As a history geek who speaks German pretty well, it’s probably not a surprise that I spend a lot of time reading about twentieth-century German history. And one of the more aggravating subjects in the field is the notion that Naziism – the German contraction of Nazional Sozialismus, “National Socialism” – is, in fact, socialist and not capitalistic.
Of course, if you had a mainstream, left-of-center history teacher – and I had a few – you learned what’s become the orthodoxy in learning about the era; since Hitler and Stalin fought the bloodiest war in history against each other, Hitler must be the opposite of Stalin; ergo since Stalin was “far left”, Hitler must be “far right”; since communism hated capitalism, Naziism must have been pure capitalism.
It was all buncombe, of course. In Modern Times – perhaps the essential libertarian/conservative apologetic of my lifetime, at least from my little perspective – Paul Johnson spelled out the case that Hitler learned a lot – a lot – from Lenin and Stalin, positive (the need for total, brutal control) and negative (the need to do it by co-opting, rather than destroying, society’s institutions).
But the message – and its importance today – still need to sink in, in some quarters.
Fortunately, Ilya Somin at Volokh is on the case, reviewing two new books on the subject, The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy, by Adam Tooze and Hitler’s Beneficiaries: : Plunder, Racial War, and the Nazi Welfare State, by Gotz Aly.
Why care?
Nonetheless, the socialist element of National Socialism matters for three reasons. First…some still claim that Nazism was a form of “capitalism” and try to use this association to discredit free markets. Second, and far more important, Tooze and Aly show that far-reaching state control over the economy was an essential element in Nazi policy, without which Hitler could not have carried out his plans for conquest and mass murder. It also helped quiesce potential German opposition to Nazi policies; both by imposing state control on economic resources that any opposition movement would need to support itself, and by “buying off” potential opponents through welfare state handouts (as Aly emphasizes).
The concentration of economic power in the hands of the state does not always lead to atrocities as extreme as Hitler’s. But it does significantly increase the risk that these types of abuses will occur – not to mention numerous lesser (though still severe) atrocities. In the twentieth century, both left-wing (communist) and right-wing (Nazi) forms of state domination of the ecoomy paved the way for war, repression, and mass murder. There is little reason to expect better results from similar policies in the future. This is an important point, given the recent renewed popularity of socialist ideas in some parts of the Third World, such as parts of Latin American.
Finally, Barkai’s discussion of Hitler’s view of the world economy bears a remarkable similarity to the analysis put forward by many of today’s opponents of free trade and globalization. Both view the world economy as a zero sum game; both reject the possibility that free international trade can provide for a growing population and lead to the development of “have not” nations; and both claim that the wealthy nations of the West had “rigged” the rules of the international economic game in their favor.
Stuff for the summer beach reading list.
Next job for historians: write a book explaining to the attention-span-deprived that even though Hitler exploited endemic anti-Semitism in German society (and in the native Lutheran and Catholic churches), he wasn’t actually a Christian…
(Via Jay Reding)
I would have tried a little less military aide, and a little more creative diplomacy, but he had the tough job not me.
Ah. Well, he shoulda asked first, I guess.
I just get annoyed whenever you people get the vapors and start fainting at the thought we may just have to live with a world with lots of not-so-nice people running countries.
There’s a big post on that very topic – and the vapors you people get about getting realistic about it – coming shortly.
File under“France declares victory from Dunkirk’s beaches”
Well you seem to be doing all the retreating, changing the subject, and now just generally standing there saying “gee really we screwed up Iraq that bad?”.
“There’s a big post on that very topic – and the vapors you people get about getting realistic about it – coming shortly”
Try to avoid the really glaring factual errors.
Angryclown belched “Kinda like giving nukes to F Troop.”
Or the U.S. military to a Democrat. Jimmy Carter comes to mind…
RickDFL said:
“The best we can do for the Iraqis is to leave and stop arming all sides to the tooth.”
Really. That is the best we can do. That is your honest opinion?
I am underwhelmed by your estimate of our country’s potential for good, and I cannot disagree more. What do you think of the United States of America, RickDFL?
Carter, right, four years of peace. That sucked. If only he had lost a war in Iraq, Kermit would have so totally gone for him.
Carter, right, four years of peace
Well, actually Carter was more like 18 months of unreciprocated war.
“I am underwhelmed by your estimate of our country’s potential for good”
Gee, Troy, next you will tell me we should launch a War on Poverty here at home.
