Was the cost of hitler being in govermnet for four years worth it ?
What was the actual cost ?
An economic probklems moving towards inflation , the miracle was based not on cash from exports , consumer products were limited.
Little cash being earned , it would not last, it could not last.

A goverment which had declared a state of national emergency and had taken a law which was in place to protect Germans and used it to deny them all other political representation , democracy died at the hands of the National Socialist Workers Party.
This alone is too high a price to pay , all power was centred on Adolf Hitler , one man who directed the nation as he felt it should be directed.
All the major professions were taken over by the party , the individual no longer mattered , their right to self expression and to have a say in how theier country was run was lost.
The medical and legal systems were no longer independent , they served the Party first at the expense of the citizen.

I have trouble enough with many political people today and looking back the price asked for this military resurgence and national rebirth in the model of the Nazi party was too high to ask.
Before I am again branded as a :jew: , let me say I am not nor am I a communist or of " left wing" views. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Was the cost of hitler being in govermnet for four years worth

He was in for a little over 12.

Was the cost of hitler being in govermnet for four years worth it ?
What was the actual cost ?
An economic probklems moving towards inflation , the miracle was based not on cash from exports , consumer products were limited.
Little cash being earned , it would not last, it could not last.

A goverment which had declared a state of national emergency and had taken a law which was in place to protect Germans and used it to deny them all other political representation , democracy died at the hands of the National Socialist Workers Party.

Who cares about democracy, especially the Weimar brand?

Democracy was on the way out in Germany anyway, thx to pressure from both the left and right, as well as the center. Only the SPD fought to preserve Weimar democracy.

Older relatives of mine who spent time in Germany found it to be in control, and a great place. The Nazis saved Germany from Thalmann's Communists.

Was looking from 33-37 as per the speech only , take your point of 33-45.
As far as who cares about the loss of all individual rights , do you really think it was worth it when you look at what the german people endured and what Hitler visited on Europe.
Hitler and Stalin , a Janus figure of twins in evil.

Where did you read this garbage, cerberus? Is this more of Shirer's bilge? I have read specialised studies of the economic history of the Third Reich. I can always go to the library and demonstrate how Shirer's anti-Nazi bias led him to lie about National Socialist economics.

Older relatives of mine who spent time in Germany found it to be in control, and a great place. The Nazis saved Germany from Thalmann's Communists.
With National Socialism, yes. If there was any ideology the Nazis hated more than Marxism, it was Liberalism - the "classical" variety included.

Where did you read this garbage, cerberus? Is this more of Shirer's bilge? I have read specialised studies of the economic history of the Third Reich. I can always go to the library and demonstrate how Shirer's anti-Nazi bias led him to lie about National Socialist economics.

What is the best book on the subject of NS economics? I've always been fascinated by the subject in that National Socialism illustrates that laissez-faire is not the economic system most consistent with a nationalist worldview.

From what I know about it, one of the long term goals of NS policy was to eliminate speculation and absentee ownership (by phasing out the stock exchange) so that all property were either in the hands of individuals (farmers, aristocrat landowners, entrepreneurs) or under direct state control. I don't believe that this goal was ever achieved, nor was the original NS program of nationalizing all banks implemented either.

By all accounts, National Socialism was a "mixed" economy with a prominent public sector and significant state regulation (price controls, etc) on larger industries, particularly during wartime. The post-Weimar recovery was due to Keynesian deficit spending by the state, which "classical" economists predicted would lead to even greater hyperinflation. In fact, that was not the case because production rapidly followed the increased demand as a consequence of spending, while the German currency grew in value as a result of an NS trade policy of direct barter for foreign goods.

What is the best book on the subject of NS economics? I've always been fascinated by the subject in that National Socialism illustrates that laissez-faire is not the economic system most consistent with a nationalist worldview.
Its been several years since I have studied this subject (when I was a business major) but the book I am recalling here is Arthur Schweitzer's Big Business in the Third Reich. There are several more books I recall browsing through about economics in the Third Reich as well, although I do not recall their names. Myself and LaundryBob had planned to write an essay about this a few years ago in response to Sulla the Dictator but never got around to it. Actually, I will go pick that up this evening and post excerpts out of it. I distinctly remember this book because Schweitzer explains how Shirer's anti-Nazi bias led him to systematically distort the statistics he used in Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, which have been quoted by anti-Nazi historians ever since.

