A long article criticising how (and why) conservative hero Jordan Peterson has played loose with the facts about Hitler and his party has appeared in Haaretz. Found via Bernard Keane on Twitter.
It's funny how the conservative Catholics and Jews who comment at Catallaxy have been Peterson admirers. They are the ones who most need to read it: I already thought Peterson was an unreliable flake.
5 comments:
I afraid the writer is badly wrong on the econmy. We do not know a lot as he generalises. In 1934 we know the ecoonmy was growing strongly. Hitler wanted to devalue ( which should have occurred when they left the gold Standard but did not) but was afraid of increasing inflation.
Silly he it would have been beneficial.
By 1936 Germany had achieved full employment and 1938 it had more than full employment.
Can;t be bothered reading any more but the writer seems as bad as Peterson
You don't want to buy into that Post World War II propaganda. The vicious allies carpet bombed and nuked children after going for a war of choice. Not a war of survival. It was all a setup. So the leadership of the allies were war criminals and nothing they claim can be considered valid history unless they can prove it. Hitler himself was going deep cover as a German nationalist. He was neither German nor a nationalist. He was a fake.
"But the economic "wonder" of Nazi Germany is a Nazi propaganda myth. Economic problems were actually rife already by late 1934, and only got worse from there."
This may even be true. But its original research by haaretz. Standard history is that Nazi Germany emerged from the depression ahead of any allied power. Probably thanks to tight monetary policy in post-inflationary Weimar leading to the Germans swallowing the pain of contraction more quickly than anyone else. I think Australia did very well as well. But they weren't a major power so thats an out of the way story. Standard history suggests that apart from dictatorial cruelty the Nazi administration did very well from about 1933-36, restored confidence and put many millions of people back to work. Then as time went on the price controls and other socialist measures, that may even have been very good early on started taking their toll.
If haaretz wants to give us an improved history thats fine. But its hardly something to bash Peterson over because it is THEY who are doing the update. It is they who are partaking in revisionism. And revisionism can be necessary. Since everyone lies the first time around. These guys are just being poopy-pants and trying to keep their demon figure from losing his exclusive place in the human mind. Like its Hitler that is evil but Trotsky? He's a really interesting fellow right this Trotsky? I think a lot of people are getting tired of this sort of child abuse. Banging these hate figures deep into the kiddies psyche.
A regular reminder to my other readers: I consider GMB a conspiracy nut, but allow some comments through so you can see for yourself.
The focus on Hitler the leader is misguided. The Nazi elite had a remarkably high average IQ. When they had more control the Nazis were doing well, as the years rolled by and Hitler came to believe he was the superior brain things didn't work out so well. Peterson needs to understand that to comprehend the Nazi movement, its successes and failures, relying on studying Hitler as leader is the wrong strategy.
One thing about a hyper-inflation, if it lasts for a short time and you handle it right it can represent a jubilee. Debtors sometimes need to run after creditors down the street and catch them hiding in trees. Since when cash is legal tender, you by law can settle all debts with this cash. Contrary to Sinclair Davidson; private debts are an absolute crippling menace to the economy. Which doesn't make public debt any good either. But dollar for dollar private debt is worse.
So it may be that the Germans cleared all their debts with a quick hyper-inflation .... too quick for the banks to pyramid on the cash. Then Weimar was tight with the new currency, as it had to be to give the new currency credibility. Then Hitler gets that payoff. But the writer is not specific with the problems with the economy that he claims were going on as early as 1934. And I think if we were to get into the detail the traditional view that the early years of Hitler were something of an economic triumph will prevail. With the menace of price controls ... at first actually very benign, just get more and more horrific as time goes on.
Post a Comment