Why were the Nazis Not More Socialist? - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The non-democratic state: Platonism, Fascism, Theocracy, Monarchy etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14346225
Andrea_Chenier wrote:That may have been the case but only as an accidental consequence of the war. Destroying the liberal-capitalist world (unfortunately) wasn't Hitler's goal at all. His main enemy was always judeo-bolshevism and he believed that it was Germany's duty to serve as bulwark for western democratic civilazation against the bolshevik hordes. His favorite Opera was Wagner's Lohengrin as he identified with its protagonist, that is a heroic figure of light.


Is there any information on how Hitler acquired his views? Why did he have such an intense hatred of Russia and of the Slavic peoples? Did his upbringing in multiethnic Austria possibly have something to do with his anti-Slavic sentiment?

Later BRD chancellor Konrad Adenauer was the one who spoke of asiatic hordes.


Source?
#14346270
Andropov wrote:Is there any information on how Hitler acquired his views? Why did he have such an intense hatred of Russia and of the Slavic peoples? Did his upbringing in multiethnic Austria possibly have something to do with his anti-Slavic sentiment?


It was certainly not an original concept invented by Nazis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drang_nach_Osten
#14346309
and under Trotsky Soviet capabilities would have undoubtedly been far superior
Potemkin wrote:Evidence?
Well there would have been no purges for one. Trotsky proved himself a capable military leader. He was experienced from leading the military revolutionary committee to being commander in chief in the civil war. Although a fanatical Marxist, he understood that Marxism wasn't the font of all knowledge and that fields of knowledge, arts, areas of endeavour had to be studies and practised in their own right. As he himself stated, you can write a Marxist history of chess, but that doesn't make you a good chess player.

Trotsky was a vain and arrogant man, but he didn't suffer from the pathological egotism of Stalin. It was jealousy towards Trotsky that in part motivated the military purges. Stalin proved a disastrous military commander. He remained incompetent throughout the war.
#14346313
Well there would have been no purges for one.


How you know that for sure?

And no the great purge didn't resulted in bad performance of the Red Army, this is one of the consistent myth not ready to die.

Only 3-4 % of officers were purged and 30% of the purged officer were brought back anyway. The lack of leadership (officers) was result of massive and rapid expansion of Red Army because of the looming threat. In about 20 months it has almost tripled and thank Stalin for that.

Trotsky proved himself a capable military leader.


No, you are like everyone else giving credit deserved by Jukums Vācietis to Trotsky. I am not saying Trotsky was not instrumental but that the man deserving most credit for strictly military front would be Jukums Vācietis

Trotsky was a vain and arrogant man, but he didn't suffer from the pathological egotism of Stalin. It was jealousy towards Trotsky that in part motivated the military purges


Armchair Psychology.
#14346356
Andropov wrote:Is there any information on how Hitler acquired his views? Why did he have such an intense hatred of Russia and of the Slavic peoples?


I would not say his personal dislike for Russia or the Russian people was greater than that held by any German nationalist, and as Fuser mentioned, anti-Slavic attitudes as a component of German nationalist thought really predate the advent of German fascism (National Socialism) and go back centuries. Why? It was inherent because a Germany which desired expansion would nearly always have and look to do so at the expense of the Slavic peoples of the East. That basic geopolitical necessity which played out through a series of conflicts long before the 20th century, stretching to the early medieval period obviously gave way to an ideological aspect in which Slavs were not only viewed as culturally inferior and takers of excessive space (in the German view, unjustified by their productive capabilities and level of civilization), but at times targets for dehumanization as the need for such propaganda arose.

One can date that outgrowth past the Battle of Grunwald and the almost mythic need in the German consciousness to avenge the defeat of 1410 at the hands of the Polish and Lithuanian forces long after the matter was thought settled by the Germanisation of Prussia (as a consequence of the Livonian Crusade of the 13th century) and eventually when the German nation was, in addition to being so divided pre-unification, being squeezed between the Tsarist Russian Empire to the east which was a hegemon and a powerful French state to the west. That and, as previously mentioned, the desperate need for the acquisition of land and resources as a precursor to power (in the German case pre-1870, especially with the experience of the liberal revolutions, not even regional, continental, or global power or hegemony, but simple unification and independence) breeds generational contempt which naturally accompanies any manner of ethnic strife which is inextricably linked with real geostrategic concerns of raw power and for obvious reasons won't resolve itself in a day.

