So... is Adolf Hitler still banned?

[olasek]

That it was all man-made is the ukranian nationalist interpretation of events.

No, it isn't. Western researchers, non-nationalist (like Yanukovych) agree it was all man-made but argue that it wasn't directed specifically against Ukraine but also hit other adjacent parts of the USSR. Some argue that it wasn't result of Stalin's vindictive anti-peasant policies (not premeditated) but rather incompetent industrialization, but pretty much all researchers agree it was entirely man-made. Ukraine nationalists claim goes much further - it was part of a genocide against Ukrainian people.

 

[JeffDG]

Says one researcher.

Th bulk of both Mao and Stalins numbers are the results of famines. Some of this was intentional, some of it the result of climate events. The equivalent of attributing the flu deaths of 1918 to president Wilson.

Yeah, tell that to folks in the Ukraine. Stalin caused the famine there by taking wheat that was grown there and exporting it, leaving the people to starve.

Mao did much the same during the Cultural Revolution and the Hundred Flowers periods.

 

[JeffDG]

I've yet to see a totalitarian socialist regime that didn't end in mass murders of their own people. It's an inevitable consequence of the form of government.

 

[Bill]

I've never seen a thread go Godwin in one post.

Yeah, but doesn't his name have to evolve naturally during the course of discussion? You can't just drop the H-bomb out of the blue.

 

[ChrisK]

Careful folks! From the POA Rules of Conduct:

Bans and warnings are not to be discussed on the forums. Any inquiries or comments or bans are to be sent in private messages or via email. A moderator may choose to publicly inform the participants of a forum about bans and warnings if this is in the interest of the forum.

I think a thread about the banning of Hitler may violate this policy!!!

 

[JeffDG]

Careful folks! From the POA Rules of Conduct:



I think a thread about the banning of Hitler may violate this policy!!!

I think quoting the RoC is the POA equivalent of Godwinining a thread! :wink2:

 

[ChrisK]

I think quoting the RoC is the POA equivalent of Godwinining a thread! :wink2:

Ooh. Meta.

 

[Palmpilot]

I've yet to see a totalitarian socialist regime that didn't end in mass murders of their own people. It's an inevitable consequence of the form of government.

Totalitarian capitalist regimes, on the other hand, are completely benign.

 

[JeffDG]

Totalitarian capitalist regimes, on the other hand, are completely benign.

Name a totalitarian capitalist regime?

Capitalism requires the ability of people to make choices as its sine qua non. Totalitarianism and capitalism are philosophically incompatible.

 

[docmirror]

Careful folks! From the POA Rules of Conduct:



I think a thread about the banning of Hitler may violate this policy!!!

You said "banning". You're banned.

Oops, I said "banned" now I'm banned.

 

[JeffDG]

You said "banning". You're banned.

Oops, I said "banned" now I'm banned.

 

[weilke]

Name a totalitarian capitalist regime?

Despite its 'socialist' moniker, the NSDAP was a german nationalist capitalist party. Yes, there was some populist rhetoric about distributing production capital from the rich to the masses, but most of that was related to expropriating jewish business owners (rather than giving those assets to 'the people', they were simply given to nazi party aligned companies). That doesn't mean the goverment wasn't heavily involved in the economy through infrastructure programs and war spending, but that was not geared towards redistributing wealth but rather to further the imperial ambitions of the goverment. The biggest beneficiaries of nazi policies were private companies like Daimler Benz, Dresdner Bank and IG Farben.

 

[olasek]

Despite its 'socialist' moniker, the NSDAP was a german nationalist capitalist party.

NSDAP = National Socialist German Workers Party.

No matter how you attempt to twist it communism and fascism have a lot in common and Churchill was one of the first to point it out. Nazis tolerated capitalism only to the extent it was subjugated to the needs of the state. It was a command economy.

 

[JeffDG]

NSDAP = National Socialist German Workers Party.

No matter how you attempt to twist it communism and fascism have a lot in common and Churchill was one of the first to point it out. Nazis tolerated capitalism only to the extent it was subjugated to the needs of the state. It was a command economy.

Yep...The difference between the NSDAP and the Communist was that the NSDAP was a "national" socialist party, while the communist were "international" socialists. They were both socialist. The difference was that one believed in stoking nationalism as a road to socialism, while the other wanted a wider international socialist movement.

 

[Palmpilot]

Name a totalitarian capitalist regime?

Capitalism requires the ability of people to make choices as its sine qua non. Totalitarianism and capitalism are philosophically incompatible.

Have you ever heard of monarchies?

How about the Roman Empire?

 

[docmirror]

How about the Roman Empire?