The topic of NS economic policy has also interested me. However, people are reluctant to talk about it and literature about it is scarce. I just discovered that the book you mentioned, Fade, (Big Business) is available at my University Library, so I'm going to check it out as soon as my library card arrives.

There are some other books about this subject that I've found and thought sounded interesting (though I haven't read any of them). They are the last three of the list: http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=5044. I will post more about this after I read it (which may take a while).

I am currently at the library checking out sources in order to make a comprehensive rebuttal to cerberus. Here are the sources I have found:

The Nazi Economic Recovery, 1932-1938 2nd ed. (1996)
by R.J. Overy

Nazi Economics: Ideology, Theory, and Policy (1990)
by Avraham Barkai

Hitler's Economy: Nazi Work Creation Programs, 1933-1936 (1998)
by Dan P. Silverman

Statistics and the German State 1900-1945 (2001)
J. Adam Tooze

Big Business in the Third Reich (1964)
by Arthur Schweitzer

War and Economy in the Third Reich (1994)
by R.J. Overy

Fade... ah NeoNietzsche himself here has acknowledged nazi economic policy was unsustainable in the long term and geared toward a quick military buildup.


From what I know about it, one of the long term goals of NS policy was to eliminate speculation and absentee ownership (by phasing out the stock exchange) so that all property were either in the hands of individuals (farmers, aristocrat landowners, entrepreneurs) or under direct state control. I don't believe that this goal was ever achieved, nor was the original NS program of nationalizing all banks implemented either.

The nazi party favored big industrial cartels against small bidness. Eliminating absentee ownership would have utterly alienated the officer class.

:: Fade... ah NeoNietzsche himself here has acknowledged nazi economic policy was unsustainable in the long term and geared toward a quick military buildup.

I have heard a lot of tripe from libertarian economic theorists and anti-Nazi historians myself about the 'unsustainability' of the National Socialist economy, specifically, that it was 'inflationary' (when that was actually Weimar) and 'geared toward a quick military buildup' (which also began under Weimar). It does not hash well with the more specialised literature on the subject, as I shall demonstrate.

:: Fade... ah NeoNietzsche himself here has acknowledged nazi economic policy was unsustainable in the long term and geared toward a quick military buildup.

I have heard a lot of tripe from libertarian economic theorists and anti-Nazi historians myself about the 'unsustainability' of the National Socialist economy, specifically, that it was 'inflationary' (when that was actually Weimar) and 'geared toward a quick military buildup' (which also began under Weimar). It does not hash well with the more specialised literature on the subject, as I shall demonstrate.
Would you dismiss Schact so quickly?

The Weimar inflation was due to wholesale printing of money to pay for the reperations imposed by Versailles. The Weimar inflation crisis ended before Hitler came to power, largescale unemployment was the big economic problem when Hitler became Chancellor. He solved it by huge Keynesian spending but that doesn't last forever. Hitler was aware of this and told by Schact, but he told Schact not to pursue the topic because he( not all that secretly given the nazis public statements) intended war no later then 1943.

:: Would you dismiss Schact so quickly?

He was not committed to the new government.

:: The Weimar inflation was due to wholesale printing of money to pay for the reperations imposed by Versailles.

Yes. Hyperinflation was a notorious problem under Weimar, not National Socialist Germany, which was rather conservative in terms of economic policy.

:: The Weimar inflation crisis ended before Hitler came to power, largescale unemployment was the big economic problem when Hitler became Chancellor.

Hitler's economic policy solved the unemployment problem as well. Anti-Nazi economic historians motivated by prejudice against National Socialism have been extremely reluctant to credit the economic accomplishments of Hitler and his party.

:: He solved it by huge Keynesian spending but that doesn't last forever.

I hear libertarian economists say things like this all the time. That's funny. I cannot think of a single major economy in the world that does not significantly interfere in its economy. The U.S. has been exporting its inflation for years now abroad.