That reality which manifested as a component in the foreign policy of NS Germany, that collective German understanding, had nothing to do with Hitler's personal biases but was a matter of strong consensus. Really no differently than the attitude of Anglo-Saxons and the British establishment which developed toward the Irish or the attitude of the Anglo-descended establishments of the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand toward their respective indigenous populations. Contrary to popular belief, dehumanization usually serves logical material concerns and only later projects the outward appearance of feverish irrationality or acquires a romanticist character. As it did to reduce an entire race of people (the Sub-Saharan Africans) to the egregious bondage of chattel slavery. Not borne out of hatred, but greed and a power struggle. It is the irrational-romanticist conception or narrative which is often best suited for adoption by the apolitical masses to mask which is in actuality a natural desire for power and domination with the dislike or even intense hatred of an unspecified other for unspecified reasons.

This is of course not only done by Germans, but all of humanity, and in Western Europe, Germans have been such the target of a dehumanization campaign over the centuries by the same British and French imperialists (now liberal-capitalist surrogates of the U.S. project in Europe) who first sought to subjugate Germany by military means and occupation (as the French did straight through the Napoleonic era) and later by financial means; and then had the supreme gall to later not only harangue but demonize the vital attempt by Germany to liberate herself from this paradigm by any means necessary. Yes...to fucking hell with that and three centuries of British and French cowardly moral hypocrisy. Nothing would be more satisfying than to see another shot taken at it in my lifetime, if not to win than just to hurt and do damage and harm to the very same people who did so much damage to the heroic German people.

On a side note, it should also be pointed out that the Soviet Union and the Marxist-Leninist doctrine it subscribed to under Stalin's administration was viewed as an entirely Jewish project (not surprisingly or unreasonably given the Jewish origins of nearly all the founders and leading ideological forces of the doctrine within Russia and outside of it, from Marx to Lenin to Trotsky) which kept captive the Russian people who were really viewed with little more animosity than they were in previous eras. The Russian people were regarded as well as a victim of Judeo-Bolshevism as were the Ukrainian people and other peoples, and Stalin, even as an ethnic Georgian, was given a slight nod of respect if only in the sense that he was perceived to have even slightly de-Judaized and Russified Soviet communism.
#14346359
Andrea_Chenier wrote: it was Germany's duty to serve as bulwark for western democratic civilazation against the bolshevik hordes.


Western civilization yes, but democratic civilization? No way... Btw the reich should've tried to seize the oilfields in the Persian gulf instead of going into Russia. Probably would've been a heck of a lot easier and, if some of the oil taken by late '41 was offered to Japan, to replace lost imports due to the allied embargo, it might've obviated pearl harbor and US entry into the war.
#14346383
Far Right Sage - I disagree with almost everything, the premises, the arguments, the language. Judo-Bolshevism really? What doe sit mean, there were a few Jews involved, but how is any more significant than what hand they used. That you find that it's natural to expand and oppress others it's not surprising, but it was not necessary. Germany was doing well before ww1, direct control of the resources was not necessary. Really do you sleep with mien kampf under your bed? You seem to agree with most of it's salient points.
#14346393
fuser wrote:And no the great purge didn't resulted in bad performance of the Red Army, this is one of the consistent myth not ready to die.


It's so stupid. Soviet military leadership e.g. Zhukov, Konev, Vatutin etc was adequate and then some.

In about 20 months it has almost tripled and thank Stalin for that.


Thank him for everything. Would Trotsky have industrialized the USSR as rapidly as Stalin? I doubt it. Even the purges, weren't a bad idea from the point of view of national security (not just Stalin's rule). The last thing the USSR could afford, at a time of deadly external threat, was internal rivalry or possible civil war.

Germany might've seized Persian gulf oil by forcing Turkey to allow passage of its troops. Some oil might have been carried via Japanese tankers as Japan was at peace then and might've stayed that way without an oil supply interruption.
#14346398
Would Trotsky have industrialized the USSR as rapidly as Stalin? I doubt it.


He would had actually and I don't doubt it at all. Trotsky also envisioned USSR the same way i.e. rapid industrialization and collectivization. One could be surprised by the sheer number of times Stalin and Trotsky seem to be standing on same page (after all both were commies)

Beside those things weren’t dependent on whims of one single man.
#14346456
pugsville wrote:Far Right Sage - I disagree with almost everything, the premises, the arguments, the language.


That's fine. I wouldn't expect agreement or endorsement from you, as I find myself disagreeing with nearly everything and anything you write as well related to the war, so clearly we have distinctly different views on that and mine are personal as well as political. What do you expect me to change my value set for no discernible reason? It's a supreme shame the war was lost and much must be done to wipe clean that historical failure in the future, but it was the right fight at the right time.

pugsville wrote:Judo-Bolshevism really? What doe sit mean, there were a few Jews involved, but how is any more significant than what hand they used.


