[Tribbles]

I think our detour into WWII stuff at the "your favorite pofoer" thread at Gorky-park, have taken such a interesting turn that it deserves a thread in platonist & dictatorship, were we can debate it with clear conscience.

Operation Valkyrie included senior members of the German government who were involved in the German economy, including Dr. Hjalmar Schacht, who had resigned his post as the head of the Reich Ministry of Finance out of protest at the horrible things Hitler was about to do to the German Economy.

This is interesting. It definitely gives a bit cred to the national-conservatives. I am getting interested in this group, I wonder what their alternative plan was for Germany. Did for example, Stauffenberg write anything? Maybe he was a fan of Dolfuss and his Astrofascism? Since he was a conservative catholic authoritarian?

I know wary lithe about the opposition on the left side as well actually. Did the SA really plan to coup Hitler? And what was their vision for Germany? I have heard that some of them were inspired by forms of direct-democracy that they claimed was practiced in medieval times, that they wanted peaceful relations with the Soviet Union, that they hated jews, and that some people claimed that they were "brown on the outside, red on the inside" and hence nicked them "the beefs"

I only have bits and pieces of information on this issue.

[Preston Cole]

This is interesting. It definitely gives a bit cred to the national-conservatives. I am getting interested in this group, I wonder what their alternative plan was for Germany. Did for example, Stauffenberg write anything? Maybe he was a fan of Dolfuss and his Astrofascism? Since he was a conservative catholic authoritarian?

I thought a major motive in Stauffenberg's action was his losing his arm in North Africa. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Did the SA really plan to coup Hitler?

I don't think they ever did. They were confident that Hitler would betray his conservative allies and replace the Reichswehr with the SA (especially since Hitler appeared to display affection for the Left-Nazi wing of the party in private conversations with Goebbles or Rohm, IIRC), and Rohm kept posing as the commander of this private army that would soon replace the national army in his mind, and perhaps one day replace Hitler himself. The most Rohm did was formally demand the absorption of the Reichswehr into the SA, which the conservatives refused. This all led to the purge.

If things had gotten nasty, I think a bloody civil war between the 3 million strong SA and the Versailles-influenced 10~ division strong Reichswehr would have been in order (I'm actually thinking of doing this scenario for Hearts of Iron 2 ), but the Reichswehr would have probably triumphed in the end since the training it received in Russia would have helped as well.

And what was their vision for Germany? I have heard that some of them were inspired by forms of direct-democracy that they claimed was practiced in medieval times, that they wanted peaceful relations with the Soviet Union, that they hated jews, and that some people claimed that they were "brown on the outside, red on the inside" and hence nicked them "the beefs"

This is correct. They promoted some sort of interesting guild socialism. They also wanted to be friends with the Rooskies as a result of their similar ideologies and similar political positions as the pariah states of Europe (an SA-Germany - USSR axis sounds interesting). They weren't that anti-Semitic, though, as Otto Strasser was open to collaborating with Jews in points of his life.

[Section Leader]

While I'm unsure of Stauffenberg's personal motivations, most of the plotters would have been quite happy to loyally serve the NSDAP in different circumstances. They believed they could get a good deal for Germany if they removed Hitler and his inner circle, they would have had no issue at all with the Nazis if Germany wasn't about to lose the war.

I also believe the Night of the Long Knives to placate the conservatives in the German government rather than any actual heartfelt opposition to Roehm or Strasser's views, remember that the Nazis didn't win the election outright and were in coalition with a number of conservatives like Konstantin von Neurath. Hitler would not gain total control until after Hindenburg's death several months after the purge and his government could have collapsed if the conservatives he'd had to corral into a coalition pulled out. Despite the personal hatred between the two, Gregor Strasser could have been a valuable member of Hitler's government, but his economics were too radical for the conservatives to stomach, so he too had to be purged because he would have made for a powerful rival.

[Orestes]

I know wary lithe about the opposition on the left side as well actually. Did the SA really plan to coup Hitler? And what was their vision for Germany? I have heard that some of them were inspired by forms of direct-democracy that they claimed was practiced in medieval times, that they wanted peaceful relations with the Soviet Union, that they hated jews, and that some people claimed that they were "brown on the outside, red on the inside" and hence nicked them "the beefs"

I've learned a thing or two about Otto Strasser’s program, having read his biography by Douglas Reed.

He advocated state ownership of land, minerals, and means of production (calling all those “monopoly goods”), which the government would in turn lease to the people to manage in exchange for a fee, and only this transaction would ever be allowed, the resources could not be either bought, sold or financialised upon in any other way like through share-holding, which was aimed to prevent the rise of rentierism.