Which part? Some of it was quite republican. Other parts - not so much. It is for certain an interesting study on capital management. During the more republican periods, Rome was quite wealthy on internal material production, and was a great exporter of many things. During it's more totalitarian days, it was much more dependent on it's despotic spoils from expansion of the realm. Of course, the despotic period was maybe funner, but alas - one can only pillage for so long before the fields run fallow. An interesting case study, and quite interesting parallels to Germany's decline and fall as they moved from a modest free market into the National Socialist model.

I recall a story about every VW auto worker being dinged a few Marks on their wages for investment in a future purchase of a VW car. It was not optional. Not sure if it's true, but sounds like something the socialists would implement.

 

[Palmpilot]

NSDAP = National Socialist German Workers Party.

Was the German Democratic Republic (East Germany) democratic?

Is the People's Republic of China a republic?

Was the Patriot Act patriotic?

Was the Affordable Care Act affordable?

Politicians choose dishonest names for things. Surely you know this.

 

[Blackhawk]

Despite its 'socialist' moniker, the NSDAP was a german nationalist capitalist party. Yes, there was some populist rhetoric about distributing production capital from the rich to the masses, but most of that was related to expropriating jewish business owners (rather than giving those assets to 'the people', they were simply given to nazi party aligned companies). That doesn't mean the goverment wasn't heavily involved in the economy through infrastructure programs and war spending, but that was not geared towards redistributing wealth but rather to further the imperial ambitions of the goverment. The biggest beneficiaries of nazi policies were private companies like Daimler Benz, Dresdner Bank and IG Farben.

It was hardly capitalistic. Yes, some corporations were tolerated, but only those with connections and that went with the party line. There was not the true capitalism, the free exchange of goods and services. Not really different from the Soviet Union where companies were theoretically owned by the state but run by the elites who got special perks and were "more equal".

 

[JeffDG]

It was hardly capitalistic. Yes, some corporations were tolerated, but only those with connections and that went with the party line. There was not the true capitalism, the free exchange of goods and services. Not really different from the Soviet Union where companies were theoretically owned by the state but run by the elites who got special perks and were "more equal".

The major difference between Communists and Nazis was how they accomplished their ends.

The Communists took ownership of the "means of production" (ie. factories and such) and directly operated them by the State.

Nazis regulated the "means of production" to the point that they couldn't do anything without a "by-your-leave" from the state either, and while they were permitted to maintain the patina of private ownership, the business was required to do exactly what they were told by the State anyway.

Either way, the State directed the activities of all business.

 

[weilke]

Was the German Democratic Republic (East Germany) democratic?

Is the People's Republic of China a republic?

Was the Patriot Act patriotic?

Was the Affordable Care Act affordable?

Politicians choose dishonest names for things. Surely you know this.

Best illustration of the concept.

Had he called it the pink bunny party some of the posters here would believe that its ideology was centered around pink bunnies.

 

[Blackhawk]

Climate events, really? Sounds like a bad joke. The Ukrainian famine of 1932/33 was all man-made and was responsible for nearly 5-7 mln deaths. Also the more primitive economy, the more "collectivized" the more susceptible to any "climate" events.

This is just under Stalin, because disastrous policies started under Lenin, lets not forget that it was Lenin who started the so called Red Terror and laid foundations for all the misery that followed.

Lets not forget that there were also totally inept "military" policies during WWII. 2/3 of all WWII casualties in the USSR are attributed to direct German actions, 1/3 to either inept Soviet policies or actually Soviets directly targeting their own citizens for various "punishments" or "retributions".

Also, there were countless victims that survived but their lives were simply ruined, lets not forget about that.

Also not included are an estimated 1,000,000+- Axis POW's who were killed in Soviet captivity. Then throw in the other populations terrorized by the Soviets- Poles alone lost at least 150,000 not including those killed in the Warsaw uprising when the Soviet Army decided to take a break.

 

[JeffDG]

Best illustration of the concept.

Had he called it the pink bunny party some of the posters here would believe that its ideology was centered around pink bunnies.

Except that his policies were inherently socialist.

Hitler expressed admiration for what was done by such Progressive icons as Wilson and Roosevelt before the war.

 

[Palmpilot]

Except that his policies were inherently socialist.

Hitler expressed admiration for what was done by such Progressive icons as Wilson and Roosevelt before the war.

Never confuse politicians' words with their actions.

 

[JeffDG]

Never confuse politicians' words with their actions.

You mean like taking an entire nation an having them all work towards a single national goal? Those kinds of actions?

As opposed to capitalism where we have 300 million people working towards 300 million individual goals.