Seriously, it is no crack on America. For the most part, Americans are pretty good at running America. The French are pretty good at running France. In retrospect the Iraqis were doing a lot better running their country than we are now. I am unaware of any country that has really developed the art of running other countries. Running a country is almost always best left to the people of that country. Independence and self-determination uses to be core principles for America, at least until you people showed up.
“Well, actually Carter was more like 18 months of unreciprocated war.”
Yeah, he should have made Rumsfeld SecDef and invaded Iran. That would have worked out, right. No way Rumsfeld could lose to a poorly armed Middle Eastern country. Oh wait a minute . . .
Paul: Maybe Republicans want to go around calling the American people gullible fools, but Americans trust them to get it right. They used good old fashioned common sense and turned against the war because they saw that it was not worth the cost.
Nice dodge, Mr. Historical Researcher.
“In retrospect the Iraqis were doing a lot better running their country than we are now.”
Yes, Jackbooted military dictatorships have always been the government of choice on the Left. All that pesky “democracy” lets the wrong people have a say.
“I am unaware of any country that has really developed the art of running other countries.”
Germany and Japan leap to mind immediately, Mr. Historical Researcher. Oh my! The US ran them, dint they?
But keep going. There’s room for your other foot between those gums.
Gee, Troy, next you will tell me we should launch a War on Poverty here at home.
That’s already been tried, Rick…by LBJ.
Try to avoid the really glaring factual errors.
Don’t you mean the “really glaring factoid errors” Rick?
Just to be clear, my position is that the U.S. ought not to invade a country where there has been nothing remotely close to genocide going on for over a decade and then put into power people who look like they may start a campaign of genocide.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Never read those Amnesty International Iraq reports from the late 90s, did you?
Do you know why Eason Jordan stepped down from running CNN? (Hint: it had to do with CNN’s Iraq bureau.)
Maybe you should ask 18-20 year-old-girls what they thought of winning a personal audience with Uday Hussein:
Imagine that you are a seventeen-year-old girl tied with electrical cords in a basement in Baghdad. It’s Monday evening. Uday Hussein, a young psychopath given godlike power over life and death since birth, was driving his pimpmobile on Friday afternoon, and saw you walking home from your university classes. He ordered you into the car, took you to one of his compounds, and raped you for three days, sharing you with all of his sycophants. Then, when your family had the temerity to question what might have happened to you, they were brought to this basement. You were raped repeatedly in front of your father and mother, your younger sister, too –- just so she could see what was in store for her. Your 7 year old brother then had his brains blown all over a wall in front of the entire family. Then your parents were killed, or you were killed, or your sister -– the order doesn’t matter, since none of you are getting out of this room. Inhuman wails of agony, pleas for mercy, begging, promising, mothers offering to be raped in place of their daughters, fathers begging to be killed if only they will release his family -– all of this. Perhaps you’ll be raped to death, or beaten to death; perhaps electrocuted with a wire brush plugged into a wall as salt water is thrown onto your lacerated body. Maybe father will be placed into one of the industrial shredders –- head first, if you can imagine such a thing…that would mean Uday is feeling merciful. Feet first will take a few moments longer. No, looks like it’s feet first for him today.
And you? What is your last thought, a pretty seventeen year old girl majoring in Chemical Engineering, say? What is the last thing that crosses your mind before the lights go out on you, your future, and the future of all the children you will never have?
Kermit:
I think it is very clear to everybody (at least those who get out ouf mom’s basement) that our Iraq occupation is not going to turn out like Japan or Germany.
Paul:
If you read those Amnesty reports you will notice that Saddam’s last major internal killing spree was against the Shia uprising in 1991-1992, a full decade before our invasion.
Now, sorry to interrupt your little rape fantasy scene, but should the U.S. invade every country where women get raped? Iraqi women getting raped is a problem best solved by the Iraqi people. It is a virtual dead certainty that far fewer Iraqi women were raped in the 5 years before our invasion, than in the five years since which have seen civil war and a complete breakdown in law and order. Simply put we exchanged one Uday Hussein for hundreds.
No Rick, it’s not “very clear”. And my mom lives in Florida. I’m 49 and sitting in the kitchen of my 4 bedroom split-level in the burbs, but thanks for the insult.
The only way we “lose” in Iraq is if you frigging cowards on the Left force another Vietnam type surrender on America. But we’ve been over that time and again.
You’re a coward and a fool, Rick. Mitch is a nice guy and doesn’t like to say things like that on his blog. I have no such compunction.
