# the Individual or the Collective?? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 24, 2012, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-individual-or-the-collective/645051 "2012-12-24T21:07:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2013, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-individual-or-the-collective/645051/61 "2013-01-03T05:11:57Z")
> [@wildorchid](#): > > [http://en’wikipedia.org/wiki/London\_School\_of\_Economics](http://en'wikipedia.org/wiki/London_School_of_Economics) > > puzzled as to how you could think that the fabian socialists could just dry up and blow away? > they have an objective; the ultimate establishment of a world marxist state, but not arrived at through violent revolution (ie. the definition of communism), but through attrition, cultural means, incrementalism, and slowly wearing down opposition. > (the military tactic of _fabius_, the roman general for whom the society was named. > > JFK went to the London School of Economics. > Tony Blair is a big time alumnus. > If the fabians wield no influence over policy, then i’m supposed to imagine that these gentlemen went just there for tea then? > > what did you think of the article celebrating Obamas 08 victory as a huge victory for the ‘progressive’ (ie. marxist) movement? > why should they care what goes on in the US?? > also, the black helicopter comments are nothing but an example of sophism, and the use of the ‘poisoning the well’ fallacy to create the semblance of a rational argument. > its a sophomoric attempt at casting dis-creditability to what i’m saying through what amounts to name calling. I put the black helicopter comment in because i have no idea what you are frightened about. Please describe how the current fabian society presents any concrete practical threat to me. Please be specific. What do i have do worry about? Don’t use vague terms, describe specific consequences, please, and describe specifically how they will come about in the US. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2013, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-individual-or-the-collective/645051/62 "2013-01-03T05:17:40Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > In the '30s, there were significant portions of Americans that advocated for fascism, communism, and socialism. And [Technocracy,](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy_movement) too. Robert Heinlein seems once to have flirted with that – you can see it manifested in his first and probably worst published novel, [_Beyond This Horizon._](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond_This_Horizon) Or perhaps that was based on the [Social Credit](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit) movement. I’ve read exactly one AH treatment of Technocracy: “You Could Go Home Again,” by Howard Waldrop. (It’s mainly about Thomas Wolfe if he had lived longer.) You can find it in his 1998 collection, [_Going Home Again._](http://www.amazon.com/Going-Home-Again-Howard-Waldrop/dp/0312185898/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1357190188&sr=1-1&keywords=going+home+again+howard+waldrop) Waldrop provides an afterword to the story which explains, among other things, technocracy: > [@](#): > > [Technocracy] was the brainchild of a guy named Howard Scott. His idea was simple: build up a database of all the transportation, industrial, electrical, shipping and social engineers in America. Get them ready. When Things Went Blooey (sometime in early 1933, when Hoover was re-elected, it looked like from the summer of 1932), move them in. Get everything back on a supply-need basis; move goods and services from areas of surplus to scarcity; take over vital functions; put people to work on the what-we-would-now-call infrastructure – in some kind of credit arrangement – of all the things that the Depression had knocked the blocks out from under. > > It took hold of the imaginations of all kinds of people, not just the poor. It seemed for the first time someone had pointed out that goods and food were still there, just like in 1929, but what was missing was the capital that moved them from one place to another. Replace the capital with brains; and somewhere in there get the exchange part on some other basis: either work credit, or some other funny-money. (One of their neat proposals was to divide the country into sectors by latitude and longitude. I used to write you from Austin, TX, Sector 9830.) > > The Technocrats planned and waited. Scott was everywhere that fall and winter. Then something went terribly, terribly wrong for Technocracy. The wheels didn’t come off America. The election came and went. FDR took office. His brain trust did a suck-job on some of the best Technocrat proposals. By early 1933 their time had come, and gone. > > There are some still around; they’re awfully old, but for a few minutes there they saw, like Wolfe, the shining, golden opportunity. Of course, FDR’s brain trust also did a suck-job on some of the best Socialist Party proposals, such as Social Security. Which was perfectly consistent with FDR’s stated vision for the New Deal: Don’t follow any all-encompassing theory, just try things and keep them if they work. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2013, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-individual-or-the-collective/645051/63 "2013-01-03T05:21:19Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Progressive does not equal Marxist. “Progressive,” as the word is used in modern American political discourse (as very much distinct from [Progressive Era](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_era) discourse), means something well to the left of “liberal” and well to the right of “socialist.” More or less what would be called “social-democratic” in Europe. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2013, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-individual-or-the-collective/645051/64 "2013-01-03T05:23:51Z")
> [@Larry\_Borgia](#): > > Please describe how the current fabian society presents any concrete practical threat to me. This is [Fabian.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_(entertainer)) He’s still alive. We can’t risk a comeback! :eek: ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2013, 5:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-individual-or-the-collective/645051/65 "2013-01-03T05:44:05Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > FDR took office. His brain trust did a suck-job on some of the best Technocrat proposals. By early 1933 their time had come, and gone. Aside from the technology angle, it doesn’t sound much different from FDR’s core ideas, which were formed from the U.S.'s war-time economic policy under Wilson. Good stuff, a very interesting footnote in the radical politics of the day. > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Of course, FDR’s brain trust also did a suck-job on some of the best Socialist Party proposals, such as Social Security. Which was perfectly consistent with FDR’s stated vision for the New Deal: Don’t follow any all-encompassing theory, just try things and keep them if they work. He was open-minded, I’ll give him that. Just look at the differences between his 1933 policies and his post-'38 ones. > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > “Progressive,” as the word is used in modern American political discourse (as very much distinct from Progressive Era discourse), means something well to the left of “liberal” and well to the right of “socialist.” More or less what would be called “social-democratic” in Europe. You can use progressive as a counterpoint to conservative on a political axis, or as capital-P Progressivism as a strain of gradualist leftism, but either way a statement like “progressive (i.e. Marxist) movement” is pretty silly. ---
**Author:** ![wildorchid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/82dd89/32.png) [@wildorchid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wildorchid)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2013, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-individual-or-the-collective/645051/66 "2013-01-04T03:21:04Z")
> [@Larry\_Borgia](#): > > I put the black helicopter comment in because i have no idea what you are frightened about. Please describe how the current fabian society presents any concrete practical threat to me. Please be specific. What do i have do worry about? Don’t use vague terms, describe specific consequences, please, and describe specifically how they will come about in the US. their professed goal is a world totalitarian marxist state, but established by clandestine means (thus their wolf in sheeps clothing coat of arms, do an image search), and incrementally through attrition using cultural means, instead of violent revolution. so, at the end of the day, there is zero difference between fabianism and communism, except the methods used to arrive at the feudal night-mare that is the end-goal. world history shows that marxism has always been a bad idea in practice for the vast majorities who all live at barely subsistance level, and that a tiny polit-buro, or whatever of elites become their feudal lords, and live in luxury. I dont see how this could be good for you and your family, unless you are getting a seat at the table. there wont be a middle class, so by default you are a pleb if you dont. (and it wont be the 1%… .01% will be the technocratic elite.) ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2013, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-individual-or-the-collective/645051/67 "2013-01-04T03:31:24Z")
