History has already picked the winner. Capitalism and Socialism in one country (progressives) beat Fascism and National Socialism (reactionary). Later on, International Capitalism won the race with the Soviet Union. Whether or not, Capitalism undoes itself or not later on, we do not know, but we do have a winner right now.
Technically, it was Communism, not Socialism and the Soviets did most of the grunt work as 70% of the German casualties were on the Eastern front.
And technically, National Socialism wasn't defeated economically as their loss was a purely militarily one and scientific one.
Had the Americans not invented the atom bomb, the Soviets could have beat them militarily too.
That said, Capitalism beat Communism (not Socialism) on the economic front as the Soviets never engaged the US directly in full scale war.
National Socialism economically could have possibly beat Capitalism, but we'll never know except for the fact Chinese sort of practice. They are going through some economic troubles now, but if they pull through and still become dominant, we will have to say that National Socialism would have beat Capitalism economically.
I don't really agree.
National Socialism didn't fall apart economically or ideologically it fell apart because it was outnumbered and outgunned militarily in a world war.
USSR however did fall apart ideologically and economically
>It actually seems to have fallen apart ideologically.
No. Heavily outnumbered, it was a miracle they made the advances they did.
And they did invade Poland but never wanted a world war, this much is obvious
>National Socialism didn't fall apart economically
A big reason for ever using violence was that they couldn't compete financially so they had to grab resources from neighbours. Look how much richer modern Germany is with a different system. NatSoc made irrational decisions over cronyism and racial purity.
Well that's unfair comparing it to modern Germany, one of the reasons Hitler was so popular worldwide and in Germany was because he solved unemployment and the economic crisis while the world was in a depression.
Before Him, it was American dominated economy and things didn't work out.
>he solved unemployment and the economic crisis while the world was in a depression.
He solved them by printing money and having large public works. Armament supply was part of this. These economic policies (Keynesian in nature) have a finite horizon, after which you either go bankrupt, or, if you really wanna stay in power, you conquer your neighbours.
'Reactionary' just pertains to the order based in reality itself, the one that doesn't kid itself.
That which exists outside Capitalism and Communism falls under Reactionary. It's what we'll arrive at again, in one form or another, when all this exhausts itself.
I'm not an economist but don't we have the similar system today? Like printing money?
>Armament supply was part of this.
This is a bit of a myth, Arnament supply did not start until Germany was well recovered, it didn't have a huge role in kicking back the economy
They issued money bills that weren't worth anything outside Germany (promisory notes). When they couldn't back them, they went to war.
MEFO was a dummy company that was formed with relatively small amounts of capital that was used to finance German rearmament off the books. It issued bills without backing by its own resources but which were guaranteed redeemable at 1:1 for reichsmarks for five years by the government. The MEFO bills amounts were considered a state secret and were an important element in the impression that Hitlerian economics was a success. This company essentially created a large amount of reichsmarks off the books, inflating the currency in secret. Payment was about to come due giving Hitler the option of shifting the German economy to export goods to pay the bills or going to war and paying the debts off from looting profits extracted from conquered states.
Reactionary isn't an ethical categorism, it's a term referring to the historical sequence.
>When after the Machtergreifung of January 1933, Adolf Hitler wanted to extend the scheme to the German re-armament, Hans Luther disagreed, and he was replaced on 16 March 1933 by Hjalmar Schacht. Thus, the way was open for an expansion of this form of fundraising. With the Mefo bills, the model of Öffa bill was used extensively.
>This system continued to be used until April 1938, when almost 12 billion Reichsmark of bills were outstanding. At that time the first of these bills, which were guaranteed for five years, would come due in 1939 when the holders would likely present them to the Reichsbank for payment.
What a coincidence they started invading countries that year.
This is extremely selective view on selective facts to craft a narrative that Hitler started wars for economic reasons.
Invasion of Poland had nothing to do with economy but territorial disputes.
>to craft a narrative that Hitler started wars for economic reasons.
Dude, there's no reason to craft it. It's already there and there are much more substantiated arguments than mine to back that claim.
I've read up about it, it's extremely selective facts and sometimes outright falsehoods. Germany was doing well economically considering mutual boycotts and stuff.
All the actual facts point out that Hitler and Nazi Germany did not want the war with Poland, and even more facts that they didn't want a war with France or UK.
It was purely territorial and stranded Germans on polish territory which Nazis viewed as oppressed
>It's already there and there are much more substantiated arguments than mine to back that claim.
I mean you only need to read Mein Kampf for a start. The whole concept of Lebesraum is clearly economic.
Calling something a meme is a meaningless 4chan insult.
>it was not part of foreign policy or any policy
Other than the invasion of Eastern Europe.
Even early on when Goebbels and Hitler resolved their ideological differences during the early years of the Nazi party Hitler persuaded Goebbels that Socialism was wrong and that seizing land off German aristocracy for the people was not necessary because they were going to take huge chunks of Eastern Europe anbd give that to Germans instead. Goebbels became Hitler's loyal follower from this point onwards right until they both topped themselves.
>Other than the invasion of Eastern Europe.
That was because they actually believed Stalin was going to attack them, rightfully or wrongfully.
> was not necessary because they were going to take huge chunks of Eastern Europe anbd give that to Germans instead. Goebbels became Hitler's loyal follower from this point onwards right until they both topped themselves.
It's a perfectly good source. Just like this is.
