The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 PodcastsKevin Barrett Archive
Twitter Censors "Uncle Adolf Stands with Ukraine" Tweet
Germans impervious to irony?
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Elon Musk, that self-described free speech absolutist, apparently hasn’t succeeded in forcing Twitter to recognize the internationally-recognized human right of freedom of expression. At least not in Germany.

Twitter sent me an email last night explaining that my tweet “Uncle Adolf stands with Ukraine, how about you?” is illegal in Germany.

How can that be? Is it against the law to criticize Nazis in Germany?! Is irony, satire, and sarcasm now illegal? Or is it only illegal to mock, deride, and ridicule Nazis? Or maybe it’s only UKRAINIAN Nazis that get special protection?

When Germany reaches the point that one can no longer disparage and denigrate Nazis, or even poke fun at them, one can only suspect that a Fourth Reich has somehow arisen. Will Germany soon make swastika-worship compulsory? Will German schools start holding obligatory moments of silence for the fallen heroes of the Azov Battalion? Will the heirs of Mel Brooks be forced to pay reparations to Berlin for the lèse-majesté of The Producers?

So next time you’re in Germany, don’t forget to snap your heels and salute every time you see a swastika, or you may find yourself sharing a cell with a World War II historian.

(Republished from Substack by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Censorship, Neo-Nazis, Russia, Twitter, Ukraine 
Hide 40 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Nope! It’s the opposite of what you think. German law bans all Nazi symbols, which would include swastikas and “Hitler”…except in “art” and “video games!” Go figure!

    • Agree: James N. Kennett
  2. Should have said Hasselhoff stands with Ukraine, Germany would love it and you’d have 6M likes.

  3. Adrian E. says:

    The reason why it is illegal in Germany is that any use of Nazi symbols is banned in Germany.

    There are some exceptions, e.g. for historical movies, but they are handled quite restrictively. With anti-Nazi symbols like crossed-out swastikas there may be a good chance that they are tolerated, but in this case, it is not obvious enough.

    So, it is not illegal because it criticises Nazis, but because a Nazi symbol is used.

    • Replies: @Wokechoke
  4. FowChee says:

    I wish Vlad freezes, and or starves, those EU bastards into submission!!!!

  5. Should have used toilet humour to charm the Germans, they don’t understand normal jokes.

  6. mike99588 says:

    maybe should try Schicklgruber instead of Uncle Adolf next time

  7. JR Foley says:

    Justin “Jackboot” Trudeau and Chrystia Freeland ( Grand daddy Chomiak and pal of Stepan Bandera) give their regards to Joe and Hunter and —–Canada wants to lead the war head-on into the Ukraine –a strategic Allie and best friend of USA and staunch NATO member. Liz Truss is good–but not better than Chrystia because Chrystia owns a pad in Kyiv and knows many top American warmongers in DC.
    Zylenskyy to sign contract with Hollywood and a New movie wherein he outwits Jabba the Hutt.

  8. Trinity says:

    The (((Nazis))) in Ukraine are (((fake Notsees.)))

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    , @Bookish1
  9. Fr. John says:

    I don’t care if it’s allowed or not. It’s time to rescind these clearly Judaic Supremacist Psychosis memes.

    The question I want answered, is ‘But is is TRUE?’

    Since we’re talking about Jews, who cannot speak Truth, (since they Crucified it) I somehow doubt they’ll respond to that query.

  10. You can’t buy KISS albums in Germany with the original cover-art either, for the same reason. The two “S”es in the band name look like the Nazi SS logo.

  11. Notsofast says:

    is it illegal to grow a charlie chaplin mustache in germany?

    • LOL: Iris
  12. @Trinity

    The (((Nazis))) in Ukraine are (((fake Notsees.)))

    Ukraine actually has very few Jews because of WW2.

    There are however a lot of Jews in Israel.

    Just ask your idol Putin, he loves selling them diamonds and oil.

    Can post a picture of him kissing the wall if you would like. Can’t tell if he had his height enhancing boots on though.

    • Troll: Trinity
    • Replies: @Bookish1
    , @Wokechoke
  13. anon[122] • Disclaimer says:

    You can’t buy KISS albums in Germany with the original cover-art either, for the same reason.

    Germans want to buy mediocre noise from gay guys wearing Japanese face designs?

    Once, long ago, proud Germans have sunk to the sewer.

