Liberal Fascism

[Kidlicious]

BeBro,

It's very difficult to respond when you are so obtuse. I hope that's not by design on your part.

Originally posted by BeBro
Then what are you talking about, you brought the 'recovery' point into the debate.

"Prove that fascism was the only way to have an economic recovery."

I'm simply stating that it's silly to call the recovery fascist, since the policies really didn't have anything to do with fascism. If you insist on calling it fascist then you have to call all kinds of other economic policy fascist, and you are going to end up looking very ridiculous.

As for the second part of your response...

"Also "recovery" is kinda fun since the economy the NS system created - no classic free market system btw - couldn't run successfully for long without war and plundering out the occupied countries."

The recovery has nothing to do with plundering occupied countries, as the german's didn't start doing that until the economy was fully recovered. Can you please explain how you are making a connection?

So you post above that you don't know what fascism has to do with a recovery, and now you want to lecture people about it?

I'm asking what you mean by calling the recovery a "fascist" economic policy.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by molly bloom


You're presumably talking about Nazism, which although it shares several features with Italian Fascism, isn't exactly the same.

Also, Italian Fascism (although it adopted anti-semitic measures as the alliance with Nazi Germany progressed) didn't begin as anti-semitic, although Mussolini's imperialist tendencies cetainly did have a racial aspect (with regards the African and Arab territories of the new Roman empire).

Yes, I was talking about Nazism. Really I was just trying to figure out why someone would call such policies fascist just because fascists used them. You can call Nixon a fascist for that reason then I guess. But then you can call Nixon a fascist for other reasons also.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Kidicious



I don't know what fascism has to do with the recovery, except that the economic policies were anti-semetic. And I think that was a tragic failure of the government as well as a nightmare for the jewish population.

We are talking about economic policy that existed before serious rearmament for war. They specifically kept rearmament to a minimum in order to recover the economy.

I'm sorry but I must object to this fact-free whimsical account of pre-war Nazi Germany's economic policy.

And of Hitler's avowed intent of rearming Germany and breaking the letter and spirit of the Versailles Treaty.

He had already made clear in 'Mein Kampf' that he saw a militarized Germany at the heart of Europe as a necessity- now perhaps you could tell us on or by what date the German economic recovery was supposed to occurred, as opposed to when the Nazis started the process of increasing the numbers of German military personnel (and by this I also include the Rhineland police, militia, et cetera).

In fact, as also occurred in Roosevelt's U.S.A., the process of rearming and developing war industries helped the economy in pre-war Nazi Germany.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by molly bloom
I'm sorry but I must object to this fact-free whimsical account of pre-war Nazi Germany's economic policy.

And of Hitler's avowed intent of rearming Germany and breaking the letter and spirit of the Versailles Treaty.

I never said they didn't plan on rearming Germany and breaking the ToV. What does that have to do with an economic policy dependent on continually conquering new lands? There is two conflicting economic policies that we're talking about. I'm not claiming to support the idiotic policies of Adolf Hilter that he had implemented in order to attempt to take over the world. I'm claiming that the Keynesian policies implemented after the Great Depression in Germany worked brilliantly.

He had already made clear in 'Mein Kampf' that he saw a militarized Germany at the heart of Europe as a necessity- now perhaps you could tell us on or by what date the German economic recovery was supposed to occurred, as opposed to when the Nazis started the process of increasing the numbers of German military personnel (and by this I also include the Rhineland police, militia, et cetera).

I'm making a distinction between militarization and the mass production of war goods. Sure Hitler immediately increased the size of the army, but that only played a small role in the economic recovery. It wasn't necessary. On the otherhand look at the USA. Their recovery was completely dependent on the mass production of war goods.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Kidicious

Judging from your evidence-free posts regarding Nazi economic policy and rearmament, I'm not surprised.

We are talking about economic policy that existed before serious rearmament for war.

You haven't said who was the architect of this Nazi economic policy, what it entailed, or given a date for the start of this policy or when, in comparison, rearmament began under the Nazis.

But facts, they just get in the way.

I'm not claiming to support the idiotic policies of Adolf Hilter that he had implemented in order to attempt to take over the world.

Well keep your knickers on then. Who suggested you were ?

I'm claiming that the Keynesian policies implemented after the Great Depression in Germany worked brilliantly.

Don't confuse Weimar economic policy and Nazi economic policy. Especially in the absence of any cited dates, names or places.

I'm making a distinction between militarization and the mass production of war goods.

Like guns, bullets, helmets, aeroplanes for the Luftwaffe, submarines, battleships, tanks, gas masks, bomb sights...

