Iosef Cross wrote:Nazi Germany in the 30's was nearly socialism. It wasn't socialist in the Soviet sense, were the state is the in name owner of the factors of production: most industrial property was still in the hands of private business, but that was only in name, because in fact the State really controlled it and the "private" business was really mixed up with the state. But the state was the the factor owner of the means of production. But the degree of state control increased with time, in 1934 Germany was still a market economy, by 1944, the State sector was much larger than the market.
You are dead wrong. The Nazi state privatised most of the publicly-controlled assets of the former Weimar Republic as well as governmental functions such as social services in 1936. To
demonstrate:
The Political System Of The Third Reich wrote:V. Industrial Leadership
The point could be made that private capitalism and bureaucratization of the economy are essentially incompatible. If this is true, then Hitler's regime should have begun the process of destroying capitalism in Germany. But this did not happen, despite the fact that a radical element in the Nazi Party wanted to do exactly that. But that radical element, led by Otto Strasser, was already effectively eliminated before Hitler's seizure of power. What actually developed after 1933 was an interesting demonstration of how well capitalism and bureaucratization complement each other.
National Socialism was not feudalistic in its economic policy, as some scholars have suggested, since that would have meant direct human relations, without the mediation of a market in the economic mechanism. In reality depersonalization promoted by bureaucratization serves to conceal the seat of economic power. The real economic rulers operate behind a plethora of organizations surrounding private property. This fact is responsible for the false interpretation of bureaucratization of the economy as the disappearance of private ownership.
But industrial leadership, under the Nazis, differed from the Weimar model in certain respects. Commercial capital was no longer represented. In other words, free trade did not exist. Commercial capital had lost its predominant position, and heavy industry was restricted to some degree-at least to the extent that it could not interfere with the overall objectives of the regime in foreign and domestic policy. So, industrial leadership, under the Nazi regime, was smaller and much more integrated than it had been in the Weimar period.
In a sense, the whole Nazi economy was under the rule of certain monopoly producers, who made a deal with the political rulers. Although, I hasten to add, that this does not mean that the Marxists are right in saying that the Nazi party represented a capitalist plot to save itself from disintegration. The Nazi movement was much more than a mere salvage operation of monopoly capitalism. Hitler used the capitalists as much as they used him.
VI. Agrarian Leadership
The economic problems of the East-Elbian Junkers was a persistent issue in the late Weimar Republic. The Osthilfe, a kind of welfare system for bankrupt landowners, introduced in 1931, was a device to preserve the social and economic status of the Junkers. There were obvious irregularities in this scheme, which led Schleicher to call for an investigation of the Osthilfe. He lost the support of the Junkers for this reason, as well as for the attempt to get the support of the trade unions. He was vigorously denounced by the Junkers, as an agrarian Bolshevik, and consequently fell from power.
Hitler's appointment, then, was followed by the revival of political power for the Junkers. The National Socialists, therefore, did nothing to check the centralization of agriculture. Instead, the Nazis concentrated on the deliberate creation of a reliable elite of wealthy peasants, at the expense of small farmers. They tried to form a solid corps of some 700,000 hereditary peasants, whose estates could not be encumbered, who could extent their holdings without restriction, and whose products received price protection. The Nazis then repaid the Junkers for going along with this, by applying the Hereditary Estates Act to the feudal lords as well. Thus two anachronism existed side by side: a Junker class and the hereditary peasants, one was the remnant of a dying class and the other an elite among independent peasants.
Thus the political system of the Nazi regime was characterized by profits, power, prestige, and above all, fear. Devoid of the common loyalty, and concerned solely with the preservation of their own interests, the ruling groups were bound to break apart as soon as the miracle-working Führer met a worthy opponent. Since political leadership became more and more a monopoly of the party, constant efforts had to be made to renew the ruling class. Thus every youth was compelled to become a member of the Hitler Youth organization after 1936-1939. Schools became increasingly under party control and more than 90% of college students were organized in the National Socialist Student Association.
As well:
excerpts:
What Fascism Is & Isn't
In Germany the Nazis announced they would end nationalization of private industries when they seized power. In 1932, Hitler returned control of the Gelsenkirhen company to private hands and in 1936 returned the stock of "United Steel" to private hands. Throughout 1933-1936, the Nazi returned to private hands the control of several banks: Dresdner, Danat, Commerz and Privatbank, the Deutsche Bank, and several others. In 1936, the steamship company Deutcher Schiff and Maschinenbau was returned to the private sector. In 1934, Dr. Schacht, the Nazi Minister of Economy, gave instructions to hasten the privatization of municipal enterprises. These enterprises were especially coveted by the rich industrialists, as they had been prosperous even during the depression.