  14. meamjojo says:

    I wonder if there should be a distinction between “free speech” and “stupid speech”. Your tweet falls into the latter category and has no redeeming value other than to stir-up dissension and disagreement.

    I’m happy it was removed.

    • Disagree: Biff
    • Replies: @Notsofast
  15. I don’t think your tweet should have been censored but it does seem kind of dumb.

    • Agree: BuelahMan
    • Replies: @BuelahMan
  16. BuelahMan says:
    @Jefferson Temple

    Something tells me that Kevin believes every lie ever told about the NSDAP and Hitler. Using the ‘Nazi card” gets likes and readers, tho. Makes me wonder if his readership is waning (I know that I avoid it, most times).

    But my reason is his incessant protection and defense of Muslims. Because he is one, why would he say anything else?

  17. Trinity says:

    Whites killing their White brothers and sisters for the Jew’s benefit. Quit being so stupid, Whitey. Did you not learn anything from World War II?

  18. Notsofast says:
    @meamjojo

    look who’s talking about stupid speach, trolljojo, here to leave his steaming piles of troll shit all over the thread. can’t you go to southfront instead, your stupid comments would fit in much better there.

    • Thanks: meamjojo
  19. @BuelahMan

    Apparently it isn’t just Germans who are impervious to irony, BM. Unless of course you happen to be German…

    • Replies: @Fluesterwitz
  20. Too bad Germany didn’t ban heavy-handed police state tactics and concentration camps. CoVid, habe ich recht, ja?

    • Replies: @Fluesterwitz
  21. @Kevin Barrett

    Irony is just an expression of white male superiority. Wait.

  22. @Sollipsist

    I don’t know anything about covid camps. Then again, that’s exactly what you’d assume me to say, wouldn’t you?

    • Replies: @Sollipsist
  23. Bookish1 says:
    @John Johnson

    Your post says nothing

    • Replies: @John Johnson
  24. Bookish1 says:
    @Trinity

    how do you know that. Did you personally meet all those people.

  25. @BuelahMan

    I have grown weary of Hitler memes because he has become a symbol of ultimate evil for millions of poor saps (I don’t think he was) and because I doubt that the OG national socialists and people who call themselves neo-Nazis are on the same page. I doubt that any of this would be happening if Ukrainian nationalists were not aligned with USG gangsters who want to bring it into NATO, and were simply Ukrainian nationalists.

    As far as the Muslims, they did get a bad rap from those other international (((gangsters))) propaganda a few years back, didn’t they? I was dumb enough to get worked up by it then but not anymore.

    • Replies: @anon
  26. @Fluesterwitz

    https://www.thelocal.de/20210118/german-considers/

    Not quite as clear-cut as the Australian final solution. But you’d think Germans would be a bit more sensitive to this sort of thing.

    • Replies: @Fluesterwitz
  27. anon[262] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jefferson Temple

    The same gang projecting their defects, evil 0nto
    Adolf did similar to Muslims/Arabs, Whites.

  28. Wokechoke says:

    I stand With Ukraine is Big in Germany! Comfy Chairs!

  29. Wokechoke says:
    @BuelahMan

    Hitler did stand with Ukraine though. It’s just an historical fact.

  30. @Sollipsist

    But you’d think Germans would be a bit more sensitive to this sort of thing.

    Quite probably, somebody’s job may have entailed to plan for “‘forced accommodation’” of repeat quarantine dodgers as a contingency.
    More interesting is the picture chosen to illustrate the article. It provides the inmate’s view of the mesh fence and barbed wire that separates him from the outside world. According to the article, the hypothetical quarantine center might be located at the area of the prison as a separate facility. The article does not establish whether and what kind of fence the hypothetical detention center might be provided with, but the picture implies a prison-like perimeter.
    From my own experience, I am acutely sensitive to barbed wire. I expect the same is true for other people, which is why it is such an effective means to keep in and out separate. That was what you meant, right?

    • Replies: @Sollipsist
  31. anon[417] • Disclaimer says:

    Problem is that both sides have been guilty of reductio ad Hitlerum for months and your tweet looks to be participating in this absurdity rather than mocking it. Irony *may* have been your intention, but as you failed to be clever, that’s far from clear. Your tweet looks identical to Russian use of the reductio, which is as stupid as Ukrainian use.

    IOW, you can’t meme and you poasted cringe, bro.

