Afro_Vacancy wrote: ↑
10 months ago
I did in fact shift the nature of my responses to him a while back, but I'd ask you not to ignore why this happened, and not to make false assumptions, when I have stated why I had done so, and stated so correctly and in detail. Quite frankly, when I was rebutting his points in a dry and sanitary manner, he would simply ignore it. He had a tendency to post many "facts" that he had not verified, and he also used a lot of information that he had no understanding of, such as the genetic studies of populations. And further, he would always go back to the hate speech. He's chased multiple people off the forum. By the way, I'm surprised that you didn't tell him off for the way that he spoke to pas, or perhaps you did and I missed it.
Don't dismiss bad language as "naughty words and ideas". Language and words matter. They are precursors to bad actions. Further, language is fundamental to what it means to be human. It matters. You're reminding me of Ben Shapiro being proud of the quote "facts don't care about your feelings", it's a stupid quote. Without feelings, we're not human.
Now, referring to the German economy, one of my first hints that That Guy had lost his cool was when he wrote that the successes of the German economy in the 1930s were ignored by historians. They're not ignored by historians lol, it's widely discussed in mainstream sources. I recently finished "The World at War"
, which is considered the definitive English-language documentary on WWII, and they discuss the 1930s German economy in detail.
Nameless' comments are in fact a part of the truth. The German economy of the 1930s did in fact use some theft, and some slave labour. That's in the historical record, and part of the story. I'm a capitalist myself, so I consider slave labour to be fundamentally inefficient (never mind immoral), but I think that it likely can provide a macro-economic boost in the short term. I'm not sure how long it would usually take to be a net negative. But the Nazis almost immediately set up work camps at places like Dachau, and if I recall correctly, the communists were the first to go. They went from being a source of anxiety to the productive classes, to being a source of cheap labour.
It is not responsible to simply separate "before the war" with "the war", as the latter led to the former in an inevitable manner.
Slave labour also enabled them to punch above their weight during the war. People who made it to Auschwitz, etc were immediately partitioned upon arrival. Babies, women, the elderly, etc were to be gassed as soon as possible. Able-bodied men were to work until they could no longer work, then gassed. This provided a lot of labour and materials and should not be dismissed. They also had their property expropriated, which helped fund the war effort. There's a six-part BBC documentary on Netflix called "Auschwitz: The Nazis and 'The Final Solution
'" where they interview several people, including a former SS guard, Oskar Groening. He discusses his role, which was to take away the prisoners' property and funnel it to the war effort.
There are of course other factors to the German growth of the 1930s, if you want to discuss that we can as it's an independently interesting subject. I list some of the factors here:
- Growth actually did resume before Hitler came to power in 1933. A modern analogue is how many Americans credit Bill Clinton for the 1990s boom, which actually began a few months before he became President.
- They took back some of the lands that they lost in the treaty of Versailles, such as the wealthy industrial regions from France.
- They did make some concessions to labour. Hitler didn't just abolish the unions, he also made some concessions such as adding holidays, that are good for worker morale, and thus productivity.
- They had a military buildup. A military-industrial complex is labour-intensive, I don't know if this is always true but it certainly has been true for most of the 20th century. You need a lot of workers with a lot of different skills to assemble things like tanks and airplanes and roads. The German re-armament began before that of the other Western European powers. In this sense, Hitler was kind of like Roosevelt and Stalin, who made sure that their workers kept busy, to the best extent that they can. Note, in contrast, the opposition to Roosevelt largely wanted to "liquidate the farmer, liquidate everything", they were assuming a vulgar form of laissez-faire capitalism, and if that had happened I think that the war might have gone another way. A military buildup can also lead to technological developments that can improve living standards, though that takes longer.
- They did actually make an effort to feed and train their population. That is in contrast to the British, who eventually realized that the men who formed the German infantry tended to be taller and heavier and in better shape than the men who formed the UK infantry.
- They brought conscription in 1935, whereas the UK waited until 1939, and the US waited until 1940. Conscription is a way to keep young men busy, as that is a population that should not be idle.
- There were some other things, for example the Nazis opposed smoking. Over the long-term that would have contributed some economic benefits, but I'm not sure how long that would take.
All of that is real, interesting, and can be discussed in an intelligent manner -- by mature people.