Hitler Was Incompetent and Lazy—and His Nazi Government Was an Absolute Clown Show

Hitler Was Incompetent and Lazy—and His Nazi Government Was an Absolute Clown Show | Opinion
TOM PHILLIPS
ON 4/30/19 AT 5:22 AM EDT

...

Why did the elites of Germany so consistently underestimate Hitler? Possibly because they weren't actually wrong in their assessment of his competency—they just failed to realise that this wasn't enough to stand in the way of his ambition.

As it would turn out, Hitler was really bad at running a government. As his own press chief Otto Dietrich later wrote in his memoir The Hitler I Knew, "In the twelve years of his rule in Germany Hitler produced the biggest confusion in government that has ever existed in a civilized state."

His government was constantly in chaos, with officials having no idea what he wanted them to do, and nobody was entirely clear who was actually in charge of what. He procrastinated wildly when asked to make difficult decisions, and would often end up relying on gut feeling, leaving even close allies in the dark about his plans. His "unreliability had those who worked with him pulling out their hair," as his confidant Ernst Hanfstaengl later wrote in his memoir Zwischen Weißem und Braunem Haus. This meant that rather than carrying out the duties of state, they spent most of their time in-fighting and back-stabbing each other in an attempt to either win his approval or avoid his attention altogether, depending on what mood he was in that day.

... https://www.newsweek.com/hitler-incompetent-lazy-nazi-government-clown-show-opinion-1408136​

Read ze rest as ze link above! Sound familiar?

 

And yet, in spite of all that "incompetence", he came very close to taking over Europe and the rest of the world/

 

Fascism, ironically given the 'master race' bobbins that often goes with it, is not reliant on either knowledge or ability. Indeed, knowledge is typically terribly counterproductive. To feed the right wing, you must feed the authoritarian personality. Hatred of knowledge goes hand in hand with that. It doesn't matter if its book burning, or rambling on about fake news, a post-truth perspective is vital. There cannot be questioning. There can only be acceptance. The US is ripe for it...

 

Hitler hid in a bunker and was afraid of his own citizens too.

 

Oh, isn't this poetic. A liberal jerkoff session to compare Trump to Hitler(which is as old as a grain of sand.). Of course, a great deal of this comes from people who despite talking about the Third Position, have never bothered to actually study it. Hence, we get the word "incompetence" thrown around by people who don't understand it.

I'm not going to spend too much of a time elaborating on the third position, it would be wasted here. It's also clear that Trump has failed to establish a Nationalist government, so the dream of a unified US State with a government at its helm is still yet a dream. That said, slandering the dead is an easy target(even if it's a man as reprehensible as Adolf Hitler), and so the need for other historians is paramount.

It's easy enough to point at the concentration camps, the night of long knives, etc, etc. All of these things are terrible no doubt, but if we let ourselves get consumed with those events, that's how "incompetence" is born. That said, where the Third Position enjoyed its greatest success, was the domestic growth of its economy(particularly in Germany, the German Economic miracle.)

To some, if Hitler had died in 1938(IE: Before the war), this discussion would be repainted as one of Germany's most effective chancellors. Now, to those historians(who never wanted to attribute anything in peacetime, lest we actually have a real discussion about policies that might work), they attributed it solely to forced conscriptions, without realizing that by the records, said conscriptions didn't happen until 1939-1941. What about the 5 years before hand?

An actual economic policy took place. To quote the man himself: "We couldn't stand to see losing 100,000 hours after 100,000 hours." The German economic policy was one of mass production. The need to get the working class to work was a strong appeal to the Nazi Party. It's revisionist history to suggest that it was preliminary driven(though it certainly was a driving factor) by the hatred, animosity, etc.

By focusing on this production, by focusing on this mobility of its citizens, Germany was able to access a great deal of capital that previously had either been unemployed, underemployed or flat out going to the rich and powerful(under Hitler, they banned what we know today to be the Stock Market.)

