We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

What would Hitler do?

Once upon a time we had God. God was someone to emulate; someone whose rules one should attempt to live by. Nowadays, in our secular age, we have anti-God a.k.a. Hitler. Hitler is all bad and we should do the precise opposite of what he said and did.

But is that the case? How bad would things be if Hitler were in charge?

It would not be great for freedom of speech. But then right now is not great for freedom of speech. It would not be great for Jews. But then right now is not great for Jews. And they do, at least, have somewhere to go nowadays.

He might want to start a world war. But he would be frustrated because we are already in a world war. But I think we can be pretty sure he would prosecute that war with rather more vigour than our current masters can muster.

Economically speaking, he would be a disaster. He is, after all, a socialist. He would do nothing about the debt, he would reduce trade and be constantly trying to pick winners. So not much change there. A lot would depend on how enthusiastically he embraced Net Zero. Nazis were appalling environmentalists. I suspect, however, that so long as there was a war to fight that would take priority.

I think we can be pretty sure that the small boats crisis would come to an end. The Volksmarine machine-gunning anyone in a small boat would be likely to put a damper on the people-smugglng trade. Similarly, I don’t think he’d have much time for illegal migration. Or legal migration for that matter. Quite the opposite. Fewer people around would mean lower house prices. So, that’s a Hitler win. Unfortunately, Hitler’s socialist economics would mean shortages of all sorts of things. So, you’d have a house but it wouldn’t have any windows.

He might initially have some trouble with activist judges. But given that he will have a majority in Parliament – Nazis are quite good at arranging that sort of thing – and given that via the Bill of Attainder, Parliament can execute anyone they don’t like without giving reasons, I don’t think the judges would prove much of an obstacle.

I don’t think he would have much time for DEI (or DIE as think we ought to start calling it) or the whole equality agenda. At very least that’s good news for the Garrick Club, if it can retain any degree of independence. OK, so the members would have to sing the Horst Wessel Lied every evening but who doesn’t like a good sing song every now and then? Especially, if it’s being led by prominent celebrities.

On that point, it would certainly be amusing to watch as the gobshites at the BBC and elsewhere in the establishment, heaped praise on the new government, claiming that it was their idea all along in their vain attempts to secure a party membership.

Communist indoctrination in universities would come to an end. To be sure it would be replaced by a different form of indoctrination but at least white men would not be being taught to hate themselves.

I don’t think he’d have a lot of time for Islamic terrorism or Islam in general. I think he’d put likely trouble-makers in concentration camps. Most would fall foul of his racial policies.

Art and aesthetics generally would be better. Who wouldn’t enjoy the sight of the Angel of the North being melted down to make 155mm shells? The remake of Love Thy Neighbour would be compulsory viewing. Literally.

The key thing is that by shifting the Overton Window, Hitler would be able to cut the Gordian Knot that makes doing anything at the moment almost impossible. It is amazing what you can achieve when you are prepared to lock up your opponents.

At this point, I should point out that a Hitler government may well turn out to be sub-optimal. But given the path towards an Islamo-communist tyranny we are currently on one would have to say it could be worse.

11 comments to What would Hitler do?

  • Johnathan Pearce

    What a foolish post.

    Seeking the authoritarian “big leader” to sort things out has been the delusional aim of many.

    We need no Caesars. The whole premise of this post is an impatience with the messy compromise of liberal democracy.

  • Stonyground

    I Don’t think that you were meant to take it too seriously.

  • JohnK

    Sadly, I think Hitler was quite fond of the Religion of Peace, for obvious reasons. I don’t think he’d have had a problem with it. There were Bosnian Muslim SS battalions, after all.

  • Johnathan Pearce

    Hmm. That lets the author off too lightly by positing such an idea in the first place. It’s nothing more than a daft thought experiment.

  • Natalie Solent (Essex)

    Well, I did get the point, but Ryan Long’s viral “best friends” video from 2020 did it better:

    When “Wokes” And “Racists” Actually Agree On Everything

  • Discovered Joys

    It’s a flawed thought idea. The start of Hitler’s career was 100 years ago, roughly 4 generations. The world was a much different place then religiously, politically, economically, technologically. Just as we decry applying today’s sensibilities to historically famous people we should also avoid ‘importing’ those people into a world they wouldn’t recognise. Even ‘in fun’.

  • AndrewZ

    I assume that this post was intended to be satirical, for the simple reason that the editors would not have published it if they had ever thought that it was a genuine endorsement of Hitler. But it fails because it is written in such flat, matter-of-fact terms.

    Satire must signal that it has an intent beyond the overt content of the words. It can do so through exaggeration, intentional absurdity, and the artful use of ambiguous words and phrases. The most effective satirists use sophisticated techniques of storytelling and persuasion to lead the reader/listener/viewer through an emotional journey to an unexpected conclusion.

    So, we should write this one off as a failed attempt at satire, and the author should accept that it did not work and should think seriously about how to do better next time. There are no guarantees of success in any field, but not being willing to learn from your mistakes and try again is a certain guarantee of failure in all of them.

  • Kirk

    I dunno… When you go back and look at things, the ironies abound.

    JFK, for example? Put him up against Donald Trump, and he’d be the conservative… Trump would be the raving loony liberal, in that matchup.

    Bring FDR into the modern age, and he’d fit right in, just as Woodrow Wilson would. Wilson would be salivating at the potential inherent in the modern controls on information, and aghast at how the markets have simultaneously fragmented in terms of interests and affinities, while consolidating ownership.