> [@wildorchid](#): > > their professed goal is a world totalitarian marxist state, but established by clandestine means (thus their wolf in sheeps clothing coat of arms, do an image search), and incrementally through attrition using cultural means, instead of violent revolution. > so, at the end of the day, there is zero difference between fabianism and communism, except the methods used to arrive at the feudal night-mare that is the end-goal. > world history shows that marxism has always been a bad idea in practice for the vast majorities who all live at barely subsistance level, and that a tiny polit-buro, or whatever of elites become their feudal lords, and live in luxury. > > I dont see how this could be good for you and your family, unless you are getting a seat at the table. there wont be a middle class, so by default you are a pleb if you dont. > (and it wont be the 1%… .01% will be the technocratic elite.) Seek help. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2013, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-individual-or-the-collective/645051/68 "2013-01-04T03:50:04Z")
> [@wildorchid](#): > > their professed goal is a world totalitarian marxist state . . . Cite? I certainly can’t find that anywhere [here.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Society) The Fabians appear to be [democratic socialists](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism). You **do** appreciate the difference, don’t you? It’s pretty huge. ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2013, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-individual-or-the-collective/645051/69 "2013-01-04T06:14:17Z")
“We the People…” is a collectivist statement. The FF’s where \*@#$! socialists! ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2013, 6:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-individual-or-the-collective/645051/70 "2013-01-04T06:21:35Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > Seek help. Help is socialist! ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2013, 6:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-individual-or-the-collective/645051/71 "2013-01-04T06:35:50Z")
> [@wildorchid](#): > > their professed goal is a world totalitarian marxist state, but established by clandestine means (thus their wolf in sheeps clothing coat of arms, do an image search), and incrementally through attrition using cultural means, instead of violent revolution. > so, at the end of the day, there is zero difference between fabianism and communism, except the methods used to arrive at the feudal night-mare that is the end-goal. > world history shows that marxism has always been a bad idea in practice for the vast majorities who all live at barely subsistance level, and that a tiny polit-buro, or whatever of elites become their feudal lords, and live in luxury. > > I dont see how this could be good for you and your family, unless you are getting a seat at the table. there wont be a middle class, so by default you are a pleb if you dont. > (and it wont be the 1%… .01% will be the technocratic elite.) The problem is that the net effect of the gliberal ideology is not measurably different. The state enforces property rights and inheritance, property concentrates in the hands of a small number of people, and you end up with a plutoligarchy that is functionally indistinguishable from a Marxist autocracy. The thing you fear is not worse, the thing you support is not preferable, unless we can establish cultural norms that prevent what looks like inevitable deterioration, the name you call it by is just a name. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2013, 6:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-individual-or-the-collective/645051/72 "2013-01-04T06:57:33Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > Seek help. This is not the BBQ Pit. Knock it off. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2013, 8:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-individual-or-the-collective/645051/73 "2013-01-04T08:35:50Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > This is a poor debate tactic. No, it’s a statement of fact. Pray tell, if the Crips and Bloods have ideologies, what exactly are they? The answer is they don’t; they are street gangs, not political movements. > [@](#): > > Marginally so; the goal of both was a radical reordering of society into an omnipotent state, to favor a chosen group, which was held to be _inherently_ worthy of this lofty position, and the eradication of the enemies within and without the new society that were inherently (ie, by their nature) opposed to it. The differences between Nazi and communist ideology are anything but marginal, they are quite massive. Nazism called for the subjugation of Europe under the Nazi heel, the elimination or enslavement of subhuman races, and the destruction of communism, or Jewish Bolshevism as they saw it. There was a very clear class society based upon race and racial purity. Compared to this the goal of communism is a classless society, a dictatorship of the proletariat, and the elimination of nations. How can such massive differences be called marginal? > [@](#): > > They didn’t come from the same ideological tree, as I noted in post #30. They independently, from different intellectual sources, arrived at very similar ideas. Informal factions, if you will. which is a serious back-pedaling from your initial statement that “They were rival factions of the same poisonous ideology” which they clearly were not. > [@](#): > > And they weren’t so fundamentally opposed as to