Arguing with Stupid Leftists

[chequita guevara]

You neither discussed Marxism nor got into trouble. Trotsky himself said that Hitlerism and Stalinism were two sides of the same coin of reaction.

[Mr. Harley]

I meant about my "Not a cult" statement and Stalin. In the words of the immortal bard - oops.

[techumseh]

OK, so you're wrong about Stalin. Now, I think you're wrong about Hitler too.

[techumseh]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
You neither discussed Marxism nor got into trouble. Trotsky himself said that Hitlerism and Stalinism were two sides of the same coin of reaction.

Trotsky said a lot of things, mostly nonsense.

[Mr. Harley]

But you still couldn't find me a pre-1938 industrialist support for Barbarossa. (but at least you tried)

And Che's statement gets to the heart of one of the debates about wether the Totalitarian regimes actually share much in common, or they are truly Left and Right and are at their heart completely different. Do I want to start a - what is it, third or fourth - thread jack.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
OK - so the book doesn't really deal with much that is new if you have already read some of the books concerning the Nazi military-industrial complex and how both French and US companies helped them out. What you just posted matched everything I've read.

However, from my understanding the purge of Rohm was primarily due to Hitler consolidating power, and also making the Wehrmacht happy (which with hindsight we know was appalling short-sighted and stupid on their part.). Would you agree that after Hitler replaced Blomberg and General Fritsch that Hitler had consolidated all power? I'm wondering if anyone esle agrees with my 1938 date, even if they disagree with my conclusion that was the point Germany ceased to be a Facist state and instead became a cult centered around Hitler.

It's an interesting point that you raise, but uncannily enough we've just had the first episode of a series on the S.S. shown on Channel 4 over here- and it outlines the power struggle between Himmler and the S.S. and Rohm and the S.A.- it even had a photograph of Himmler serving as 'office boy' to the head of the Berlin S. A. .

It went into some detail about the propaganda campaign designed to show how lovely and warm the S.S. were in comparison to the street fighting men of the more avowedly proletarian S. A. - ludicrous images of S.S. men doing their civic duty taking German children horse riding in German parks and cities- so much more gemutlich than those book burning bully boys in brown.

I don't think that Nazi Germany ever ceased to be a Fascist state, despite the cult of personality focussed on Hitler- at least not by the useful definition of Fascism given by Walter Laqueur in 'Fascism: A Reader's Guide', which I'll try to find for you in my notes.

Oh, and shock, shock, horror, horror- Nazi ideologue Rosenberg was a Baltic German who fled Russia...

[molly bloom]

Here we go, shawn- found that definition of Fascism from the book of essays edited by Walter Laqueur:

Fascism: a hypernationalist, often pan-nationalist, anti-parliamentary, anti-liberal, anti-communist, populist and therefore anti-proletarian, partly anti-capitalist and anti-bourgeois, anti-clerical, or at least, non-clerical movement, with theaim of national social integration through a single party and corporative representation not always equally emphasized; activist cadres ready for violent action combined with electoral participation to gain power with totalitarian goals by a combination of legal and violent tactics.

There's usually the espousal of a national cultural tradition- in Hitler's and the Nazis' case, this is a pan-national Volkisch tradition crossing national boundaries, linking the German diaspora from Belgium to the Volga.

It bore a strong resemblance to the political (cultural) goals of the Alldeutsche Verband, or Pan-German League of the nineteenth century, which had as its goal or programme, a union of all members of the German 'race' in a pan-German state- this would incorporate Belgoum, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Austria-Hungary, Poland, Rumania and Serbia- they had a snazzy catchphrase:

" Dem Deutschen gehort die Welt."


Ludendorff's memoirs revealed the kind of thinking that lay behind this- not too far removed from the thinking of Hitler:

" Kovno (modern day Kaunas) is a typical Russian town, with low, mean wooden houses...on the further bank of theNiemen there stands the tower of an old German castle of the Teutonic Knights, a symbol of German civilization in the East...

...the population, made up as it is if such a mixture of races, has never produced a culture of its own, and left to itself, would succumb to Polish domination."

'My War Memoirs', publ. London 1919, vol. 1, pp. 178-9

Clearly in some people the memorializing of Lechfeld and Teutonic Knights' campaigning never faded away.

What is interesting is the imagery used in two separate films in countries either side of Germany- Eisenstein's 'Alexander Nevski' (1938) and Dreyer's 'The Passion of Joan of Arc' (1927) have similar shots of faceless helmeted militaristic invaders- the Teutonic Knights and the English are both depicted as almost beetle-like in appearance.