His economic policies enabled Germany to rise whereas Roosevelt on our side was a total and dramatic failure, and the economic depression for us lasted until 1954. If Germany didn't commit war crimes, if they didn't try to exterminate the Jews, we'd have a very different discussion about two administrations, one whose only saving grace is that we won a war we bumbled into and the other one who started out with great promise, only to let anger, animosity, hatred and festering chaos swallow it whole.

 

Yep. I'd chalk that up to his many enablers.

 

The day wouldn't be complete without a democrat calling a republican a NAZI.

Get some new material.

 

Have less hate.

Find treatment.

 

Hitler killed all the opposition and actually attained absolute power, and still managed ultimately fail at pretty much everything.

Trump is running our country better than the previous three presidents even while most of his subordinates are actively trying to sabotage everything.

Theres no realistic comparison between the two.

 

I'm neither Democrat or anti-republican. However, I'm shocked at how Americans have allowed their country to become fascist. Watch the BBC's Rise of the Nazis and notice just how repetitive America is being.

 

This is not a Fascist government, it's not even really a deeply conservative government, given the President's overture to Liberal propositions, which if they took a minute to get their head out of their ass they could've had a better portfolio heading into 2020.

 

Hitler was a tweaker. They were experimenting with amphetamines on troops at that time. He did partake.

 

Yawn. You libs are really running out of material. It's like watching reruns.

 

On that point, I'm neither pro republican or democrat. I don't appreciate Trump but remain doubftfull on the Trump basher.

But seriously ? Do you understand what fascism really is ?

Trump is a demagogue to the extreme, nothing more.

And clearly, if the risk of totalitarian right can't be neglected, the totalitarian left and their "cancel culture" is much more a threat to freedom.

 

Calling the (absolutely ridiculous excuse for a) thread.

 

"Hitler Was Incompetent and Lazy"
I definitely believe that.

"His Nazi Government Was an Absolute Clown Show"
Following orders doesn't mean they were a clown show. I've worked for a few real idiots and the decision was always either to do what the boss said or hit the road.

 

Off-topic but an excellent point.

To summarize: Trump is competent. Hitler was not.

 

To bad Fascism isn't a right of center proposition. Unless of course you think the center about three millimeters to the left of Mao. By the way the same things could be said of Mao and Stalin. Further their was no superman slant to Italian fascism. Hell even Mussolini is on record as having thought Hitler nuts. And let's not forget that Italian Fascism itself was a hodge-podge of largely bankrupt economic ideas. None of which were Jewphobic. Italy did not acquire concentration camps until Mussolini decided he had to placate his partner to the North.

 

Their envy and hate got old a century ago.

 

Yes. And no surprise it sounds familiar....

 

Already provided a definition...

Fascism is a jampot of joviality because of its multiple definitions. To highlight its right wing nature, however, there are several elements we can refer to. I'd first refer to Keserich's definition of fascism as 'the reactionary and terroristic dictatorship of finance capital'. I'd then describe how fascism is incompatible with socialist political economy. Zanden (1960, American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol 19, pp 399-411) is a good source. First, the movement is characterised by anti-intellectualism ('obedience, discipline, faith and a religious belief in the cardinal tenets of the Fascist creed are put forth as the supreme values of a perfect Fascist. Individual thinking along independent lines is discouraged. What is wanted is not brains, daring ideas, or speculative faculties, but character pressed in the mold of Fascism'). That is closer to a worship of alienation. Second, we have the belief in the distribution of innate ability (i.e. the Theory of the Elites where those with a natural talent for ruling rule over the masses). A socialist, on the other hand, appreciates the destructiveness of class. Third, we have a reaction against democracy: 'the mass of men is created to be governed and not to govern; is created to be led and not to lead, and is created, finally, to be slaves and not masters: slaves of their animal instincts, their physiological needs, their emotions, and their passions'. That ain't participatory socialism! Fourth, we have 'fascism is in its broadest meaning a revolt against the modern age, against democratisation, secularisation and internationalism'. That is conservatism! Fifth, we have corporatism where fascism is defined as 'a system of political and economic decision-making based on the representation of organised interest groups in government' (Sarti).

Right wingers, through their innate anti-intellectualism, have sleep walked and enabled a fascist regime. A shame really.