If you actually knew half as much about Human history as you think you do you would realize that it is a long, repetitive series of conflicts. There are winners and losers. The losers either A) die, or B) are enslaved. You and your fellow travelers are losers, Rick. Thankfully you don’t represent most of America.
If you read those Amnesty reports you will notice that Saddam’s last major internal killing spree was against the Shia uprising in 1991-1992, a full decade before our invasion.
It’s obvious you didn’t read them Rick, because AI was screaming about Iraq in the late 90s and early 2000s. Actually made the top of their human rights violation list at one point, hovering near the top at all others. Nobody prominent on the Left paid them any attention. Rush Limbaugh actually posted the PDF documents of the AI Iraq reports on his website back in 2001-2002 precisely because no one on the Left was paying attention, questioning why.
Now, sorry to interrupt your little rape fantasy scene, but should the U.S. invade every country where women get raped? It is a virtual dead certainty that far fewer Iraqi women were raped in the 5 years before our invasion, than in the five years since which have seen civil war and a complete breakdown in law and order.
Care to offer some proof of that, Mr. Historical Researcher? Since it is a ‘virtual dead certainy?’
There’s a reason Eason Jordan (the guy at the top) lost his spot at CNN: the CNN Iraq bureau lied their asses off about the massive human rights violations taking place there, in addition to his stupid comment about the US military hunting down journalists, a charge even Barney Frank couldn’t swallow.
Just keep on, Rick, you’ll look even more idiotic than you do now.
Kermit: you keep saying that the war is not lost, but you also fail, time after time, to provide any evidence. I would suggest you head over to the Victory Caucus website, but the Bush Admin just stopped reporting electrical production figures, which the VC site had IDed as a key metric of success. Ouch.
Paul: AI was reporting on human rights abuses in Iraq between 1992 and 2002, just not on the widescale (1000+) murder of regime opponents. They were not reprting this because it was not happening. Maybe I am wrong, but please post a link.
As for Iraqi women (and for Christ sake can’t you people do any research)
Here is a July 2003 Human Rights Watch report
hrw.org/reports/2003/iraq0703/1.htm#_Toc45709960
“At a time when insecurity is on the rise in Baghdad, women and girls in Baghdad told Human Rights Watch that the insecurity and fear of sexual violence or abduction is keeping them in their homes, out of schools, and away from work and looking for employment. The failure of the occupying power to protect women and girls from violence, and redress it when it occurs, has both immediate and long-term negative implications for the safety of women and girls and for their participation in post-war life in Iraq.”
Here is Amnesty International in 2004
news.amnesty.org/index/ENGMDE14310320042004
“Violence against women and girls has sharply increased in Iraq compared to the time before last year’s war. After the war, there was a complete breakdown of law and order. Even though the situation has generally improved since those first months, the lack of security still remains a serious threat to the population. Many women and girls live under constant fear of being harassed, beaten, abducted, raped or murdered.”
And finally here is a report from 2007:
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=12286
“Since the US invaded Iraq, women there have endured a wave of death threats, assassinations, abductions, public beatings, targeted sexual assaults, and public hangings. Much of this violence is systematic-directed by both Sunni and Shiite Islamist militias that mushroomed across Iraq after the US toppled the mostly secular Ba’ath regime. We’ve heard about the brutality of the Sunni-based groups, but much less about the Shiite militias that are the armed wings of the political parties that the US boosted into power. Their aim is to establish an Islamist theocracy and their social vision requires the subjugation of women and the elimination of anyone with a competing vision for Iraq’s future.”
Congrats your war will impose Sharia on Iraqi women.
A four year old report, a three year old report and an opinion piece.
Gee Rick, does your elbow get sor4e waving that white flag?
Maybe I am wrong, but please post a link.
I would, but AI mysteriously yanked them down. OK, not so, since leaving them up doesn’t fit with their BDS agenda. The originals are still available, but you have to be a Rush 27/7 member to get them.
They were not reporting this because it was not happening.
I guess National Geographic simply made up everything in this DVD: Inside Saddam’s Reign of Terror.
For 24 years, Saddam Hussein and his Baath Party executed political rivals, Shias, Kurds and anyone else who dared disagree – or even tell a joke about the dictator. A chorus of testimonials, unearthed mass graves and discovered documents now reveal the extent to which Saddam and his Baath Party tortured, maimed, raped and murdered Iraqi citizens. As he faces trial for his crimes, NGC goes inside his reign of terror – with rare videotape that shows Baath Party members carrying out Saddam’s brutal laws.
Guess that wasn’t a fantasy, huh?
Congrats your war will impose Sharia on Iraqi women.
That’s merciful compared to Uday and his sycophants. Assuming that actually happens, O Prophet of Doom.
Kermit
“Gee Rick, does your elbow get sor4e waving that white flag?”
No but I do get tired of you being totally unable to provide any evidence. Yes one report is four and another three years old. But everyone agrees that personal security for Iraqis has gotten worse since our invasion. Yes one piece is an opinion piece, but it is evidence. So how about it big talker, can you find one source willing to say that Iraqi women have less fear of sexual violence in 2007 than in 2001?
Paul:
AI seems to have lots of reports on Iraq during the pre-invasion period. Try here:
web.amnesty.org/library/eng-irq/index&start=300
If Rush has some unavailable report there is this little feature on your computer called cut and paste. Otherwise I just think your lying.
As for National Geographic please read your own quote more carefully “For 24 years, . . . Saddam and his Baath Party tortured, maimed, raped and murdered Iraqi citizens” There are discussing Saddam’s record since the start of the Iran-Iraq war (24 years), not his record in the 10 years prior to our invasion. As I listed above most of Saddam’s internal killing took place during 1986-88 (Anfal anti-Kurd campaign) and 1991-92 (Shia uprising). After that Saddam continued to execute some criminals and opponents (Amnesty put the number in the “hundreds” in 2001). He was a bad guy, but his killing was no longer genocidal. Indeed far fewer Iraqis were being killed by Saddam after 1992, than are being killed yearly by the forces our invasion has unleashed.
“Gee Rick, does your elbow get sor4e waving that white flag?”
“No”
Didn’t think so. Refer to previous comment: ”
You’re a coward and a fool, Rick.”
Guess what, Rick? AI put’em back up. They were down for a few years, but probably realizing that copies and cached versions still existed, a little CYA was in order.
1998
http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/aireport/ar98/mde14.htm
“The fate of thousands of people who “disappeared” in previous years remained unknown. They included hundreds of suspected members of opposition groups and their relatives who were arrested when Iraqi government and KDP forces took control of Arbil in August 1996”
1999
http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/aireport/ar99/mde14.htm
“In April the un Commission on Human Rights condemned the “systematic, widespread and extremely grave violations of human rights and of international humanitarian law by the government of Iraq”, and extended for a further year the mandate of the un Special Rapporteur on Iraq.”
2002
http://web.amnesty.org/web/ar2002.nsf/mde/iraq!Open
“Political prisoners and detainees were subjected to systematic torture. The bodies of many of those executed had evident signs of torture. Common methods of physical torture included electric shocks or cigarette burns to various parts of the body, pulling out of fingernails, rape, long periods of suspension by the limbs from either a rotating fan in the ceiling or from a horizontal pole, beating with cables, hosepipe or metal rods, and falaqa (beating on the soles of the feet). In addition, detainees were threatened with rape and subjected to mock execution. They were placed in cells where they could hear the screams of others being tortured and were deliberately deprived of sleep.”
Indeed far fewer Iraqis were being killed by Saddam after 1992, than are being killed yearly by the forces our invasion has unleashed.
That claim of 100,000 Civilian Deaths may be about to be proven bullsh1t because no one else can reproduce the statistical results and the Lancet authors aren’t releasing the relevant data:
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/07/25/document-drop-a-new-critique-of-the-2004-lancet-iraq-death-toll-study/
Right back at you.
“AI put’em back up”
Delusional does not even begin to cover it. It just so happened that they put em back up just in time to make you look stupid.
As for the reports you cite.
1. Yes, during Saddam’s brief late 90s incursion into Kurdistan, hundreds were executed. Hardly thousands and not genocide. Please note that Saddam’s partner in this operation was a KDP, one of the key elements of the new Iraqi government we put in power.
2. No evidence of large scale (1000+) killing.
3. Ditto
As for the Lancet study, there best guess in 600,000 excess deaths, which is far different from murders.
But between 1992 and 2002, Saddam was killing in the 100s not thousands or tens of thousands. His total even at the high end was 15,000 in ten years. Now at least 3,500 U.S. troops have been killed. Just counting published reports of Iraqi deaths Iraq Body Count gets between 68,000 and 75,000 Iraqi deaths. And that is in four years.
http://www.iraqbodycount.org
That does not count all of the unpublished and unreported deaths.
So at a minimum, our Iraq is killing people 4 to 5 times greater than Saddam’s between 1992-2002.
So at a minimum, our Iraq is killing people 4 to 5 times greater than Saddam’s between 1992-2002.