Both in fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, the tax system was changed to one favoring business and the wealthy. The Nazis allowed industries to deduct from their taxable income all sums used to purchase new equipment. Rich families employing a maid were allowed to count the maid as a dependent child and reap the tax benefit. In Italy, the Minister of Finance stated: "We have broken with the practice of persecuting capital."[73]
. . .
A definitive definition of fascism is a totalitarian government with extreme nationalist tendencies in which the government is controlled and operated for the benefit of a few elite. However, it should be noted that an all-encompassing definition of a complex system can not be simply stated. Such simple definitions undoubtedly fail in time. A caveat to the above definition would be anytime the government places the rights of corporations or the elite above the rights of the citizens, it represents a step towards fascism. A better insight into what fascism is can be obtained by listing the traits that are common to the classical fascist states of Franco's Spain, Nazi Germany and fascist Italy. A list of traits of fascism is presented below. Note that the first two are the two most defining traits, obviously many of the others can be applied to many other social-political systems as one moves down the list.
1. Totalitarian
2. Extreme nationalism
3. Top down revolution or movement
4. Destructive divisionism such as racism and class warfare
5. Extreme anti-communism, anti socialism, and anti-liberal views
6. Extreme exploitation
7. Opportunistic ideology lacking in consistency as a means to grab power
8. Unbridled Corporatism
9. Reactionary
10. The use of violence and terror to attain and maintain power
11. Cult-like figurehead
12. The expounding of mysticism or religious beliefs
Not all fascists need exhibit all of the traits once again it should be emphasized that all fascist states will exhibit a totalitarian view. Most fascist states will have an extreme nationalism policy. However, extreme nationalism is not mandatory. States such as Spain under Franco and Chile under Pinochet were indeed fascist states, but they could hardly be described as having a policy of extreme nationalism.
. . .
A totalitarian government is one that seeks to maintain control over all aspects of public and private life by using propaganda, terror, and technology. Totalitarian regimes seek control over political, social, and the culture. However, economic control is left in the hands of a few elites in the fascist state. While the means of economic control is left in the private hands of a few elites, this same group controls the government. In essence the government becomes the tool by which the rich and the corporations maintain control. The distinction is important to note as it separates communism from fascism. In a communist state the control over the economy moves to the inside of government, while in the fascist state it remains in private hands. Dictatorships differ in seeking only limited control over the political environment of a society.
There was only limited government ownership under the Nazis. Prior to the Nazi take over, the German governments took over failing businesses and continued to operate them. When the Nazis took over the government already owned a large number of enterprises. When the Nazis took over they began to privatize many of these businesses, especially the ones that had remained profitable during the depression like the electric utilities.
Once Hitler assured big business that they would be free to continue to operate, they failed to raise any further objections to the Nazis. The large German steel and coal industries especially welcomed the Nazis. Hitler's plans for rearmament meant large contracts for new ships, tanks, etc. Later during the war when a labor shortage appeared, it was Krupp from the German steel industry that first raised the question of using slave labor from the concentration camps. At first the Nazis were reluctant to allow the inmates to be used as slaves as it would slow the progress of the "final solution." However, once Krupp offered to pay for the slaves the Nazis readily agreed and soon there was no shortage of companies seeking slaves.
. . .
Many businesses chose to align with and support the Nazis after they gained power. Krupp and I.G. Faben were both executors' of Goring's Four-Year Plan to make Germany militarily self-sufficient by 1940. One can view the details of Krupp's involvement and support for the Nazis after March 1933 in the documents from the War Crimes Tribunal at Nuremberg.[31] The full set of available documents from Nuremberg is also available on the Internet.[32] By 1939, I.G. Faben provided the Nazis with 90 percent of their foreign exchange, 95 percent of imports, and 85 percent of all military and commercial goods. [colkor=yellow]In 1932, Hermann Schmitz Faben's joint chairman joined forces with Kurt von Schroder, director of a wealthy private bank. Schroder was a fanatical Nazi, often times dressed in his black SS uniform.[/color] Schroder is the man that is closely linked with Chase Bank, Standard Oil and William Teagle, and ITT. In 1932, Schroder and Wilhelm Keppler formed the group known as "The Fraternity." This group guaranteed a source of money to the Gestapo. Members agreed to contribute an average of one million marks a year to Himmler's personally marked "S" account and the transferable secret "R" account of the Gestapo.[27]
In April of 1933, Gustav Krupp sought out a private meeting with Hitler. Krupp agreed to become Hitler's chief fundraiser and chairman of the Adolf Hitler Fund. In return Hitler promised to appoint Krupp as the fuehrer of Germany industry. Over the years, Krupp contributed over six million marks of his own money to the Nazis, and his correspondence shows that he truly enjoyed his job as chairman.[28] Likewise, it is common knowledge that after Hitler was appointed chancellor Krupp greeted people cheerfully with the Heil Hitler salutation.
