Fire Warms the Northern Lands -- A Prussian AAR

[Rensslaer]

But historians regard both, Nationalist-Socialism and Fascism, as a blending of nationalist and socialist ideas. You cannot deny the socialist character of much of what Germany and Italy did during those years. They put the government in charge of peoples' lives (especially in Germany) more than had ever been done before.

Registering of people's racial ancestry, registering to see if you could get a job, registering for government benefits based on how many children you had...

Government contracting, because of the emphasis Hitler put on rearmament, went through the roof as the state engaged businesses in their own projects, rather than in free enterprise. Yes, it's still free enterprise because most businesses followed the money freely, but the state basically hired the businesses to do government work (and I know German industry wasn't fully engaged for the war until 1942, but it was far more engaged than it was in a disarmed Germany).

And Nazi Germany was nowhere near a free society -- not in personal lives, nor in business. You did what the government wanted you to. As socialistic as many European countries are today, and even the USA, I don't think this is as true today as it was in Germany then.

Fascism is a unique phenomenon and it deserves to be appreciated as such.

I would agree with this.... and I'm glad HOI recognizes it as such, with its own philosophical axis.

I don't mind discussions on the subject, but let's remain civil to each other.

Rensslaer

 

[unmerged(57402)]

As thrilling as debating the exact nature of Fascism and Naziism undoubtedly is, am I the only person who keeps seeing Fire Warms with a new post and clicking in the hope of another chapter of the epilogue, only to find a bit more quibbling about Hitler's stance on trade unions or state planning... Not that I'm against political debate or historical discussion, it's just a bit of an anticlimax!

 

[Rensslaer]

As thrilling as debating the exact nature of Fascism and Naziism undoubtedly is, am I the only person who keeps seeing Fire Warms with a new post and clicking in the hope of another chapter of the epilogue, only to find a bit more quibbling about Hitler's stance on trade unions or state planning... Not that I'm against political debate or historical discussion, it's just a bit of an anticlimax!

Yes, and it's probably not worth quibbling over in this AAR in any case, seeing as we already know Hitler never comes to power in the Fire Warms Germany!

I'm hoping to finish an update on lunch again, today. Watch for it!

Rensslaer

 

[unmerged(10426)]

But historians regard both, Nationalist-Socialism and Fascism, as a blending of nationalist and socialist ideas.

Actually they don't. Most historians generally won't have much truck with argument about ideology in any case, and most of the leading Politics/Ideology academics in the field generally flag up Fascism's nationalistic/right-wing tendencies, and generally believe any Socialist element to be fairly miminal. (Griffin, for example, calls Fascism a form of rebirth hyper-Nationalism.) Zeev Sternhall is probably the only one who would make a case for Socialism being a core component of Fascism. (And only then a component.)

You cannot deny the socialist character of much of what Germany and Italy did during those years.

I just have, haven't I?

They put the government in charge of peoples' lives (especially in Germany) more than had ever been done before.

Again, what has this uniquely got to do with Socialism? You are, for some reason which I can't quite grasp, seeing Socialism as the bee-all-and-end all of invasive authorianism, as if Metternich's police spies in German Universities in the 1820's were an attempt to consolidate power in the hands of proletariat. Totaitarianism has a Reactionary, right-wing backstory just as much as the left-wing has one as far back as the Regne de la terreur.

I think part of the problem here is that you're vieweing politics through a fairly black-and-white American Neo-Liberal perspective; the idea that anyone who is for state control is a Socialist. Now, quite apart from that being untrue even within the confines of America itself, it's even more untrue within the darkened confines of Europe's political history.

I don't mind discussions on the subject, but let's remain civil to each other.

Oh I agree. I just don't like people like Sophianumg@mer heckling me with poor arguments, as if I'm a dumbass, when I have a degree in Politics and worked on this very subject (Now you know why I'm so obsessive about this debate ) for my dissertation.

As thrilling as debating the exact nature of Fascism and Naziism undoubtedly is, am I the only person who keeps seeing Fire Warms with a new post and clicking in the hope of another chapter of the epilogue, only to find a bit more quibbling about Hitler's stance on trade unions or state planning... Not that I'm against political debate or historical discussion, it's just a bit of an anticlimax!

I'm just padding out the time until the next instalment.

 

[FlorisDeVijfde]

National Socialism and Communism are practically the same. It's like a circle. The center parties are at the top of the circle, if you get more extra-central you get the liberals on the right and the socialists on the left. If you then again get more extreme ideologies come back together at the base of the circle. The killings that come with that extremism only differ in their pretences.
In the Netherlands you often see left wing political parties refering to anti-right sympathies from the war, while they happily tend to forget that the left has proven to be able to be just as barbaric.

 

[unmerged(10426)]

I don't think anyone would disagree with you on that score, Floris. The legacy of both Fascism and Communism was equally abomniable, in their own ways.

 

[VILenin]

(looks back at argument, gulps nervously, then tries to focus on AAR).

