- Joined
- Oct 30, 2021
- Messages
- 33,717
- Reaction score
- 35,479
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Oddly, the US switched radically from Republicans to FDR because of the Great Republican Depression; and Germans switched from their democratic system to Hitler's fascism primarily for the same reason.
Hitler, Mussolini, and FDR had a lot in common:
I can't agree with your post. Germany had democracy established, which is what's relevant. Hitler's military Keynesian economics are an irrelevant detail implemented after he gained power, when the topic is how he gained power.Not really. Germany was a fledgling democracy, and it never really recovered economically from WW1. Plus, Hitler implemented military Keynesianism, which was, like FDR's programs, state spending to boost employment, except that in Nazi Germany's case, it was for the purpose of preparing Germany for war against the rest of Europe.
I can't agree with your post. Germany had democracy established, which is what's relevant.
Hitler's military Keynesian economics are an irrelevant detail implemented after he gained power, when the topic is how he gained power.
Germany had a democracy, which was a condition of its surrender, but they were not culturally democratic
Your comments are ahistorical IMO.
The topic is Hitler's rise to power, between the backlash to economic suffering versus your claim of it being related to Germany not having strong democratic culture but proneness to authoritarianism.
Hitler became popular after WWi suffering, then when prosperity increased he lost almost all of it. That wouldn't have happened if your theory were correct.
You were comparing/contrasting the US's and Germany's response to the global depression in the late 1920s. Your claim was that, unlike the US, which became more progressive as a response, Germany switched to fascism. The reason the US became more progressive and remained democratic and Germany became fascistic was because we had over a century of practice with democracy; Germany had barely 10 years before it started sliding toward fascism.
I have no idea where you're getting this. Whatever popularity Hitler lost was because he started a ruinous war.
Baseless claim, and you ignored my argument, which contradicts your theory. No, both countries had a democratic backlash to support a radical change in response to the Great Republican Depression. The US was 'lucky' that its leading opposition was liberal FDR, and Germany was 'unlucky' that its opposition was fascism.
No. In the terrible economic disaster after losing WWI, Hitler rose in popularity. As the economy recovered in the 1920's, Hitler lost his popularity, because the country was no longer having a backlash. When the Great Republican Depression caused economic disaster again, that's when Hitler rose again and took power - before the war.
Ok, what's the progressive solution to sky-high housing prices?
Hitler, Mussolini, and FDR had a lot in common:
Not really.
That's a function of capitalism, a problem created by capitalism and the commodification and corporate control over housing. I mean, capitalism leaves a giant shit, and then look to progressives to clean up the mess. Fair enough, it's what we do. There are progressive solutions, but they are muti-faceted and requires a number of approaches -- increasing supply, regulation on corporate landlords, rent control, taxation and government support of home ownership.
That's a function of capitalism, a problem created by capitalism and the commodification and corporate control over housing.
Blackstone, the third-largest owner of single family homes in the country, owns 0.07% of the approximately 89 million owner or renter occupied single family homes in the United States. The top three owners of single family homes own a combined 0.25% of occupied single family homes.
I mean, capitalism leaves a giant shit, and then look to progressives to clean up the mess. Fair enough, it's what we do. There are progressive solutions, but they are muti-faceted and requires a number of approaches -- increasing supply, regulation on corporate landlords, rent control, taxation and government support of home ownership.
You mean they saw a crisis in capitalism and took different directions in solving them. Hitler and Mussolini went towards right-wing fascism, FDR went towards progressive social solutions. I agree.
Under this labour policy, Fascist Italy enacted laws to make union membership compulsory for all workers.
Mussolini’s spending on the public sector, schools and infrastructure was considered extravagant. Mussolini "instituted a programme of public works hitherto unrivaled in modern Europe. Bridges, canals and roads were built, hospitals and schools, railway stations and orphanages; swamps were drained and land reclaimed, forests were planted and universities were endowed". As for the scope and spending on social welfare programs, Italian fascism "compared favorably with the more advanced European nations and in some respect was more progressive".
By 1925, the Fascist government had "embarked upon an elaborate program" that included food supplementary assistance, infant care, maternity assistance, general healthcare, wage supplements, paid vacations, unemployment benefits, illness insurance, occupational disease insurance, general family assistance, public housing and old age and disability insurance.
When New York city politician Grover Aloysius Whalen asked Mussolini about the meaning behind Italian fascism in 1939, the reply was: "It is like your New Deal!".
During the 1919 elections, the Fascists had attempted to court the socialist-left while publicly dubbing himself the “Lenin of Italy”
By 1939, Fascist Italy attained the highest rate of state ownership of any economy in the world other than the Soviet Union.
The US wasn't just lucky; it was a stronger democracy, even if flawed.
I continue to think you have it wrong, with a mythical idea of 'stronger democracy' as relevant. That's not it. It has to do more with who the more effective opposition was, and that was largely 'luck'.
Oddly, the US switched radically from Republicans to FDR because of the Great Republican Depression; and Germans switched from their democratic system to Hitler's fascism primarily for the same reason.
And the US wasn't as far from a Hitler-like reaction as many think. Fascism had a large following.
There was almost total opposition to entering the war against Hitler.
Powerful US interests supporters or were friendly to fascism and Hitler.
The most popular broadcast in the country was a far-right figure, a Senator was openly pro-Nazi, "America First" was a fascist movement with a lot of popularity, there was a fascist coup attempt against FDR.
The book "It Can Happen Here" around 1935 described a fascist takeover of the country, a novel with a somewhat trump-like figure becoming president. We were lucky.
The Depression was a catalyst for both the US's embrace of an expanded welfare state and also German fascism -- I completely agree with that. I guess I tend to view the Depression as a trigger, though. There were underlying factors predating the Depression that made Hitler/Nazism possible.
While any democratic system can fail, it's more likely to fail and give rise to someone like Hitler not because of a single trigger but because of factors that have likely been present for some time. In Germany's case, the loss of the Great War, persistent unemployment and inflation, and an immature democratic system that was easily manipulated.
Those things did happen against the backdrop of severe economic turmoil, but the reason a crackpot idea of overthrowing the President and replacing him with someone else failed is because it was still considered a fringe idea.
Compare that to today, where we've had powerful plutocratic forces undermining public confidence in our democratic institutions, as they relentlessly have since the 2000s (probably earlier than that, but post 9/11 is when things got weird).
I think you underestimate the US's vulnerability to fascism, overestimate Germany's desire for fascism,
and the specific point we're arguing about is the importance of the 'luck' that America's leading opposition was FDR while Germany's was Hitler, not so much because of some 'national culture', but other factors. Fascism could well have gained control of the US - and as I said, not in Germany without Hitler.
We're going in circles - you keep repeating 'immature democratic system'. Germany was affected by arguments one way or the other. The US was affected by arguments one way or the other. Either could have gone either way, and it wasn't determined by "immature democratic system". Perhaps you could get more familiar with the culture in Germany by reading "Hitlerland".
No, the reason it failed is
No idea what you are saying but it doesn't seem useful.
It is fun to watch Leftists go at each other.Hmmm...
Talking potato heads get into a "heated debate" and people care. Who would have thought?
Hitler, Mussolini, and FDR had a lot in common:
A reader comments:
However, the point here is not to suggest Roosevelt was racist or antisemitic (a totally idiotic notion)
In contrast to Presidents Harding and Coolidge, Roosevelt stopped short of joining NAACP leaders in pushing for federal anti-lynching legislation.
Seems hard to argue against the idea that the centralized economic planning for WWII didn't pull both Germany and the US out of the Great Depression
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?