Schirer writes that in 1931, when Hitler decided to cultivate relationships between influential industrial leaders, he kept their identity a secret.
"The party still had to play both sides of the tracks. The party had to allow Strasser, Goebbels and Feder to beguile the masses with socialist talk and denigrating the industrial magnates."
Some of the meetings were so secretive that they were held in forest glades."[29]
Further proof of the industrialist involvement and support of the Nazis comes from the testimony of Funk at Nuremberg. The entire list implicated by Funk is far too long to reproduce here, but besides Thyssen and Krupp it included Georg von Schnitzler-I.G. Farben, August Rosterg and August Diehn of the potash industry, Cuno of the Hamburg Amerika Line, Otto Wolf, Kurt von Schroder, and many other wealthy industrialists.[30]
On May 2, 1933, the Nazis raided and occupied all trade union headquarters. The leaders were beaten and arrested; some were placed in the concentration camps. Union funds were confiscated and the unions were dissolved. Members of the communist party and the social democrats had already been arrested. On June 20, 1934, in what has become known as the Night of Long Knifes, Hitler purged the socialists within the Nazi party, chief among them Roehm.
With the broad financial support from the leaders of the business community as well as from the military leaders and aristocrats, the Nazis were truly a top down organization, while the Nazis used the lower class as foot soldiers to gain power. They did so in a deceiving manner, and once in power, immediately set about betraying the lower classes
. . .
The extreme anti-communism and anti-socialism stance of the fascist is beyond dispute among honest historians. Both communists and socialists were the first to enter the concentration camps in Nazi Germany. Both Mussolini and Franco fought against communist influence. From the brief survey of the fascist philosophers and extreme anti-liberal stance has been a factor in fascism from the beginning. The Nazi used socialism as a ruse to gain power, but once in power they purged the socialists within their party. The following quotes taken from Mein Kampf will illuminate the anti-communism, anti-parliamentary democracy, and the social darwinism of Hitler.
"Just as in 1918 we paid with our blood for the fact that in 1914 and 1915 we did not proceed to trample the head of Marxist serpent once and for all, we would have to pay most catastrophically if in the spring of 1923 we did not avail ourselves of the opportunity to halt the activity of the Marxist traitors and murders of the nation for good"[41]
"As regards the possibility of putting these ideas into practice, I beg you not to forget that the parliamentary principle of democratic majority rule has by no means always dominated mankind, but to the contrary is to be found only in brief periods of history, which are always epochs of decay of peoples and states."[42]
"The best state constitution and state form is that which, with the most unquestioned certainty, raises the best minds in the national community to leading position and leading influence.
But as in economic life, the able men cannot be appointed from above, but must struggle through for themselves,..."[43]
The second quote certainly is anti-liberal as it shows Hitler's contempt for the democratic process. The last quote reveals Hitler as a social Darwinist of which Turner makes the point in several places in his book.[44] Social Darwinism runs counter to the aims of socialism. In fact it is the antithesis. It allows the elite to gain further power, it willingly discards the poor and the weak as expendables.
. . .
This brings us to the trait of opportunistic ideology of fascism. It is perhaps one of the more confusing aspects of fascism. Mussolini appears to have been indeed a socialist before founding the fascist party. Mussolini likewise went from a pacifist to a rabid warmonger. Clearly such dramatic changes in ideology could only be based in an opportunistic grab for power. Mussolini started supporting a syndicalism economy, but by 1923, with clear objections from business leaders, he concluded the Palazzo Chigi Pact. This pact's main intent was to simplify business relations by making the fascist the sole representative of labor. In 1925, the Plazzo Vidoni agreement was signed. This agreement made Rossoni's union the sole representative of labor. It likewise prohibited the challenging of factory management. By the close of the year, the grateful employer's federation publicly announced adherence to the fascist regime.[48] Such transformations illistrate the opportunistic ideology present in fascism or is it a lack of ideology, as well as further dispeling the myth that fascism is another form of socialism.
Part of the problem with the ever-changing ideology of fascism arises from the divisionism. Strasser was a socialist and it seems that Goebbels was a Marxist. Both were allowed almost free reign in promoting their own economic views as long as it gathered more support of serve Hitler's purpose. But once their views failed to serve Hitler, they were then brow beaten severely. An example of such reversal in party ideology of the Nazis occurred on February 14,1926. Prior to this date, both Strasser and Goebbels had approved of a plebiscite campaign to deprive former royalty of their possessions, a measure, that was popular with the common citizens. On the given date, Hitler summoned both men to a meeting in Bamberg. Before those gathered, Hitler forced both to capitulate and abandon the program.[49] Similar events have already been given, in which various Nazis were initially allowed to promote socialism in efforts to appease the lower classes in an effort to gain their support.
