I like the way you write and will continue to read your work with great interest.
However I found this article disappointing as I was expecting an actual economic analysis and details of why exactly Hitler's economy didn't work. You have instead however made some general statements and then filled the rest up with (creatively brilliant) word salad and a good deal of seemingly personal rancor towards Hitler as a politician and war leader in addition to the supposed thesis. Highly entertaining but I feel the title is a bit misleading, it's more an opinion piece on why Hitler failed as a leader in general.
As a side note, you may want to read more about how utterly petrified Germany (and Europe in general) were of Soviet Bolshevism and the fear it would spread. The Nazi's quite literally thought they were waging a war in defense of Europe and saving everyone. Absurd ot us now perhaps, but it's what they believed in the context of their time. And the weight that would give to the economic choices they made. In reply to your point about trade VS war, you may want to look into the world wide Jewish boycott of German goods starting in the 30's when they declared "total war" on Germany as a state. Interesting little tid bits there.
Startling to see that even those who rebuke the writer for lack of insight appear to be missing vital details of the biography of Agent Schiklgruber - the mischlinger(judaic half-caste) who was financed/placed in power by Warburg & the Wall St/City of London judaic banking houses.
For purposes of clearing up these vital omissions, best read CJ Bjernkne's "Hitler Bolshevik and Zionist" vols 1&2. The phony smokescreen presenting the 'national socialism' of the nazis as dialectical opposite of the 'national communism of Stalin drops quickly away.
Then something like a valid discussion of the subject becomes possible.
Thank you. I regret creating that expectation in the title. However, the assertion of an “economic miracle” was never scientific, neither did it use any complex economic theory to support itself. Simply pointing to data and drawing wild conclusions from them is not scientific. So I address this claim on the basis of logical argumentation, seeing as it has always been an illogical claim.
I think your thesis is spot on. I recently saw it called “The Capitalist Peace”.
The grotesque idea that sending men off to fight is somehow heroic is just another endemic aspect of altruism—sacrificing for the state; as opposed to fighting for one’s own values like individual liberty.
Having said that, I think your thesis shouldn’t be viewed as some utopian notion that armies should be dismantled. Game theory provides ample evidence that the tit for tat strategy demands that parties must be able to mirror their opponent’s move—either cooperation or defection.
“Of all the Western democracies, only two have no choice but to depend on their own military forces for their survival— the United States and Israel. The rest have for more than half a century had the luxury of depending on American military forces in general and the American nuclear deterrent in particular.”—Thomas Sowell
Hitler wasn't an economic socialist, his economy was closer to corporatism. It was so successful that the Allies looted it after the war so I'd call that a pretty big endorsement.
Britain, France, and America all declared war first. The Soviets broke the Molotov Ribbentrop pact first and prepared to invade. If you're surrounded by foes you absolutely build up a military, what a silly thing to argue against. Also how is it Hitler's fault the Allies were comically evil rapists? The Allies ultimately started the war, refused Hitler's generous peace offers, and killed more people than the Axis. The world we live in is built on permanently justifying their cruelty. I can understand indifference to WW2, but to still parrot the old lies in 2025 is sad.
Overlapping terms. One does not cancel the other. In case the name “national socialism” wasn’t a hint, you can only take wealth redistribution and a centrally planned economy to concede that Hitler was indeed a socialist.
If one knows nothing one might say that. Corporatism/national socialism and socialism are completely different economic systems. Even by your wrong definition you'd then be arguing who was the worst socialist in WW2, FDR and Stalin who robbed everyone, or Hitler who did not. The socialists who started the war, killed millions, and hated Jesus, or Hitler who did not.
I like the way you write and will continue to read your work with great interest.
However I found this article disappointing as I was expecting an actual economic analysis and details of why exactly Hitler's economy didn't work. You have instead however made some general statements and then filled the rest up with (creatively brilliant) word salad and a good deal of seemingly personal rancor towards Hitler as a politician and war leader in addition to the supposed thesis. Highly entertaining but I feel the title is a bit misleading, it's more an opinion piece on why Hitler failed as a leader in general.
As a side note, you may want to read more about how utterly petrified Germany (and Europe in general) were of Soviet Bolshevism and the fear it would spread. The Nazi's quite literally thought they were waging a war in defense of Europe and saving everyone. Absurd ot us now perhaps, but it's what they believed in the context of their time. And the weight that would give to the economic choices they made. In reply to your point about trade VS war, you may want to look into the world wide Jewish boycott of German goods starting in the 30's when they declared "total war" on Germany as a state. Interesting little tid bits there.
Startling to see that even those who rebuke the writer for lack of insight appear to be missing vital details of the biography of Agent Schiklgruber - the mischlinger(judaic half-caste) who was financed/placed in power by Warburg & the Wall St/City of London judaic banking houses.
For purposes of clearing up these vital omissions, best read CJ Bjernkne's "Hitler Bolshevik and Zionist" vols 1&2. The phony smokescreen presenting the 'national socialism' of the nazis as dialectical opposite of the 'national communism of Stalin drops quickly away.
Then something like a valid discussion of the subject becomes possible.
Interesting
Thank you. I regret creating that expectation in the title. However, the assertion of an “economic miracle” was never scientific, neither did it use any complex economic theory to support itself. Simply pointing to data and drawing wild conclusions from them is not scientific. So I address this claim on the basis of logical argumentation, seeing as it has always been an illogical claim.
I think your thesis is spot on. I recently saw it called “The Capitalist Peace”.
The grotesque idea that sending men off to fight is somehow heroic is just another endemic aspect of altruism—sacrificing for the state; as opposed to fighting for one’s own values like individual liberty.
Having said that, I think your thesis shouldn’t be viewed as some utopian notion that armies should be dismantled. Game theory provides ample evidence that the tit for tat strategy demands that parties must be able to mirror their opponent’s move—either cooperation or defection.
“Of all the Western democracies, only two have no choice but to depend on their own military forces for their survival— the United States and Israel. The rest have for more than half a century had the luxury of depending on American military forces in general and the American nuclear deterrent in particular.”—Thomas Sowell
Thanks. And yes, the evolution of centralized government does not equal the abolition of all defense and security
Hitler wasn't an economic socialist, his economy was closer to corporatism. It was so successful that the Allies looted it after the war so I'd call that a pretty big endorsement.
Britain, France, and America all declared war first. The Soviets broke the Molotov Ribbentrop pact first and prepared to invade. If you're surrounded by foes you absolutely build up a military, what a silly thing to argue against. Also how is it Hitler's fault the Allies were comically evil rapists? The Allies ultimately started the war, refused Hitler's generous peace offers, and killed more people than the Axis. The world we live in is built on permanently justifying their cruelty. I can understand indifference to WW2, but to still parrot the old lies in 2025 is sad.
Overlapping terms. One does not cancel the other. In case the name “national socialism” wasn’t a hint, you can only take wealth redistribution and a centrally planned economy to concede that Hitler was indeed a socialist.
If one knows nothing one might say that. Corporatism/national socialism and socialism are completely different economic systems. Even by your wrong definition you'd then be arguing who was the worst socialist in WW2, FDR and Stalin who robbed everyone, or Hitler who did not. The socialists who started the war, killed millions, and hated Jesus, or Hitler who did not.
Nonsense. You can't gaslight me with appeal to definition fallacies. For the readers, here's some meaningful context: https://sotiris.substack.com/p/socialism-fascism
You are blocked for being a socialist faggot.