I was employing terminology used at the time which obviously fits into the context of my comments, but I don't believe that label is far off at all. Jews - From Marx himself to Lenin to Trotsky, Karl Liebknecht, Rosa Luxemburg, Bela Kun, and Lev Kamenev - were disproportionately represented among the Bolsheviks, the KPD, and other communist factions throughout the interwar period. The biggest and most prominent faces and voices of European communism, were often Jewish and if not perceived to be Jewish (with the notable exception of Stalin himself), so it was a quite reasonable response and the terminology was reasonable. Moreover, Jews had long been associated with not only communism but the general European left, whether socialist or anarchist/anarcho-syndicalist from Leon Blum's dynasty in France of the third republic to Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman. Again, the big point on all this is how disproportionate it was and that's the major issue of contention - Not that there weren't plenty of communist gentiles of every stripe.

pugsville wrote:That you find that it's natural to expand and oppress others it's not surprising, but it was not necessary.


Yes it was, it still is, and always shall be both natural and necessary (and I would argue, an inherent positive), not only to survive in the long term, but thrive and advance. Of course the liberal tool of promoting pacifist and humanist doctrines among young people now that the power structure in the world has already been settled in their favor is a favorite one and it obviously affects and infects the mind of many today, but don't even try that hogwash with me.

Life is struggle.

pugsville wrote:Germany was doing well before ww1, direct control of the resources was not necessary.


Not nearly well enough, and no it would not be in the German character to allow the world to forever rest with the Anglo establishment clearly occupying a vastly superior position which was finished being carved off just in time for the duplicitous forked-tongue moral coward slithering British arch-hypocrites to declare they were pacifists and everyone should be now that they own the world.

pugsville wrote:Really do you sleep with mien kampf under your bed? You seem to agree with most of it's salient points.


If your question is meant literally rather than as a rhetorical device then no, I do not sleep with it occupying that position, but do I agree to this day with most points and most decisions taken barring the strategic errors? You better believe it. Absolutely. I consider your remark to be nothing of an insult, nor is deference toward one who gave and sacrificed all to make Germany free and mighty, even if that freedom and might have been temporarily lost. Fascism, thanks to the Italians - a bright and innovative people - just happened to come along at the proper juncture to suit exactly the form of societal organization which the German people required to fulfill certain needs.
#14346471
Instead of an answer I will propose you the most detailed study of the nazi economy.
The author is liberal and this is becoming obvious some times in his work but the fact remains that if you want to understand the economy of Germany from the 20s to the end of the war you need to read this book.

Image
#14346479
fuser wrote:How would German had invaded/seized Persian oilfields?

And even if they did captured those, how would they had transported it to Japan?


The surrender of Singapore opened up the Malacca trade routes, especially given the negligible naval presence of the Allies in the Indian Ocean, especially prior to Leyte Gulf (or arguably as late as the Battle of Malacca), giving the Axis a period of almost three years during which they would have been free to use these sea lanes to support each other. The assumed surrender of Persia and other Gulf states would probably give them the minimum merchant marine force necessary to conduct these exports.
#14346481
Pretty much. But NS Germany was never able to get Persia, so it wasn't able to be done. Someone had suggested abandoning the drive into the USSR to go to Persia instead, but then all that would have happened would be that the USSR would attack NS Germany while they were deployed in Persia.
Last edited by Rei Murasame on 29 Dec 2013 17:51, edited 1 time in total.
#14346485
At the same time, one should remember that it is likely that in the event of a capture of Persian oil fields, American and British efforts in Burma and China over the Himalayas would have been redirected to obstruction of the oil export trade, Rei - it wouldn't have been a guarantee.
#14346487
I am not sure how Germany is able to seize Persia and now other Gulf States? But even I accept that for the sake of argument. Is Germany in this scenario has captured the entire Arabian Peninsula?

But even if they managed to seize entire Peninsula, the amount of personnels required and the pressure from British Empire through her Indian possessions would only be immense to say the least whilst a looming threat of Soviet involvement which could had most certainly led to German Army being squashed between British and Soviet forces somewhere in Iran. I doubt it would had been a whole lot easier as Starman said and that when I can't envision a scenario where they do manage to capture Iran and Arabian Peninsula.
#14346493
If they would have broken through the Caucuses and Stalingrad then with their armies there they would have easily crushed the Soviet/British puppet in Iran and re- installed the Shah who was a very firm supporter of their cause. I doubt that a large scale occupation would be necessary and they would have had support from other Arab states as well who would immediatly topple their colonial puppets if the Nazi's would have broken through the Caucuses.

Isn't oil and electricity bought and sold like ev[…]

@Potemkin I heard this song in the Plaza Grande […]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

The "Russian empire" story line is inve[…]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]