preclude an [alliance](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribbentrop-Molotov_Pact), were they? It wasn’t an alliance, it was a non-agression pact and agreement to divide up Poland and spheres of influence. That they concluded the pact was quite a shock to the rest of the world, but of course Hitler [never had any intention of honoring it](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa) and for Stalin it was just buying time as his previous efforts to stop German aggression had been rejected by the West, who had deluded themselves into thinking a policy of appeasement would prevent war. > [@](#): > > To those unfortunates outside the German race or the proletariat, I’m sure the difference was academic. Again: not identical, but of a kind. Again, completely untrue. Being Jewish, Roma, Slavic, etc meant you were slated for extermination under Nazi ideology. Not being a member of the proletariat meant you were slated for political reeducation under communist ideology. Hardly an academic differance. > [@](#): > > Not so, look into the plans for post-invasion Britain. Spreading the ideology was exactly what they were going to do. If your arguement is that not everyone they conquered was to be integrated into the new society, and thus Nazism was fundamentally unlike Soviet Communism…I’d advise you to look deeper into the fate of Soviet class enemies. Outright murder or enslavement (at gulags) of those deemed undesireable to the new society were practiced by the Soviets as well. Nonsense, they were not planning on spreading their ideology of the superiority of the Germanic race in Britain, or France, Poland, Belgium, Norway, Yugoslavia, the USSR, etc, unless you consider planning on the extermination of the following percentages of Eastern European ethnic groups to be [‘spreading ideology’](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost#Phases_of_the_plan_and_its_implementation): > [@](#): > > Percentages of ethnic groups targeted for elimination by Nazi Germany from future settlement areas[7][8] > > Ethnic group Percentage subject to removal > Poles 80-85% > Russians 50-60% to be physically eliminated and another 15% to be sent to Western Siberia. > Belorusians 75% > Ukrainians 65% > Lithuanians 85% > Latvians 50% > Estonians 50%[9] > Czechs 50% > Latgalians 100% They had no intention of integrating those they conquered into German society as anything other than slave labor. They did not seek to spread their ideology, nor again is it an ideology that is suitable for exportation. Communism clearly is an ideology that both seeks to and is easily exportable as the number of countries that are or were communist amply demonstrates. Nazism only existed in one country; the small extent that it existed in other countries was restricted to Germanic peoples who lived in other countries prior to the war. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2013, 12:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-individual-or-the-collective/645051/74 "2013-01-04T12:08:50Z")
> [@Dissonance](#): > > No, it’s a statement of fact. I’m “factually” disqualified from this discussion? Announcing that someone is “disqualified” from discussing the topic at hand is a poor debate tactic. It’s poisoning the well. And if you believe it, why did you reply again? If you don’t believe it, why’d you write it? > [@Dissonance](#): > > Pray tell, if the Crips and Bloods have ideologies, what exactly are they? The answer is they don’t; they are street gangs, not political movements. You have a very narrow view of ideology; it’s [a set of ideas that constitute one’s goals, expectations, and actions.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology). It’s not confined to political movements. I already gave characteristics of street-gang ideology in post 33. > [@Dissonance](#): > > How can such massive differences be called marginal? Because they are more similar than dissimilar. > [@Dissonance](#): > > which is a serious back-pedaling from your initial statement that “They were rival factions of the same poisonous ideology” which they clearly were not. Not so, as I’ll claim it again: They were rival factions of the same poisonous ideology. That doesn’t mean they have the same historical and intellectual roots, it means that their ideologies are similar. Once more: radical reordering of society into an omnipotent state, to favor a chosen group, which was held to be \*inherently \* worthy of this lofty position, and the eradication of the enemies within and without the new society that were inherently (ie, by their nature) opposed to it. Compare this to other political movements of the day, and see who’s close to whom. > [@Dissonance](#): > > It wasn’t an alliance, it was a non-agression pact and agreement to divide up Poland and spheres of influence. I’m sure Poland took comfort that the nations conquering them per the agreement weren’t truly “allies”. > [@Dissonance](#): > > Again, completely untrue. Being Jewish, Roma, Slavic, etc meant you were slated for extermination under Nazi ideology. Not being a