Industry – transformation of sufficiently large factories into joint-stock companies posessing a tripartite division (state, workers, managers or “functional aristocracy” in his words who overwhelmingly would recruit from the former official owners), with roughly equal say in company’s internal policy. The portions of profit not covered by wage agreements were to be divided in a pattern: 49 % for the managers, 41% for the state, 10% for the workers. Market competition between particular enterprises was to remain.

Additionally high import tariffs in order to spur domestic production, and general autarchy in the spirit of Fichte's Geschlossene Handelstadt.

Strasser was not a big fan of industrialisation anyway and thought Germany should be re-agriculturalised (he wanted to move the capital from Berlin to Goslar or some other town in the countryside).

Land – hereditary ownership of arable land would be conferred on all able-bodied males willing to work on it, on request of local Peasants’ Councils, in amounts adequate to feed oneself, his family, and produce a surplus for trade (the whole concept was inspired by traditional Germanic customs). Properly done partitioning of land would free peasants from mortgages (with compensations for the previous landowners) and break the great estates in Prussia which in effect would deprive the Junker class of much of their sway - Strasser saw Prussia largely as a destructive element in German affairs, contrary to Ernst Niekisch for example. A similar, but watered-down reform was actually carried out by Walther Darré as Hereditary Peasants Holding Act.

Cratsmanship – under control of the guilds which would grant the right to perform the craft, regulate the number of craftsmen and ensure the quality, like in Medieval times.

Government - his plan for the governing system was to federalize Germany into 12 - 15 entities (Landschafts) smaller than the existing German Lands.

Also:

- Reichspräsident elected for life by the Reich Council.

- Citizens would choose members of the local parliaments and the Reich Parliament on base of their corporative belonging - workers could only elect a worker, peasants only a peasant and so on, but no single group could legally hold more than 49% of seats.

He was mainly of the opinion that the revolutionary change will be brought about not by workers’ self-organisation but through paternalistic means and said that „revolutions in Germany can happen only from above”.

I am familiar just with the projects of Otto and don’t know to what extent they differed from those of his brother, I believe the latter was for instance more into the racial stuff, but I have no idea about his exact economic views and such.

[Tribbles]

Thanks! The wikipedia-article on this guy is pretty interesting as well, I am reading it now.

[Potemkin]

He was mainly of the opinion that the revolutionary change will be brought about not by workers’ self-organisation but through paternalistic means and said that „revolutions in Germany can happen only from above”.

This is one of the areas where Strasser fundamentally differed from the Marxists. Rosa Luxemburg identified precisely this point - that all revolutions in Germany had come from above - as one of the fundamental problems with German society. Democracy had been given to the German people in 1918 as a gift from the ruling elite - they had not earned it through their own struggle and it was not their own victory, as it had been in America or France in the 18th century. No-one can take away Americans' or Frenchmen's freedom without engaging in a bitter struggle, whereas the Germans gave away their freedom to the first masterful, plausible Fuehrer who came along.

[Far-Right Sage]

This has much to do with the German psyche, Potemkin.

It has never changed within us and I have seen this on my visits, despite my disgust with the rampant leftism, multiculturalism, degradation, etc. among the youth today. Old ruins have been bulldozed away and a hideous art and social scene has come to Berlin; the ideology has been fundamentally dismantled and reworked to suit global-capitalism as was the aim in denazification in U.S./British/French occupation zones, but much like the Japanese, the inherent collectivist and studious mindset of the German people has not changed.

The kids of today have been taught to despise my parent's generation through years of indoctrination, so culturally/ideologically it's a bit different than Japan, where I believe if you gave them a cause and a proper military, they would be ready for round two tomorrow. Excellent fastidiousness amongst our peoples. Italy was the outcast, wouldn't you say?

[Potemkin]

Japan, where I believe if you gave them a cause and a proper military, they would be ready for round two tomorrow.

I'm inclined to agree with you about that.

Excellent fastidiousness amongst our peoples. Italy was the outcast, wouldn't you say?

If you mean that the Italian national psyche (in the sense of the mindset encouraged by the dominant culture) was inappropriate and inadequate material for fascism to work upon, then I agree with you. This is ultimately why Mussolini was all bluster and no substance.

[starman2003]

No-one can take away Americans' or Frenchmen's freedom without engaging in a bitter struggle

Not a "bitter struggle" but a grave emergency supplemented by cleverness like that of Augustus.

[Rich]

it's a bit different than Japan, where I believe if you gave them a cause and a proper military, they would be ready for round two tomorrow.

I'm always trying to explain to Liberals that it was Joseph Stalin that got the Germans and Japanese to behave themselves. If they ever started whining about our cruel oppressions, we could always fuck off and leave them to the Soviet Unions tender mercies.

[starman2003]

it's a bit different than Japan, where I believe if you gave them a cause and a proper military, they would be ready for round two tomorrow.

