Modern Germany and WW2

[javacontour]

Both were against capitalism.

From the Wiki

Quote:

Hitler, both in public and in private, expressed strong disdain for capitalism, accusing modern capitalism of holding nations ransom in the interests of a parasitic cosmopolitan rentier class.[151] He opposed free-market capitalism's profit-seeking impulses and desired an economy in which community interests would be upheld.[139] He distrusted capitalism for being unreliable, due to its egotistic nature, and he preferred a state-directed economy that is subordinated to the interests of the Volk.[151] Hitler told a party leader in 1934, "The economic system of our day is the creation of the Jews."[151] Hitler said to Benito Mussolini that "Capitalism had run its course".[151] Hitler also said that the business bourgeoisie "know nothing except their profit. 'Fatherland' is only a word for them."[152] Hitler admired Napoleon as a role model for his anti-conservative, anti-capitalist and anti-bourgeois attitudes.


Looks like Hitler wanted (and got) a largely centrally planned economy working for the good of the people (the Volk)

Other places in the Wiki mentioned how he appealed to workers, vilifying capitalism to seek public support for his party.


Edited to add, as long as we are discussing History, I think we'll be ok.

 

[tribocessive]

under national socialism the government owned all of the businesses; i don't want to buy my oil from uncle sam, or the eu, or vladimir putin.

 

[andrewg]

Hey folks....this thread I started WAS NOT intended to delve into the quagmire of political opinions.
Please don't get it locked. I realize that politics are interwoven into WW2.....but now this thread is just getting too far off topic and focusing on something I never intended.
Thank you.

 

[tribocessive]

watching ahmadinejad address the un, this question comes to mind: what if adolph hitler had the atomic bomb to go with his v-2 rockets? all he needed was a little more time; the chronology of events could have been quite different; thusly, the time-critical, urgent nature of events can be greatly amplified; what took place in hawaii 12/7/1941, stalingrad 8/23/1942 to 2/2/1943, and normandy 6/6/1944, all was significant; we analyze and analyze past events in a futile effort to avoid having history repeat itself; now, there is an embargo on iran; do we realize where we are?

 

[cjcride]

Originally Posted By: andrewg
Hey folks....this thread I started WAS NOT intended to delve into the quagmire of political opinions.
Please don't get it locked. I realize that politics are interwoven into WW2.....but now this thread is just getting too far off topic and focusing on something I never intended.
Thank you.
I agree. A lot of interesting points. Lets keep it Civil and not get it locked.

 

[tribocessive]

the late dale earnhardt "do you want to race or don't you?" me: "do you want to have a dialogue about history or don't you?" later on we'll go get some finger sandwiches; even the word "quagmire" is politically tinged; it was brought back from the dregs by pulitzer-prize-winning author the late david halberstam in an anti-vietnam war book; the reasons that buildings and places in europe connected to WWII have been erased are entirely political; is free speech only that with which you agree? there are a lot of perspectives on WWII; many of them are volatile and unpleasant; "topic toxic", i think not; i respectfully and politely disagree.

 

[andrewg]

Originally Posted By: tribocessive
the late dale earnhardt "do you want to race or don't you?" me: "do you want to have a dialogue about history or don't you?" later on we'll go get some finger sandwiches; even the word "quagmire" is politically tinged; it was brought back from the dregs by pulitzer-prize-winning author the late david halberstam in an anti-vietnam war book; the reasons that buildings and places in europe connected to WWII have been erased are entirely political; is free speech only that with which you agree? there are a lot of perspectives on WWII; many of them are volatile and unpleasant; "topic toxic", i think not; i respectfully and politely disagree.

Well, it matters not what your opinion (or mine either) when it comes to politics on this board. The rules state that we are NOT to engage. We don't run this board. We are only here as guests/members and are expected to comply with the rules. If you think that the thread won't be locked because you feel it should not be.....you'll be mistaken.
A casual reference of politics necessary to explain a point or to illustrate historical perspective MAY be acceptable at times. But for a while there this thread was heading WAY off course into a purely political discussion. It's now getting back on course.....let's keep it that way.

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: javacontour


Looks like Hitler wanted (and got) a largely centrally planned economy working for the good of the people (the Volk)

Other places in the Wiki mentioned how he appealed to workers, vilifying capitalism to seek public support for his party.


Edited to add, as long as we are discussing History, I think we'll be ok.


Many of the sources I've read and seen indicate that Hitler was trending towards an agrarian society. A bit ironic considering the war machines they were turning out.

We saw this occur again with the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia although they embraced Mao and Marx. (and they lacked the industrial capacity of Germany by a long shot) But similarly these fascists wanted an ethnically pure agrarian society.

 

[tribocessive]

what were you expecting with your original post? we are not talking about a scavenger hunt here; is there any substantive argumentation out there to refute my version of history? i welcome it.

 

[eljefino]

Originally Posted By: tribocessive
what were you expecting with your original post? we are not talking about a scavenger hunt here; is there any substantive argumentation out there to refute my version of history? i welcome it.