    • LOL: Sam Hildebrand
    • Troll: Notsofast
  32. @Bookish1

    Your post says nothing

    A fascinating retort. Putin makes trips to Israel and kisses the wall but the “jew loverz” according to Putin defenders are actually Unz posters that are against the war. Amazingly braindead logic.

    “Over in this section is where you can find the bathroom. There is a kid’s urinal that should fit your height.”

    • Replies: @Wokechoke
  33. Wokechoke says:
    @John Johnson

    Just the head of State and his major donors and inner circle of advisors.

  34. Wokechoke says:
    @John Johnson

    Azov Battalion styles itself as the inheritor of the Waffen SS Galicia. Thus the modified Rune.

  35. Wokechoke says:
    @Adrian E.

    No the Germans know perfectly well that the meme is pointing out that Azov Battalion is a successor to The Third Reich.

  36. Will the heirs of Mel Brooks be forced to pay reparations to Berlin for the lèse-majesté of The Producers?

    Actually, as I’ve pointed out many times now, the whole Zelensky idea of starting a war he can’t possibly win, demanding billions in “aid” from the West, which will disappear into his bank accounts, is essentially the plot of The Producers, right down to the costumed Nazi supplying the “worse play ever written”.

    • Replies: @Ray P
  37. @Fluesterwitz

    At the very least, barbed wire suggests prison (and war) to most people… despite the fact that you can see it everyday on fences around things as prosaic as an electrical substation or a dumpster hutch.

    The sight of it is virtually guaranteed to have some psychological effect. I don’t know how it affects the average German, but I do know that most of us have grown up seeing it in every film set in WW2 Germany.

    I suspect some part of the effect is related to the iconography of the crown of thorns that many of us have also grown up with. The implication of persecution and suffering unto death is inherent.

  38. Uncle Adolf was not stupid enough to stand with Ukraine; he could not even stand them.

  39. Did you know that Hitler was a Bolshevik & Zionists?

    Christopher Jon Bjerknes said:

    I have just released a new book which is certain to shake things up. I am interested in doing interviews to discuss this new work Adolf Hitler: Bolshevik and Zionist Volume I Communism

    Volume I of a planned multi-part series compiles mountains of evidence, including scarce sources and new translations, to explain:

    Why Hitler hid the fact that he worked for Kurt Eisner’s revolutionary government and was an elected liaison and propagandist for the Communist Soldiers’ Councils of the Bavarian Soviet Republic.

    [MORE]

    Why Hitler was a Communist informant, intelligence agent for the Reichswehr and spy.

    Why Captain Karl Mayr and General Erich Ludendorff chose Lance Corporal Adolf Hitler to lead an anti-Semitic and anti-Bolshevik National-Socialist party, and how they made him into a “German Joan of Arc”, dangerous demagogue and belligerent dictator.

    Why Hitler infiltrated the German Workers’ Party, changed its name to the National Socialist German Workers’ Party and replaced its leader Anton Drexler.

    Why Hitler let the British escape at Dunkirk, why he lost the Battle of Britain and why he opposed Operation Sea Lion.

    Why Hitler collaborated with the Soviet Union, then attacked it and ensured his own defeat.

    Why Hitler, who never declared wars, declared war on America.

    Why Hitler wanted Lebensraum in the East as living space for his dead German soldiers.

    Why Hitler let Hermann Goering deliberately lose the war he helped Hitler deliberately start.

    Why Hitler repeatedly sacrificed his soldiers to the Soviets and provided Stalin with foreknowledge of his plans.

    Why Hitler refused to negotiate a peace at war’s end and instead issued the Nero Order calling for the suicidal destruction of Germany by Germans.

    Find the unexpected answers to these and countless other conundrums in Adolf Hitler: Bolshevik and Zionist.

    November 25, 2007
    THE NAZIS WERE MARXISTS
    By Bruce Walker

    [Nazis were Marxists, through and through. Although Nazi condemned Bolshevism, the particular incarnation of Marx in Russia, and although the Nazis often bickered and fought with Fascism, the particular incarnation of Marx in Italy, Hitler and his ghastly accomplices were always and forever absolutely committed to that which we have come to call the “Far Left.” Nazis were Marxists.]