Examples abound throughout the history of the Nazis where they adopted their ideology to suit the audience. In October 1932, Strasser announced a new program that was a stark reversal of the program the Nazis had advocated in July. Higher taxes on the rich had been replaced with a general reduction of taxes, instead of price controls it centered on freeing prices. Instead of protectionism trade policy, export and global trade was now promoted. Likewise, much of the inflammatory rhetoric had been dropped.[50]
Hitler seems to have sensed the explosive nature of economics and tried to avoid the subject both publicly and within the party. From all indications, he was dissatisfied with the party planks on economic matters. The only official stance on economic matters was the 1920 twenty-five point program. However, he only referred to this policy document disparagingly in Mein Kampf and distanced himself from the document.[51] Likewise Hitler would never take an aggressive stance on minor issues, he played to his audience to win their support.
Perhaps the most dramatic evidence of the opportunistic character of the Nazis is illustrated by the actions of thirty-nine businessmen in November 1932. The group contained such notables as Krupp, Thyssen, Bosch, Siemens, and others. In a signed letter to Hindenburg they urged him to appoint Hitler as chancellor. In essence they were placing a bet that the socialism ideology was a fraud and that once in power he would be a tool of capitalist.[52]
The only other reversal in policy that could rival the bet that the leaders of big business made was Hitler's writings. In the first part of Mein Kampf he argued that France was the sworn and greater enemy of Germany. However, the second part to Mein Kampf he reversed course and argued that Russia was the enemy as opposed to the first book in which he proposed an alliance with Russia.[53] This was a complete change in his foreign policy. One can only speculate as to the reasons behind such a switch.
Many writers have tried to label the Nazis as socialists in a folly to distance themselves from fascist theory. They are quick to point to the syndicalism policy as proof of socialist regulation of business. They are in error, of course. Syndicalism is neither left nor right in itself. It can be either, depending upon the political structure. Syndicalism with labor groups or consumers dominating the issues would indeed be socialistic in nature. On the other hand, syndicalism with only industry or business groups dominating is certainly from the right wing of the political spectrum. The issuing of controls or goals over the production of war material by the government in a syndicalism system is neither left nor right, it's simply self-preservation. The goals and controls, including the 4-Year Plan issued by Goring, were nothing more than gearing the economy up for war time production. In essence, they were merely self-preservation measures.
Secondly, they will point toward many of the public works projects that were implemented under the Nazis as examples of socialism. An example of this is the construction of the autobahn, a project that had been planned by previous governments, as were many of the public work projects. They likewise forget that the Nazis took over at the bottom of an economic depression, public work projects were enacted not only in Germany, but in the U. S. as well as a means to end the depression. Many of those projects in the U. S. were the construction of useful infrastructure, such as the building of the high school in New Ulm, Minnesota. Others had a definite commercialism bent to them, such as the construction of Timberline Lodge on Mount Hood in Oregon. Labeling the construction of a facility for a commercial business as socialism is simply fools folly. The same applies to many of the public works projects that were implemented under the Nazis.
Labeling such programs as socialism would be the same as labeling the construction of the interstate highway system as socialism. If the Eisenhower administration had one shinning moment, it was his support for the construction of the freeway system. For those that are silly enough to label such work as socialism, let them be reminded that no other single event, other than the construction of the cross continental railroad aided the development of business. Besides the obvious advantage to shippers, the interstate highway system has spawned many new businesses. Think of the number of motels/hotels as well as the tourist traps, service stations, and others that have grown up along the freeway system. The same applies to Germany and the autobahn.
Finally, the same writers that label fascism as socialism would like their readers to believe that these government regulations and bureaucratic offices held ultimate power. Failure to comply would result in the owners being shot. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Nazis for a large part lived in fear of the leaders of big business. They were aware that they had no comprehensive economic plan and would defer to the judgement of the business leaders.
This point can be driven home with one simple example. Goering was one of the Nazis that had little economic knowledge, but harbored some of the more radical economic ideas and was fond of using regulatory offices. Goering tried first to persuade the steel industry, both the smelters and miners, to use low-grade German ore as opposed to the high-grade Swedish ore. Importation of ore from Sweden would use up precious foreign currency, as well as being a less reliable source in the event of war. The invasions of Denmark and Norway were conducted solely to protect the Nazis shipping routes for the Swedish ore. Most of the industrialists politely refused Goering's request; even under threats of arrest for sabotage, they still declined.[54] None were arrested for refusal. Instead Goering formed the Herman Goering Works to take on the task. By the time of the outbreak of the war it had evolved to be one of the largest companies in Germany.