Nice update Renss, it seems Hitler will continue to be troublesome as an agitator, though his future success will probably be tied to a couple things. I see the success of the USSR and the magnitude of the Depression as two things that will determine how receptive the German people will be to Hitler's ideas. Also something that might be worth considering; is the German national identity as strong in this timeline as it was historically? After all, officially the country is still Prussia and even though it encompassess just about all Germans.

All right, I have just two things to say about the above debate. First is that I agree completely with Floris' cirlce analogy. I think any political or ideological view ends up in a similar place if driven to the extreme. (with the exception maybe of anarchism, before anyone brings that up)

Secondly, VJ - are you telling me North Korea isn't a paradise on earth!?
So much for my plans to move there. How could a country with "Democratic" "People's" AND "Republic" in its name be a bad place to live?

 

[Rensslaer]

VJ,

You are correct, but... I think, as an academic (and no, I'm not coming at it from a black-and-white American perspective -- I realize all the sophistication in the question, and consider myself an academic who's studied these things on my own) we must consider our sources (and perhaps you have -- I don't know the folks you refer to).

Historians are not "objective" -- historians all have their own perspective. Many historians, as it happens, are rather socialistic or Marxist in their philosophies. It is these historians -- many of whom have been recognized at the top of the academic historical field -- who have often "played up" the case of Nazism as an example of extreme conservatism and as a "right-wing" ideology. Why? Partly because it helps them discredit conservatives, as if they're just "moderate Nazis".

Unfortunately this taint has spread into much "accepted" literature about Nazism. I just don't know how much of it is for real, and how much is bias. So I have to look to specific instances -- personal recollections, facts of what the government did and what they privately said it was meant to accomplish, etc.

I have studied Nazism and Fascism quite a bit, as well as the Weimar Republic (my big project was comparing/contrasting the US Constitution vs. the Weimar and Japanese constitutions of the 1930s). I just see way too many "markers" of socialism in what the Nazis did to credibly accept that it was a "right-wing" or "non-socialist" movement.

True conservatism is opposed to centralized government control, and therefore, opposed to authoritarianism. Both Nazism and Communism may be "authoritarian", but neither is "conservative" except by measures I would wholeheartedly disagree with (and that's part of the problem -- using common terminology).

To get a true matrix on which to place folks philosophically, you almost need a 3-dimensional matrix. One-dimensional scales are completely inadequate, and I've taken some "2-dimensional" political spectrum tests (like HOI uses) that produce equally absurd results.

EDIT: Replies to OT (actually History Post 1819) ---> Were Nazis Socialists???

Okay... Give me an hour, and I hope to have the update on the Boer War ready!!!

Rensslaer

 

[Rensslaer]

Perhaps we can agree on this:

Hitler's main focus was not on the economy. They were, primarily:

1. Race - Helping his "Aryans", and killing everybody else
2. Expansion/War - The struggle of peoples and cultures (again, race)
3. Pragmatism - Whatever contributes toward the above two supersedes anything else

Therefore, if he had to socialize the economy to accomplish those 3, he did so. If he had to lessen socialism to accomplish those, he did that. Stalin wasn't much different, in his pragmatism, though he had different #s 1 & 2.

??

EDIT: Replies to OT (actually History Post 1819) ---> Were Nazis Socialists???

Renss

 

[Vann the Red]

Might I suggest that the problem lies with the authoritarian nature of the government (be it Stalinist or Fascist) and not the economic bent.

That said, this topic might properly be moved over to OT to save room for the AAR...

Vann

 

[FlorisDeVijfde]

Was Stalin different on 1? During Barbarossa the Germans were greeted as liberators by the Baltic people and those who just narrowly defeated Tunisia today (yes, the Ukrainians ). They felt they were freed from Soviet, mainly Russian composed, oppression. An argument against that is of course Stalin oppressed everyone in his country, but then again, especially the minorities like the Armenians (which he was himself :wacko: )

 

[profxyz]

Was Stalin different on 1? During Barbarossa the Germans were greeted as liberators by the Baltic people and those who just narrowly defeated Tunisia today (yes, the Ukrainians ). They felt they were freed from Soviet, mainly Russian composed, oppression. An argument against that is of course Stalin oppressed everyone in his country, but then again, especially the minorities like the Armenians (which he was himself :wacko: )

Stalin was Georgian.
I think you are right on the Baltic States, they were independent before Stalin decided to "protect" them, aka demanding control over military bases and ports, as the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact stated. The Soviet move was nothing less than forced annexation, and I doubt many people would have been very happy over that.

 

[Rensslaer]

Epilogue: Chapter 4​

The First Boer War, from the turn of the century, had seen the British Empire completely surprised by the ferocity and expertise of the “common” Boers of South Africa. But, once the British owned up to the fact that they had a real war on their hands, and responded accordingly, they were able to beat the Boers down into defeat.