Sure Hitler immediately increased the size of the army, but that only played a small role in the economic recovery. It wasn't necessary.

I love how you keep your posts free from the unnecessary clutter of relevant or pertinent information- such as dates.

I must try it some time. Providing facts is such a chore.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Kidicious
BeBro,

It's very difficult to respond when you are so obtuse. I hope that's not by design on your part.

"Prove that fascism was the only way to have an economic recovery."

I'm simply stating that it's silly to call the recovery fascist, since the policies really didn't have anything to do with fascism. If you insist on calling it fascist then you have to call all kinds of other economic policy fascist, and you are going to end up looking very ridiculous.

Then you didn't understand my post at all. I never insisted on calling a certain economic policy "fascist". The question I asked was whether fascism (a fascist system) was needed to create an economic recovery. That doesn't qualify the nature of the following economic measures at all.

The recovery has nothing to do with plundering occupied countries, as the german's didn't start doing that until the economy was fully recovered. Can you please explain how you are making a connection?

I never said plundering stuff caused a recovery. That would have been quite difficult, since they didn't occupy countries from 1933 on. I said the "recovery" in the early NS years wasn't making for a real strong economy in the long run that could work well without plundering occupied countries.

I'm asking what you mean by calling the recovery a "fascist" economic policy.

Never did this, see above. This is boring.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by molly bloom
You haven't said who was the architect of this Nazi economic policy, what it entailed, or given a date for the start of this policy or when, in comparison, rearmament began under the Nazis.

Hitler indeed, approved all policies, but they weren't all his ideas. The Autobahn was someone elses idea, for example. The point is that recovery was a complete falure up until the Nazis took over, because it relied on free market economics and international trade, not because Germany didn't rearm during that time. The Nazis immediately started taking practical hands on measures to fix things.

These policies are now known as Keynesian economics, but they didn't have a name when the Nazis took over in Germany. All the Nazis knew was that something had to be done about the economy, which was more than everyone else knew, except for Keynes who was still writing his book.

While germany was rearming before 1936, it was not given priorty. The was a deliberate economic policy, based on the guns vs butter debate that I'm sure you are familiar with. In 1936, rearmament became a priority as it was believed that the economy had sufficiently recovered enough to be able to fully rearm Germany.

Now I don't believe in either the theory of small industry that Hitler at one time espoused or his theory of conquering new lands to pay for mass production of military goods, but what I do believe in is the practical measures that Germany took between 1933 and 1936 taht the rest of the world was much to hestitant in taking.

Don't confuse Weimar economic policy and Nazi economic policy. Especially in the absence of any cited dates, names or places.

Why would I be? I'm deliberately pointing out the difference, but there is also a difference in economic policy before and after 1936.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by BeBro
Then you didn't understand my post at all. I never insisted on calling a certain economic policy "fascist". The question I asked was whether fascism (a fascist system) was needed to create an economic recovery. That doesn't qualify the nature of the following economic measures at all.

Well, IMO they didn't need the fascists, but they profited more from them than they would have under the previous regime. So I don't disagree with Che that they benefited from the fascists.

Sorry, I got confused by your claim that free market capitalism worked in Germany pre-1933. I disagree strongly with that, btw.

I never said plundering stuff caused a recovery. That would have been quite difficult, since they didn't occupy countries from 1933 on. I said the "recovery" in the early NS years wasn't making for a real strong economy in the long run that could work well without plundering occupied countries.

Why not? It was working just fine. Comprehensive indirect control of the economy seems to work a hell of a lot better than limited indirect control, as we have today in countries like the US.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Kidicious

Hitler indeed, approved all policies, but they weren't all his ideas.

Actually he preferred to let separate departments of the Nazi state fight it out with each other- this alone should dispel any lingering myths about Germanic efficiency, because in economic and practical terms the Nazi state was not particularly efficient.

You're still not saying who the Nazi's chief economic strategists were. Isn't saying you don't know easier ?

The point is that recovery was a complete falure up until the Nazis took over, because it relied on free market economics and international trade, not because Germany didn't rearm during that time.

I'm all for free association, but please, a few names, dates and places to support this argument ?


It does after all appear to ignore interwar history and the success of Weimar governments up to the Wall Street Crash.

The Nazis immediately started taking practical hands on measures to fix things.

You mean like secretly increasing the size of Germany's armed forces, remilitarizing the Rhineland, that kind of thing ?

These policies are now known as Keynesian economics, but they didn't have a name when the Nazis took over in Germany. All the Nazis knew was that something had to be done about the economy, which was more than everyone else knew

Uh huh. And which Nazi economists 'knew' this, as opposed to all those non-Nazi German economists who presumably didn't ?