 

[Palmpilot]

You mean like taking an entire nation an having them all work towards a single national goal? Those kinds of actions?

As opposed to capitalism where we have 300 million people working towards 300 million individual goals.

Do you think it has to be one extreme or the other?

Those two activities are not always "opposed to" each other. For example, I think we need protecting the rights and freedoms of those 300 million individuals to be a goal of government, at both the national and local levels.

In general, I think we need a combination of individual goals and collective goals. For example, national defense clearly needs to be a collective goal. So does law enforcement. Corporations clearly need their employees to pursue the collective goals of the corporation. Meanwhile, our quality of life, our economy, and the marketplace depend on individual goals for their health and robustness.

 

[weilke]

The major difference between Communists and Nazis was how they accomplished their ends.

The difference between the two was the objective, the common tool was a totalitarian political regime.

The Communists took ownership of the "means of production" (ie. factories and such) and directly operated them by the State.

Nazis regulated the "means of production" to the point that they couldn't do anything without a "by-your-leave" from the state either, and while they were permitted to maintain the patina of private ownership, the business was required to do exactly what they were told by the State anyway.

Either way, the State directed the activities of all business.

The relationship between business and goverment wasn't that different from the wartime economy in the US. The goverment put out tenders and design specs, companies designed the products and got paid for their efforts. Once a design was adopted, the goverment would put out the contracts to produce them and yes, at times direct competing companies to produce the product of their competitor. My grandpa was in the road building business, he didn't build roads because some buerocrat ordered him to, he built them because he got paid for doing so.

The NSDAP was bought and paid for with the money of Dresdner Bank and other high rolling capitalists who wanted to beat back the threat of a socialist republic. Save for the near complete destruction of the country at the end of WW2, it worked out pretty well for them.

 

[Blackhawk]

Do you think it has to be one extreme or the other?

Those two activities are not always "opposed to" each other. For example, I think we need protecting the rights and freedoms of those 300 million individuals to be a goal of government, at both the national and local levels.

In general, I think we need a combination of individual goals and collective goals. For example, national defense clearly needs to be a collective goal. So does law enforcement. Corporations clearly need their employees to pursue the collective goals of the corporation. Meanwhile, our quality of life, our economy, and the marketplace depend on individual goals for their health and robustness.

Read Bastiat's "The Law".
“The mission of law is not to oppress persons and plunder them of their property, even thought the law may be acting in a philanthropic spirit. Its mission is to protect property.”

 

[Blackhawk]

The difference between the two was the objective, the common tool was a totalitarian political regime.



The relationship between business and goverment wasn't that different from the wartime economy in the US. The goverment put out tenders and design specs, companies designed the products and got paid for their efforts. Once a design was adopted, the goverment would put out the contracts to produce them and yes, at times direct competing companies to produce the product of their competitor. My grandpa was in the road building business, he didn't build roads because some buerocrat ordered him to, he built them because he got paid for doing so.

The NSDAP was bought and paid for with the money of Dresdner Bank and other high rolling capitalists who wanted to beat back the threat of a socialist republic. Save for the near complete destruction of the country at the end of WW2, it worked out pretty well for them.

... as did the Soviet Union to their design bureaus. Those within the inner workings of the Soviet system were their 1% and lived a different lifestyle than the masses.
The difference is that in a true capitalist society there will be a meritocracy verses the crony capitalism we are moving toward in this country where those with connections in DC get ahead. There is a reason 9 out the 10 wealthiest counties in the US are now not in the NY area, not in Chicago, not in Silicon Valley, but around the DC area.

 

[olasek]

The NSDAP was bought and paid for with the money of Dresdner Bank and other high rolling capitalists

BS,

The NSDAP propaganda was consistently anti-big-business, anti-capitalist and anti-bourgeois and finally, yes anti-bolshevik. And who contributed financially to NSDAP is certainly on the record, there were those who were so anti-bolshevik that NSDAP might have appealed to them just on that score.

 

[weilke]

The NSDAP propaganda was consistently anti-big-business, anti-capitalist and anti-bourgeois and finally, yes anti-bolshevik. And who contributed financially to NSDAP is certainly on the record, there were those who were so anti-bolshevik that NSDAP might have appealed to them just on that score.

You have to get past the pink bunny labels. Yes, Himmler would stand up there and give impassionate speeches about the plutocrats and the 'world jew' that is doing all these evil things to the poor germans and right after he was done he would go to some cocktail mixer with the financial backers of the party.

