BTW, I’ve sometimes seen the Latin American countries described as “corporatist,” but I’ve never been clear on how it applies to them.
Was it corporatist to that degree? No. It was, however, an attempt to move along the path towards control of industry by representative groups of management, workers and government, as a method of attempting to prevent industrial conflict (gross oversimplifcation alert).
British neo-corporatism, on the other hand, focused predominately IIRC on conflict resolution, and didn’t really get into industrial planning as much.
I think the Latin American examples are more to do with “fake” corporatism, or the facistic one. My impression it that it referred more to the military dictators being hand in hand with big business, and labor unions getting trampled while lip service is paid to workers’ rights.
With the exception of anti-Semitic rioting in 1819, there was almost no anti-Semitism in Denmark before and during World War II. Immediately priorthe occupation, the Danish government, while not allowing foreign Jews (from Germany) as refugees, took no action against Danish Jews, and there was very little popular support for anti-Semitism. And, of course, during the occupation, the efforts by the Danes to protect Danish Jews and intercede for those Danish Jews in German custody are well known.
The people of Denmark have nothing to be ashamed of in regard to their treatment of the Jews during the war.
Sorry, elucidator, the cruel fact of life is that eastern European Jews were gasp as ignorant and blindly introspective as anyone. And they had some deep biases against the local Christians. I won’t go into Jewish support for Communism, as I can understand if not admire their mistake. Suffice it to say that many Jews inflicted far more harm on the locals via their support for Soviet Russia than had ever been the reverse case.
Try Did the Children Cry. It’s a balanced look at all sides and while not casting blame, is an excellent history of Poland and anti-Nazi activities. It also notes the prejudice and ignorance of the Polish Jews, who had the same faults as anyone, and the efforts of Zionists after the war to cast as much blame as possible on certain groups including Poles in order to build support for Israel.
Look, it’s not pleasant, but it’s true. It’s not I’d like to hear, but it’s also true.
That would be my point.
So - was there significant local cooperation with the Holocaust in the Baltic States & the Ukraine, smiling bandit?
That strikes me as a rather jarring statement. You’re saying there was almost no anti-Semitism, but that one year suddenly there were anti-Semitic riots? Just out of the clear blue sky?
In 1819 there was anti-Semitic rioting in Wurzburg, Bavaria, in response to Jewish calls for emancipation and civil rights. The rioting spread throughout Germany and into Denmark.
Yes, but in the interwar period and during World War II, there was considerable anti-Semitism in Poland…certainly much more than in Denmark. In the 30s in Poland, Jews weren’t allowed welfare benefits, there were Jewish quotas at the Polish universities, Endecja advocated a boycott and confiscation of Jewish businesses, there was denunciation of the Jews by the clergy, and there were physical attacks on Jews by right wing nationalists.
During the war and occupation, there were, of course, the pograms in the Jedwabne and Lviv.
None of this, of course, changes the fact that there were many Poles who did help Jews during the Holocaust, many at severe risk to themselves.
Sorry, that’s about the most bizarre thing I’ve ever read on this forum. Eastern European including Polish anti-semitism is very well documented. Anti-jewish pogroms occurred in Poland even after the war was over. The situation in France and especially Denmark is not even remotely comparable.
Also worth noting that Did the Children Cry? which you cited has in itself been attacked for anti-semitism which I expect would include elements like claiming jewish racism prevented them accepting help from the Poles.
Wartime pogroms in Poland
Jedwanbe pogrom
Wasosz pogrom
Poles blamed for wartime massacres
What I’m saying is that, for whatever reasons, large numbers of Poles worked hard to help save anyone they could, including Jews and jewish children (who could be more easily hidden, and who were not commonly pressured religiously). Whatever happened after the war, can’t say. But the numbers don’t lie, and very, very few Poles helped the Nazis, while hundreds aided every Jew that was saved.
I can’t help that the book also shows that some Jews were racist themselves. Frankly, I don’t see what’s so shocking about it. The fact that they might be prejudiced? Being atacked by the Nazi’s doesn’t mean they were inherently virtuous, and many had their own issues. That’s life, and the book documents it carefully.
As for Ukraine and Hungary, I admit I don’t know much about them. I had ben thinking about Poland and didn’t consider the other parts of Eastern Europe. I always think of Poland and Russia in that sense.
No one denies there were many heroic Poles who took on great personal dangers to help Jews, or that the Polish people suffered horribly themselves under Hitler. But what you don’t address is the long history or Polish antisemitism before the war, and the actions after the war. Even without the massacres in the war that have been cited to, do you think it likely that ingrained antisemitism was there before and after the war, and disappeared during it?
Not sure why you are mentioning Hungary, when I talked of the Ukraine & the baltic states, parts of the USSR occupied by the Nazis. Given that you didn’t consider much of Eastern Europe in your answer, where there was significant local support for the extermination of Jews, such as documented examples of local pogroms occuring before the Nazis requested moves against the Jews, don’t you think your response to me, starting as it did with “cough Ahem, no…” was more than a little unnecessarily snarky?
