Is National Socialism really so bad??

[Atheist-Lite]

It is an interesting point imagining some form of National Socialism without any nastiness to an ethnic group, and without a tendency to invade one's neighbours. They were, of course, an inextricable part of the Third Reich's version, but it is an interesting bit of political speculation to consider whether they are inevitable components of any form of National Socialism, or just add-ons because of a particular historical contingency...

The New Scientist ran a "What if...?" article once and asked some prominent scientists in different fields what they think would be different if the Nazi's had one. I forget most of the responses, but I do remember that it was suggested we wouldn't have global warming, fish stock collapse, and various other environmental problems. Advances in cloning and genetic engineering technologies was mentioned too.

Wouldn't all the smoke stacks at the countless concentration camps increase carbon levels? and the master race would re-popluate the emptied lands? and then there's the autobahns? had they thought it all through? I recall that article from a few years ago....I didn't take it seriously. There was a TV series as well....

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I'm trying to remember who these guys were.

[mistermack]

People bang on about how the Nazis got the economy going, and performed an economic miracle. Not so. It was done by gigantic borrowing, that could never be financed. After all of that, the only option open to HItler was war, or national humiliation. That's why the world knew that war was inevitable, at government level.

Hitler did have the best looking staff cars ever made though, I will give them that.

[klr]

It is an interesting point imagining some form of National Socialism without any nastiness to an ethnic group, and without a tendency to invade one's neighbours. They were, of course, an inextricable part of the Third Reich's version, but it is an interesting bit of political speculation to consider whether they are inevitable components of any form of National Socialism, or just add-ons because of a particular historical contingency...

The New Scientist ran a "What if...?" article once and asked some prominent scientists in different fields what they think would be different if the Nazi's had one. I forget most of the responses, but I do remember that it was suggested we wouldn't have global warming, fish stock collapse, and various other environmental problems. Advances in cloning and genetic engineering technologies was mentioned too.

I don't know where New Scientist was coming from there TBH. In general, the Nazi attitude towards science was neutral at best, often dismissive/antagonistic, and at worst downright negative. Most (all?) of the good science that happened under the Nazi regime was going to happen anyway, and had nothing to do with the Nazi ethos.

As for not having global warming: I hear North Korea is very progressive in terms of low carbon emissions.

[Pappa]

I didn't take it seriously.

Me neither, just thought it was worth a mention.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

People bang on about how the Nazis got the economy going, and performed an economic miracle. Not so. It was done by gigantic borrowing, that could never be financed. After all of that, the only option open to HItler was war, or national humiliation. That's why the world knew that war was inevitable, at government level.

Hitler did have the best looking staff cars ever made though, I will give them that.

The borrowing was frequently from people with the money to lend. The repayment was understood to be conditional on success of the venture as a whole. And, of course, Hitler always kept his promises, so there was no danger the government would default and simply write those debts off in the future. (I picture some industrialist tell SD men he didn't care what Hitler said, he wanted his money!)

[sandinista]

No matter what Sandy tells you, it's a bad idea.

Yah...because we all know how much the "national socialists" liked the communists. A nazi's worst enemy has always been the communists...americans too, funny how that works out.

[JimC]

No matter what Sandy tells you, it's a bad idea.

Yah...because we all know how much the "national socialists" liked the communists. A nazi's worst enemy has always been the communists...americans too, funny how that works out.

Yes, one of the nazi's worst enemies was indeed America...

Do read your WW2 history, there's a good child...

[sandinista]

No matter what Sandy tells you, it's a bad idea.

Yah...because we all know how much the "national socialists" liked the communists. A nazi's worst enemy has always been the communists...americans too, funny how that works out.

Yes, one of the nazi's worst enemies was indeed America...

Do read your WW2 history, there's a good child...

I guess you didn't get my point, not sure the need for the personal attack. What I meant was that the only group of people with an irrational, paranoid, and extreme hatred of communists besides nazis are americans (followed by religious people). To say a communist is the same as a national socialist (because of the word socialist ) is absurd.

[JimC]

No matter what Sandy tells you, it's a bad idea.

Yah...because we all know how much the "national socialists" liked the communists. A nazi's worst enemy has always been the communists...americans too, funny how that works out.

Yes, one of the nazi's worst enemies was indeed America...

Do read your WW2 history, there's a good child...

I guess you didn't get my point, not sure the need for the personal attack. What I meant was that the only group of people with an irrational, paranoid, and extreme hatred of communists besides nazis are americans (followed by religious people). To say a communist is the same as a national socialist (because of the word socialist ) is absurd.

Well, you expressed it in such a convoluted way, it wis hard to decipher your intent...

Yes, Americans have been anti-communist, but a lot of that during the Soviet era was based on super power rivalry rather than ideology only...

However, the champion anti-communists are people in east European countries since the collapse of their communist regimes. They know first hand what they have escaped from...

And surely you know from other threads that, IMO, they would be better off with a western european style centre left progressive government, and a free market leashed by effective controls and a strong union movement rather than an American style model...

[Mac_Guffin]

They had great uniforms. Has to count for something.

True. You can't get any better than Hugo Boss.

[roter-kaiser]

Nor am I expressing love for the Fuehrer (Sieg Heil be upon him) - mainly because he was a f#ckin' foreigner. 2 World Wars and 1 World Cup

...and yes, national socialism really is so bad.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

No matter what Sandy tells you, it's a bad idea.

Yah...because we all know how much the "national socialists" liked the communists. A nazi's worst enemy has always been the communists...americans too, funny how that works out.

Yes, one of the nazi's worst enemies was indeed America...

Do read your WW2 history, there's a good child...

I guess you didn't get my point, not sure the need for the personal attack. What I meant was that the only group of people with an irrational, paranoid, and extreme hatred of communists besides nazis are americans (followed by religious people). To say a communist is the same as a national socialist (because of the word socialist ) is absurd.

The American Communist Party existed peacefully in the US right through WWII. Then the cold war came 'round and a particular politician decided attacking them would be a great way to get famous. To suggest that Americans have always been raving paranoids about those stinking commie bastards fits your rhetorical style. (Warning noted, mods.)

[Coito ergo sum]

If you don't mind trading away liberty for security, it might not be so bad.

It doesn't sound qualitatively different to the UK under Tony Blair.

And, I suppose, by extension, the UK under Cameron today?

[Pappa]

If you don't mind trading away liberty for security, it might not be so bad.

It doesn't sound qualitatively different to the UK under Tony Blair.

And, I suppose, by extension, the UK under Cameron today?

As he's changed little for the better, then yes.