 

Many have yet to figure out what political party Trump would be cast. Their blind hatred the man overshadows the fact Trump is a malleable semi-conservative that could easily have slipped into liberalism if those dummies had made even the feeblest attempt to manipulate him in that direction. Many examples here in this forum. I thank them daily for their inability to recognize that fact.

 

I don't even want to use the word "manipulate", I prefer to use the words "lost opportunity". Because in it, the opportunity existed for the best of conservative policy(originalist judges) and the best of liberal policies(criminal justice reform has significantly been done in the administration, but so much more could've been, Trump's in favor of infrastructure. In fact it was a pretty big deal in his book the art of the deal.)

The Trump Presidency certainly would have had a better footing, but so would the Democratic Party and more importantly above all: So would the Nation. We should besmirch the Speaker of the House, and the people of California need to awaken to their leadership that's done nothing, has no intention of doing anything but they can certainly speak ill of other people. That seems to be the only trait they're bringing to Washington.

 

Your presumption negates the fact that Dems wouldn't want a man like that to represent them as a man or leader. And what does it say about Trump if you believe he could be elected as a Rep but be easily manipulated by the opposition?

 

The problem of multiple definitions is that many things end to mean nothing.

Calling nowodays USA a fascist regim show just a blatant ignorance of what fascism really was.

Fascism refer first to the doctrine of Benito Mussolini and globally to the far right authoritarian and totalitarian such as :
The one of Adolph Hitler, Pinochet, Franco, Salazar.
Furthermore, anti intellectualism is the feature also of the left that has a long history of persecuted intellectuals as seeing as "bourgeois". The cultural revolution in China is the best example of that. Considering anti intellectualism as a defining characteristic of either the left or right wing is false as both have shown it in an extensive way.

As real communism, it's a form of totalitarism that go with the violent persecution of political opponents, the absence of election, the absence of freedom of speech.

Considering, the conservative nature of fascism, denying the link between a part of conservative and fascism would be wrong. But we could however highlight some elements :
_ Many fascist wanted to do a "fascist" revolution. Ideologies who prone revolutions are more related to the left.
_ The opposition between the pope Pius XI (I'm not christian for information) and fascism is quite well documented :
Pius XI declared :
_ "There is no place for the cross of the christ and another cross" (obviously the nazi one)
_ "Antisemitism is not acceptable, we're spiritually semitic"
_ "Whoever exalts race, or the people, or the State, or a particular form of State, or the depositories of power, or any other fundamental value of the human community – however necessary and honorable be their function in worldly things – whoever raises these notions above their standard value and divinizes them to an idolatrous level, distorts and perverts an order of the world planned and created by God; he is far from the true faith in God and from the concept of life which that faith upholds."
No Italian or German catholic (even if a part of german were protestant) could oppose the pope. He was the supreme authority in the catholic world.

In the end the difference between fascism and communism go mostly with the fancy ideas that communism use before creating a totalitarian hell.

The thing is :
_ Trump don't have regulated the freedom of speech in the USA, even if I agree that his threat to shut down twitter are not acceptable, as despicable is this compagny. All americans have been as free as they want to claim how much they hate Trump and how bad he is. It's absolutly not compatible with any claim that USA became fascist. Some actors have created pictures of a beheaded trump with no problems.
_ Trump don't have prevented any election. Mid terms went in a normal way. The elections will go in a normal way in November.
_ Trump doesn't have said anything against democracy. On that point he is purely a demagogue and a populist by appealing to the makority.

Your reasoning is just a poor syllogism.
_ Fascism is a despicable regime.
_ The way of governing of Trump is despicable
_ So Trump is a fascist.
Yet, two things that share common qualities doesn't mean they're the same.
_ Cows have four legs and horns
_ Giraffe have four legs and horns
_ Giraffe are cows.
That's exactly the same kind of deductions you're making.

And to be clear : I don't care of defending Trump in that case, it's not about that, the problem is :
Words have meaning, fascism has a meaning, and just call everything (right winged) you don't like "fascism" is dangerous.
The same could be said of those right winged people that call everything "communism".