:: Hitler was aware of this and told by Schact, but he told Schact not to pursue the topic because he( not all that secretly given the nazis public statements) intended war no later then 1943.

A war against who?

I lost my first reply to cerberus. I will rewrite it in just a second.

Some info on Shirer's ignorance of Third Reich economics:

"In his recent study of the political system of the Nazis, Mr. William Shirer tells us that "the Nazi revolution was political, not economic," that the Nazi period was characterized by a war economy from the beginning to the end. It would seem, however, that Mr. Shirer did not examine the economic documents. In doing so, one not only discovers the economic counterrevolution and its struggle with a reinvigorated capitalism but one is forced to the conclusion that the Nazi party did not determine military and economic policies in the first phase of the regime. If this is a correct view, and the reader is invited to examine the evidence given in the following chapters, then there must have existed during the early years, a kind of partial fascism in which big business and the generals functioned as equal partners in power."

Arthur Schweitzer, Big Business in the Third Reich (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1964), p.6

Here is the preface to Dan P. Silverman's Hitler's Economy: Nazi Work Creation Programs, 1933-1936 (1998). I went to the library and picked this up earlier this evening. More from the intro and conclusion will be posted later if requested:

Preface

Hitler's rapid reconquest of unemployment, a fear more brilliant than any of his later Blitzkrieg victories on the battlefield, constituted National Socialism's strongest claim to legitimacy. When Hitler came to power on January 30, 1933, official labour market statistics counted over six million German workers -- about 34 percent of the labour force -- as jobless. Hitler reduced unemployment by over one-third during his first year in power. Within eighteen months, unemployment has been cut by 60 percent. One is inclined to agree with economist Gerhard Kroll's observation that "a reduction of unemployment by a third in one year borders on the miraculous." Economics is not religion; "miracles" have to be explained. How did the National Socialists, who had little respect for traditional economic expertise, bring off this Wirtschaftswunder and put Germany back to work? How did a system now generally regarded as brutal, barbaric, and chaotic apparently conquer unemployment so effectively and efficiently, before the rearmament program took hold of the German economy?

The Nazi Third Reich continues to attract attention in large measure because, in the minds of many, it represents the incarnation of evil. Viewed from this perspective, German National Socialism had nothing positive to offer -- it was nothing but mindless brutality of the worst order. But there is another side of this story. Coming to power less than fourteen years after Germany had been humiliated by the Treaty of Versailles and at a time when over a third of Germany's active labour force was unemployed, Hitler and the Nazis supposedly restored to the German people their work, their bread, and their national dignity.

Nazi leaders always claimed that outsiders misrepresented and distorted the essence of German National Socialism by their preoccupation with terror and violence that seemed to accompany every Nazi policy or program. In 1934, for example, Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda wizard, criticized the picture of Nazi Germany presented to the world by "Marxist emigrants." Among these "unteachables," cautioned Goebbels, German National Socialism "is still regarded as a form of intellectual barbarism, its constructive ideas as products of an over-heated fantasy, its methods of reconstruction as sheer brutality, its intellectual background as a menace to culture, and its striving for order and discipline as a threat to individual liberty."

Today, most of us would agree that the "Marxist emigrants" and countless others who left their German homeland during the 1930s understood only too well the nature of the regime that had taken power on January 33, 1933. But a question remains unanswered. Could a pack of barbarians have engineered the most effective economic recovery among the industrialised nations during the 1930s? Would such uncivilised leaders not have destroyed any "spontaneous" recovery that might have been in progress when Hitler took power? If the Nazis did contribute significantly to Germany's rapid recovery, was success achieved simply through a combination of rearmament and the barbaric application of coercive measures? Or did a new and potentially fruitful, culturally nourishing political and socioeconomic movement rejuvenate Germany's economy before somehow going off the track?