While germany was rearming before 1936, it was not given priorty.

Oh sure thing.

In May 1932 one of the most influential Nazi leaders, Gregor Strasser, made a speech promising to spend 10 billion RM on work-creation on roads, drainage, settlement projects and agricultural improvements. This was a populist programme designed to beat the economic slump. But Hitler quickly changed his mind on counter-cyclical economic strategies. The Nazis rapidly stepped back from the Strasser proposal as their enemies accused them of being irresponsible and of advocating a repetition of the traumatic post-WWI inflation.

'The Brown Nation' Chapter 6 of 'A German Identity- 1770 To The Present Day' by Harold James.


Then:

As Germany took up a peaceful expansionist programme intended to dismantle Versailles, she also rearmed for an aggressive conflict.

By 1936, Germany began to prepare to fight a defensive war within the next four years, and to be ready for an offensive war in eight.

Since 1935, there had been universal conscription. The Four Year Plan announced in 1936 laid the economic basis for the long wars Hitler believed would be fought in the second half of the 20th Century.

So universal conscription in Nazi Germany preceded the economic planning for the future use of those newly enlarged armed forces.

From 'Germany' by A. J. Nicholls, Chapter 4 of 'Fascism In Europe' edited by S. J. Woolf:

Yet in the Third Reich the drift from the country to the town increased rather than diminished.

Within three years, the public works programme, with its emphasis on military expenditure, created a serious and quite unexpected shortage of labour, especially skilled labour.

As for the settlement of of new peasant communities, the Weimar Republic did more to settle townsmen on the land than the Third Reich.

Which took priority for Hitler, a sound economy or the plans for expansion and war ?

' As long as I remained in office whether at the Reichsbank or the Ministry of Economics, Hitler never interfered with my work. He never attempted to give me any instructions, but let me carry out my own ideas in my own way and without criticism... However, when he realized that the moderation of my financial policy was a stumbling block to his reckless plans (in foreign policy) he began, with Goering's connivance, to go behind my back and counter my arrangements.'

Dr. Hjalmar Schacht quoted in 'The Counterfeit Peace 1933-37' Chapter 6 of Alan Bullock's 'Hitler: A Study In Tyranny'.

I'm deliberately pointing out the difference, but there is also a difference in economic policy before and after 1936.

Ah. So that's how you do it without the bothersome business of dates, names, references and so on. I'm just a dancing fool for those facts though.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Darius871

Even supposing that your interpretation is 100% correct, suffice it to say then that "true" Randroids are by definition not "libertarians" no matter how much they might try to characterize themselves as such. The point still stands that your notion of "authoritarian libertarians" is downright silly.

I guess you're one of those people who says things like "anyone who is a racist is obviously not a Republican". You don't have to be a Randian to be an authoritarian. They are just the most obvious ones.

Come up with an argument, and I might take you seriously.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by molly bloom
quote:
' As long as I remained in office whether at the Reichsbank or the Ministry of Economics, Hitler never interfered with my work. He never attempted to give me any instructions, but let me carry out my own ideas in my own way and without criticism... However, when he realized that the moderation of my financial policy was a stumbling block to his reckless plans (in foreign policy) he began, with Goering's connivance, to go behind my back and counter my arrangements.'

Dr. Hjalmar Schacht quoted in 'The Counterfeit Peace 1933-37' Chapter 6 of Alan Bullock's 'Hitler: A Study In Tyranny'.

Which, as you fail to mention, happened in 1936.

Ah. So that's how you do it without the bothersome business of dates, names, references and so on. I'm just a dancing fool for those facts though.

You arrogant snob. Don't tell me what dates to include. Make your own argument if you like.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Kidicious

Make your own argument if you like.

Fair's fair! You first.

You arrogant snob

Ooooh, I do so love a compliment.


Now, you're just confusing snobbery and arrogance with elitism and education.

Perhaps one of those 'old books' you don't read could have helped you out with the limited vituperative vocabulary.... or the details as regards pre-war Nazi German history.

Which, as you fail to mention, happened in 1936.

I didn't 'fail to mention'. It didn't seem of any great relevance.


Which dates were you keen to mention, in contrast ?

[Arrian]

Kid,

My recollection of the history of Nazi Germany was that their economic situation pre-war (1939) was tenuous, and w/o the war may have collapsed again.

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by molly bloom
I didn't 'fail to mention'. It didn't seem of any great relevance.

Then you are just too stupid.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Then you are just too stupid.

Oh, you and your big fancy words !


All this flattery still won't get me to sleep with you.