Well Fascism is socialism. Its kinda confusing though. All industry was either completely controlled by the government or deeply involved with the government. But wealth was not redistributed. Wealth redistribution is not part of Fascism.



But Nazis were a breed of their own.

Very well said. You have more patience than I do for typing.

The idea that Socialism and Fascism are opposites was cooked up to make our Socialist/Communist allies more palatable.

Well, it's two different problems really.

Collectivism vs. Individualism and Libertarianism vs. Authoritarianism. Two different axes on a square X-Y political graph, and not just a single line of Left vs. Right.

While it's kind of weird to think about, you could have a very individualistic free market hyper-Capitalist state that was also extremely authoritarian and Fascist. And conversely, it's theoretically possible that there could be a completely Libertarian Collectivist state, where everyone was perfectly free to do as they wish, yet nobody owned any private property.

In the first instance, it's probably unworkable in the real world, because the free market, and laissez-faire Capitalism would probably undermine the authority of the state, so Authoritarian regimes always have to engage in some collectivist behavior to keep control of things. And conversely, the purely Libertarian Collectivist state, the instant someone did want to "own something", the collectivism would fail, because the libertarianism would mean there was no way to prevent someone from being "selfish". Or the state would turn more authoritarian to prevent the ownership of private property, and the Libertarian side of things would fail...

The Nazis and the Third Reich was somewhat lip-service to their platform. They grew out of the Great Depression which hit Germany and the Wiemar Republic pretty hard, plus the punitive conditions of the Versailles Treaty at the end of WWI holding their economy back too. And there were all sorts of different Communist and Socialist/Worker parties and organizations that were rabble-rousing, demonstrating, and marching in the streets at the time. So the Nazi platform probably did have some of it's Leftist/Socialist elements more as lip-service to remain popular and win "hearts and minds". And the reality of the "Nationalized Heavy Industry" in Nazi Germany was somewhat more akin to "Crony Capitalism" at times, and the wealthy and powerful of nobility or industry who stayed on the right side of the Nazi party pretty much managed to stay that way until things fell apart at the end of the war.

OTOH, the Nazi party did embark on tons of public infrastructure, .gov make-work akin to FDR's "New Deal", and stuff that would be called "Stimulus Projects" today. So in that regard, despite the Crony Capitalists, and quasi-nationalized industries, there was a fair bit of honest Socialism going on in Nazi Germany too.

Although even today in European Socialized heavy industries like Airbus and other large state-run companies, there are "rich folks" attached to them. Although this isn't quite as hypocritical as it was under the Nazis, as a modern Western Socialist Democracy (a real one, not Communist/Authoritarian Soviet/Warsaw Pact or Asian countries that used names like that...) private enterprise is still allowed in some economic sectors, or of a certain size.

In comparison, Communism has (in theory) no private business or industry (not counting the black market). And the economy is all state planned from the ground up from the smallest shop, to the largest industries. Socialism normally just nationalizes the "big ones", like utilities, mines, large heavy industries like defense etc. but there are still many for-profit private businesses too.

I just don't understand why we helped out the ussr so much. Why did we see Germany as a greater threat than the ussr. Granted Germany was allied with japan but we would have been a more powerful allie seeing as Germany planed on turning attention towards japan after Russia fail.

The ussr wanted communism to spread across the world while Germany simply wanted a safe state for their people and colonies. I think a peace could have been negotiated, while the ussr remained dangerous for years to come, just a thought.

At the end of band of brothers when the german officer tells winters, that their two countries should have join forces to defeat the commis. Why not?

Are there any books on this? And on Germany plans had they defeated the ussr. Also, any good books on their technology,

Yes, initially it was. And later on, the idea that the Nazis were somehow a "polar opposite" of the Communist USSR was useful to the American and European political Left to try and discredit the political Right.



Are you kidding?

Just go to Amazon and search books on "Nazi Superweapons", or "If Germany Had Won", or "German long-range plans WWII". That'll probably turn up a few hundred hits. There's probably more books on WWII than any other period in human history.

I know there are alot of good books out there, I was just wondering if anyone here had read any that they could personally recommend as a good source. Too many books on ww2 are speculative or full of bias.

The Nazis and the Japanese had no intention of building an empire like the Romans did. They had their sickness of racialism so stuck up their arses that they couldn't recognize the patriots in their own neighborhoods.

This. Another reason Hitler did it was to appease the Army. The army did not want to be superseded by the SA.

Fascism is also a form of socialism

But it don't seem that Germany oppressed their own people in the way the soviets did, only the none Germans were targeted? Like, the Russians' sent their own to labor camps, carried out the purges, ect. The Reich seemed much more western. Also, they weren't striving for world equality but more like the Roman empire where Germany ruled over its colonies and enjoyed their fruits. I suppose both had a global goal in mind, the soviet goal was a world under Communism rule while Germany's was to drive the Russians back against the Urals than fight towards the east with their "living wall". They believed Asia threaten all of Europe, which really it did, and still does, and where fighting for the freedom and survival of their nation. I'll admit I don't know as much of history as I would like too, I'm trying to learn.

You mean they didn't oppress their own people unless you were Jewish, or gypsy, or homosexual, or retarded or ...