The only large scale expropriations involved the theft of property from jewish owners, there was no collectivization of agricultural land or nationalization of mines and the like. The Krupps, Thyssen, Rheinmetalls of the country were just fine with the nationalist goverment. Yes, there were some state industries, most prominently the VW factory, but relative to the size of the economy they were small operations (VW only ramped up to large scale production post-war in the 50s).

 

[Palmpilot]

Against the Mainstream: Nazi Privatization in 1930s Germany

"Abstract:
The Great Depression spurred State ownership in Western capitalist countries. Germany was no exception; the last governments of the Weimar Republic took over firms in diverse sectors. Later, the Nazi regime transferred public ownership and public services to the private sector. In doing so, they went against the mainstream trends in the Western capitalist countries, none of which systematically reprivatized firms during the 1930s. Privatization in Nazi Germany was also unique in transferring to private hands the delivery of public services previously provided by government. The firms and the services transferred to private ownership belonged to diverse sectors. Privatization was part of an intentional policy with multiple objectives and was not ideologically driven. As in many recent privatizations, particularly within the European Union, strong financial restrictions were a central motivation. In addition, privatization was used as a political tool to enhance support for the government and for the Nazi Party"​

 

[docmirror]

Against the Mainstream: Nazi Privatization in 1930s Germany

"Abstract:
The Great Depression spurred State ownership in Western capitalist countries. Germany was no exception; the last governments of the Weimar Republic took over firms in diverse sectors. Later, the Nazi regime transferred public ownership and public services to the private sector. In doing so, they went against the mainstream trends in the Western capitalist countries, none of which systematically reprivatized firms during the 1930s. Privatization in Nazi Germany was also unique in transferring to private hands the delivery of public services previously provided by government. The firms and the services transferred to private ownership belonged to diverse sectors. Privatization was part of an intentional policy with multiple objectives and was not ideologically driven. As in many recent privatizations, particularly within the European Union, strong financial restrictions were a central motivation. In addition, privatization was used as a political tool to enhance support for the government and for the Nazi Party"​

Holy shyte. I had to go find the author of this so I can never, ever trust anything from him again. Really - what shoddy work, no offense to the poster but there's a reason so many businesses were 'state owned' in the late '30s in Nazi Germany. He deals with the entire history of the theft of Jewish businesses with a footnote. What a complete tool. Good to know there are still sympathizers out there. Hopefully this guy is on the JDL radar.

Further, der Furher did remove many of the small bunds in Germany, only to turn around and make a national union organization which was controlled by the state. Yikes. Scary stuff.

 

[weilke]

Against the Mainstream: Nazi Privatization in 1930s Germany

"Abstract:
The Great Depression spurred State ownership in Western capitalist countries. Germany was no exception; the last governments of the Weimar Republic took over firms in diverse sectors. Later, the Nazi regime transferred public ownership and public services to the private sector. In doing so, they went against the mainstream trends in the Western capitalist countries, none of which systematically reprivatized firms during the 1930s. Privatization in Nazi Germany was also unique in transferring to private hands the delivery of public services previously provided by government. The firms and the services transferred to private ownership belonged to diverse sectors. Privatization was part of an intentional policy with multiple objectives and was not ideologically driven. As in many recent privatizations, particularly within the European Union, strong financial restrictions were a central motivation. In addition, privatization was used as a political tool to enhance support for the government and for the Nazi Party"​

Another example how there was often a stark difference between propaganda ('we need to wrestle control of money lending from the evil banksters') and goverment actions (selling shares of the goverment owned banks to the private banks).

 

[weilke]

Holy shyte. I had to go find the author of this so I can never, ever trust anything from him again. Really - what shoddy work, no offense to the poster but there's a reason so many businesses were 'state owned' in the late '30s in Nazi Germany. He deals with the entire history of the theft of Jewish businesses with a footnote. What a complete tool. Good to know there are still sympathizers out there. Hopefully this guy is on the JDL radar.

Further, der Furher did remove many of the small bunds in Germany, only to turn around and make a national union organization which was controlled by the state. Yikes. Scary stuff.

Wow, talk about going off half cocked. The goverment owned these shares as the result of the financial collapse of '29, this predated most actions against jewish business owners by 6-8 years.

 

[docmirror]

Wow, talk about going off half cocked. The goverment owned these shares as the result of the financial collapse of '29, this predated most actions against jewish business owners by 6-8 years.

Boy, dish up some cold beans and call it caviar and you'll just lap it up. German history in the early 30s was all about deflation. The govt didn't own squat, and it reduced it's spending policy on literally everything. What's more, the NSDAP won a majority in 1932, and the theft of jewish businesses started soon after. There was no massive liquidation of state assets by the NSDAP except what was taken from the jews. Prior to the rise of Nazis, was the Weimar republic. It acted like a republic as much as possible, but there were a lot of challenges from the reparations, and of course, the depression.

