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.
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.