this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2026
316 points (96.2% liked)
Greentext
8759 readers
644 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's easier to think of Nazis as just evil and incompetent. The uncomfortable truth is that a significant part of their platform was popular, especially in the beginning of their rule. They were also extremely competent early on, it wasn't until Hitler was in full on drug psychosis that things started going down hill. Expecting something the Nazis did, especially early on to be unpopular and a massive red flag is just foolish on the teacher.
It would be better if we focused more on the uncomfortable parts of Nazi Germany. Their militarization efforts pulled them out of global recession faster than everyone else. Jewish segregation was inspired by the US treatment of African Americans. Jesse Owens was treated better in Nazi Germany than in the US despite being a national hero. The eugenics movement was also massively popular in the US and elsewhere. There was a lot of luck involved in the war in Europe going as well as it did, Germany winning wasn't ever really realistic unless the US aided them, but things could have been much worse.
In a lot of ways, it's not that they were competent, it's that the more popular parts of their policies (e.g. public spending, job creation programs) were running on borrowed time - the government kind of strong-armed the banks into funding them, and if they were ever going to pay them back, it was through spoils of war. I guess it takes some kind of competency to put that plan into action...
You make it sound like spoils of war wasn't the main income for Europe for pretty much all of history until then. Colonialism put a little nicer name on it.
After industrialization, selling industrial products was frequently far more profitable than the expensive and uncertain spoils of war. Even colonialism was frequently a net loss for the governments.
And there wasn't really a likely reality where Nazi Germany fought their war in a way that was actually winnable, their overconfidence was only matched by the idiocy of many of their tactic and strategic decisions.
You're right in what you say but it's not relevant to this discussion. Colonialism is a very different MO than attacking neighboring countries.
It's a matter of distance really. Germany raiding France or Brazil isn't functionally different.
reason it was popular is because they... delivered on a lot of their political promises.
the german economy was in shambles in the 20s and early 30s and they made it boom. people like that.
"It's the economy stupid" is probably the most applicable statement to how political success happens across all systems and ages.
and yet, despite all the 'genius' of our political consultant class, they can't seem to understand that. because they are so blinded by 'social issues', at least in the USA.
and when candidates focus on economic issues and less on social ones... they do way better at the polls and have better approval ratings... especially when their policies make a positive and visible economic impact...
but then again, in USA at least, our political class is so totally detached from economic reality of the voter, so i suppose it's inevitable, really.