    The Nazis were Marxists, no matter what our tainted academia and corrupt media wishes us to believe. Nazis, Bolsheviks, the Ku Klux Klan, Maoists, radical Islam and Fascists — all are on the Left, something that should be increasingly apparent to decent, honorable people in our times. The Big Lie which places Nazis on some mythical Far Right was created specifically so that there would be a bogeyman manacled on the wrists of those who wish us to move “too far” in the direction of Ronald Reagan or Barry Goldwater.

    The truth about the Nazis was that they were the antithesis of Reagan and Goldwater. Let us consider the original Nazi movement and its evolution. The National Socialist movement began in Austria with Walter Riehl, Rudolf Jung and Hans Knirsch, who were, as M.W. Fodor relates in his book South of Hitler, the three men who founded the National Socialist Party in Austria, and hence indirectly in Germany. In November, 1910, these men launched what they called the Deutschsoziale Arbeiterpartei. That party was successful politically. It established its program at Inglau in 1914.

    What was this program? It was against social and political reaction, for the working class, against the church and against the capitalist classes. This party eventually adopted the name Deutsche Nationalsozialistche Arbeiter Partei, which, except for the order of the words, is the same name as “Nazi.” In May 1918, the German National Socialist Workers Party selected the Harkendruez, or swastika, as its symbol. Both Hitler and Anton Drexler, the nominal founder of the Nazi Party, corresponded with this earlier, anti-capitalistic and anti-church party.

    Hitler, before the First World War, was highly sympathetic to socialism. Emile Lorimer, in his 1939 book, What Hitler Wants, writes about Hitler during these Vienna years that Hitler already had felt great sympathy for the trade unions and antipathy toward employers. He attended sessions of the Austrian Parliament. Hitler was not, as many have portrayed him, a political neophyte in 1914.

    The very term “National Socialist” was not invented by Hitler nor was it unique to Germany. Eduard Benes, President of Czechoslovakia at the time of the Munich Conference, was a leader of the Czechoslovak National Socialist Party. Ironically, at the time of the Munich Conference, out of the fourteen political parties in the Snemovna (the lower chamber of the Czechoslovakian legislature) the party most opposed to Hitler was the Czechoslovak National Socialist Party. The Fascist Party in Czechoslovakia was also anti-Nazi.

    The first and only platform of the National Socialist German Workers Party called for very Leftist economic policies. Among other things, this platform called for the death penalty for war profiteering, the confiscation of all income unearned by work, the acquisition of a controlling interest by the people in all big business organizations and so on. Otto Strasser, the brother and fellow Nazi of Gregor Strasser, who was the second leading Nazi for much of the Nazi Party’s existence, in his 1940 book, Hitler and I revealed his ideology before he found a home in the Nazi Party. In his own words Otto Strasser wrote:

    “I was a young student of law and economics, a Left Wing student leader.”

    Consider the following text from that platform adopted in Munich on February 20, 1920 and ask yourself whether it sounds like the notional Right or the very real Left:

    “We ask that the government undertake the obligation above all of providing citizens with adequate opportunity for employment and earning a living. The activities of the individual must not be allowed to clash with the interests of the community, but must take place within its confines and be for the good of all. Therefore, we demand an end to the power of the financial interests. We demand profit sharing in big business. We demand a broad extension of care for the aged. The government must undertake the improvement of public health.”

    In his 1939 indictment of Nazism, Germany Rampant, Hambloch has an entire chapter on political parties under the German Empire before the First World War and political parties under the Weimar Republic. Hambloch lists parts of the “Left,” “Right” and “Centre” in the German Empire pre-1914, but there are no “Left,” “Right” or “Centre” parties in the Weimar Republic, but rather “Weimar Parties, i.e. those who supported the republican constitution,” “National Reactionary Parties” and “Revolutionary Parties.” The Nazis are listed, along with the Communist Party of Germany, as the two “Revolutionary Parties.” Pointedly, the Nazis were not considered a “National Reactionary Party.”

    Consider these remarks of Nazi leaders. Hitler on May 1, 1927:

    “We are socialists. We are enemies of today’s capitalistic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions.”

    Goebbels, who was the only major Nazi leader who stayed with Hitler to the very end, wrote in Der Angriff in 1928:

    “The worker in a capitalist state – that is his greatest misfortune – no longer a human being, no longer a creator, no longer a shaper of things. He has become a machine.”

    That image sounds almost identical to what Charlie Chaplin, a Marxist, was portraying in his caricature of industrial society, Modern Times. In 1930, Hitler tasked Hans Buchner to clarify what Nazi economic policies were. What did Buchner elect to call the economic policies of the Nazis?