Historians have attributed Germany's miraculous 1933-1936 economic recovery to a combination of an economic upturn that had begun before Hitler came to power, public expeditures on rearmament and work creation, a highly effective propaganda campaign that created the impression of a successful Nazi "battle for work," and Nazi manipulation of labour market statistics. The role of direct work creation programs in the recovery has never been rigourously assessed. Work creation is written off as nothing more than hidden rearmament. Among the thousands of published works on National Socialist Germany, there exists few archive-based studies of Nazi economic policy and programs between 1933 and 1936. Perhaps historians assumed that since Hitler was only interested in preparing Germany for war, there was little need for a close examination of Nazi economic programs prior to the Four Year Plan of 1936. In contrast, this study presumes that, even if rearmament was Hitler's only "economic" goal, the years prior to 1936 were years of relatively modest rearmament expenditure and need to be studied from the point of view of work creation policy rather than rearmament policy.

General works on German economic policy during the National Socialist era generally focus on the "rearmament economy" or the "war economy." The handful of works on Reich economic recovery policies and work creation programs (e.g., the Papen program, the Gereke Sofortprogramm, the Reinhardt program) tend to deal in a static fashion only with the theory or administrative structure of these programs. Only a few local case studies provide some insight into the manner in which the Hitler government, governments of the Länder and Prussian provinces, and municipal officials actually implemented economic recovery programs.

Nazi direct work creation programs are my focal point. Based on extensive research in national, regional, and local archives, this book examines the conception and implementation of Reich, regional, and local work creation programs. I evaluate the validity of Nazi labour market statistics, emphasize the importance of regional and local initiative, and compare the Nazi economic achievement -- the so-called economic miracle -- with recoveries in Britain and the United States during the 1930s.

The aim of this work is to enhance the historical record in Nazi economic policy and to provide at least partial answers to some important questions for which answers are long overdue. How and why did Germany's recovery during the first three years of the Nazi regime outstrip the economic rebound in other industrial nations such as Great Britain and the United States? At what financial and human cost was Germany's rapid economic recovery achieved between 1933 and 1936, and who paid the price? Was economic recovery itself tainted with the same brutality that characterised other aspects of the National Socialist regime? To answer these questions, I examine and evaluate various explanations of Germany's economic recovery. I reassess the importance of rearmament and "motorization" in Germany's economy, hotly debated issues over the years, in the context of the historical record. My aim in the process is to contribute to our understanding of the internal dynamics of the Nazi regime in the early years of the Third Reich."

Dan P. Silverman, Hitler's Economy: Nazi Work Creation Programs, 1933-1936 (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1998), p.vii-ix

Hitler's economic policy solved the unemployment problem as well. Anti-Nazi economic historians motivated by prejudice against National Socialism have been extremely reluctant to credit the economic accomplishments of Hitler and his party.

I actually grew up with the conventional view that Hitler had accomplished an economic miracle in Germany. I had no idea as a kid how quickly he was pushing the state toward bankruptcy, Schadt( he was loyal enough till he realized Hitler's intentions...) backs me up on this.

A war against who?

Ideally for Hitler a simple Drang Nach Osten war against the Soviet Union alone( would be a good thing if neither side could win decisively on their own) but Hitler knew enough he'd probably have to knock out France 1st( which would not allow Germany to have a secure Eastern border) ergo therefore also drawing in the British because to attack France would mean invading Belgium which the British consistently have shown they will not tolerate from any continental power.

:: I actually grew up with the conventional view that Hitler had accomplished an economic miracle in Germany.

Silverman makes note in his introduction (which I shall shortly post) how libertarian economists and anti-Nazi historians have given an inaccurate and poorly researched portrait of NS economics based upon their own prejudices. He thoroughly documents this argument as well with archive-based research.

:: I had no idea as a kid how quickly he was pushing the state toward bankruptcy, Schadt( he was loyal enough till he realized Hitler's intentions...) backs me up on this.

That is a load of bull****. But anyway, I have checked out more than enough sources to debunk that myth in detail once and for all. So stay tuned.

:: Ideally for Hitler a simple Drang Nach Osten war against the Soviet Union alone( would be a good thing if neither side could win decisively on their own) but Hitler knew enough he'd probably have to knock out France 1st( which would not allow Germany to have a secure Eastern border) ergo therefore also drawing in the British because to attack France would mean invading Belgium which the British consistently have shown they will not tolerate from any continental power.