Why does your version have to come out on top? I don't need to endorse or refute any POV as they are all interesting and there will never be any convincing of absolute black and white rightness. Keep the anecdata coming, I want to see several points of view so I can sort them out per my own world view. There's already lots of stuff in this thread that isn't in my history book.

 

[Shannow]

Thread looks almost word for word like
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080809105151AAohArI

 

[Rick in PA]

I'm sure economics enters the picture (it always does). A lot of the German infrastructure was badly torn up during the war. Economically it made more sense to level and re-build than to repair. As the historical sites age, they get to the end of their practical life. The question becomes: pour more money into repairs, and have nothing new, or use that money towards something new and economically self sustaining? Just a thought.

 

[tribocessive]

Originally Posted By: eljefino
Originally Posted By: tribocessive
what were you expecting with your original post? we are not talking about a scavenger hunt here; is there any substantive argumentation out there to refute my version of history? i welcome it.


Why does your version have to come out on top? I don't need to endorse or refute any POV as they are all interesting and there will never be any convincing of absolute black and white rightness. Keep the anecdata coming, I want to see several points of view so I can sort them out per my own world view. There's already lots of stuff in this thread that isn't in my history book.

yes, repeat, i welcome any professor emeritus of history with bonifides up the wazzou, or oil dude, to provide interesting casual conversation on this subject; it is classic leftist strategy to cry foul whenever evidence is presented that doesn't support socialism; no one complained when there were references in this discussion to japanese right-wingers and german right-wingers; the country of iraq was established with british petroleum in mind; history.

 

[Shannow]

economics and finance certainly played a significant part in the process

 

[kb01]

Originally Posted By: Rick in PA
I'm sure economics enters the picture (it always does). A lot of the German infrastructure was badly torn up during the war. Economically it made more sense to level and re-build than to repair. As the historical sites age, they get to the end of their practical life. The question becomes: pour more money into repairs, and have nothing new, or use that money towards something new and economically self sustaining? Just a thought.



Yeah, it definitely is an interesting dilemma -- What to do with the cultural (architectural, historical, etc.) of a history that you're either ashamed of or don't want to be reminded of. Preservation for the sake of preservation rarely makes sense.

Many places, like Auschwitz or Gdansk are so historically significant, that there's no question of the necessity of preservation. For more run-of-the-mill reminders, like fascist-era office buildings, or Communist flats, things get more complicated.

While not related to Nazis, there's an interesting park located outside of Budapest -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memento_Park. It's basically a conglomeration of Communist-era statues and propaganda -- It's an interesting balancing act of preserving history, and balancing many complicated issues.

 

[uc50ic4more]

Originally Posted By: tribocessive
to provide interesting casual conversation on this subject; it is classic leftist strategy to cry foul whenever evidence is presented that doesn't support socialism;


That type of language is not the way to invite people into casual conversation. That would be like saying it is "classic right wing strategy" to use incendiary language and then, when no one wants to talk to you, declare yourself "right".

 

[tribocessive]

europeans; thick oil; thick skulls; whitewash history; "urban renewal;" i cordially invite you to post your comments; i'm still offering to buy everyone finger sandwiches, especially european socialists.

 

[tribocessive]

Originally Posted By: kb01
Originally Posted By: Rick in PA
I'm sure economics enters the picture (it always does). A lot of the German infrastructure was badly torn up during the war. Economically it made more sense to level and re-build than to repair. As the historical sites age, they get to the end of their practical life. The question becomes: pour more money into repairs, and have nothing new, or use that money towards something new and economically self sustaining? Just a thought.



Yeah, it definitely is an interesting dilemma -- What to do with the cultural (architectural, historical, etc.) of a history that you're either ashamed of or don't want to be reminded of. Preservation for the sake of preservation rarely makes sense.

Many places, like Auschwitz or Gdansk are so historically significant, that there's no question of the necessity of preservation. For more run-of-the-mill reminders, like fascist-era office buildings, or Communist flats, things get more complicated.

While not related to Nazis, there's an interesting park located outside of Budapest -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memento_Park. It's basically a conglomeration of Communist-era statues and propaganda -- It's an interesting balancing act of preserving history, and balancing many complicated issues.
it is a shame that they did not include a replica of one of the union of soviet socialist republics' tanks that cruised into budapest on 11/4/1956; history. fact.

 

[kb01]

"it is a shame that they did not include a replica of one of the union of soviet socialist republics' tanks that cruised into budapest on 11/4/1956."

Care to elaborate on why you would like to see that? Is there a specific statue that you have in mind that was destroyed post-1989?

 

[expat]

Originally Posted By: tribocessive
europeans; thick oil; thick skulls; whitewash history; "urban renewal;" i cordially invite you to post your comments; i'm still offering to buy everyone finger sandwiches, especially european socialists.


I suspect if there really was a plan to 'Whitwash history' by intentionally removing WWII artifacts, they would all be long gone by now.
I don't think many Europeans in the 50's or 60's would have been outraged by their removal.

Salami on Rye please.