    “State socialism.”

    As the Nazis began to become a serious political party, in the 1930s, the Nazi deputies introduced a flurry of proposals: (1) to ban trading in stocks and bonds; (2) to nationalize all large banks; (3) to require registration of stock ownership with a state agency; (4) to limit interest by law to five percent; (5) to confiscate all profits acquired by inflation. These measures were not hidden; they were trumpeted on the front pages of Nazi periodicals to ensure that party members knew what the Nazi Party in the Reichstag was doing. Some Nazi proposals sound eerily modern. The Nazis, for example, proposed that old age and disability benefits (Social Security) be paid out of general revenue, rather than from the contributions of the individual recipient, and that the benefits be indexed to the cost of living.

    In 1932, months before the Nazis actually took power, a leading opponent of Nazism writing under the pseudonym Nordicus, in his book, Hitlerism: The Iron Fist in Germany, notes what Josef Goebbels, leading propagandist for the Nazis, was writing:

    “War against profiteers, peace with workers! Destruction of all capitalistic influences on the political system of the country.”

    The same author notes the economic principles of Nazism included support for the general welfare, and that this included old age pensions, the confiscation of war profits, and opposition to capitalism.

    The Nazis simply did not ride to power on the backs of wealthy industrialists. In fact, after the Nazis had acquired power and when it would have been very advantageous to have “backed the right horse,” Ernst von Borsig, the prominent Berlin industrialist, said that he and his colleagues provided very little support to the Nazis. As early as 1921, Paul Reush, the leading industrialist in the Ruhr, actively insisted that his company officers not support the Nazis. The Krupp family, famous for producing arms for Germany, opposed Hitler in the 1932 presidential election. Nazis received very little support even from industrialists who would benefit from rearmament until 1930.

    Hendrik Willem van Loon, in his 1938 book, Our Battle, written before the Nazi-Bolshevik non-aggression pact and while Nazis were presenting themselves to the world as sworn enemies of Bolshevism, wrote that Big Business mistrusted a political program which made a point of denouncing with bitterness all those who made profits by loaning out money at interest, and that because Hitler “pretended” to be the enemy of Communists, industrialists would occasionally give him some money, but they were careful not to take sides.

    The putative connection between Nazis and industrialists was invented simply for convenience by Communists. Opponents of the Nazis in 1923 claimed that Hugo Stinnes, the leading industrialist in Germany, was providing support to the Nazis. At this very point in history, not only was Nazi propaganda attacking Stinnes, but Hitler himself specifically attacked Stinnes in his speeches. The Weimar Republic, like the Third Republic of France had no Right in the way that Americans would conceive of it.

    Hitler, for example, loathed the Kaiser and Imperial Germany. The Tat Circle, that enigmatic group which influenced Nazism, was profoundly anti-capitalist. The title of Tat Circle member Ferdinand Freid’s 1931 bestseller was The End of Capitalism, which asserts that capitalism not only was doomed, but also that it was unjust. The Tat Circle is an example of what passes for the Far Right in the Weimar Republic, and if an anti-capitalism and anti-Christian movement is the Right, one must wonder what the Left in Weimar Germany believed. Germany never had “capitalism,” and in his 1938 book, Germany Puts the Clock Back, Edgar Mower writes that when in April 1931 a number of German industrialists visited Soviet Russia they were enthusiastic about the unlimited authority of the Bolsheviks over the workmen, which was what many of them dreamed about for Germany, noting that German owners long since ceased to believe in anything so vigorous as Western capitalism and competition.

    While Nazi rhetoric consistently attacked the rich, the well born, the war profiteers, and the industrialists and while Nazi rhetoric consistently championed the working poor, the old, and the unemployed, how did the Nazis act once they had acquired actual power? If anything, Nazis in power were more hostile to business and to the “rich” when they ran Germany as when they were seeking power through democratic means.

    In 1937, four years after the Nazis gained power, Freund wrote of Hitler in Zero Hour that:

    “Only in domestic affairs did Hitler follow his original plan to the letter.”

    Graf von der Golz, the Deputy Commissar in the Ministry of Economics in a speech to businessmen reported in the Nazi periodical Völkischer Beobachter on July 15, 1934:

    “Any organization that represents the interests of the employer will be regarded as illegal and disbanded and the guilty parties will be prosecuted.”