I dunno..for some time they've "renounced war forever." Long ago, around 1970, in a public demonstration some novelist--Mishima?--urged Japanese to rearm but they called him "idiot" and he killed himself.

[Preston Cole]

I don't know about Japan. They've appropriated every facet of American pop culture, but they largely avoided the multicultural trend. Maybe there's hope yet.

[Potemkin]

I dunno, the Japanese youth are heavily into anime and cosplay. Give them some snappy uniforms to wear, preferably black and with lots of runes and swastikas, and they'd probably be happy to rampage across the world once more. For great justice!

[Far-Right Sage]

My point was not that Japan's close to a healthy nationalist state today (although they've succeeded more than any other nation in the world in not selling out their nation to finance capital by allowing unrestricted immigration as Western countries have, despite the rampant consumerism/modern capitalism in Japan; this is impressive). It has a weak military, no control over real external decisions, and a population that are increasingly ignorant about politics (specifically Japanese politics, because they are one of the few nations intelligent enough to realize what a farce it all is when you operate in a liberal two-party state).

My point was that much of the loyalty millions of Japanese men, women, and children felt toward the Emperor and expanding their race and culture in Asia was transformed to loyalty to the corporation, a great coup of the U.S. occupation. If you have encountered any Japanese over the past couple of decades, their exact reverence for the hierarchy, understanding of their role in the war, fanatical loyalty to family and duty haven't changed; it's just been redirected. With a proper military and a unifying cause tomorrow, this is why I stated I doubt seeing many Japanese having an issue with a nationalistic foreign policy agenda. The Japanese left outside of the lone wolfs of the (now defunct) Japanese Red Army and other fringe elements are basically a non-entity.

Long ago, around 1970, in a public demonstration some novelist--Mishima?--urged Japanese to rearm but they called him "idiot" and he killed himself.

Yukio Mishima was a very great man; perhaps the greatest in post-war Japanese society. I espose the view that he came far before his time. Give the Japanese such a figure when the conditions I've highlighted are in place and watch them wave their fans and don their uniforms.

[Potemkin]

Yukio Mishima was a very great man; perhaps the greatest in post-war Japanese society. I espose the view that he came far before his time. Give the Japanese such a figure when the conditions I've highlighted are in place and watch them wave their fans and don their uniforms.

I agree that Mishima was a great man, one of the greatest Japan has ever produced. However, I regard him as a great writer rather than as a great leader of men (which is what he really wanted to be). His main problem, of course, was his homosexuality - the Japanese Right never really trusted or liked him, and he was never able to build up the network of friendships and connections he needed on the Right in order to become the inspirational leader he wanted to be. And, as the War Nerd has pointed out, that whole "Hello sailor!" vibe he gave out sort of spoiled the overall impression, despite his best efforts.

[starman2003]

With a proper military and a unifying cause tomorrow, this is why I stated I doubt seeing many Japanese having an issue with a nationalistic foreign policy agenda.

I think Japan is under the US for good.

Yukio Mishima was a very great man; perhaps the greatest in post-war Japanese society. I espose the view that he came far before his time.

More likely he was the last echo of a defunct past.

[Figlio di Moros]

Unlikely, the Japanese are proud of their heritage and only are passive today because it serves them better than militarism would. Given a need to arm, like a build-up of the Chinese military, and they'd be more than willing to remilitarize. If China ever overtook the US as hyperpower, I have very little doubt they quickly would.

[starman2003]

Unlikely, the Japanese are proud of their heritage and only are passive today because it serves them better than militarism would.

Not surprisingly, after the catastrophes of 1945, in particular, they long ago "renounced war forever." They aren't proud of 1931-45.

Given a need to arm, like a build-up of the Chinese military, and they'd be more than willing to remilitarize. If China ever overtook the US as hyperpower, I have very little doubt they quickly would.

Japan is a relatively small nation. Even if the US is no longer there in the future--which I doubt--they'd turn to another power, perhaps Russia. Japan may bolster its defenses--it has to some degree already--but that's not the same as having an aggressive, independent foreign policy. Japan isn't really big enough to do that; that was one lesson of 1941-45.

[Rei Murasame]

They aren't proud of 1931-45.

You are really joking, right? Why not just ask them, seeing as no one will tell you that they think that it wasn't a worthy cause.

Japan did not undergo the pathetic 'de-nazification' that Germany underwent.

[starman2003]

Why not just ask them, seeing as no one will tell you that they think that it wasn't a worthy cause.

Worthy or not, they got slaughtered and don't seem to have much stomach to go that way again.

Japan did not undergo the pathetic 'de-nazification' that Germany underwent.

Their war leaders were hanged, they adopted the stupid American democracy and "renounce war forever" is as pathetic as it gets.