1.) Hitler sought an alliance with the British, which he mentions both in Mein Kampf and his unpublished foreign policy book written in the late 1920s. He was an Anglophile. This is well-known.
2.) Hitler's goal was to isolate France (because France had constructed a system of anti-German alliances in order to hold Germany down). France only RELUCTANTLY entered the war, as Robert O. Paxton has shown in his history of Vichy France, at Britain's urging. It was not Hitler's intention at all to start a war with the West, which he wanted to avoid, as it was his goal to: A.) settle the Eastern territorial question B.) fight the Jews and C.) destroy Bolshevism (which was only kept afloat by Western capitalism).

It was not Hitler's intention at all to start a war with the West, which he wanted to avoid

Ah Hitler was ANGRY after the Munich conference because he thought he was cheated out of war.

B.) fight the Jews

How can he do this without overruning where they live and killing them?

:: Ah Hitler was ANGRY after the Munich conference because he thought he was cheated out of war.

Source?

:: How can he do this without overruning where they live and killing them?

Expelling them does not work. They have been expelled from almost every European country at some time or another. They only return to suck and infest again in the future. But what should it matter to you anyway? You constantly apologise for each and every destructive act or movement they are responsible for to instead blame some vague and nebulous entity known as 'the Left'.

source?If you are willing to believe anything from a jew...


Strangely enough, all of the eyewitness to the Munich Conference concurred that far from triumphant, Hitler was morose. He had wanted war, which he regarded as indispensable to the realizations of his ambitions. He probably needed it for psychological reasons as well; nearly all of his public utterances, which he viewed as the most vital aspects of his public life, related in one way or another to his wartime experiences. Even though Hitler's generals strongly opposed war- to the point of fitfully planning to overthrow him should he make a final decision to attack- Hitler left Munich with the sense of having been cheated. And, by his own inverted reasoning, he may have well been right. For had he managed to contrive a war over Czechslovakia, it is doubtful the Democracies could have sustained the sacrifices nessecary to win it. The issue was too incompatible with the principle of self-determination, and public opinion was not sufficiently prepared for the almost certain initial reverses of such a war.Henry Kissinger, Diplomacy, pg 315.

You constantly apologise for each and every destructive act or movement they are responsible for to instead blame some vague and nebulous entity known as 'the Left'.
What is so vague about it, its trial lawyers, government unions, stupid hippie college kids, the AARP... I think you know who all the pressure groups are. Jews tend to be on it( less so then in the past) but I don't see how this justify

A) Identifying the whole movement as some kind of jewish army

B) Grouping the jews as a whole into the movement.

Would you dismiss Schact so quickly?

The Weimar inflation was due to wholesale printing of money to pay for the reperations imposed by Versailles. The Weimar inflation crisis ended before Hitler came to power, largescale unemployment was the big economic problem when Hitler became Chancellor. He solved it by huge Keynesian spending but that doesn't last forever. Hitler was aware of this and told by Schact, but he told Schact not to pursue the topic because he( not all that secretly given the nazis public statements) intended war no later then 1943.

I would "dismiss" Schacht because if the NS leaders had listened to his classical liberal dogmas, Germany would have remained in Weimar stagflation. Like most laissez-faire dogmatists, Schacht believed that the depression would fix itself in the long run if left on its own, and the best way to expidite the process is to cut spending and raise interest rates (in other words, take money out of the economy to lower production). The Keynesian solution was to increase demand, a strategy which is tenable in the short run because the greater purchasing power of the public compensates for the (short-term) devalued newly-printed currency.

That such a strategy is not "sustainable" in the long run is a moot point, it is not meant to be a long-term policy, but rather a means of dealing with an economic emergency. Too many economists were brainwashed by old, outmoded paradigms to think outside the box and make the distinction between short-term non-equilibria and long-term strategies.

:: If you are willing to believe anything from a jew...

What are his sources?

:: What is so vague about it, its trial lawyers, government unions, stupid hippie college kids, the AARP...

