Difference between revisions of "Talk:Reparation"

Revision as of 19:18, January 18, 2010

How much of Germany's economic troubles were caused by the reparations? I've recently read a view that it was their flirtation with socialism and central planning was more of a problem. Did the reparations cause inflation?

Let's settle once and for all whether the national Socialist party of Nazi Germany was socialist or not. Supporters of left-liberal socialism (e.g., Communisim) always say there is a great difference between socialism and Nazism, but I don't trust those supporters. Anyone who would support a system that kills over 100 million civilians behind the Iron Curtain - and who spills gallons of ink complaining about 3,000 disappearances in Chile - is not to be trusted. Let's get at the real facts. --Ed Poor ^Talk 13:14, 18 January 2010 (EST)

Where did you find that interpretation? It'd be interesting to read, as self-loathing westerners love to blame democratic, capitalist countries for everything that befalls the world, including Germany's troubles and thus fascism. DouglasA 13:34, 18 January 2010 (EST)

Hmmm... Was the Wiemar Republic actually socialist? I've heard that many businessmen supported Hitler's promise to end elections, because they were afraid the socialists would win elections - which would implicitly mean that the Wiemar economy wasn't socialist.

And The Rise and Fall of the Third Riech (which, unfortunately, I don't have available at the moment) gives a good description of how Hitler's rhetoric was socialist, but he apparently abandoned it once he came to power. But, he used central planning a lot to organize the economy for the war. --EvanW 13:41, 18 January 2010 (EST)

When my math students start guessing, I know that they have failed to understand the material. Allow me to explain about Nazism:

• What most people know of it is disseminated by college professors, who tell their students that Nazism was a movement of the “Right” and that it was the tool of industrialists and religious extremists. This slant is seldom questioned; however, books written while the Nazis were in power tell a much different story. [1]

Evan, I suggest you read the article cited above. --Ed Poor ^Talk 13:55, 18 January 2010 (EST)

First, the article itself points out that the Wiemar Republic was a good government with a strong emphasis on states' rights. Second, while it talks much about the Nazis' socialist rhetoric, virtually all of its few examples of socialist acts can be explained quite easily as statist acts - e.g. making corporations pay more taxes to the state. Despite what the article said, Hitler had repudiated the Nazis' socialist platform back in 1933. Of course, the Soviet Union also repudiated socialism in favor of statism - so if your argument is that the Nazis and Soviets were acting alike, you're exactly right. However, neither was really Communist. --EvanW 14:18, 18 January 2010 (EST)