but there's a very good reason for it. He diverted production from aircraft in order to focus more on submarine warfare. Considering that Germany couldn't possibly invade Britain anyway - and they actually outperformed the Brits in the Battle of Britain, which most people don't realise - this was actually a smart move; Britain couldn't be invaded, but it could be starved. Of course, the British ship-building programme was considerably quicker than the German one anyway, so again, this wouldn't have worked, but the theory behind it was sound.

 

[Mise]

I read this article recently that seems more relevant to the discussion now than it did when this thread started: The Myth of Nazi “Efficiency”.

 

[Mouthwash]

Could they have maintained an empire? Probably for some time, but the efforts needed to keep the restive Soviet population in check would be immense. And yes, there was a chance of them being overthrown, but it would likely come from other important Germans who harbored a secret grudge against Nazism, like the 20 July plotters.

As a side note, Nazi Germany needed Baku badly. And even then, this would have bought them time at best. I wouldn't given them longer than the 1980s if they had Baku. However, before saying WWII was unnecessary - which was what I liked to think, and for which I got badly raped by Masada and especially LightSpectre - this is all easy to say in hindsight. I doubt the leaders of WWII had the insight we have.

It quite possible that factors would come into play we cannot possible foresee in case of Nazi victory. Or an alternative allied victory in which the USSR got the whole of Germany. So all those economic variables - which were ignored by the Nazis to begin - may have ceased to play a role, and Nazi Germany simply would have accepted becoming a Third world country in terms of economic development, which would fit perfectly with Nazism's anti-materialist ideology to begin with.

Didn't they intend to wipe out the Poles and settle in Germans over the course of 20 years? After all, Hitler wanted "living space" in the East.

 

[Lord Baal]

Could they have maintained an empire? Probably for some time, but the efforts needed to keep the restive Soviet population in check would be immense. And yes, there was a chance of them being overthrown, but it would likely come from other important Germans who harbored a secret grudge against Nazism, like the 20 July plotters.

As a side note, Nazi Germany needed Baku badly. And even then, this would have bought them time at best. I wouldn't given them longer than the 1980s if they had Baku. However, before saying WWII was unnecessary - which was what I liked to think, and for which I got badly raped by Masada and especially LightSpectre - this is all easy to say in hindsight. I doubt the leaders of WWII had the insight we have.

It quite possible that factors would come into play we cannot possible foresee in case of Nazi victory. Or an alternative allied victory in which the USSR got the whole of Germany. So all those economic variables - which were ignored by the Nazis to begin - may have ceased to play a role, and Nazi Germany simply would have accepted becoming a Third world country in terms of economic development, which would fit perfectly with Nazism's anti-materialist ideology to begin with.

I'm not sure how I missed this post. Short of god coming down from heaven to stop the bullets, there's no way Germany could take Baku with its refineries intact. I'm ignoring the obvious problems with them taking Stalingrad or holding Baku should they miraculously take it for the purposes of this hypothetical, but the Soviets already had the Caucasian oilfields rigged to blow should the Nazis take them.

Germany actually had the vast majority of the resources they needed for a self-sustaining empire, including oil, already. What they didn't have was the logistical capacity to make use of those raw materials, nor enough of those materials to compete with the self-sustaining empires which surrounded them. The Nazis were dead in the water due to their own poor practices, not due to any lack. And even if they miraculously transformed into a liberal democracy overnight, with all their conquered territories intact, they still couldn't solve those two major problems without a couple of decades in which to do it. And they didn't have those decades.

 

[Tahuti]

Germany actually had the vast majority of the resources they needed for a self-sustaining empire, including oil, already. What they didn't have was the logistical capacity to make use of those raw materials, nor enough of those materials to compete with the self-sustaining empires which surrounded them. The Nazis were dead in the water due to their own poor practices, not due to any lack. And even if they miraculously transformed into a liberal democracy overnight, with all their conquered territories intact, they still couldn't solve those two major problems without a couple of decades in which to do it. And they didn't have those decades.

Regarding the bolded part, I've accounted for that, but I was thinking that with the Azerbaijani oil bonanza, Germany would survive for a bit longer, in spite of its piss-poor management of resources.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I must say (and I am including the article Mise posted and I just read) this is the stuff Germans should be taught in school. When I went to school we were taught how Nazis were evil etcetera but not how inept they were. Which makes me think of an evening were a guy my father new said "Sometimes I think we could use another Adolf. You know, not such a crazy one of course!" which carries this notion that while Nazis were evil bastards, they also did good. I can think of a Neo-Nazi I once had a conversation with who would say things like "The holocaust was terrible. But other things were good for Germany". Again this same notion.

 

[Tahuti]

I must say (and I am including the article Mise posted and I just read) this is the stuff Germans should be taught in school. When I went to school we were taught how Nazis were evil etcetera but not how inept they were. Which makes me think of an evening were a guy my father new said "Sometimes I think we could use another Adolf. You know, not such a crazy one of course!" which carries this notion that while Nazis were evil bastards, they also did good. I can think of a Neo-Nazi I once had a conversation with who would say things like "The holocaust was terrible. But other things were good for Germany". Again this same notion.

Also, the Autobahn was an invention that predated the Nazis by several years!