I’m not 100% convinced this is entirely correct. Once the infrastructure supporting an organised military has collapsed, partisan organisations are at an overwhelming disadvantage in terms of the firepower they can bring to bear. They generally compensate for this by hiding amongst and drawing support from the civilian population. This is generally a very effective tactic, but not necessarily if the army remaining in the field is willing to kill everyone not wearing their uniform and devastate the local transport, accommodation and food supply. Burn all the fields and houses and dynamite all the wells, and pretty soon there would be very few partisans left.
The Iraq analogy is false - if the US had focused their attention on destroying the infrastructure and logistics providing food, water & sanitation and then denied Iraqi refugees or outside relief supplies access to the road network, then most of the population of Iraq would have died within a few months, even without an organised extermination campaign.
While I agree that the middle name of Nazism is murder, I do not agree to this widely held conception of the core of Nazim, though of it was/is an ideology of violence.
There were arabs in the Nazi armies, Hitler didn’t care much about blacks, he did’nt mind “asians” (other than as an euphism for Slavs), he didn’t want war on England - a country and culture he admired - and so forth and so on. Like just about any “intellectual” of his time - pseudo or not - he looked down at America, but there was no hatred against it, and would he have it his way, USA would’ve taken care of the Americas, while he took care of Europe.
What Hitler hated, wanted to exterminate or enslave, was Jews and Slavs (and Poles [being Slavs] gays, Social Democrats [being un-nazi], Christian [having another god], etc, since he was a racist at heart. Everybody reading this post agree that that is not good.
But Hitler was not on a crusade to conquer the world, enslave all, master all. There’s no historic evidence on that. There is nothing in his ideology that support this thought.
He was as a bad person as you wish, but he was not a Darth Vader. - He was too much in love with childish dreams of Germanica, to fancy himself a Alexander. There are numerous accounts of his disliking of this war he obviously wanted to “get over with”.
Smiling Bandit, here is a link you might want to read.
Anti-Semitism in Prewar Poland 1935-1939
It discusses among other things anti-semitic legislation passed by the Polish government before the war barring jews from many fields of employment including medicine and law and their desired forced relocation of Polish jews to Africa. Add to this massacres of jews by Poles that took place during and even after the war do you still maintain your claim that anti-semitism in Poland was lower then in France and Denmark?
I also find this statement of yours somewhat disturbing:
You really need to read up on the Ukranian and Baltic participation in the holocaust that Villa keeps alluding to. Or on historical pogroms for that matter. And jewish is not a synonym for Bolshevik.
I’m not terribly knowledgeable on Nazi economics nor Mexican, but from the OP’s description and my limitted knowledge, I’d surmise that Mexico is relatively close to such an economic system. The end effect seems to be a grab-and-run effect when a company is nationalised, wherein the relevant government officials try to bleed off as much profit from the company into their own pockets as possible. And then when a company is de-nationalised, it ceases being able to function due to blocks by small-time government officials who aren’t receiving any funding to allow the company to continue.
Workers are nearly impossible to fire and state-run projects to keep people employed are numerous, though anything built by them is intended for short term use since anything done well won’t need to be redone next year (and probably the workers are not qualified for it anyways.)
Overall, progress is impossible and there is little motive for individual accomplishment though it is seemingly a free market.
It’s a great book - well-researched, well-written, generally plausible and very chilling. Harris also makes passing reference to the White Rose, the student anti-Nazi organization (that IRL was violently suppressed and its leaders executed), still at work in 1964. He also mentions some great graffiti that stuck with me: “A police state is one in which the criminals are in charge.”
As to the OP, I don’t think the Nazi economic system would have worked in the long run because of massive deficit spending, self-defeating exclusion or persecution of large portions of the potentially-economically-helpful populace, and the kleptocratic tendencies of its top leadership. And when Hitler died or became enfeebled, all bets were off as his ambitious and utterly ruthless cronies vied to succeed him. A civil war would have been quite likely.
And that’s a very telling point. Nazi Germany operated under a Hitlernomic economic system because Hitler was the supreme dictator. Once Hitler dies (either naturally or via foul play), the next German dictator would inevitably follow their own private ideas for how the country should be run. So you have a analogy to the situation where Lenin is succeeded by Stalin, or more analgous to Stalin replaced by Kruschev. Maybe the new dictator is a pragmatist who just wants personal power, maybe the new dictator is a dreamer who wants to remake humanity, maybe the new dicatator rules with an iron fist or maybe the new dictator is a just the most powerful member of the ruling oligarchy, maybe the new dictator presents himself as the heir of Hitler or maybe the new dictator presents himself as the person who saved the nation from the mistakes of Hitlerism.
Weeelllll . . . this historical evidence kinda goes both ways there. Judge for yourself. From Modern Times: The World from the Twenties to the Nineties, by Paul Johnson, Chapter 10, “The End of Old Europe”:
Same book, Chapter 11, “The Watershed Year”:
Darth Vader? What a small-time weak-kneed liberal wuss!