[Il Duce]

As soon as someone hears the word 'Nazi', images of War, death, slavery and destruction come to mind. However, not many know how Nazism made Weimer Germany into a super power. A country that lost all pride in itself and endured poverty due to the treaty of Versailles turned into a powerful state in a short time. What are the pros and cons of Nazism? Could there be other forms of Nazism that are not as extreme as Nazi germany?

Pros
- Sense of community and national pride.
- Strong economy
- Strong military
- Environmentally friendly
- generous to hard working people
- Physically, mentally and emotionally strong people

Cons
- Blames other races for Weimer germany's problems and social injustices (In reality it was capitalism)
- Imperialistic militarily (Lebensraum)
- use of terror tactics on political enemies (Gestapo and such)
- Little Freedom of speech

Please add more if i missed things.

[Smilin' Dave]

However, not many know how Nazism made Weimer Germany into a super power.

Super power is somewhat misleading. Superpowers are meant to be able to project their power around the world, which Germany certainly could not do.

Regional super power at best.

A country that lost all pride in itself and endured poverty due to the treaty of Versailles

Actually before the Great Depression Weimar Germany was doing reasonably well economically. There was an initial patch after the war with hyper inflation etc. but after that were the so called 'Golden years'.

turned into a powerful state in a short time

Nazi Germany's power ultimately turned out to be superficial. People commonly ignore the unstable nature of the Germany economy under Hitler or that they were facing immenent economic collapse just before WWII actually started. In 1935 IIRC (might have been a bit earlier) Nazi Germany couldn't even supply butter to its own people, and spent a lot of its foreign exchange to rectify this. Industrial development was undertaken on short term loans (which was okay... if you had a war soon, won it, AND could make it pay for itself). Industrial development was also fairly shallow, as demonstrated by subsequent production problems during the war.

Could there be other forms of Nazism that are not as extreme as Nazi germany?

A more fascist Nazi Germany would have been less extreme. Alternatively the more socialist leaning Strausser brothers might have made for a more moderate party.

Added cons
- Leadership model created too much infighting, which ended up with a lot of confused policy, wasted effort within the party and outside of it.
- Taking some of the above and the specific background of German Nazism, leadership interference in key areas like the military and industry. Had they been competant, that might have been okay...
- Not especially meritocratic (for example... what exactly was Goering good for?)
- Lacked a system for leadership replacement/transition
- Relating to your point on free speech: had no realistic way of gauging public opinion or reality in general
- Racial structure of ideology tended to effect everything and is an unrealistic model for a nation.

[starman2003]

The nazi system was not generous to working people, which as Shirer wrote, got wages not much above subsistence. The Reich was a sacrificial society in which the bulk of individuals got less as part of the effort to make the Whole stronger.

Racism was indeed a serious flaw but not imperialistic expansionism, in principle. Rome's initial wars of conquest were destructive too but the result was the Pax Romana. The main problem was that Germany wasn't strong enough in relation to all potential enemies. In theory the Reich could have bested Britain, if not by direct invasion then by invading the Near East via Turkey and taking the oilfields. Theoretically Russia might've been beaten too. Still it was imprudent of the Reich to take on the USSR and US. Global hegemonization should be left to a future authoritarian system, like the US, if/when problems democracy hasn't been able to handle usher in a new Caesarism.

Generally the Reich was indeed a European power with not much ability to project power elsewhere. But it could to some extent. Even the US might've been thwarted if German prewar shipbuilding priorities had emphasized U-boats over surface ships. Btw it may interest you Australians to know that U-boats got as far as your shores too-pretty remarkable.

[TROI]

- generous to hard working people

Wtf?

Global hegemonization should be left to a future authoritarian system

War was the only way national socialism could secure its position for any period of time. The contradictions inherent in the system mean the necessity of external scapegoats. National socialism/authoritarianism have only two logical conclusions: War or revolution.

[Smilin' Dave]

In theory the Reich could have bested Britain, if not by direct invasion then by invading the Near East via Turkey and taking the oilfields.

Realistically, the Germany war machine would have bogged down in the mountainous regions of Turkey and the Balkans and been bled to death there.

Even if the Germans could secure those oilfields, they would have found it near impossible to ship that oil home to be actually used.

Theoretically Russia might've been beaten too.

Guderian specifically said not to invade the Soviet Union in Achtung Panzer... I thought that was pretty amusing.

But it could to some extent. Even the US might've been thwarted if German prewar shipbuilding priorities had emphasized U-boats over surface ships.

The counter argument is that the allies would have made a concomitant shift in ASW warfare in response to the lack of surface threat, hence VLR aircraft start getting used earlier.