Really?

Jews are not just liberal; they are essential to American liberalism, and have been for a century. The first president of the American Federation of Labor was a Jew, immigrant cigar-maker Samuel Gompers. The first president of the National Organization for Women was a Jew, author-activist Betty Friedan. The first socialists ever elected to Congress were Jews, Milwaukee journalist Victor Berger and New York attorney Meyer London. (So is the only self-declared Socialist in today's Congress, Vermont independent Bernard Sanders.) Close to half the young whites who went South as civil rights workers duing the 1960s were Jews, by most estimates. Two of the most influential liberal activist groups of the post-Vietnam War era were founded by Jews, Human Rights Watch/Helsinki Watch, founded by New York publisher Robert Bernstein, and People for the American Way, founded by Los Angeles television producer Norman Lear.

Even the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People took shape in the home of a Jew, retired Columbia University literature professor Joel Spingarn, who hosted the organization's pivotal 1915 Amenia Conference at his estate outside New York City. An NAACP leader since its founding in 1909, head of its militant faction, and the main ally of black theorist W.E.B. DuBois, Spingarn was elected NAACP board chairman in 1915, then served as president from 1929 until his death in 1939. He was succeded by his brother Arthur, who was in turn succeeded in 1966 by Boston businessman Kivie Kaplan, who served until 1975, when the NAACP elected its first black president.

The careers of individual Jewish liberals tell only part of the story. For at least a half-century, the organized Jewish community has played a decisive role in advancing America's evolving liberal agenda of tolerance and fair play. A formal alliance of Jewish and black organizations orchestrated the post-Second World War civil rights campaign that led to equal-rights laws in dozens of states, and finally to the federal Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts of the mid-1960s. The major Jewish organizations spearheaded the long campaign for immigration reform, ending with the abolition of racial quotas in 1965. Jewish organizations, working with a wide coalition of civic groups and Christian churches, did much to create the current legal consensus on religious freedom and church-state separation.

Finally, in a nation where political campaigns are privately funded, an estimated one fourth to one half of all Democratic Party campaign funds are donated or raised by Jews.

J.J. Goldberg, Jewish Power: Inside the American Jewish Establishment, pp.23-24

:: I think you know who all the pressure groups are.

I have seen mainstream Jewish organisations and Jewish authors openly take credit for the changes that have taken place in the last several decades in the U.S, from immigration (because organised American Jewry blamed America's immigration laws for 'The Holocaust') to the so-called Civil Rights Movement (because discrimination against Negroes could, OMFG, turn into anti-Semitism and thus Auschwitz II).

:: Jews tend to be on it( less so then in the past) but I don't see how this justify

That is bull****. They are far more destructive today than they were just several decades ago for two reasons A.) they are not as inhibited B.) resistance has diminished over time.

:: A) Identifying the whole movement as some kind of jewish army

No one has suggested that Jews are of unanimous political and cultural viewpoints, only that a segment of Jews are responsible (in that they have played the decisive and critical role) in several destructive anti-white political and cultural movements in recent years, in both America and Europe, in the name of 'fighting anti-Semitism' because it is 'good for the Jews'. Their MOTIVE was to benefit one group, THE JEWS, at the expense of others, GENTILES, simply put. These Jews have been so destructive that we desire to rid ourselves (if not the entire planet) of their entire presence forever.

:: B) Grouping the jews as a whole into the movement.

It does not bother me in the slightest that it is some Jews as opposed to all Jews that are responsible for the damage that has been inflicted over the past several decades. That is utterly irrelevant. The only thing that concerns me is that A.) such damage has been done by Jews and B.) the motive for this was ethnic in origin (e.g., that by 'fighting anti-Semitism' the result would be 'good for the Jews'.)

The chapter titled "The German Way" in James Burnham's The Managerial State has a very good chapter on National Socialist economics. It's too long to transcribe by hand, if I can find an online version anywhere I will see if I can link to it.