The Lancet study could be wrong by 98%. And they aren’t telling how they got those numbers. Nobody can reproduce them.
Just counting published reports of Iraqi deaths Iraq Body Count gets between 68,000 and 75,000 Iraqi deaths. And that is in four years
That’s assuming those number are reliable.
From the Wikipedia article on Iraq Body Count:
IBC’s online database shows the newspaper, magazine or website where each number is reported, and the date on which it was reported. However, this has been criticized as insufficient because it typically does not list the original sources for the information: that is, the NGO, journalist or government responsible for the number presented. Hence, any inherent bias due to the lack of reliable reports from independent or Allied sources is not readily available to the reader.
In the light of many atrocity stories proven false that the MSM have run with as historical fact these could be a pack of bald-faced lies.
Paul:
I find it impossible to take your concerns of a future genocide seriously when you are so eager to dismiss evidence of current Iraqi deaths on the slightest pretext. In December 2006, President Bush acknowledged at least 30,000 Iraqi civilian casualties. Can we at least start from there?
As for the Iraqi Body Count, if you want to dispute their number and put out your own please do. Given the difficulty of reporting in Iraq and the fact that they only cite deaths that appear in published sources, it is more likely that they have undercounted the number.
As for their sources, I love Wikipedia, but I checked this one out myself at
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/
I checked 9 off the 195 pages of fatal incidents and I could not find a single one that did not cite a original published source. The pages are there feel free to find large numbers of unsourced deaths.
Of course, no one knows the precise number of Iraqis killed under Saddam and under the occupation, but grownups can get by on pretty good estimates. The overwhelming evidence is that far larger numbers are dying under the U.S. occupation that under late era Saddam.
So be a man and quit this passive skepticism. How many Iraqi civilians do you think have been killed since our invasion? Is that number larger than the number killed under Saddam between 1992 and the invasion?
I find it funny that RickDFL said this:
“Independence and self-determination uses to be core principles for America, at least until you people showed up.”
And to trust Iraqi Body Count you simply have to trust that every news story (from every news “organization” under the sun) they site is true, and that none of stories sited are reports of the same incident. And then he says:
“grownups can get by on pretty good estimates”
If RickDFL is one of the “grownups” in question, it seems he can get by on estimates of much lower quality.
s/sited/cited/ — hehe
“As for the Lancet study, there best guess in 600,000 excess deaths, which is far different from murders.”
Wouldja feel better if they was pushed outta windows Little Girl?
Gee the NY Times editorial this morning must be giving poor Rick vapors. The nerve of those linerals! Suggesting we could actually win in Iraq!
linerals? Subtract the n, add a b. Get coffee.
Troy:
As I said to Paul, if you have a better more accurate estimate of Iraqi civilian killings, me a man and put a number up. If you think any specific incidents listed on the Iraq Body Count have been misreported, feel free to say so and try to discredit their count.
BTW: If you clowns had shown a similar level of skepticism towards the Bush Admin’s claims about WMD, maybe we would not be in this fix.
Kermit: I give NYT editorials as much credence as I give Judy Miller reports of WMD.
RickDFL:
I read what you wrote to Paul, and it still makes little sense. I need to come up with a “better” estimate? I need to prove any “incident” this source is “misreported”? I don’t think so, RickDFL. You can ignore the undiscriminating mix of sources and the possibility of duplication if you wish, but if you think yours is a good defense of Iraqi Body Count, I think you are sadly mistaken.
And “Bush Admin’s claims about WMD” says a lot about what you’ll allow yourself to believe, RickDFL. As if nobody else in the world believed those things. I chuckle in your general direction. 🙂
Troy:
Any matter of fact is subject to any number of reasons for doubt. Reasonable people like me apply those doubts equally across the board. You simply apply them when you lack the courage to face facts. You are unwilling to face the consequences of your policy in Iraq, so you wring your hands and say who can really know how many people have been killed. You wanted to invade Iraq, so you blindly accepted any evidence of WMD no matter how flimsy.
RickDFL said:
“Reasonable people like me”
and I chuckle once again.
RickDFL slandered: “BTW: If you clowns had shown a similar level of skepticism towards the Bush Admin’s claims about WMD, maybe we would not be in this fix.”
Don’t blame the clowns, RickDFL. It was the wingnuts who got us into this mess.
Troy:
“I chuckle once again”
Wait at minute, I know you. You are that guy on the bus. Sits alone, smells bad, chuckling to himself.
No RickDFL, but I hardly imagine I am the only one to chuckle at you. 🙂