member of the proletariat meant you were slated for political reeducation under communist ideology. Hardly an academic differance. You are seriously underestimating how much exterminating the Soviets carried out. Look at the [Kulaks](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kulak#Numbers_executed) again: > [@](#): > > A wide range of death tolls has been suggested, from as many as 6 million suggested by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn to as few as 700,000 by Soviet news sources. > [@Dissonance](#): > > Nonsense, they were not planning on spreading their ideology of the superiority of the Germanic race in Britain, or France, Poland, Belgium, Norway, Yugoslavia, the USSR, etc, unless you consider planning on the extermination of the following percentages of Eastern European ethnic groups to be ‘spreading ideology’: In the case of Britain, after carrying out the murders of the names in the Black Book and British Jews, the plan was to create a civilian government of Brits to administrate a new, fascist, Britain, similar to what was done in Norway. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2013, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-individual-or-the-collective/645051/75 "2013-01-04T17:13:28Z")
> [@wildorchid](#): > > their professed goal is a world totalitarian marxist state, but established by clandestine means (thus their wolf in sheeps clothing coat of arms, do an image search), and incrementally through attrition using cultural means, instead of violent revolution. > so, at the end of the day, there is zero difference between fabianism and communism, except the methods used to arrive at the feudal night-mare that is the end-goal. > world history shows that marxism has always been a bad idea in practice for the vast majorities who all live at barely subsistance level, and that a tiny polit-buro, or whatever of elites become their feudal lords, and live in luxury. > > I dont see how this could be good for you and your family, unless you are getting a seat at the table. there wont be a middle class, so by default you are a pleb if you dont. > (and it wont be the 1%… .01% will be the technocratic elite.) Thanks for responding. I did a quick image search and don’t see that logo anywhere but on Conspiracy theory sites. I find the idea that a British think tank could establish itself as the nightmare government you describe to be risible. I’m honestly not sure where to begin pointing out all the flaws. I don’t think there will be a dictatorship in the US, at least not in my lifetime–which admittedly I’m on the back half of–but if there is (and there won’t be) it will probably arise from the Christian right, not from a handful of powerless leftist academics across the pond. ETA: Or possibly a military coup, which again is more likely than a handful of academics seizing power somehow. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2013, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-individual-or-the-collective/645051/76 "2013-01-04T17:36:55Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > In the case of Britain, after carrying out the murders of the names in the Black Book and British Jews, the plan was to create a civilian government of Brits to administrate a new, fascist, Britain, similar to what was done in Norway. Would it have been headed by [Sir Oswald Mosley](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oswald_Mosley)? ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2013, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-individual-or-the-collective/645051/77 "2013-01-04T17:39:41Z")
> [@wildorchid](#): > > their professed goal is a world totalitarian marxist state, but established by clandestine means (thus their wolf in sheeps clothing coat of arms, do an image search), and incrementally through attrition using cultural means, instead of violent revolution. Isn’t the symbol of the Fabian Society a [tortoise?](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fabian_tortoise.gif) > [@wildorchid](#): > > so, at the end of the day, there is zero difference between fabianism and communism, except the methods used to arrive at the feudal night-mare that is the end-goal. > world history shows that marxism has always been a bad idea in practice for the vast majorities who all live at barely subsistance level, and that a tiny polit-buro, or whatever of elites become their feudal lords, and live in luxury. > > I dont see how this could be good for you and your family, unless you are getting a seat at the table. there wont be a middle class, so by default you are a pleb if you dont. > (and it wont be the 1%… .01% will be the technocratic elite.) Agreed, radical Leftism has tended to produce nightmarish results in practice, as radicalism tends to do. That said, how does the existence of the Fabian Society, a British socialist organization that peaked in influence in the early 1900’s, and now boasts 6,286 members, evidence for collectivism becoming increasing accepted over individualism in the United States? ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2013, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-individual-or-the-collective/645051/78 "2013-01-04T17:45:57Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Would it have been headed by Sir Oswald Mosley? Possibly, he was discussed as a candidate, as was [Harold Nicholson.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Nicolson) There were three German agencies carrying out the planning; the OKW (Supreme Command of the Armed Forces), the RSHA (Reich Main Security Office), and the Foreign Ministry, and of course the invasion never occured, so it’s hard to be definitive on who’d have ended up in charge. What is definitive is the Germans planned to install a fascist, British, government, which is spreading ideology. ETA: [_Hitler’s Britain_](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0365334/) is an interesting documentary on the subject if you can find it. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2013, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-individual-or-the-collective/645051/79 "2013-01-04T18:12:35Z")
Best account I’ve read of Hitler’s long-range plans is from Paul Johnson’s _Modern Times:_ > [@](#): > > Hitler’s aims can be reconstructed not merely from Mein Kampf itself, with its stress on the ‘East Policy,’ but from his early speeches and so-called ‘Second’ or Secret Book of 1928. This material makes it clear that the ‘cleansing’ process – the elimination of the Jews – was essential to the whole long-term strategy. Being a race-socialist as opposed to a class-socialist, Hitler believed the dynamic of history was race. The dynamic was interrupted when race-poisoning took place. The poison came, above all, from the Jews. He admired the Jews as ‘negative supermen’. In his Table-Talk he said that if 5,000 Jews emigrated to Sweden, in no time at all they would occupy all the key positions: this was because ‘blood purity’, as he put it in Mein Kampf, ‘is a thing the Jew preserves better than any other people on earth’. The Germans, on the other hand, were poisoned. That was why they lost the First World War. Even he was poisoned: that was why he sometimes made mistakes – ‘all of us suffer from the sickness of mixed, corrupt blood’. Race-poisoning was a comparatively common obsession in the time of Hitler’s youth, rather as ecological poisoning became an obsession of many in the 1970s and 1980s. The notion of ubiquitous poisoning appealed strongly to the same type of person who accepted conspiracy theories as the machinery of public events. As with the later ecologists, they thought the race-poison was spreading fast, that total disaster was iminent, and that it would take a long time to reverse even if the right policies were adopted promptly. Hitler calculated it would take a hundred years for his regime to eliminate racial poisoning in Germany: on the other hand, if Germany became the first nation-race to do so successfully, it would inevitably become ‘lord of the Earth’. (Mein Kampf.) > > What distinguished Hitlerian race-theory was, first, this rooted belief that ‘cleansing’ could make Germany the first true superpower, and ultimately the first paramount power in the world; and, secondly, his absolute conviction that the ‘Jewish race-poison’ and Bolshevism were one and the same phenomenon. In 1928, when he wrote his Second Book, he did not appreciate that old-style ‘Jewish’ Bolshevism had ceased to exist and that Stalin’s Russia was in essentials as anti-Semitic as Tsardom had been. On the contrary, he believed the Soviet Union was a Jewish cultural phenomenon. Hence the object of his policy was to combat ‘an inundation of diseased bacilli which at the moment have their breeding-ground in Russia’. Thus the ‘cleansing’ fit in perfectly with the resumption of traditional German East policy, but on a far more ambitious scale. > > Hitler’s full programme, therefore, was as follows. First, gain control of Germany itself, and begin the cleansing process at home. Second, destroy the Versailles settlement and establish Germany as the dominant power in Central Europe. All this could be accomplished without war. Third, on this power basis, destroy the Soviet Union (by war) to rid the ‘breeding-ground’ of the ‘bacillus’ and, by colonization, created a solid economic and strategic power base from which to establish a continental empire, in which France and Italy would be mere satellites. In the fourth stage Germany would acquire a large colonial empire in Africa, plus a big ocean navy, to make her one of the four superpowers, in addition to Britain, Japan and the United States. Finally, in the generation after his death, Hitler envisaged a decisive struggle between Germany and the United States for world domination. > > No one since Napoleon had thought in such audacious terms. In its gigantic scope the concept was Alexandrine. Yet until he was engulfed by the war he made, Hitler was always pragmatic. Like Lenin he was a superb opportunist, always ready to seize openings and modify his theory accordingly. This has led some historians to conclude he