Farben is another example of the Nazis bowing to the expertise of leading corporations. With the advent of the first 4-Year Plan, they realized they needed the cooperation of business leadership in order to achieve self-sufficiency in a series of raw materials and finished products. Most of which were items would be crucial to wartime production. By the end of the war Farben, had a series of factories around concentration camps, were major users of slave labor, along with Krupp and many other corporations.
But the most damning evidence of the Nazi's unbridled corporatism was evident shortly after passage of the Enabling Act, when Hjalmar Schacht was appointed president of the Reichsbank. Schacht was a brilliant financier who helped negotiate the Dawes Plan and was largely responsible for stabilizing the currency in 1923; he also detested democracy and parliamentarianism. His first official act was the creation of Metall-Forschungsgesellschaft A.G. (Mefo), a dummy corporation of four armament firms. The state assumed the liability for their debts. The Mefo bills were not unlike promissory notes, they were issued to government contractors and could be extended to five years.[55] Such favoritism of business is certainly not socialism. Today in America such corporate aid is labeled as corporate welfare. Note the similarity here not only to the present corporate welfare that's being doled out, but also to Eisenhower's warning of the military-industrial complex. The American military-industrial complex didn't need to invent a new plan, they were simply free to follow the example the Nazis used. In fact fascism is inseparatable from corporatism. You simply cannot have a fascist government without corporations and a capitalistic economy.
Schacht was later appointed to minister of economics in 1934, a post he retained until he resigned in 1937 over policy disputes. He was not an anti-Semitic and was conscious of the negative aspects of the takeover of Jewish business on both the economy and world opinion. By 1936, he was advocating slowing down the rearmament program, fearing the return of inflation.[56] The return of inflation dispenses with the myths that the Nazis maintained strict control of corporations and the prices of goods in short order. In effect, such controls were non-existent. It should also be pointed out here that the economy at this time had taken on considerable shades of a consumer economy.
Italy used their form of syndicalism to eliminate labor unions; the Nazis followed a similar path. The workers benefited little from this unbridled corporatism. Unemployment went from an official figure of six million unemployed in 1933, to 2.7 million in 1937, and by the time of the outbreak of war there was a serious shortage of workers. But growth in wages was far less spectacular, real wages rose only sparingly. The index of wages rose from 92.5 in 1933 to 103 in 1937, an increase of a meager eleven-percent.[57] Much of the increase in wages was achieved only from working longer hours. The only real increases in the plight of the workers came with more unpaid leave. Many of the other benefits produced no real benefits to the worker, such as the factory beautification program.
From looking at the philosophers of fascism, it was revealed that fascism was a reactionary movement. What then was the fascist reacting to that led to the rise of Mussolini and Hitler? Many people responding to the question would simply answer the Treaty of Versailles. But such an answer is only partially correct. It doesn't account for the widespread rise of fascism in many European countries following WWI. In fact, during the period between the two world wars, every government from the Rhine to the Pacific underwent drastic changes. In many of those fascism had ample support but in the end was rejected. Some of the problem can be laid to the beginning dissolution of the British Empire and the arbitrary way in which maps were redrawn following WWI without regard to ethnic or natural barriers. An example would be the cobbled mess of ethnic groups that formed the former republic of Yugoslavia, an area that remains a hot spot today.
. . .
The real appeal of European fascism was the protection it afforded against working class movements, socialism, and communism.[59] Hobsbawm states it even more forcefully in claiming that without the October revolution and Leninism there would have been no need for fascism. For up until that time, the demagogic right, although politically active and noisy in many countries, had been kept in check.[60] The entire Nazi movement was a reactionary movement. The reaction to the Treaty of Versailles is well known and needs no further comment, as is the opposition of fascism to liberalism, socialism and communism. Rather, the following quote will show how complete the reaction was to the events of the time.
"Today Christians... stand at the head of Germany... I pledge that I never will tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity...We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit... We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theater, and in the press- in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past...few years."[61]
The quote above was taken from a speech delivered by Hitler. It provides the illustration that the Nazi movement was completely a reactionary movement, reacting not only to global power politics and the rise of the left, but also to the changes in arts and culture of the time.
. . .
It has been shown beyond any reasonable doubt that Hitler and the Nazis were right wing extremists best described as social darwinists, the antithesis of socialism. It was showed that the Nazis were best described by syndicalism model and that syndicalism is neither socialistic nor capitalistic, inherently. Syndicalism can be either depending upon the makeup; the Nazis were definitely capitalists in that there was no input from labor. All input was reserved for the industrialist. Further, it was shown that the industrialists openly defied Nazi desires in the case of the use of low-grade ores. It was also shown that many of the businesses that was government owned were taken over by the government prior to the Nazis, some dating all the way from the monarchy. Likewise, it was shown that many of the Nazi programs would be classified as corporate welfare today. And it was shown that the real power behind the Nazi movement was the top elitist. This should be sufficient for anyone to dispel the myth that the Nazis were socialist, when in fact they were capitalistic extremists.