    Fritz Thyssen, one of the industrialists who did help bring the Nazis to power, said in 1940:

    “Soon Germany will not be any different from Bolshevik Russia; the heads of enterprises who do not fulfill the conditions which the ‘Plan’ prescribes will be accused of treason against the German people, and shot.”

    The Nazis on October 16, 1934 raised the highest income tax rate from 40% to 50%, and on February 17, 1939 raised that highest rate again to 55%. A decree of September 9, 1939 again increased income taxes, but exempted incomes of 2,400 Reichmarks a year or less. Comparative Major European Governments, a 1937 book, notes that through several new laws on December 4, 1934 banking, credits, and stock exchanges passed under complete government control and that the Loan-Stock Law limited stock company dividends to six percent in some cases and to eight percent in others, with profits over that required to be transferred to the Gold Discount Bank, which was in turn required to invest them in government loans or municipal debt service bonds.

    Nazi hostility to individual wealth was matched by its hostility to big business. The same act of October 16, 1934 removed the exemption on business taxes for many types of businesses and it increased the progressivity of the business taxes; an act of August 27, 1936 raised the general business tax rate from 20% to 25% and to 30% for each year thereafter; then on July 25, 1938 corporate profits of more than 100,000 Reichmarks per year were subjected to an additional tax of 35% with that rising to 40% for each year thereafter; and on March 20, 1939, the Nazis imposed an excess profits tax. In four years, Nazis had raised taxes to approximately one fourth of the national income.

    Stephen Roberts, in his 1937 book, The House That Hitler Built, noted that compulsory loans had been extracted from banks and insurance companies, and that these grew to such an extent that armament firms complained that they no longer could bear this in addition to all the other assessments like the eight percent Labor Front charges assessed. Dr. Schacht, an economist who worked for the German government after the Nazis took power, had been compelled to fight with the Leftist economists within the Nazi Party, and that he had refused to join the Nazi Party for a long time. Dr. Schacht had also opposed the anti-Jewish policies of the Nazis as economically unsound.

    The Loan Stock Law of December 4, 1934 virtually confiscated all dividends of six percent or, in some cases, eight percent by ordering the beneficiaries of stock dividends to invest those monies in state bonds. Even this was deemed to be too generous to the rich. The original promise to pay these stockholders in cash or other bonds was revoked in 1937 through the issuance of tax certificates which bore no interest at all, and beyond that, the owners of these tax certificates could not use them to pay their income taxes or their capital profits tax — they could only use them beginning in April 1952, and then only in installments. In January 1935, all mortgage banks and similar institutions were authorized to “offer” to owners of obligations issued by them a cut to 4.5% per cent in annual interest, for which the owner was to be compensated through a special payment corresponding to two percent of the face value of the obligation and this was “deemed” accepted unless the owner rejected it “in writing” and “within ten days”; in the latter case he also was forced to deposit the obligation with the credit-giving institution.

    David Shoenbaum states in his book, Hitler’s Social Revolution, that business was frustrated by the failures of the Nazis and soon began simply reading official scripts. And from the 1937 book, The House That Hitler Built, Roberts dismisses as “fantastic” the stories that Hitler came to power as the nominee of the Thyssen group, noting that Hitler received little money from industrialists until 1930, and the Krupp group, a major armaments builder, opposed Hitler as late as 1932. Once in power, the Nazis checked the industrialists, grabbed for the state dividends above six percent, forced employers to keep unnecessary workers, made them scrap modern labor-saving machinery, and coerced contributions for all kinds of Party purposes.

    The Nazis passed legislation to make it difficult to form or maintain corporations and to limit the authority of directors of corporations or of stockholders in corporations. Directors of corporations, for example, were allowed to grant bonuses only upon condition that they were directly tied to profit and upon condition that the board of directors authorize “voluntary social contributions” to employees, granting employees effectively an automatic share in corporate profits. Later, the tax on directors’ fees was increased from 10% in March 1933 to 20% in February 1939. The capital market in Germany was almost completely closed to private issues and banks were subject to a succession of compulsory levies, confiscated reserves and increasingly high taxes. In March 1939, a decree liquidated virtually all holdings of foreign securities.

