Hitler's view of America

I agree with you. In terms of generic definitions and policy, Fascism is a form of capitalism which is all I was trying to say.

 

Capitalism ran rampant in Germany.....Where do you think Hitler got all the money to run the war...!!??
LOTS of global money poured in.
In addition.....Krups, IG Farben, Messerschmidt, Porsche, Horten, etc etc etc were All Private Companies, Hitler had nothing against German Capitalism.....he bad-mouthed foreign versions of it, like he did with many other things.
He was a weird, opportunistic, F'd Up dude.....I would not not fret for one second what his world opinions were about anybody or anything.

 

Actually....

Nazi Germany was very much a planned economy, and only capitalistic inasmuch as the private ownership and potential distribution of profits, but which did not equate to freedom of action you would normally associate with ownership. There were incredibly stringent price controls on almost all goods, and horrific bureaucratic (and corrupt) processes to get approval to produce and deliver goods of all kinds. Companies were often especially squeezed on state contracts, and forced to deliver. Failure to supply to the demanded cost of the state often meant imprisonment and forfeiture of your company (control of which would then pass to some party crony). Of course, this could only succeed when wage incomes were suppressed. So while industrialists could make money, they actually had very little control over the direction of their companies. Nazi Hierarchy needed constant buttering, or you fell into disfavour, and lost all control, including your personal freedom.

This was rampant already in the 30's well before the war started.

 

the employers are doing that....I'm not an expert on how Fascism relates to it, .....but yes, the employers do this all the time....and if they can't exploit the workers, they send their manufacturing overseas.....

 

Why do you think Hitler too the idea of Eugenics from the US? It had been around before it's adoption by some governmental bodies in the US and indeed is a rather logical extension of agricultural practice.

The US didn't wipe out the Native Americans and certainly didn't use "whaterver violent means necessary" to do so.

Flawed assumptions bring your conclusions to question.

 

I think you have a flawed understanding of both capitalism and Fascism.

 

Sort of like the Left. No I take that back just like the Left. Indeed extremist on all sides aren't noted for their ability to use facts, reason, and logic to back their positions.

 

Indeed you have said that several times. What you have not done is make a case for it actually being correct.

 

Ah JSTOR. It's not all bad, same as EBSCO, IMHO. The best way to use it in my experience is to use the reference material for further inquiry and dig deeper. You can find nice source material if you just know where to dig it up.

I agree though Opana, questionable entries through that search engine

 

Agreed. A planned economy bled and drilled down financially by aggressive military spending. Even the autobahn was for military gain to dramatically improve the distribution infrastructure. Drilled down, but replenished with the annexations and conquers by intercepting and looting gold, securities, currencies and other valuables in the banks of the conquered. Foreign banks were instructed and complied to transfer gold of the conquered to Germany. Demands were put in place for the populace to turn it all gold, with stiff punishment for violators. Replenishments allowed Hitler to continue his military spending frenzy.

Austria's gold for instance, was prepared for shipment to Czechoslovakia with discussions on Hitler's demands still on the table. The shipment was expected to be forwarded on to England. It was intercepted soon after the forced annexation by the Nazis and sent to Berlin.

 

Maybe not "whatever means', but at least offered money for Indian scalps, distributed smallpox blankets and exercised ethnic cleansing and genocide. I think that's violent enough...

 

It has been bandied about for decades, some choose to believe it some don't
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/p/plag/5240451.0001.009/--did-the-us-army-distribute-smallpox-blankets-to-indians?rgn=main;view=fulltext

But, the story sounds very similar to that of the British general Sir Jeffery Amherst & the Pontiac Tribe in 1763.
http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/amherst/lord_jeff.html

 

It is possible, that not every action was made by the US government or the Army, but anyway by the white "Americans", whether British or independent Americans.

Seems like the Amhurst story being more plausible.

 

There is only one recorded instance of "smallpox blankets" being distributed intentionally and that was by a British officer in Canada. Paying for scalps was done prior to the US being established. I'm not sure if the French or the British initiated the practice but during the revolution the British were paying Indians for "American" scalps. Ethnic cleansing is an accurate description of much of what happened. Genocide is not. Furthermore if the US had decided to use "any means" to accomplish that task there wouldn't be any Indian tribes in the US at this point. There is much to be ashamed of in the way the US dealt with the American Indians but it was not as bad as some seam to believe nor was it one sided.

 

The New Deal was very much a planned econony, and the price fixing, forming of cartels, etc. was what the Fascist economy was.

 

Read the articles I linked. Corporatism is the economic portion of Fascism, not the Nationalist and Racist parts or whatever. That's how America's economy functions as well, Corporatism. I understand it fine.