Btw it may interest you Australians to know that U-boats got as far as your shores too-pretty remarkable.

But in the broader scheme of things it didn't really effect us, hence if power was projected, it was pretty weak.

Since submarines are primarily designed to deny things to the enemy, they are not as useful for actually projecting power. About the best you could achive would be a blockade, and some countries would be able to cope with that.

[Il Duce]

Oops! Why the hell did i say generous to workers? Employees were forbidden to strike in the country....

Nazi Germany was a powerful nation, especially in 1941-1942. It surpass the world in engineering, science, military strength, but it only did have influence in its region. It conquered most of europe and brought europe to its knees. Then again, production wise, it was weak. Often the Germans used horses as a form of transport for their military and relied on Rumanian oil. It needed to expand to be an ultimate super power and i guess thats one of their reason why they wanted the USSR as well. Smilin Dave, i believe that the germans wanted to Arab nations to rebel from british rule so it could get oil supplies from there as well.

I don't believe that Nazi U-boats have reached Australia. Only Japanese U-boats have from what i hear. Do you have any source of information?

[Saf]

Pros
- Sense of community and national pride.
- Strong economy
- Strong military
- Environmentally friendly
- generous to hard working people
- Physically, mentally and emotionally strong people

These are all great effects of progressive authoritarian governments in general. Why use the flawed racial theories and inefficient blind leadership of the Fuhrer when you can include these pros without the silly OMGWTFPWNTHEJEWS syndrome?

[Boondock Saint]

- Strong economy

I believe it only gave the appearance of being a strong economy, in reality it was an economy that could not be supported. Meaning imo that it was not strong but horribly flawed, thus weak.

You can argue that Nazi Germany had a powerful military industrial complex but even that was dwarfed by the ability of the Soviets and Americans and whats worse, the Nazis needed to invade and conquer other lands to bring in enough resources for their military.

[Smilin' Dave]

It surpass the world in engineering, science, military strength,

Not really.
- German designs were often inferior to those of their opponents. German/Italian tanks were consistantly beaten by Soviet tank designs for example. It was only better deployment that saved them.
- Science: Nazism suffered a large brain drain, because it scared some of their best scientists and workers away. Not to mention some of their most amazing developments actually date back to the Weimar period (see for example rocketry... all the Nazis did was take an existing program and throw more money)
- Military strength: At the tactical level, maybe. Strategically weak and misguided.

Another point on the economy: Nazism didn't actual save the economy. They used plans that had been drawn up by previous governments (I think it was specifically Brunning, not sure), but were rejected as too socialist and undermining government objectives (for example getting enough pity to have Versailles cancelled).

It conquered most of europe and brought europe to its knees.

But was annihilated in turn... Communism and democracy were clearly more durable and efficient based on this.

Smilin Dave, i believe that the germans wanted to Arab nations to rebel from british rule so it could get oil supplies from there as well.

And those rebellions were dismal failures. It still doesn't solve the point I made earlier, about actually getting that oil to Germany.

[Truth-a-naut]

This myth concerning Nazi scientific achievement and it's alledged prominence over it's rivals is funny.

The advancements that were seen in the Thrid Reich were carry overs from the Weimer days. Nazi science was insane and deeply political.

Ever hear about "German Math", "German Chemistry" or "German Physics"?

[starman2003]

The German army succeeded in the Balkans, in Yugoslavia and Greece, and the plan was to get Turkey to allow the passage of German troops, not necessarily conquer it. Even if the Germans couldn't use the Near East oil themselves, they might've won by denying it to Britain, along with the Suez canal etc. Churchill was very worried about the possible consequences of the loss of the Near East. Continuation of the war, he wrote, "would be a long, hard and bleak proposition, even if the United States entered the conflict."

Sure, the allies might've invested more in ASW if the prewar German naval construction effort emphasized U-boats. But the western democracies, particularly the US, seriously neglected defenses of all kinds, whereas the dictatorial Reich could compel the essential sacrifices. The U-boat force, had it been substantially larger, could've inflicted an enormous slaughter off the US east coast in '42, which would've gravely affected the whole war effort. Hoyt wrote that the US almost lost as it was. Btw, I wa aware that Japanese I-boats patrolled off Australia but so did a few U-boats late in the war. A book on that subject was advertized in the Scholar's bookshelf catalog; see also Axis Submarine successes.
It is true that, despite some technical achievements, the Reich generally lagged behind the West. It was better at utilizing what technology it had than in inventing more. Same was true for the other premature Wholistic system, the USSR.