    The Nazis also simply expropriated, with or without compensation to the business owners, canals, dams, roads and other private enterprises if ownership was deemed in the interest of the Reich. Even if some compensation was given to the owners, the owners themselves could not request compensation for virtual seizure of their businesses when the government wished to seize them. The same year, the Reich Supreme Court for Finance and Taxation invalidated claims for tax deductions for two spinning mills in Saxony, noting that prior law could be ignored and that tax laws had to be interpreted according to a “National – Socialistic” perspective, to the great detriment of business. Even when private property rights were suspended by the Nazis in the interests of the “people’s community,” if there was any compensation to the property owners, “speculative gains” were taxed away.

    Vera Micheles Dean in her 1939 book, Europe in Retreat, written before the Second World War began, said that the Nazis had introduced into Germany a form of graduated Bolshevism, focusing first upon Jewish bankers, industrialists and businessmen, but then upon other businesses, noting that the Nazi goal, from which it had not deviated, was to establish an egalitarian society in which everyone is equal and subordinate to the state. The same year Time Magazine wrote that the “most cruel joke of all” has been how Hitler treated those capitalists and small businessmen who thought National Socialism would save them from radicalism. Some businesses had been expropriated; some were subjected to a capital tax; all had profits strictly controlled; and all were subjected to intense government regulation.

    The Nazi regime also had taken over big estates and in many instances collectivized agriculture, a procedure fundamentally similar to Russian Communism. The same year Dorothy Thompson wrote that, having robbed the Jews, the Nazis were beginning to rob the Church, and later will almost certainly expropriate the property of the bourgeoisie. Rauschning in 1938 wrote of Nazi economic policies,

    “The expropriation of property will inevitably follow, as well as the complete abolition of private enterprise.”

    Lunn noted the very same year that the decline of economic conditions in Germany was because of socialism and bureaucracy which was leading Germany toward foreign adventures. Two years later, in 1941, Karl Lowenstein wrote that even if industry and big business had helped Hitler into power, these men found a much sterner master in National Socialism. The Nazis regulated business to death and they were completely indifferent to the effect this had upon businessmen, who the Left often had presented as the secret masters of Nazism.

    The Anatomy of Nazism, published by the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith in 1961, noted that many industrialists who had supported Hitler found out that the Nazis were their masters, not servants, and that an enormous amount of private correspondence was simply new bureaucratic red tape imposed by a vast, new Nazi system of controls.

    Fodor the following year wrote that now there was no doubt that the National Socialist regime truly justified the second part of its name, which a few years ago probably was only “window-dressing.” In 1941, former Nazi boss of Danzig, Hermann Rauschning, wrote that the last part of the German Revolution was Nazism, which was just as much a realization of Marxist as of nationalist ideas, and he notes that the only ones who refuse to admit this are supporters of Marxist theories and Nazis themselves.

    Rauschning also writes in his book that Marxism itself was part of a single great revolutionary movement which included Marxist Socialism, Nazism, Communist Bolshevism, Fascism and nihilism. Rauschning knew Hitler well and repudiated him and his movement at great risk before the rest of the world recognized the full danger of Nazism.

    Karl Lowenstein in the 1940 book, Governments of Continental Europe, writes that there was a convergence in Bolshevism and National Socialism regarding private property, and that this was clear long before Hitler and Stalin became allies. Such things as freedom of contract, inviolability of private property, and the right to dispose of one’s estate were cited as examples of the deep-reaching restrictions in both totalitarian states. National Socialists were socialists. They had nothing but contempt for what socialists call “capitalism” or what normal people call economic freedom. While it is convenient to portray Nazis as beholden to industrialists and militarists, even from the earliest days Nazis loathed not only industrialists in general but armament makers in particular. The Nazis raised taxes, punished profits, reduced the power of owners, of managers, and of directors and championed the right of the state or the party to “protect” Germany and German workers from abuses of “capitalists

    Nazis were Marxists, through and through. Although Nazi condemned Bolshevism, the particular incarnation of Marx in Russia, and although the Nazis often bickered and fought with Fascism, the particular incarnation of Marx in Italy, Hitler and his ghastly accomplices were always and forever absolutely committed to that which we have come to call the “Far Left.” Nazis were Marxists.

  40. Ray P says:
    @James J O'Meara

    So Ukraine is going to win this war by accident? “Good news from the front President Zelensky! The Russian ogre is retreating!” “You fool! I can’t possibly repay all of these loans.”

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply -


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
$
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Kevin Barrett Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism