Let's put the Socialism back in National Socialism...

[Matthew Carberry]

I'll have to update from home for the title but in the NYT Book Review this Sunday they reviewed a book that asserts many Germans were neither pseudo-innocents "swept along by events" nor evil "active believers" but rather were simply greedy and banal proles bought and paid for with the ill-gotten gains of Nazi thefts from undesireable's inside and outside of the country.

A massive, unsustainable welfare state was created for ethnic Germans funded by the theft and confiscations.  Poor?  Want a house?  Move into the Goldbergs, they're... away.  Need a job?  Saul the baker is on... vacation.

Just like every other socialist utopia it was on its way to collapsing (economically anyway) when we put a boot on its neck.

I intend to give it a read.

[Matthew Carberry]

Hitler's Beneficiaries: Plunder, Racial War and the Nazi Welfare State - Gotz Aly

"Citizens were sated with decent wages, generous overtime pay and innovative pension plans - that is, through the establishment of a complex, if absolutely amoral, welfare state."

[The Rabbi]

That's an interesting take.  I dont' think there has been enough study of daily life under the Nazis.  I did see mention of some book not too long ago that described it as utterly banal.  But the question of why the Germans so enthusiastically supported Hitler is still a good one.

[Ned Hamford]

My father's boss lived in Germany during Nazi Time.  He was a member of the Hitler Youths.  He got to go to a school that was a converted recently vacated mansion.  He traveled the beautiful country enjoying an atmosphere of wealth and well being in a closenit group.  He remembers a very pleasant childhood that he wishes everyone could have had.  In listening you all to easily forget just why those mansions were empty in the first place. 

Nazi has always been a cry against fascism... I like this idea of being able to use the term, just as aptly, against socialists.

[CAnnoneer]

If you want a glimpse of the political, social, and economic situation and brought Hitler to power, why not read some memoirs or talk to people that were around then - there are a few still left. For example, try Otto Skorzeny's memoirs. He is a socialist, no doubt about it, but it might still be more instructive than speculation.

[roo_ster]

A really good look at Naziism & the other totalitarian regimes & philosophies is Paul Johnson's Modern Times (world hist from 19-teens to 1990s).

What I found amazing was the way post-WWI Germany (Weimar & Nazi) worked so closely with the USSR right up until Hitler invaded the USSR.  The Hitler-Stalin pact was not an aberration, it was a perfectly reasonable outcome, given the previous history.

Also, how the various totalitarian regimes' atrocities played off each other and provided (bad) examples to emulate.  Talk about a feedback loop.

One common theme ran through Naziism, Leninism/Stalinism, Italian facism, and Franco's Spanish regime: they all played the "apolitical" card.  As in, "We're sick of politics and want to get done what ought to be done!" type rhetoric.  Lord save us from the "apolitical" and "bipartisan" types. 

Getting back to the German population, they bought the line and supported the Nazi regime.    They were all in favor of Hitler bullying their neighbors and getting territory & concessions on the cheap (Alsace-Lorraine, Sudetenland/Czechoslovakia, Austria, Versailles tossed, etc).  They also didn't have a problem with the Nazi social engineering & all the horror that entailed.  However, they did not want a long, drawn-out war.  For instance, the population was not happy with the Polish invasion & the invasions of France, Russia, etc.  Too late for them, they had ceded the Nazis too much power for it to make a difference.  Hitler knew this & clamped down even harder with his terror apparatus.  He did not trust the population to be in line without some "persuasion."  He had his goals and he would drag Germany along with him, at that point.

Another look at the way some Germans went along with the Nazi program is Hitler's Willing Executioners.  It smashes the argument that German conscripts had no choice but to murder the populations of "undesireables," as participation in the units that prosecuted that policy was voluntary.  Many sought work in the German army elsewhere.  There were, however, plenty of other volunteers to fill the ranks.

[zahc]

Another is Ordinary Men (book) (I think that's it). It's a bunch of firsthand accounts of just how they went about the business of killing off undesirables. It is a very depressing read. What people will do to other people, even when they don't have to. To what lengths people will cling to a socialized concept of authority.

[Sindawe]

One thing that I was taught about National Socialist Germany that I've not seen in this thread is the desperate condition Germany was in economically in the days of the Weimar Republic.  The Nazis supplied the people with a target for their feelings about their plight, "Those damn money grubbing Juden are the cause of this, and they were behind the Stab in the Back that caused us to lose the Great War."  Nazi government also brought the appearance of prosperity with their welfare state and work programs. The build up their military also gave the populace a reason to feel proud of being German, since they tossed the limitations imposed by the Treaty of Versailles out the window.

[The Rabbi]

You're exactly right.  My wife's grandfather, a citizen of Hamburg, used to say that he blamed the allies for all the damage they inflicted on Germany after WW1.  If it weren't for that Hitler would never have gotten into power.

[Matthew Carberry]

If you want a glimpse of the political, social, and economic situation and brought Hitler to power, why not read some memoirs or talk to people that were around then - there are a few still left. For example, try Otto Skorzeny's memoirs. He is a socialist, no doubt about it, but it might still be more instructive than speculation.

By reading well-researched books I can do that without leaving my living room.  

What's your point?  This book is "mere speculation" because I didn't do the primary research for it?  That every bit of information available has already been presented somewhere else?  

That's bushwa and hokum.

Coming up with a particular theory, even one not incredibly "innovative", and applying the available evidence to it to see if it holds up is what science and learning are all about.

[CAnnoneer]

By reading well-researched books I can do that without leaving my living room.  

Certainly, if they are well-researched, quantitative, and objective. But, I read them with a very big chunk of salt, knowing that many of the authors are vying for positions in liberal soft-science departments or government agencies. Somebody writing a memoir, especially if they were foot-soldiers and have nothing to gain politically right now, seems to me a bit more credible.

[roo_ster]

One thing that I was taught about National Socialist Germany that I've not seen in this thread is the desperate condition Germany was in economically in the days of the Weimar Republic.  The Nazis supplied the people with a target for their feelings about their plight, "Those damn money grubbing Juden are the cause of this, and they were behind the Stab in the Back that caused us to lose the Great War."  Nazi government also brought the appearance of prosperity with their welfare state and work programs. The build up their military also gave the populace a reason to feel proud of being German, since they tossed the limitations imposed by the Treaty of Versailles out the window.

The Nazis helped to bring about the REALITY not the appearance of economic recovery.  German National Socialism was not about regulating business down to the last bolt & pencil.  It was more about intimidating the captains of industry to do what the Nazis wanted, the means* being immaterial.  Hitler bent them to his will and whipped them into furious productive activity.  The industrial tasks the German gov't actually controlled were abject failures, the heavy bomber** project being the most noticable.

The German economy was in recovery mode in mid-late 1930s while the rest of the industrial world, save the UK, was still in a slump.

* Means of suasion or means of production

**  "But the Germans had no heavy bombers," you say.  Yep, you get the picture.  Also, the German gov't was more involved in the V2 (ballistic) missile then the V1 (cruise) missile.  Both worked, but the V1 was produced for ~175 Brit pounds/ea & the V2 for about 12,000/ea.

[Matthew Carberry]

By reading well-researched books I can do that without leaving my living room.  

Certainly, if they are well-researched, quantitative, and objective. But, I read them with a very big chunk of salt, knowing that many of the authors are vying for positions in liberal soft-science departments or government agencies. Somebody writing a memoir, especially if they were foot-soldiers and have nothing to gain politically right now, seems to me a bit more credible.

So you assume this particular book isn't well-researched.  Without either reading it yourself or waiting for the author's peers (historians, economists, people who were there and the like) to comment? 

Why?  What possible utility is there in preemptive, uninformed dismissal?

Anyway...

Pvt. Fritz Schmuckatelli has a valid viewpoint, but it is limited by his access to higher-level decisionmaking and his own prejudices and perceptions.  It is a cloudy snapshot of a very narrow viewpoint, and due to human nature (even if no active deception) almost assuredly one that frames himself and his actions, if not vaingloriously, at the very least from a positive personal slant.

 

Eyewitness testimony in criminal investigation is about the least reliable, that stands true for memoirs as well.

[Perd Hapley]

But, I read them with a very big chunk of salt, knowing that many of the authors are vying for positions in liberal soft-science departments or government agencies. Somebody writing a memoir, especially if they were foot-soldiers and have nothing to gain politically right now, seems to me a bit more credible.

Of course keep your salt on hand, but that doesn't mean you trust one stranger's anecdote more than what some academic wrote with access to more information.  And it's not as if historians or sociologists can make things up without any consequences.  I also keep my eyes open for agendas, but non-academics have their agendas, too.