>Without consideration of traditions and prejudices, Germany must find the courage to gather our people, and their strength, for an advance along the road that will lead this people from its present, restricted living-space to new land and soil; and hence also free it from the danger of vanishing from the earth or of serving others as a slave nation. The National Socialist Movement must strive to eliminate the disproportion between our population and our area — viewing this latter as a source of food as well as a basis for power politics — between our historical past and the hopelessness of our present impotence.
>And so, we National Socialists consciously draw a line beneath the foreign policy tendency of our pre–War period. We take up where we broke off six hundred years ago. We stop the endless German movement to the south and west, and turn our gaze toward the land in the East. At long last, we break off the colonial and commercial policy of the pre–War period and shift to the soil policy of the future.
If we speak of soil in Europe today, we can primarily have in mind only Russia and her vassal border states
Well I don't think it's a good source, need to know exaclty where it comes from to check if its legitimate, not just Hitler biography
>If we speak of soil in Europe today, we can primarily have in mind only Russia and her vassal border states
This book was written in a time when the fate of the soviet union was uncertain and other western countries actually tried to haev a military it only a few years before.
>National Socialism didn't fall apart economically or ideologically it fell apart because it was outnumbered and outgunned militarily in a world war.
It fell apart ideologically because its ideology involved militarism and belligerence.
If Soviet Union fell apart and was restructured due to joint western interventions Germany would want a piece of it, especially since they had zero colonies compared to other western powers
Read the quote again, he is talking about gathering strength and courage, of Germany becoming a slave nation if it does not expand. That's about as far away from realpolitik as you can get.
But you have to keep in mind the time period it was written in, Mein Kampf was a book written for political points at no time was it offical german policy.
Soviet Union was not a strong country back then and it was under western military interventions a few years before. It is very circumstantial few sentences in a book written for political points, not some grand scheme
Completely different soviet union and completely different circumstances, he was absolutely convinced that Stalin was going to attack him before or when their pact was over, and a reasonable case can be made that he was right
>and Germany would become a slave nation otherwise
Exagaration and political book made for political points, not offical foreign policy
They beat fashism through war, murder, intimidation and indoctrination, not by fair competition. In the end Fascism will win, it can't be suppressed forever.
Hitler wanted the germans to "pick up where they'd left off four hundred years ago" and invade Russia like the Teutonic Knights and Swedes. He said that over and over again, and not just in Mein Kampf where that quote's from.
History's over m8 and capitalism, globalism and western values won. This is what it's going to be like until Judgement day, ISIS, depression, recession and fascism are just bumps in the roads.
>Movement that actively rejects internationalism
>Able to be a a single unified movement and ideology
It works with communism, and socialism owing to their internationalist principles, as well as any of the movements that don't actively rejects the concept of internationalism. But fascism massively varied by country to country, with some like Hitler's National Socialism along with most clerical fascists like degrelle standing on the political centre right to right, Mussoloni on the centre, and Mosley dancing on the centre left. While even socially the movements varied, the anti-semitic element wasn't present in Mussolini's cultural view until Hitler pressured him into enacting the race laws, the support for the women in the workplace in British fascism was uncommon amongst the other movements, along with their support for an elected parliament. The only thing the movements shared was the vision of a large poweful government (not unlike Hobbe's levithan to either control or regulate the state economy, and a vendetta against the war generation of politics), the closest to fascism being a coherent ideology is those Neo-Nazi organisations which will continually profess their love for Hitler and unreservedly adopt his policies in specific creating a coherent - though unaplicable - National Socialist doctrine.
I'd support that fascism is suppressed, but an equally big player in that was Hitler, National Socialism destroyed the movement by becoming the most dominant, and turning the more reserved moderate voters of similar movements in their home countries, the aggressive nature of Nazi Germany came to represent the entire movement to the masses
It wasn't foreign policy when he was in charge are you insane? He had diplomatic very good diplomatic relationship with previous polish goverment and he had relationships with the soviet union. His foreign policy was never "we are going to invade you because I thought it was a good idea in my book to get attention 10 years ago"
Yes context matters. And western people did not win, if you show the state of America or UK today to soldiers they wouldn't even bother
Lol yeah, see all those marxist economists in the government! Wait.. No, they are actually obscure writers, like Zizek and only a few people on the internet care about them.
>implying this isn't sameposting
Soldiers do not make foreign policy. That's at the hand of the rich and the governments. So, it's notnlike they had a choice. They didn't fight for 'western civilization', they fought (at best) to protect their countries, and that they did.
OP here, I actually agree with you. I don't see how this is implied when I only speak for a 100-year time frame in the past and finish with a "we don't know what the future will bring" sentiment. Cheers!
>the countries that followed capitalism or socialism are nuclear powers today
>the fascist and nazi regimes do not exist anymore and are tainted for a long time
No moral judgment, just facts.
With the rate the US burns though its vast natural ressources we will soon enough see the end of "the end of history". Every great empire had its Peak and the point were they thought of themselves as invincible. Pax Romana, the Sun never sets, heavenly Mandate etc this delusion mostly occured when the future doom was already looming. The US thinks of its elf as superior to europe and its problems so i will be delighted too see how the US fares once they have used up their huge "Virgin lands" bonus.
Also: Democracy didn't beat socialism or facism. History is more cyclic then anything else and fascism and socialism are reactions to certain problems nations are faced with in the cycle of their existence. In the bigger picture i think it is better to think in wider categories, i guess we won't see an emergence of fascism in the same form again BUT a authoritarian-revanchist-xenophic-belligerent branch of politics? Sure.
honoring diplomatic deals was what got them into WW1.
I think Hitler thought the Brits and French would not have acted the way they did because they just gave in to his past transgressions.