Burnham considers German National Socialism the most successful implementation of the "managerial state" economic alternative to laissez-faire capitalism (the other examples being New Deal America and Soviet Communism), pointing out that in spite of all classical economic predictions of state bankruptcy and inflation in Nazi Germany, their economy continued to grow, a clear sign that a new paradigm (as advanced by Burnham) had to be advanced to understand the process at hand. Most importantly, the success of the NS economy proved that the economic "laws" of which classical political economists are so enamoured are strictly a social function of particular, now outdated institutions, and that there is no more "permanence" to laissez-faire institutions than to feudal ones.

Jews are not just liberal; they are essential to American liberalism, and have been for a century. The first president of the American Federation of Labor was a Jew, immigrant cigar-maker Samuel Gompers.

I would think white racialist would have liked Samuel Gompers, he lobbied heavily for restricting immigration Vdare (http://www.vdare.com/misc/nelsen_pbs_debate.htm). The unions became a real problem with the New Deal when they got all the special legislation protecting them.

The first president of the National Organization for Women was a Jew, author-activist Betty Friedan. The first socialists ever elected to Congress were Jews, Milwaukee journalist Victor Berger and New York attorney Meyer London. (So is the only self-declared Socialist in today's Congress, Vermont independent Bernard Sanders.) Close to half the young whites who went South as civil rights workers duing the 1960s were Jews, by most estimates. Two of the most influential liberal activist groups of the post-Vietnam War era were founded by Jews, Human Rights Watch/Helsinki Watch, founded by New York publisher Robert Bernstein, and People for the American Way, founded by Los Angeles television producer Norman Lear.

Even the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People took shape in the home of a Jew, retired Columbia University literature professor Joel Spingarn, who hosted the organization's pivotal 1915 Amenia Conference at his estate outside New York City. An NAACP leader since its founding in 1909, head of its militant faction, and the main ally of black theorist W.E.B. DuBois, Spingarn was elected NAACP board chairman in 1915, then served as president from 1929 until his death in 1939. He was succeded by his brother Arthur, who was in turn succeeded in 1966 by Boston businessman Kivie Kaplan, who served until 1975, when the NAACP elected its first black president.

I don't really dispute this, but only in the( rather odious ill admit) case of feminism did jews( jewish women in this case, and btw my sentiments towards jewish women both as a group and as individuals ive dealt with is in contrast to the men pretty negative... with a couple of notable exceptions) play a causal role in the success of the movement. The odious effects of the NAACP and its related movements( forced busing... Arthur Garrity doesn't live all that far from me..., affirmitive action, Federal intrusion into private business to make sure they didn't "discriminate" came via executive orders and court rulings issued by non jews).

Nor do I see them as capable of all that much organization except against what they universally agree as a threat.

It does not bother me in the slightest that it is some Jews as opposed to all Jews that are responsible for the damage that has been inflicted over the past several decades. That is utterly irrelevant. The only thing that concerns me is that A.) such damage has been done by Jews and B.) the motive for this was ethnic in origin (e.g., that by 'fighting anti-Semitism' the result would be 'good for the Jews'.)

The only political actions that can be cleary abscribed to an ethnic motive among jews is desire to repress anything that they identify with Hitler...

Also the leftist agitators among them can be easily seperated from the rest( its not hard to spot a leftist like it is for example to tell a fundi muslim from a non fundi, leftist are not good at keeping their mouth shut) so I see no need to slaughter the innocent along with the guilty.

AntiYuppie:

George Orwell's essay "James Burnham and the Managerial Revolution" (http://www.k-1.com/Orwell/site/work/essays/burnham.html) (New English Weekly, May 1946) quotes and comments upon the chapter you mention.

I think it is worth pointing out that Jews did not invent liberalism, anymore than they invented countless other 'isms' over which they now wield ideological hegemony. Jews tend neither to create nor to invent, it seems; but they are masters at co-opting and perverting any given doctrine to suit their ethnic ends. A close examination of conservatism and capitalism will reveal that these dogmas are every bit as infiltrated, dominated, and co-opted by Jews as liberalism or socialism.

It seems to be ( as usual) two conflicting view points and stuck in the middle ( as usual) the Jews , who are playing the "chosen people" role again . i.e. they are to blame or would have been to blame had WW2 not intervened.