[Mr. Harley]

Molly - I'm terrible with names, and had been too lazy to get my books out of storage. I had been trying to remember Ludendorff's name, he was the primary individual I was thinking about as one of Hitler's direct intellectual predecessors. I am familiar with the Pan-German league, which is another of the groups I would include as Hitler's predecessors. However, I will still stand by my statements concerning Barbarossa and the industrialists - it was more of opportunistically taking advantage of Hitler's policies rather than making them.

I agree completely that Hitler coming into power was Facist. But his state, or for that matter, any state, where a single figure consolidates total power (or mistakenly believes he has up to the point of his assassination) has a very strong tendency to become a cult-like state. That's why I use the example of Mao's China, or North Korea - I'm still not completely comfortable with Stalin, I know alot of people deified him, but there were an awfully large number that didn't (I not arguing it yet, I need to do some research before I make up my mind).

That is why Hitler's regime could make so many mistakes. It brings to mind the statement made by Captain Tameichi Hara (Japanese Destroyer Captain) when he described fubars by the Japanese in the beginning of the Pacific conflict - It's not that we were so good, it's that you were so bad. He also states that the Allies started winning when they stopped making more mistakes than the Japanese.

What is amazing about the Hitler state is how it many different things they screwed up and that they got so far. That's why I still tend to agree with those who model it as a cult - proper states have a tendency, note - tendency, not to be quite so self-destructive. When you have a cult-style state, if their Great Leader wants to do something that is destructive of the state itself, it still gets done (or some of his disciples realize he is a nutcase and shoot him).

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc

However, I will still stand by my statements concerning Barbarossa and the industrialists - it was more of opportunistically taking advantage of Hitler's policies rather than making them.

With regards to the deification of Hitler- I've been reading Ian Buruma's 'The Wages of Guilt'

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0452011566/102-8767371-9092920?v=glance

about post-war education and re-education in Japan. He mentions in passing how envious some Nazis were of the emperor cult in Japan...


With regard to Barbarossa, the chapter on business in Grunberger's book does deal with the active role played by some industrialists in the invasions of other countries-

In so far as industry disagreed in matters of political policy, it did so constitutionally by submitting memoranda, though even this form of opposition was eschewed in cases involving undue hazard. Thus when Goerdeler and General Thomas of the Wehrmacht's economic office drew up a memorandum designed to convince Hitler that the economic situation made an early termination of the war essential, leading industrialists refused to put their signatures to the document.

see also: Fabian von Schlabrendorff, 'The Secret War Against Hitler', publ. Hodder and Stoughton, London 1966

Also it's worth remembering the eager participation of industrialists in the dismemberment and cannibalization of the industries (and even the actual buildings and factories) in countrie such as France and the Netherlands and Czechoslovakia- Krupp alone acquired Dutch shipyards, Belgian metalworks, French machine tool manufacturers, Yugoslavian mineral ore deposits, including chromium, nickel mines in Greece, and ironworks and steel plants in the Ukraine.


In fact, a section of big business had been happy to go along with the Four-Year plan, with its programme of 'precipitate industrial mobilization for war'. The mid-Thirties also saw maximum expansion for small businesses too, with many profiting from the Aryanization programme and Nazi restrictions on department stores and the government's refusal to accept tenders from them or from cooperatives.

[Patroklos]

Eliminating the Soviet military threat was important to the army.

You have no idea what you are talking about in this respect. Most of the military was unhapy about Poland, nearly all were reluctant to fight France and Britain, and they were to the man DUMBFOUNDED by the invasion of Russia.

The last thing anyone in the Wehrmacht wanted was a war with Russia with the exception of the people Hitler put there (for that reason). Especially a two front war with Russia

[techumseh]

Originally posted by Patroklos


You have no idea what you are talking about in this respect. Most of the military was unhapy about Poland, nearly all were reluctant to fight France and Britain, and they were to the man DUMBFOUNDED by the invasion of Russia.

The last thing anyone in the Wehrmacht wanted was a war with Russia with the exception of the people Hitler put there (for that reason). Especially a two front war with Russia

Is this fact or merely your opinion? I've already found one source to back up my claim that most of the opposition of the army to Hitler's war aims was generated AFTER the war was lost. I suggest you cite some sources to back up your position, otherwise debating your opinion is pointless.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by techumseh
Trotsky said a lot of things, mostly nonsense.

Them's fightin' words!

[Patroklos]

Are you honestly tableing that the German Military wanted to fight Russia, opening a second front?

Do not confuse the will to fight a war with being happy your fighting it.

[techumseh]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Them's fightin' words!

I know. The thread seemed to be dying down.

[techumseh]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Are you honestly tableing that the German Military wanted to fight Russia, opening a second front?

Do not confuse the will to fight a war with being happy your fighting it.

You've made some rather sweeping claims about the attitude of the Wehrmacht. Can you back them up?