In defining fascism, three traits stand above all others, totalitarian, nationalism, and extreme corporatism. In fact, one can not have fascism without corporatism. Other traits of fascism, such as destructive divisionism and the use of violence are secondary. As fascist ideology evolved in the later half of the 20th Century, a happy face was put on fascism by its leaders as they down played the violence and racism. This can be seen best in the far right wing extremist groups currently active in the United States.
Additionally, there is one fact that absolutely places the Nazis and fascism in the extreme right wing portion of the political spectrum, and not the left. No one disputes that a communist revolution attacks the ruling elite of a country. Similarly, socialism and liberalism also attacks the same ruling elite, but the right wing extremists try to claim the opposite. In reality these systems merely seek methods to ease the burden and allow the lower classes to prosper rather than attacking the elite. The Nazis, on the other hand, did not attack the ruling elite of Germany. The rich industrialists were allowed to continue their ways, eased by laws that the Nazis enacted for their benefit. Likewise, the nobility of Germany was supported by the Nazis. In short, the Nazis adopted the ruling elite in Germany and supported them, the exact opposite of what a left leaning political ideology would support.
There is no better proof of the Nazi support for the ruling elite than looking at who supported Hitler in the 1930s in America. Granted, many lower class people were involved in the pro-Hitler movement just as in Germany. But like Germany, it was the rich industrialists that funded these groups. Hearst ordered his newspapers to print pro-Nazi articles. In fact, he had them print the Nazi propaganda directly from Gobbels. Irenee du Pont funded several pro-fascist groups. Henry Ford was well known for his praise of Hitler and funded many pro-Nazis in the 30s. Andrew Mellon and John D. Rockefeller were supporters of Hitler as well. No one is foolish enough to argue that these men were not part of the ruling elite or rich industrialists in America at the time. In fact, support for Hitler among the rich industrialists was rampant.
footnotes:
22. U. S. Firms' Connections to Nazis Detailed, Reuters, 1/14/1999. Appeared in Boston Globe of same date
23. German Big Business and the Rise of Hitler, Henry Ashby Turner, Oxford University Press, 1985.
24. German Big Business, p151-152.
25. German Big Business, p198-200.
26. German Big Business, p159.
27. Trading with the Enemy, Charles Higham, Barnes & Noble, 1983,p131-132.
28. Hitler and His secret Partners, James Pool, Pocket Books,1997, p52-53
29. The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, William Schirer, Fawcett, 1992, p202.
30.The Rise and Fall, p203.
31. http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/nca/nca- ... index.html
32. http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/nca/
41. Mein Kampf, p678.
42. Mein Kampf, p651.
43. Mein Kampf, p449.
44. Big Business &
48. >Fascism, p77.
49. The Rise and Fall, p181. <
50. Big Business, p288.
51. Big Business, p 81
52. Hitler, John Toland, Doubleday, 1976, p276.<
53. Hitler, p221.
54. Fascism, p156.
55.Hitler, p308.
56. Fascism, p155.
57. Fascism, p160.
58. Fascism, p53-54.
59. The Age of Extremes, Eric Hobsbawm, Vintage Books, 1996, p 175.
60. The Age of Extremes, p124.
61. http://www.isrp.org/
73. Fascism and Big Business, Daniel Guerin, Pathfinder, 1973, p208-213
And, as
this extract from the prosecution case presented at the Nuremburg war crimes tribunal outlines the details of the extensive and willing collaboration of Germany's leading industrialists and financial institutions toward Nazi rearmament and war conspiracy:
Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal transcript wrote:Nazi Conspiracy & Aggression
Volume I Chapter VIII
The Economic Aspects of the Conspiracy
(Part 2 of 5)
2. COLLABORATION OF THE INDUSTRIALISTS IN REARMAMENT
Although the Nazi government officials provided the leadership in preparing Germany for war, they received also the enthusiastic and invaluable cooperation of the German industrialists.