Either historians like Ian Kershaw & Richard Overy have got it all wrong and to be so wrong must have got it wrong deliberately so or Germany was well on the raod to better times with no problems on the horizons. ( Save those placed there by the Jews ;) ).

If things were so sound on the economic front why did Goebbels and Goring make note of their fears for the economy , Kershaw was able to quote from JG's diary and from minutes of meetings presided over by the Reichsmarshall.
The sacked Director of the Reischbank and the other prominent officals who signed a letter to Hitler voicing their concerns for the future direction of money matters , were they too wrong ?
Some have said that he had lost faith in the goverment or that he had been insurbordinate this serves only to try and discredit and to cement Hitler's position as a man who could rise above such minor problems.
This letter outlining that serious problems lay ahead and that action would have to be taken now if ruin was to be avoided. The man was only doing his job , he was being attentive to the national interest and though so strongly that he had to put it in writing , he was backed by a number of co-signatures within the Reichsbank.
This cannot be ignored or explained away , it clear evidence that those at the heart of the national reserves had major concerns that Germany wsa being run into ruin.
A temp. measure was to impose price controls , this would only last in the short term and can be viewed as littl more than the boy puting his finger in the dyke wall , sooner or later these measures would fail.

Why did Hitler order in early 1939 a reduction in spending by the Wehrmacht , who responded by ignoring the instruction !
By the spring of 1939 it was increasingly clear that war would be the outcome of Germanys increased pressure on her neighbours with the occupation of the remainder of the Czech. state and the demands being made on Poland.
When Hitler ordered that the Army should cut its spending , he did so because he was worried , he did not expect war , so the army could do with less in the short term.

It does also beg the question in that as far as medical and social care for the mentally ill and handicaped went , did Hitler see it as a waste of money , money that could be " better spent" , i.e. no chronically ill population = more cash for other projects.

Now there must be something wrong somewhere and to both Otto von B. and I it seems strange that so many people thought it of such concern that they should make note of it , did they just imagine it .
Hitlers response was quite typical , " I don't want to hear this so I am ignoring it , wait a minute you are sacked. There I have done something about the problem".

Kershaw also noted something in Hitlers approach to domestic problems what he describes as a " panacea approach" , "It will be settled after the war" , even problems like agricultural out put which was in serious difficulties.
Well he did take steps to solve it , slave labour and widespread theft of domestic output from the occupied nations.

On what grounds do you discount Schacht's letter and why was he sacked for doing his job.
To my reasoning there would be no grounds for the sacking , had he done nothing and carried on as Hitler did , there would be reason for sacking him.

Where did you read this garbage, cerberus? Is this more of Shirer's bilge? I have read specialised studies of the economic history of the Third Reich. I can always go to the library and demonstrate how Shirer's anti-Nazi bias led him to lie about National Socialist economics.

If Americans, indeed Europeans, would hear the unvarnished truth of the NS program they would certainly view it in a different light.

NS has never had a fair hearing in the West, since the tribe controls the media, at least in the U.S.

With our folk facing a disaster it would appear that only NS holds out any hope of saving us.

The only thing that concerns me is that A.) such damage has been done by Jews and B.) the motive for this was ethnic in origin (e.g., that by 'fighting anti-Semitism' the result would be 'good for the Jews'.)

The Jew is a hive creature.

They swarm.

We of the West have always thought as individuals, as MacDonald stated it is this that is our weakness, our individual strategies are defeated by the group strategy of the Jew

Don't what tese last few post have to do with 1930's Germany.
The Jews did not run Germany's money matters in the 1930's, no doubt had things run their course and WW2 not kicked off they would have been blamed.
WW2 , is downsized to a war in Europe to accomadate the accepted view that GB and France actually started it , does 22/6/41 count as the real start date of WW2 , or is it when Hitler declared war on America on 8/12/41 ?
Either way I think it best to keep on track , Germany 1930's.

Back from partying this weekend. I will reply to this thread and the other one this evening.

Fade you lucky B******. A weekend partying :mad:
The world is ill divided, some of us have to work :eek: