The Oligarchs Who Came to Regret Supporting Hitler(theatlantic.com)
theatlantic.com
The Oligarchs Who Came to Regret Supporting Hitler
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/02/hitler-oligarchs-hugenberg-nazi/681584/
33 comments
> They helped him in pursuit of profit. Many ended up in concentration camps.
I do have to wonder: would they have regretted it had they not ended up in camps?
I do have to wonder: would they have regretted it had they not ended up in camps?
I read the "Embracing Defeat" by John Dower. It's about Japan instead, but what struck me is that the wealthy and powerful in general paid little price and perhaps even enriched themselves from the war.
All the government warehouses that had various stocks of war material and food, clothing, rubber, etc. all mysteriously disappeared into private hands shortly after the fall.
US bombing campaigns tended to target the working class. The wealthy usually had enclaves that had substantial separation between their houses so they didn't even lose their homes to the fires.
And the US occupation had to prioritize stability immediately and to do that they wanted to maintain the power of the already powerful and maintain the institutions wherever possible.
Even some scientists that conducted inhumane experiments were let off scot-free because we wanted their research.
I suspect that it's always been this way. As a conqueror, you always want whatever you conquer to be economically productive as soon as possible. So you always want to have the existing managers now simply reporting to you.
All the government warehouses that had various stocks of war material and food, clothing, rubber, etc. all mysteriously disappeared into private hands shortly after the fall.
US bombing campaigns tended to target the working class. The wealthy usually had enclaves that had substantial separation between their houses so they didn't even lose their homes to the fires.
And the US occupation had to prioritize stability immediately and to do that they wanted to maintain the power of the already powerful and maintain the institutions wherever possible.
Even some scientists that conducted inhumane experiments were let off scot-free because we wanted their research.
I suspect that it's always been this way. As a conqueror, you always want whatever you conquer to be economically productive as soon as possible. So you always want to have the existing managers now simply reporting to you.
Despite that tagline, none of the people the article profiles in detail actually ended up in camps. Their actual fate was to sidelined from power, but they kept their mansions and a fat stack of cash they could wipe their tears away with.
Spent a few hours digesting this article. Has some very interesting insights.
* I didn't realize quite how many still currently active companies participated in the rise to power of WW2 Hitler or the supply of concentration camp supplies etc _directly_, and how they all self-justify this behavior while balancing it with acknowledging the atrocities. (There's a section on this about 3/4 through the article, referencing Allianz[0], Bayer, and Siemens[1]). How does such a company even continue to exist and stay stable through such a conflict?
* How useful the confusion is in polarization. Creating confusion through their usage of media creates an environment where people can't settle on their own ideas. If they must settle these thoughts (through social pressure or other force), they would choose a simpler answer than a more nuanced and on balance (i.e. one that is "left" or "right" versus one requiring a list of careful exceptions and points). This increases polarization. Some media is complicit and voluntary like Hugenberg's empire of papers, some just business as usual and involuntary, like the other newspaper names referenced.
[0]: https://www.allianz.com/en/about-us/company/history/allianz-...
[1]: https://www.siemens.com/global/en/company/about/history/comp...
* I didn't realize quite how many still currently active companies participated in the rise to power of WW2 Hitler or the supply of concentration camp supplies etc _directly_, and how they all self-justify this behavior while balancing it with acknowledging the atrocities. (There's a section on this about 3/4 through the article, referencing Allianz[0], Bayer, and Siemens[1]). How does such a company even continue to exist and stay stable through such a conflict?
* How useful the confusion is in polarization. Creating confusion through their usage of media creates an environment where people can't settle on their own ideas. If they must settle these thoughts (through social pressure or other force), they would choose a simpler answer than a more nuanced and on balance (i.e. one that is "left" or "right" versus one requiring a list of careful exceptions and points). This increases polarization. Some media is complicit and voluntary like Hugenberg's empire of papers, some just business as usual and involuntary, like the other newspaper names referenced.
[0]: https://www.allianz.com/en/about-us/company/history/allianz-...
[1]: https://www.siemens.com/global/en/company/about/history/comp...
Exactly what is happening now..
"he sought to polarize public opinion and the political parties with incendiary news stories, some of them Fabrikationen—entirely fabricated articles intended to cause confusion and outrage. According to one such story, the government was enslaving German teenagers and selling them to its allies in order to service its war debt. Hugenberg calculated that by hollowing out the political center, political consensus would become impossible and the democratic system would collapse."
"he sought to polarize public opinion and the political parties with incendiary news stories, some of them Fabrikationen—entirely fabricated articles intended to cause confusion and outrage. According to one such story, the government was enslaving German teenagers and selling them to its allies in order to service its war debt. Hugenberg calculated that by hollowing out the political center, political consensus would become impossible and the democratic system would collapse."
> How does such a company even continue to exist and stay stable through such a conflict?
You're making the mistake of anthropomorphizing corporations. They're organizational structures, not moral beings. Were the humans punished? If not, that's a travesty. But it makes little sense to dismantle the corporations, which produce valuable goods and services.
Like the government, turn them over to different people.
You're making the mistake of anthropomorphizing corporations. They're organizational structures, not moral beings. Were the humans punished? If not, that's a travesty. But it makes little sense to dismantle the corporations, which produce valuable goods and services.
Like the government, turn them over to different people.
The devil is in the details (of the article). Some were punished and some were not. The early Nazi party financier mentioned in the article (Hugenberg) was able to walk back all his charges, get back all his assets. For I.G Farben (chemical manufacturer), it mentions, 23 of 24 were charged of war crimes, 13 were sentenced.
Regarding treating the corporation as a single entity (versus treating it as a composition of ppl), their ideology and power still lives on. Krupp's (now part of ThyssenKrupp) owner was too ill to stand trial, though his son did, oddly enough. It still existed within the Krupps family, even after things had settled. It needs to be seen from both the composition lens and the singular lens to make sense
Regarding treating the corporation as a single entity (versus treating it as a composition of ppl), their ideology and power still lives on. Krupp's (now part of ThyssenKrupp) owner was too ill to stand trial, though his son did, oddly enough. It still existed within the Krupps family, even after things had settled. It needs to be seen from both the composition lens and the singular lens to make sense
> Some were punished and some were not.
That sounds expected? I read Telford Taylor's book about the first Nuremberg trials. Of the 24 accused, three were acquitted. The jury (and even Taylor, who was the lead prosecutor) felt that some people deserved to hang and others didn't. Not everyone in a position of authority beared equal culpability for the war.
Maybe some Krupps were evil and others not; guilt by family association is not a thing in the western legal framework.
That sounds expected? I read Telford Taylor's book about the first Nuremberg trials. Of the 24 accused, three were acquitted. The jury (and even Taylor, who was the lead prosecutor) felt that some people deserved to hang and others didn't. Not everyone in a position of authority beared equal culpability for the war.
Maybe some Krupps were evil and others not; guilt by family association is not a thing in the western legal framework.
US companies like IBM continued to do business with Germany through front companies in some cases.
Hitler had a lot of support, and still does. The kind of might makes right hyper-elitist ideology the Nazis espoused never went away. It was just pushed out of the public Overton window. Now it’s back.
Hitler had a lot of support, and still does. The kind of might makes right hyper-elitist ideology the Nazis espoused never went away. It was just pushed out of the public Overton window. Now it’s back.
There were American supporters, too, officially until war was declared.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_collaboration_with_Na...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_collaboration_with_Na...
I mean, Henry Ford is the only American mentioned and quoted in Mein Kampf and was cited as inspiration for the design and management of concentration camp. Hitler was such a fan he gave Ford many medals, before and during the war (of which, Ford was proud of), and Hitler kept a photo of Henry Ford on his desk of all places. Ford was additionally proud Nazi all the way to the end.
IBM President Thomas J. Watson meets with Hitler in Berlin, June 1937, just before receiving medal for "service to the Reich." https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/ibm-and-quot-death-s-ca...
> how many still currently active companies participated in the rise to power of WW2 Hitler
Yeah, it's often a surprise how fascism has historically been entwined with corporatism. Putting the word "socialist" between "national" and "party" was a meaningless but ingenious marketing ploy.
Yeah, it's often a surprise how fascism has historically been entwined with corporatism. Putting the word "socialist" between "national" and "party" was a meaningless but ingenious marketing ploy.
Why is it a surprise?
Corporatism (not to be confused with corporatocracy) was one of the main tenants of Fascism (capital F) which various fascist movements of the era emulated in some way or another. Germany's corporatism though was a lot weaker than Italy's; corporatist bodies like labor unions and trade groups never got any legislative power.
Of course, these days corporatism is more associated with social democracy.
Corporatism (not to be confused with corporatocracy) was one of the main tenants of Fascism (capital F) which various fascist movements of the era emulated in some way or another. Germany's corporatism though was a lot weaker than Italy's; corporatist bodies like labor unions and trade groups never got any legislative power.
Of course, these days corporatism is more associated with social democracy.
I think it's a surprise because dictatorships are typically seen as having full control over everything (inc production / economy) and because of a continued pernicious narrative that Hitler was a socialist.
Corporatism allows for control.
With corporatism, a dictator only needs to control the relatively small number of guilds (sector wide corporazioni in case of Italy) to control the economy.
This is a huge step up, in terms of control, from capitalism for a dictator, while not nearly as hard to implement (and in the Nazi's case, not nearly as linked to Jews) as socialism.
The Nazis though didn't really implement corporatism to quite the same level as others. In many ways, they were quite capitalistic - "privatization" was, after all, coined to describe the philosophy of the Nazi economy. In industries related to the war, they looked more like a command economy.
With corporatism, a dictator only needs to control the relatively small number of guilds (sector wide corporazioni in case of Italy) to control the economy.
This is a huge step up, in terms of control, from capitalism for a dictator, while not nearly as hard to implement (and in the Nazi's case, not nearly as linked to Jews) as socialism.
The Nazis though didn't really implement corporatism to quite the same level as others. In many ways, they were quite capitalistic - "privatization" was, after all, coined to describe the philosophy of the Nazi economy. In industries related to the war, they looked more like a command economy.
A thing I read was the Nazi's changed the rules on how much assets were needed to incorporate. That lead to small businesses either merging or dissolving.
Lenny Bruce had a joke about how people got tired of having beat up people themselves. So they hired cops. Who are perfectly happy to beat them as well.
My distillation. If you see someone do something shitty to someone else, stick around and they'll do it to you too.
Obligatory Bevis: Not me! The cow!
Lenny Bruce had a joke about how people got tired of having beat up people themselves. So they hired cops. Who are perfectly happy to beat them as well.
My distillation. If you see someone do something shitty to someone else, stick around and they'll do it to you too.
Obligatory Bevis: Not me! The cow!
I think there has to be a balance? Hitler clashed and pushed out Hugenberg (the German media mogul/early Nazi party financier) over his potential policies being "too detrimental to the poor/working class". Hitler then found financing elsewhere (from the banker mentioned in the article). The national appeal was sincere, which I have to imagine is why it gained any traction in the first place.
While some of it may be from authorial design, many elements here are distressingly familiar.
I bet every human language has idioms like "playing with fire", and a lot of people seem to have believed they could accelerate the might-makes-right boulder for some profitable distance and then it would just stop rolling before disaster.
> In the ’20s and early ’30s, the Hitler “brand” was anathema to capitalists and corporate elites. [... Yet by 1933] The New York Times expressed astonishment that Hugenberg, an “arch-capitalist” who stood “in strongest discord with economic doctrines of the Nazi movement,” was suddenly in charge of the country’s finances. Hitler’s “socialist mask” had fallen, the Communist daily Red Banner proclaimed, arguing that “Hugenberg is in charge, not Hitler!”
> As self-proclaimed “economic dictator,” Hugenberg kept pace with Hitler in outraging political opponents and much of the public. [...] Hugenberg laid out an ambitious plan for economic growth through territorial expansion.
I bet every human language has idioms like "playing with fire", and a lot of people seem to have believed they could accelerate the might-makes-right boulder for some profitable distance and then it would just stop rolling before disaster.
> In the ’20s and early ’30s, the Hitler “brand” was anathema to capitalists and corporate elites. [... Yet by 1933] The New York Times expressed astonishment that Hugenberg, an “arch-capitalist” who stood “in strongest discord with economic doctrines of the Nazi movement,” was suddenly in charge of the country’s finances. Hitler’s “socialist mask” had fallen, the Communist daily Red Banner proclaimed, arguing that “Hugenberg is in charge, not Hitler!”
> As self-proclaimed “economic dictator,” Hugenberg kept pace with Hitler in outraging political opponents and much of the public. [...] Hugenberg laid out an ambitious plan for economic growth through territorial expansion.
Godwin's Law is now just part of the zeitgeist.
From Wikipedia:
In 2023, Godwin published an opinion in The Washington Post stating "Yes, it's okay to compare Trump to Hitler. Don't let me stop you." In the article, Godwin says "But when people draw parallels between Donald Trump’s 2024 candidacy and Hitler’s progression from fringe figure to Great Dictator, we aren’t joking. Those of us who hope to preserve our democratic institutions need to underscore the resemblance before we enter the twilight of American democracy."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
In 2023, Godwin published an opinion in The Washington Post stating "Yes, it's okay to compare Trump to Hitler. Don't let me stop you." In the article, Godwin says "But when people draw parallels between Donald Trump’s 2024 candidacy and Hitler’s progression from fringe figure to Great Dictator, we aren’t joking. Those of us who hope to preserve our democratic institutions need to underscore the resemblance before we enter the twilight of American democracy."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
Godwin's Law doesn't apply when discussing actual Nazis.
Reminds me of Zuck “regretting” censorship.
I understand something similar happened with oligarchs supporting FDR.
blased(2)
waltercool(1)
Sounds kind of familiar.