[CAnnoneer]

**  "But the Germans had no heavy bombers," you say.  Yep, you get the picture. 

You must take into account the Germans had lost air superiority by 1942. Without it, the bombers are a shooting gallery for the Spitfires. With limited resources, they therefore concentrated on building fighters and dive bombers for the East Front, while leaving Britain to the wonder weapons and defense of the homeland primarily to flak.

Also, the German gov't was more involved in the V2 (ballistic) missile then the V1 (cruise) missile.  Both worked, but the V1 was produced for ~175 Brit pounds/ea & the V2 for about 12,000/ea.

Again, be complete in your data. V1's were several times lighter/smaller, much slower, simpler, and generally much lower-tech than the V2's.

[Matthew Carberry]

As an aside, you all might enjoy http://www.amazon.com/My-Tank-Fight-Zack-Parsons/dp/0806527587
by Something Awful editor Zack Parsons.  Very funny, yet informative, look at 20 (primarily Axis) "Wonder-weapons" of WWII.

You probably have heard of many of them but Zack throws in tech specs and a bit of "how it might have been used" narrative.  A fun read worth the price.

[280plus]

"Defying Hitler" was a good read on the subject of how the Nazis managed to keep so many complacent.

[roo_ster]

CAnoneer:

The German heavy bombers never existed to get shot down after 1942.  They didn't have them in 1938, 1939, 1940, or 1941, either.

I think you are helping to make my point vis a vis V1 vs V2. (<---Enough "V"s for ya in that sentence?)  The V1 required fewer $$$ and fewer materials.  The range was 20% less (300km vs 240km) and the warhead half the size relative to the V2.

Of all the V2s & V1s produced, they ended up putting the same amount of explosive on London.  The V1 did the same amount of damage for two orders of magnitude (10000%) fewer dollars in production costs alone.

If the Nazis invested all the time/effort/$$$ they spent on the V2 into producing more V1s, the south of England would have been a wasteland.

[CAnnoneer]

If the Nazis invested all the time/effort/$$$ they spent on the V2 into producing more V1s, the south of England would have been a wasteland.

Both weapons were not militarily effective because they were widely inaccurate. Their point was psychological. Hitler wanted accomodation to the west, so he could get a free hand to the east. From the very beginning, it was not his goal to obliterate the English, more like intimidate them enough to leave him alone. Also, 3 out of 4 V1's got shut down by combination of flak and interception by aircraft, while V2's were too fast and came down at a steep angle from altitudes of 100 km. Since V2 hit without warning and were essentially unstoppable, they were the better terror weapon. Whether the terror objective itself was a meaningful one is a separate discussion.

I can't argue about the heavy bomber because I do not know the details of that project. My point was that, considering the historical circumstances and available resources, it is difficult to see why they would need to build and make use of one.

[El Tejon]

Bought and read the book yesterday, care.  Excellent recommendation.

[Matthew Carberry]

Crap, now I have to actually read it... 

Did his argument hold together fairly well?

[Monkeyleg]

Interesting topic. I've read a lot over the years about the Nazi's, and tried to understand how they could accomplish what they did.

The author's thesis sounds very plausible. But I wonder: was the German economy actually producing, or was the government just printing Deutschmarks?

[Matthew Carberry]

I think part of the thesis is that the German economy wasn't producing the wealth, the wealth was being actively stolen by the government from confiscations and conquest and injected into the economy.  Similar to how Spain's economy grew due to the injection of silver from the New World, not by internal growth. 

The welfare state created could only exist as long as more and more wealth was stolen, they certainly weren't making money from trade, and domestic industry began to be more focussed on war.  Although, as many observers have pointed out, the economy was never fully mobilized, much production remained aimed at domestic stuff to continue providing for the giveaways. 

[CAnnoneer]

The Third Reich certainly confiscated a lot of assets in various forms through the process of territorial expansion. However, their military expenditures were also very high (e.g. a Tiger tank cost 500,000 Reichsmark, and a typical Panzer IV was still half that; the V2 project was over 20 billion dollars in modern adjusted currency). So, my question would be what is the net influx from military acquisitions to non-military social projects? If it was positive and significant, then I would buy the author's argument; if not, then it would be unproven. For those that read the book, what are the numbers?