Subsequently, the next decade saw British arms humbled by Prussia, and in the peace settlement, much of British South Africa had been turned over as war spoils to Germany. The British power base in South Africa was much reduced, and many of the British settlers had fled, accordingly. British occupation was reduced to a fringe around the Cape of Good Hope. Strategically, the flexibility enjoyed by the British to operate militarily in South Africa had been hamstrung.

In 1921, the Boers again began agitating for their freedom. The resistance became violent, and the fighting escalated. By 1922, the British were sending large numbers of troops to South Africa once more, many of them pulled off the front in Russia, which stalled any advance the British hoped to make against the Bolsheviks.

The lands where the Boers had settled were their lands. It was still a strange place to the British soldiers, or even the British settlers. But the Boers were at home. They knew the land, the rules of the backcountry, and they were expert marksmen. These things combined to set up a repeat of the bloody experience for the British the first war had been.

One advantage the Boers had, which they were loath to give up, was familiarity with the lands the Germans had taken over to administrate after their war. As such, the Boers found refuge and sanctuary across the German border. On numerous occasions, the British soldiers declared “hot pursuit” actions, and invaded German territory in chase, or merely in search of, Boer fighters. Germany issued protests, which were ignored in London.

Soon, animosity began to develop between the two world powers – Britain and Germany – over their parts in the conflict. Britain accused Germany of harboring fugitives and terrorists. The Germans protested the incursions across the border. Tensions boiled to a dangerous point.

Eventually, by late 1922, Kaiser Waldemar became convinced that the Boers were systematically operating out of bases in German SudAfrika. Many Prussian ministers and generals were content to allow this to happen. Waldemar was not. He recognized the inherently racist temperament of the Boers as they stood at that time, and did not want any part of supporting such a regime as would enslave its native population.

Convincing the British that he wasn’t supporting the Boers proved as difficult as convincing the Germans at home and in South Africa that they shouldn’t. Protests were made by the British government – ever ready to believe the Germans were spoiling for a rematch – and, at times, war was threatened.

Therefore, with another great power war seeming possible – even imminent – the Boer War had the effect of thoroughly distracting both powers from the war they were both already waging against the Bolsheviks in Russia. Eventually, first the British, then the Germans halted their offensive operations and reduced the number of troops they had committed in Russia. This had the effect of settling the borders for the post-revolutionary Soviet Union, and it was at this time that new countries such as Finland, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, Ukraine and Georgia became the new defensive bulwarks against communism.

In South Africa, the British were having extreme difficulties. By the time German troops evicted Boer encampments who found themselves on the wrong side of the border, the Boers had already established sufficient bases within territory under their own control. While the British did commit many divisions to the fight, they were necessarily attempting offensives against defensible targets in lands that were populated primarily by supporters of the enemy (especially considering the exodous of British nationals after the Second Anglo-Prussian War).

Ultimately, the British government decided that the risk of conflict with Prussia and the lessening prospects of success in the Transvaal were reason enough to cut their losses and end the war. The Treaty of Capetown resulted in the Transvaal (joined with the Oranje Free State) which was not much larger than the Transvaal and Oranje Free State were before the First Boer War. But they were free to do as they would… History would judge whether that was a good thing, or not.

 

[unmerged(24320)]

VILenin: ...[RE: N. Korea] How could a country with "Democratic" "People's" AND "Republic" in its name be a bad place to live?

hmmm. let me put it this way. would you rather live in Iceland or Greenland? ?

 

[Rensslaer]

Wow!

Just wanted to comment on something a sec...

Thank you all for reading! I especially like the comments, and thank you to those of you who have commented for the first time recently (even set up a new account to do so! ), but I know there are an awful lot of readers out there who I don't get to see.

The stats on the Board say that this AAR has had 625 reads in the past 24 hours (23, actually)!!! That's about twice what I've been getting, and 3 times the average for this AAR over several months.

So... Welcome to all the new readers! Whoever you are!

Rensslaer

 

[unmerged(47162)]

i would live in Greenland! after all if it has the word green in it the place obviously is green with money and grass nice update! will we see the boers try to take some german land?

 

[unmerged(57402)]

Ouch... seems like the Empire will slip away even quicker than in real life! I suppose they've still got India, but that seems to be about it now. Tut, tut, poor old Victoria must be spinning in her Royal Mausoleum...

 

[Avernite]

well, Renss, I have at least 4 views today, compared to normal 1 or 2. So that might help


Anyhow, nice update on the Boer wars. Even if they were nasty buggers in quite a few ways, they were practically Dutch, so go them!

 

[unmerged(24320)]

Rensslaer: ...Ultimately, the British government decided that the risk of conflict with Prussia and the lessening prospects of success in the Transvaal were reason enough to cut their losses and end the war...

wise move! !

 

[unmerged(24320)]

lifeless: i would live in Greenland! after all if it has the word green in it the place obviously is green with money and grass

perhaps you should look into the purchase of some nice property in Greenland.

FWIW, last i heard there is very little green grass in Greenland! ! :wacko:

lifeless: ...will we see the Boers try to take some German land?

try just might the the limit of their actions! !

oh, excellent updates! !