Sorry, but this kind of revision history gets me going when it comes to the Nazis. Lots of speculation out there.

I encourage anyone concerned about the history of Nazi Germany and how we're being driven into the same hole, find "Defeating the Totalitarian Lie" by von Campe. A Hitler survivor, he describes the chilling parallels with the Germany of the early 30s. As I read it, every chapter had one of those 'aha!' moments where I could see the US being slowly sucked into the socialist abyss, on the way to totalitarianism.

 

[Palmpilot]

Holy shyte. I had to go find the author of this so I can never, ever trust anything from him again. Really - what shoddy work, no offense to the poster but there's a reason so many businesses were 'state owned' in the late '30s in Nazi Germany. He deals with the entire history of the theft of Jewish businesses with a footnote. What a complete tool. Good to know there are still sympathizers out there. Hopefully this guy is on the JDL radar.

Further, der Furher did remove many of the small bunds in Germany, only to turn around and make a national union organization which was controlled by the state. Yikes. Scary stuff.

What do you feel he is a sympathizer of?

Is there any problem with the sources he cites, or is it just that you disagree with his conclusions?

 

[Palmpilot]

Boy, dish up some cold beans and call it caviar and you'll just lap it up. German history in the early 30s was all about deflation. The govt didn't own squat, and it reduced it's spending policy on literally everything. What's more, the NSDAP won a majority in 1932, and the theft of jewish businesses started soon after. There was no massive liquidation of state assets by the NSDAP except what was taken from the jews. Prior to the rise of Nazis, was the Weimar republic. It acted like a republic as much as possible, but there were a lot of challenges from the reparations, and of course, the depression.

Sorry, but this kind of revision history gets me going when it comes to the Nazis. Lots of speculation out there.

I encourage anyone concerned about the history of Nazi Germany and how we're being driven into the same hole, find "Defeating the Totalitarian Lie" by von Campe. A Hitler survivor, he describes the chilling parallels with the Germany of the early 30s. As I read it, every chapter had one of those 'aha!' moments where I could see the US being slowly sucked into the socialist abyss, on the way to totalitarianism.

I agree that the U.S. is becoming more socialist, and less free, but how does that prove that Germany did not engage in privatization in the 1930s?

 

[Palmpilot]

Some info on the author:

http://www.ub.edu/graap/beling.htm

 

[weilke]

I agree that the U.S. is becoming more socialist, and less free, but how does that prove that Germany did not engage in privatization in the 1930s?

The way the german goverment ended up with stock in a number of companies was somewhat similar to what happened in the last 7 years in the US. In the 20s, entities like the prussian state bank had given loans to businesses to fund their expansion efforts. As collateral for their loans, they received stock warrants. When some of these businesses had difficulty making their loan payments during the hyperinflation of 1928 and the great depression, the state banks exercised their option to convert those loans into stock. After coming to power in 1933, the nazi goverment went on a spending spree on infrastructure and armaments without a source of revenue to pay for it. Internally, they just started to print money and IOUs (MeFos) to pay for the economic expansion, the problem was to raise enough foreign currency to pay for needed imports like copper. In order to raise those funds, Hjalmar Schlacht the (non-nazi) finance minister and central bank chief started to sell off anything that wasn't bolted down in exchange for hard currency. That included the goverments stock holdings, ownership in the central railroad and banks. And no, the goverment didn't get their railroad ownership from expropriating jews, they just owned it going back into the 1870s.
That is not to say that jews weren't pushed out of the business world from 1933 going forward. It was government policy to achieve this and included tactics like business boycotts with stormtroopers posted in front of jewish stores and other intimidation tactics. Often deals involved forced sales to their 'aryan' (and party loyal) competitors, but those deals didn't involve the goverment as direct party to the transaction. In 1938, the goverment started to go directly after property held by jews through a capital levy and a tax on all money transferred abroad.
This difference between the 'forced sales' period and the actual expropriations created a big problem in the post-war period when it came to compensating the victims. For the levy, the goverment gave a receipt in 1938 so the damaged parties had a piece of paper in hand to file their claim against the west german government. The jewish families who were forced to sell their business or artwork to a licensed 'buyer' in the 33-38 period had a much harder time to prove that what they received in the forced sale was below market value for those assets.

The interwar period in central europe is a sad but interesting piece of history.

 

[flyingriki]

Just out of curiousity was looking to see if mentioning Adolf Hitler (Hilter) was still verboten-schpeak....

Why not just ask an old Jewish person that dumb question....