On the invitation of Goering, approximately 25 of the leading industrialists of Germany, together with Schacht, attended a meeting in Berlin on 20 February 1933. This was shortly before the German election of 5 March 1933. At this meeting Hitler announced the conspirators' aim to seize totalitarian control over Germany, to destroy the parliamentary system, to crush all opposition by force, and to restore the power of the Wehrmacht. Among those present at that meeting were Gustav Krupp, head of the munitions firm, Alfried Krupp, A.G.; four leading officials of the I. G. Farben Works, one of the world's largest chemical concerns; Albert Vogler, head of United Steel Works of Germany; and other leading industrialists. This meeting is described in the following affidavit of George von Schnitzler:
"I, George von Schnitzler, a member of the Vorstand of I. G. Farben, make the following deposition under oath:
"At the end of February 1933, four members of the Vorstand of I. G. Farben, including Dr. Bosch, the head of the Vorstand, and myself were asked by the office of the President of the Reichstag to attend a meeting in his house, the purpose of which was not given. I do not remember the two other colleagues of mine who were also invited. I believe the invitation reached me during one of my business trips to Berlin. I went to the meeting which was attended by about 20 persons, who I believe were mostly leading industrialists from the Ruhr.
"Among those present I remember: "Dr. Schacht, who at that time was not yet head of the Reichsbank again and not yet Minister of Economics.
"Krupp von Bohlen, who in the beginning of 1933 presided over the Reichsverband der Deutschen Industrie, which-later on was changed into the semi- official organization 'Reichsgruppe Industrie.'
"Dr. Albert Vogler, the leading man of the Vereinigte Stahlwerke.
"Von Lowenfeld from an industrial work in Essen.
"Dr. Stein, head of the Geworkschaft Auguste Victoria, a mine which belongs to the I. G. Dr. Stein was an active member of the Deutsche Volkspartei.
"I remember that Dr. Schacht acted as a kind of host.
"While I had expected the appearance of Goering, Hitler entered the room, shook hands with everybody and took a seat at the top of the table. In a long speech he talked mainly about the danger of communism over which he pretended that he just had won a decisive victory.
"He then talked about the Bundnis -- alliance -- into which his party and the Deutsch Nationale Volkspartei had entered. This latter party, in the meantime, had been reorganized by Herr von Papen. At the end he came to the point which seemed to me the purpose of the meeting. Hitler stressed the importance that the two aforementioned parties should gain the majority in the coming Reichstag election. Krupp von Bohlen thanked Hitler for his speech. After Hitler had left the room, Dr. Schacht proposed to the meeting the raising of an election fund of, as far as I remember, RM 3,000,000. The fund should be distributed between the two 'allies' according to their relative strength at the time being. Dr. Stein suggested that the Deutsche Volksparte should be included ***." (EC-439)
In a speech delivered to the industrialists in Berlin on 20 February 1933, Hitler stated:
"Private enterprise cannot be maintained in the age of democracy; it is conceivable only if the people have a sound idea of authority and personality... I recognized even while in the hospital that one had to search for new ideas conducive to reconstruction. I found them in Nationalism, in the value of strength and power of individual personality.... If one rejects pacifism, one must put a new idea in its place immediately. Everything must be pushed aside, must be replaced by something better.... We must not forget that all the benefits of culture must be introduced more or less with an iron fist, just as once upon a time the farmers were forced to plant potatoes.
"With the very same courage with which we go to work to make up for what had been sinned during the last 14 years, we have withstood all attempts to move us off the right way."
"...We must first gain complete power if we want to crush the other side completely. While still gaining power, one should not start the struggle against the opponent. Only when one knows that one has reached the pinnacle of power, that there is no further possible development, shall one strike...
"...Now we stand before the last election. Regardless of the outcome there will be no retreat, even if the coming election does not bring about a decision....
"The question of restoration of the Wehrmacht will not be decided at Geneva but in Germany, when we have gained internal strength through internal peace." (D-203)
In reply to these statements Goering, who was present at that same meeting, declared:
"That the sacrifice asked for surely would be much easier for industry to bear if it realized that the election of March 5th will surely be the last one for the next ten years, probably even for the next hundred years." (D-203)
In a memorandum dated 22 February 1933, found in the personal files of Gustav Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach, Krupp briefly described this same meeting, and recalled that he had expressed to Hitler the gratitude of the 25 industrialists present. (D-204)
In April 1933, after Hitler had entrenched himself in power, Gustav Krupp, as Chairman of the Reich Association of German Industry, which was the largest association of German industrialists, submitted to Hitler the plan of that association for the reorganization of German industry. In connection therewith Krupp undertook to bring the association into line with the aims of the conspirators, and to make it an effective instrument for the execution of their policies. In a letter of transmittal (D-157), Krupp stated that the plan of reorganization which he submitted on behalf of the association of industrialists, was characterized by the desire to coordinate economic measures and political necessity, adopting the Fuehrer conception of the new German state. In the plan of reorganization itself, Krupp stated:
"The turn of political events is in line with the wishes which I myself and the board of directors have cherished for a long time. In reorganizing the Reich Association of German Industry, I shall be guided by the idea of bringing the new organization into agreement with the political aims of the Reich Government." (D-157)
The ideas of Krupp were subsequently adopted.
Under the decree introducing the leadership principle into industry, each group of industry was required to have a leader who was to serve without compensation. The leaders were to be appointed and could be removed at the discretion of the Minister of Economics. The charter of each group was to be created by the leader, who was obligated to lead his group in accordance with the principles of the National Socialist State (Reichsgesetzblatt, 1934, Part I, 1194, Sec. 11, 12, 16). The introduction of the leadership principle into the organizations of business centralized authority and guaranteed the efficient execution of orders, which the government issued to business, in the effort to promote a war economy.
The overwhelming support given by the German industrialists to the Nazi war program is described in a speech prepared by Gustav Krupp in January 1944, for delivery at the University of Berlin:
"War material is life-saving for one's own people, and whoever works and performs in those spheres can be proud of it. Here, enterprise as a whole, finds its highest justification of existence. This justification, I may inject this here, crystallized especially during the time of interregnum between 1919 and 1933, when Germany was lying down disarmed....
"It is the one great merit of the entire German war economy that it did not remain idle during those bad years, even though its activity could not be brought to light for obvious reasons. Through years of secret work, scientific and basic groundwork was laid in order to be ready again to work for the German armed forces at the appointed hour without loss of time or experience.
*******
"Only through the secret activity of German enterprise together with the experience gained meanwhile through production of peacetime goods, was it possible, after 1933, to fall into step with the new tasks arrived at, restoring Germany's military power. Only through all that could the entirely new and various problems, brought up be the Fuehrer's Four-Year Plan for German enterprise, be mastered. It was necessary to supply raw materials, to explore and experiment, to invest capital in order to make German economy independent and strong- in short, to make it war-worthy.
*******
"I think I may state here that the German enterprises followed the new ways enthusiastically, that they made the great intentions of the Fuehrer their own by fair competition and conscious gratitude, and became his faithful followers. How else could the tasks between 1933 and 1939, and especially after 1939, have been overcome?"
As the
United States Strategic Bombing Survey of 1946 points out:
Study of German war production data as well as interrogation of those who were in charge of rearmament at the time, leaves no doubt that until the defeat at Moscow German industry was incompletely mobilized and that in fact Germany did not foresee the need for full economic mobilization. German arms production during 1940 and 1941 was generally below that of Britain. When the full meaning of the reverses at Moscow became apparent the German leaders called for all-out production. The conquests of the previous years had greatly strengthened Germany's economy; with the exception of oil and rubber, supplies of virtually all the previously scarce imported materials were or had become accessible. Great reserves of foreign labor only awaited voluntary or forced recruitment. The industrial plant of France, the Low Countries, Poland and Czechoslovakia had been added to that of Germany. After the defeat at Moscow early in 1942, armament production increased rapidly. However, such increase was more the result of improvements in industrial efficiency than of general economic mobilization. Studies of German manpower utilization show that throughout the war a great deal of German industry was on a single shift basis, relatively few German women (less than in the first war) were drawn into industry and the average work week was below British standards.
Germany's early commitment to the doctrine of the short war was a continuing handicap; neither plans nor state of mind were adjusted to the idea of a long war. Nearly all German sources agree that the hope for a quick victory lasted long after the short war became a long one. Germany's armament minister Albert Speer, who assumed office in early 1942, rationalized German war production and eliminated the worst inefficiencies in the previous controls. A threefold increase in armament production occurred under his direction but the increase cannot be considered a testament to the efficiency of dictatorship. Rather it suggests the degree of industrial undermobilization in the earlier years. An excellent case can be made that throughout the war top government management in Germany was not efficient.
Because the German economy through most of the war was substantially undermobilized, it was resilient under air attack. Civilian consumption was high during the early years of the war and inventories both in trade channels and consumers' possession were also high. These helped cushion the people of the German cities from the effects of bombing. Plant and machinery were plentiful and incompletely used. Thus it was comparatively easy to substitute unused or partly used machinery for that which was destroyed. While there was constant pressure throughout for German manpower for the Wehrmacht, the industrial labor supply, as augmented by foreign labor, was sufficient to permit the diversion of large numbers to the repair of bomb damage or the clearance of debris with relatively small sacrifice of essential production.
War mobilisation of the economy did not even begin in earnest until 1942, proceeded sluggishly at best, and only from June 1944 did Albert Speer have the mechanisms of coordinated production of army munitions production, aircraft and naval construction in his hands. Even then, the Nazi state never achieved the sort of command economy geared toward total war production which had been instituted by the victorious Allies from 1940-41. The only sector of the economy which was under any sort of total state control was the slave-labour and extermination industries of the camp system under control of the SS —which functioned as a "state within a state" and contributed nothing whatsoever to the German war effort except on ideological and eugenics grounds.
?