[Smilin' Dave]

The German army succeeded in the Balkans, in Yugoslavia and Greece

Only to become embroiled in an extended fight against partisans that sucked up huge resources. Had the Germans tried to extend their war effort deeper into the area, this would have had an even more serious effect.

the plan was to get Turkey to allow the passage of German troops, not necessarily conquer it.

Turkey, which was fairly close to the Soviet Union would be unlikely to do that. In the event Turkey benefited more by staying neutral (since it got to sell things to both sides).

So attacking the near east also runs the risk of bring the Soviets into the war (they already had an interest in Iran and the narrows).

Even if the Germans couldn't use the Near East oil themselves, they might've won by denying it to Britain, along with the Suez canal etc.

There was no way that Germany could take and hold an area that big with such a difficult political background.

While it would deny resources to Britain, it might panic the US (who were just starting to develop their interest in the Middle East at this stage) and get them into the war earlier.

Churchill was very worried about the possible consequences of the loss of the Near East.

Churchill was also convinced that Normandy would be a repeat of the Dardenelles campaign.

But the western democracies, particularly the US, seriously neglected defenses of all kinds

Actually the development of pocket battleships in the event created a wake up call for the Royal Navy, so simply changing production would probably yield similar results, if not worse (since the British navy knew who bad U-Boat warfare could get thanks to WWI).

whereas the dictatorial Reich could compel the essential sacrifices.

Misnomer. Nazi Germany's economy didn't go on to a wartime footing till around 1943, specifically to limit the sacrifices to be made.

The U-boat force, had it been substantially larger, could've inflicted an enormous slaughter off the US east coast in '42, which would've gravely affected the whole war effort.

Sending more U-boats might have just made it easier to find them... for example, more use of radio to coordinate the wolf packs would be a dead give away.

More does not always mean better.

Further, the German U-boat fleet did have its 'happy time' in the initial phases... but the strategic effect wasn't particularly noticable. You would have to be talking about a truely massive shift in the Nazi war machine to get the numbers needed to do better.

It is true that, despite some technical achievements, the Reich generally lagged behind the West. It was better at utilizing what technology it had than in inventing more.

Yes and no.

One of the mistakes that the Germans did make was to have newer, funky designs (the Tiger, the assorted tank hunters etc.) which ended up sapping the resources from the more tried and true designs, like the humble PzIV (which was only matched by the upgunned Shermans... which were not particularly numerous). Resources were also sunk into programs that never really got off the ground (like the jet fighter program... would have been a good idea if they were not short on fuel and vital alloy components already) or didn't work that well (V1 and V2).

[Saf]

"German Physics"?

Qui est-ce Einstein, Alex?

[Comrade Ogilvy]

The third reich had many good qaulities, however I wouldn't list them as the ones you gave. Here's the REAL importance of Adolph's regin of terror..

Why National Socialism Was Good..
A: Alot of stupid people died.
B: People finnaly realized what true evil tasted like and were very hesitant to judge.
C: A common enemy that brought the world together. Atleast half of it.
D: It gave the American people allies it did not have before. (You still suck England.)
F: They had good fashion sense.

Why National Socialism Was Bad..
A: Alot of Isralites died. (And they are far from being stupid.)
B: Everyone wants to compare everyone to the ultimate evil, therfore people have gotten stupider sense 1939..
C: Because of the lack of a real enemy every country has elevated and become spoiled.
D: It gave the American people allies it did not have before. (You still suck England.)
F: The world no longer has good fashion sense.

There ya' go..

[Lokakyy]

Smilin' Dave said:

- German designs were often inferior to those of their opponents. German/Italian tanks were consistantly beaten by Soviet tank designs for example. It was only better deployment that saved them.

False.

The only tank that was directly a better design than German equivalents (PzIIIs and PzIVs) during that time was T-34 and it was outperformed by Panther tanks in mid-1943.

The German tanks were also superior for example in gun optics, radio equipment, the main guns were more accurate than the soviet ones etc. etc.

Italian tanks were indeed crappy.

[Ombrageux]

At the beginning of the war, I believe French tanks were quite superior to Germany's glorified plated cars.

The best German tanks were the best of the whole war, but I'm reasonably certain Soviet Tanks were more cost effective.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

That's a moot point considering now tanks are all but a primitive weapon of the past. Like clubs..

[Ombrageux]

You sir, don't know which point you are talking about.

[Siberian Fox]

[Note: Please argue technical details over which tank was bigger etc in the cars and trucks and things that go off-topic forum. This section is for political discussion.]

[The American Lion]

- Blames other races for Weimer germany's problems and social injustices (In reality it was capitalism)

Wrong: It wasnt capitalism's fault. It was a combined factors.

It was due to the fact of the global depression, harsh reparations by the allies, and high inflation.