    I’m not sure that Hitler’s ideas would resonate with today’s population. Some of it would, but… His moment has passed, and there’s no going back. When the situation in Europe develops into full-blown takeover by the immigrants, something akin to Hitler’s message and methods will no doubt resonate, but that’s only because of the current treason of the elites.

    I think you could make a pretty good case that Hitler only happened for two basic reasons, in Germany: Number one, the “bad peace” of Versailles, which flowed out of the “Bad War” of WWI that the pre-WWI German elites got into and then thoroughly discredited themselves with, and the second thing, the resulting “Anything Goes Libertinism” of the Weimar years. Absent those two things, Hitler and the Nazis would have had a much harder time getting into power. I don’t see him rising very far, as a failed Viennese painter, if WWI didn’t happen the way it did, the peace wasn’t badly negotiated, or the Weimar years didn’t disgust everyone in Germany. He’d have been seen as a parvenu, a charlatan, absent those things.

    Which is why you should really keep an eye on the “fringe-element” types of today. Some of those sorts are going to be seen as “truth-telling solution givers” before long, and there isn’t really any telling where the f*ck that one ends.

    Do remember how Napoleon came about, as well. I don’t think that today’s elites really paid much attention in history class. Or, they took the wrong lessons from it all… I suspect that they really, truly believe “It can’t/won’t happen to us…”

    Does anyone else hear the ghosts of Johan and Cornelis de Witt giggling to themselves in the balcony… Or, is it just me?

  • Paul Marks

    Adolf Hitler and his National Socialists believed in the extermination of some “races” (for example Jews) and the enslavement of other “races” – for example Slavs.

    It is true that the Nazis had no real biological understanding of “race” (having no knowledge of DNA), but their viciousness should not be underestimated.

    I understand that the endless television shows about the Nazis have become incredibly boring – but that should not distract from the fact (and it is a fact) that the Nazis were very bad indeed.

    By the way, calling the National Socialists “Fascists” (as the left do) obscures the basic fact about the Nazis – their RACIAL socialism.

  • Mr Ed

    I fully get the point of the OP, the circumstances that led to the Austrian painter having power were freakish but they were entirely self-inflicted by the German political class as von Mises showed at length in Omnipotent Government. Germany invaded Belgium because a Bosnian Serb shot an Austrian. Just f. off and die if you think that is a casus belli. Ludwig von Mises knew the Nazis all too well, he spoke their language, he was Austrian and he knew all the various shades of socialism that flourished in the first half of the 20th Century there. He was neutral enough to point out that the main faults with the Nazis was their economics and all errors derived from that, and he pointed out that at one point, the Painter chap was so confused about his ideas, and lacking in knowledge of genetics, that his plan was ultimately to announce a package of (pan-)German measures, see who followed them and working backwards from that, declare those who followed this plan as being the true Germans. As he put it, no further proof is needed of the insincerity of the whole doctrine.

    I differ in the OP’s approach to how the Nazis viewed Islam, it is clear that the upper Nazis were Fanboys of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and saw in Islam a counterpoint to Christianity when their half-baked paganism wasn’t taking root, as a way to destroy Christianity (and all that should come with it).

    Ultimately, it comes down to the Party’s 25 points, which are not too different in economic approach to any socialist or social democrat.

    And on the environment, it is fairly well set out that the Nazis had a soft spot for the environment in their own peculiar way, I read in the 1980s a book saying that they would be Greens today, I was initially shocked, but on digging I found it hard to differ.

  • Paul Marks

    Yes Mr Ed – the German invasion of Belgium was unjustified and, as the German (yes the German) Ambassador in Britain warned – was bound to lead to war with the United Kingdom (all suggestions for an international conference being rejected – rejected by Berlin).

    And the German invasion of France was “justified” by a Declaration of War that was a series-of-lies – it even pretended the French were bombing Bavaria.

    People (including historians) who want to pretend that Berlin was not to blame for the First World War tend to leave out inconvenient documents such as the German Declaration of War upon France in 1914 – the document is, I repeat, a series-of-lies.

    Germany was prepared for war in 1914 (its army was modern and fully prepared) – its rivals were NOT.

    For example, the French military reorganisation would not have been been completed till (at the soonest) 1916 – France tried to fight in 1914 with an essentially Napoleonic army – the result was vast numbers of French dead (in their brightly coloured uniforms – and with the regimental bands dead alongside them), it was astonishing that France did not totally collapse.

    Russia was in an even worse state militarily – and everyone in Russia knew it (the defeat by Japan had shown it) – the Russian army might (might – possibly) have been ready for war in 1918 – but in 1914 it was not ready for anything.

    People who claim that Russia wanted war in 1914 are wildly misinformed. Although some Russians were easy to manipulate – for example the Foreign Minister was very worried that he might not be considered masculine (very upset by the rumours that were put about that he was a homosexual), and so prone to strong-sounding language and to commitments of support that Russia was in no real position to make.

    As for the Czar – sadly Nicholas II was a well meaning, but weak, man – he would have been much better suited to being a librarian (no offence meant to librarians – indeed I wish I had gone down that path in life myself), but accident of birth has made him Czar of Russia (unlike the British monarchy – being Czar of Russia was more of a CEO position, a job which Nicholas was not fit for).

    The one great power that was ready for war in 1914 was Imperial Germany – which is why, for example, the German Central Bank (alone of all the Central Banks) had made plans to go off gold (formal plans – with the full participation of the commercial banks) BEFORE the Declaration of War.

    They knew war was coming – because Berlin was going to take the first opportunity to declare war, because Germany was ready for war – and its rivals were not.

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>