We know, as a matter of historical fact, that Adolf Hitler and his Nazi Party, despite being generally incompetent, unintelligent, irrational, superstitious and just plain insane, managed to take over a country of tens of millions of people from nothing, in the span of fifteen years.
A good case could be made that “incompetent, unintelligent, irrational, superstitious and just plain insane” applies as well to us modern-day westerners—at least, I can imagine a parallel 2009 where Nazis won World War 2 and marvel at the successes of democratic nations in the early 20th century despite them being “incompetent, unintelligent, irrational, superstitious and jew-ridden”. Insanity can be hard to distinguish from up close.
I can imagine a parallel 2009 where Nazis won World War 2 and marvel at the successes of democratic nations
I only want to note that the nation that in fact won WW2 was the USSR, but we in 2009 aren’t Communists wondering at the transient success of democracies.
The Nazis were visibly substantially more insane than other European countries at the time; Nazi Germany was, to a very high degree, a medieval pre-Enlightenment government teleported into the modern era.
Roman-style glorification of the military, increased subordination of women to men, the creation of a class of inferior non-citizens with no rights (slaves in ancient cultures and Jews, homosexuals, Gypsies, Slavs and political dissidents in Nazi Germany), extreme levels of violence and brutality towards the people of other countries, an ultimate goal of world conquest, extreme inefficiency and corruption in government.
Nearly all of those things look like pre-Enlightenment values not features of pre-Enlightenment government. I’m not sure I agree that Nazi Germany was extremely inefficient (most literature I’ve seen lauds its efficiency) and I’m not sure extreme efficiency and corruption are features of pre-Enlightenment government that contrast it with modern government.
“I’m not sure I agree that Nazi Germany was extremely inefficient (most literature I’ve seen lauds its efficiency)”
This is pure propaganda. Read Speer’s Inside the Third Reich- the higher Nazi officials were generally very inept at governing, and spent so much time fighting amongst themselves that it was quite rare for them to get anything done at all.
“and I’m not sure extreme efficiency and corruption are features of pre-Enlightenment government that contrast it with modern government.”
Suppose that, in a modern, democratic country, candidate X is running for President. His father was nobody in particular, but X has shown himself to be a very capable thinker, and quite a competent politician. Would you ever hear someone say that it would disgrace the office of the Presidency if X were elected, because his father was nobody in particular, regardless of how meritorious X was in and of himself?
That was quite routine in Ancient Rome (the X I was thinking of was Marcus Tullius Cicero). And Ancient Rome was one of the saner pre-Enlightenment governments.
This is pure propaganda. Read Speer’s Inside the Third Reich- the higher Nazi officials were generally very inept at governing, and spent so much time fighting amongst themselves that it was quite rare for them to get anything done at all.
I’ve read that, and recently I also read the book The Wages Of Destruction by Adam Tooze, an economic analysis of the Nazi regime. He devotes a chapter to Speer’s book and claims that Speer’s story is in fact the propaganda. Tooze says the Reich was reasonably efficient and competent, if not exceptionally so among other nations, and that Speer deliberately painted it as inefficient to falsely present himself as the savior who made huge efficiency gains possible.
It might take many years of studying the primary sources (and of studying some economics and industrial and military management) for me to form a personal opinion on this… So please form your own.
This is pure propaganda. Read Speer’s Inside the Third Reich- the higher Nazi officials were generally very inept at governing, and spent so much time fighting amongst themselves that it was quite rare for them to get anything done at all.
Looks like an excellent book suggestion. Thanks. That said, whose propaganda is the claim of Nazi efficiency? Also, I’m not sure an account of the leadership’s incompetence is sufficient to show that Nazi Germany was especially inefficient or corrupt compared to other nations in the WWII era. I suspect similar books could have been written by intelligent high level members of the allied governments as well (but I doubt there was a market for that kind of book). Though I suspect they were more corrupt than the US or UK, see below.
Suppose that, in a modern, democratic country, candidate X is running for President. His father was nobody in particular, but X has shown himself to be a very capable thinker, and quite a competent politician. Would you ever hear someone say that it would disgrace the office of the Presidency if X were elected, because his father was nobody in particular, regardless of how meritorious X was in and of himself?
So this is an example of a way in which ancient government can be seen as less efficient and more corrupt. But 1) this hardly proves a rule and 2) was Nazi Germany ‘ancient’ in this way?
Germany certainly had the legalistic, bureaucratic and other institutional features of the modern state. These institutions were possibly somewhat more corrupt than those of the democracies (which were still plenty corrupt but at least had more institutional checks and a freeish press to check corruption). But I doubt that Nazi Germany was significantly more corrupt or inefficient than the Stalinist USSR.
...and you can draw a pretty direct line from the part where Hitler was insane to Nazi military defeats, so if you zoom in up close I’m not sure it supports the main thesis.
This was exactly where my Great-Great Uncle had his great letdown in WWII (and even more so after the war when he learned of the Concentration Camps. My Uncle was at sea on the Scharnhorst the whole war). When the Kriegsmarine began to get orders directly from Herr Hitler they knew that the end was near, as many of the orders directly contravened known naval practices.
Could you elaborate on the “not so sure it supports the main thesis” a bit please?