had no master-programme. In fact, while always adjusting the tactics to suit the moment, he pursued his long-term strategy with a brutal determination that has seldom been equalled in the history of human ambition. Unlike most tyrants, he was never tempted to relax by a surfeit of autocratic power. Quite the contrary. He was always raising the stakes on the table and seeking to hasten the pace of history. He feared his revolution would lose its dynamism. He thought himself indispensable, and at least four of his phases must be accomplished while he was not only still alive but at the height of his powers. It was this impatience which made him so dangerous in the short term and so ineffectual in the long term (the very reverse of the Soviet strategists). In a secret speech to German newspaper editors in November 1938, after his great Munich triumph, he deplored the fact that his need to talk about peace had led the German nation to relax too much. He argued that for Germany to accept peace, and thus stability, as a permanent fact of international life was to accept the very spirit of defeatism. Violence was a necessity, and the public must be prepared for it. > [@](#): > > Hitler’s ultimate aim was to create a German Volk of 250 million. He said that he proposed settling 100 million Germans on the great plains to the west of the Urals. In 1941 he envisaged that over the next decade the first 20 million would move east. Though he saw the colonization process clearly, he was vague on where the settlers were to come from. Those eligible and willing to settle, the Volksdeutsche from south-east Europe, numbered only 5 million, perhaps 8 milllion at most. His colleage Alfred Rosenberg considered the idea of ‘drafting’ Scandinavian, Dutch, and English settlers, being racially approximate to Germans, when the war was won. Some aspects of this great population transfer, to be the most formidable and decisive in history, were determined in meticulous detail. There was to be polygamy and a free choice of women for servicemen with decorations. The Crimea, after being ‘cleansed’ of Slavs and Jews, was to be turned into a gigantic German spa under its old Greek name of Tauria, populated by a mass transfer of peasants from the South Tyrol. Over vast areas of the Ukraine and south European Russia, a new Volk civilization was planned. As Hitler described it: > > > [@](#): > > > > The area must lose the character of the Asiatic steppe. It must be Europeanized! . . . The ‘Reich peasant’ is to live in outstandingly beautiful settlements. The German agencies and authorities are to have wonderful buildings, the governors palaces. Around each city, a ring of lovely villages will be placed to within 30 or 40 kilometers . . . . That is why we are now building the large traffic arteries on the southern tip of the Crimea, out to the Caucasus mountains. Around these traffic strands, the German cities will be placed, like pearls on a string, and around the cities the German settlements will lie. For we will not open up Lebensraum for ourselves by entering the old, godforsaken Russian holes! The German settlements must be on an altogether higher level! > > As Hitler’s vision expanded, in the heady days of 1941, it came to embrace all Europe. Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, the whole of France north of the Somme were to be incorporated in a Greater Germany, the names of the cities being changed – Nancy would become Nanzig, Besancon Bisanz. Trondheim would become a major German city and naval base of 250,000 inhabitants. The Alps would be the boundary between ‘the German Empire of the North,’ with a new ‘Germania’ as its capital, and ‘the Roman Empire of the South’. The Pope would be hanged in full pontificals in St. Peter’s Square. Strasbourg Cathedral would be turned into a giant ‘Monument to the Unknown Soldier’. New crops, such a perennial rye, would be invented. He would forbid smoking, make vegetarianism compulsory, ‘revive the Cimbrian art of knitting’, appoint a ‘Special Commissioner for the Care of Dogs’ and an ‘Assistant Secretary for Defence Against Gnats and Insects’.’ ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2013, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-individual-or-the-collective/645051/80 "2013-01-04T19:40:05Z")
Interesting stuff as usual, **BrainGlutton.** > [@](#): > > His colleage Alfred Rosenberg considered the idea of ‘drafting’ Scandinavian, Dutch, and English settlers, being racially approximate to Germans, when the war was won. > [@](#): > > As Hitler’s vision expanded, in the heady days of 1941, it came to embrace all Europe. Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, the whole of France north of the Somme were to be incorporated in a Greater Germany, the names of the cities being changed – Nancy would become Nanzig, Besancon Bisanz. That looks like the spreading of ideology to me. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-individual-or-the-collective/645051.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-individual-or-the-collective/645051.md?page=5)