Once zoomed in, insanity starts to look like quite a bit of a disadvantage on the microstructure, and rationalist skills (like knowing your own incompetence) like quite a bit of an advantage.
...and you can draw a pretty direct line from the part where Hitler was insane to Nazi military defeats
Like not going for the Middle East, but focusing on Russia.
I had grown used to the idea that Allied victory was pretty much ensured, at least by the entry of the US into the war. Reading about how Hitler’s generals really, really wanted him to go through Egypt to the oil was unsettling.
A good case could be made that “incompetent, unintelligent, irrational, superstitious and just plain insane” applies as well to us modern-day westerners—at least, I can imagine a parallel 2009 where Nazis won World War 2 and marvel at the successes of democratic nations in the early 20th century despite them being “incompetent, unintelligent, irrational, superstitious and jew-ridden”. Insanity can be hard to distinguish from up close.
I only want to note that the nation that in fact won WW2 was the USSR, but we in 2009 aren’t Communists wondering at the transient success of democracies.
The Nazis were visibly substantially more insane than other European countries at the time; Nazi Germany was, to a very high degree, a medieval pre-Enlightenment government teleported into the modern era.
Can you elaborate on what you mean by this? To me the only thing that comes to mind is their agricultural laws of inheritance...
Roman-style glorification of the military, increased subordination of women to men, the creation of a class of inferior non-citizens with no rights (slaves in ancient cultures and Jews, homosexuals, Gypsies, Slavs and political dissidents in Nazi Germany), extreme levels of violence and brutality towards the people of other countries, an ultimate goal of world conquest, extreme inefficiency and corruption in government.
Nearly all of those things look like pre-Enlightenment values not features of pre-Enlightenment government. I’m not sure I agree that Nazi Germany was extremely inefficient (most literature I’ve seen lauds its efficiency) and I’m not sure extreme efficiency and corruption are features of pre-Enlightenment government that contrast it with modern government.
“I’m not sure I agree that Nazi Germany was extremely inefficient (most literature I’ve seen lauds its efficiency)”
This is pure propaganda. Read Speer’s Inside the Third Reich- the higher Nazi officials were generally very inept at governing, and spent so much time fighting amongst themselves that it was quite rare for them to get anything done at all.
“and I’m not sure extreme efficiency and corruption are features of pre-Enlightenment government that contrast it with modern government.”
Suppose that, in a modern, democratic country, candidate X is running for President. His father was nobody in particular, but X has shown himself to be a very capable thinker, and quite a competent politician. Would you ever hear someone say that it would disgrace the office of the Presidency if X were elected, because his father was nobody in particular, regardless of how meritorious X was in and of himself?
That was quite routine in Ancient Rome (the X I was thinking of was Marcus Tullius Cicero). And Ancient Rome was one of the saner pre-Enlightenment governments.
I’ve read that, and recently I also read the book The Wages Of Destruction by Adam Tooze, an economic analysis of the Nazi regime. He devotes a chapter to Speer’s book and claims that Speer’s story is in fact the propaganda. Tooze says the Reich was reasonably efficient and competent, if not exceptionally so among other nations, and that Speer deliberately painted it as inefficient to falsely present himself as the savior who made huge efficiency gains possible.
It might take many years of studying the primary sources (and of studying some economics and industrial and military management) for me to form a personal opinion on this… So please form your own.
Looks like an excellent book suggestion. Thanks. That said, whose propaganda is the claim of Nazi efficiency? Also, I’m not sure an account of the leadership’s incompetence is sufficient to show that Nazi Germany was especially inefficient or corrupt compared to other nations in the WWII era. I suspect similar books could have been written by intelligent high level members of the allied governments as well (but I doubt there was a market for that kind of book). Though I suspect they were more corrupt than the US or UK, see below.
So this is an example of a way in which ancient government can be seen as less efficient and more corrupt. But 1) this hardly proves a rule and 2) was Nazi Germany ‘ancient’ in this way?
Germany certainly had the legalistic, bureaucratic and other institutional features of the modern state. These institutions were possibly somewhat more corrupt than those of the democracies (which were still plenty corrupt but at least had more institutional checks and a freeish press to check corruption). But I doubt that Nazi Germany was significantly more corrupt or inefficient than the Stalinist USSR.
...and you can draw a pretty direct line from the part where Hitler was insane to Nazi military defeats, so if you zoom in up close I’m not sure it supports the main thesis.
This was exactly where my Great-Great Uncle had his great letdown in WWII (and even more so after the war when he learned of the Concentration Camps. My Uncle was at sea on the Scharnhorst the whole war). When the Kriegsmarine began to get orders directly from Herr Hitler they knew that the end was near, as many of the orders directly contravened known naval practices.
Could you elaborate on the “not so sure it supports the main thesis” a bit please?
Once zoomed in, insanity starts to look like quite a bit of a disadvantage on the microstructure, and rationalist skills (like knowing your own incompetence) like quite a bit of an advantage.
Like not going for the Middle East, but focusing on Russia. I had grown used to the idea that Allied victory was pretty much ensured, at least by the entry of the US into the war. Reading about how Hitler’s generals really, really wanted him to go through Egypt to the oil was unsettling.