Compared to capitalism, what has socialism and communism ever produced or manufactured?

[Andylusion]

Who owned the means of production in Nazi Germany?

It wasn't the socialists.

The Nazis. The Nazis controlled everything. There is a famous, or infamous story of Hitler saying "I don't care if you own the cow, as long as I own you".

The Nazis were very much for the appearance of private ownership, but they made it clear they controlled the owners. Yes, you can own that factory, but you build what we want you to build, and the way we want you to build it.

It was very much a socialist system. As the name "National Socialists" implied.

You are absolutely correct: "Nationalized socialism."

All industry and production was for the support of the state. Industrialists could make good money but they were directed by the government to manufacture mainly certain things needed for Hitler's military expansionism.

We spend more on military than the rest of the world combined. That’s all government spending. A lot. Trillions can’t even be accounted for. So shady.

What are we manufacturing?

Military superiority against our adversaries, at any cost. Last I checked, we weren't marching across the border to annex Mexico or Canada.

We already did that .

Really? I had no idea Mexico and Canada were the 51st and 52nd states.

....sign.... just when you think there might be an adult posting on the forum, they prove you wrong.

 

[Andylusion]

We seem to have a couple Trumpers talking to themselves trying to decide just how "evil" socialism is...and not actually knowing shit about the subject.

Socialism is the ownership or regulation of the means of production by the government . Well the government doesn't own shit so...we're talking about regulation.

Clearly we WANT a certain amount of regulation so the discussion is NOT about "how" evil socialism is...but rather how much of it we require

No, I would disagree with that.

If I give you $20.... but I dictate where you spend that $20... when you spend that $20... and what you can't spend that $20..... do you really own the $20?

Yes, you have it..... you actually have that $20 in your possession. But you can't do anything with it, unless I tell you can.

Do you really own that $20? No. You don't.

Again, Hitler was infamous for saying, I don't care if you own the cow, as long as I own you.

His point was, if he controls your life, he'll let you have the myth that you own something.

Generally I am against regulation. Most of the time, it does more harm than good. In fact, I'd be hard pressed to find when it really was beneficial.

 

[Lesh]

We seem to have a couple Trumpers talking to themselves trying to decide just how "evil" socialism is...and not actually knowing shit about the subject.

Socialism is the ownership or regulation of the means of production by the government . Well the government doesn't own shit so...we're talking about regulation.

Clearly we WANT a certain amount of regulation so the discussion is NOT about "how" evil socialism is...but rather how much of it we require

No, I would disagree with that.

If I give you $20.... but I dictate where you spend that $20... when you spend that $20... and what you can't spend that $20..... do you really own the $20?

Yes, you have it..... you actually have that $20 in your possession. But you can't do anything with it, unless I tell you can.

Do you really own that $20? No. You don't.

Again, Hitler was infamous for saying, I don't care if you own the cow, as long as I own you.

His point was, if he controls your life, he'll let you have the myth that you own something.

Generally I am against regulation. Most of the time, it does more harm than good. In fact, I'd be hard pressed to find when it really was beneficial.

Clearly by any REAL definition of socialism we are either talking about government ownership of the means of production (obviously not the case in America) or regulation.

We Clearly require regulation. You don't dispute that do you? That would be stupidly dishonest. So again...you are full of shit. We are talking about how MUCH socialism we require

 

[Moonglow]

If it wasn't for capitalism the US and Great Britain would have not been able to flood Chinese markets with opium which pizzed off China so much there were two wars over it...

 

[Andylusion]

If it wasn't for capitalism the US and Great Britain would have not been able to flood Chinese markets with opium which pizzed off China so much there were two wars over it...

The United States was flooding China with Opium? Have a citation for that?

 

[Andylusion]

We seem to have a couple Trumpers talking to themselves trying to decide just how "evil" socialism is...and not actually knowing shit about the subject.

Socialism is the ownership or regulation of the means of production by the government . Well the government doesn't own shit so...we're talking about regulation.

Clearly we WANT a certain amount of regulation so the discussion is NOT about "how" evil socialism is...but rather how much of it we require

No, I would disagree with that.

If I give you $20.... but I dictate where you spend that $20... when you spend that $20... and what you can't spend that $20..... do you really own the $20?

Yes, you have it..... you actually have that $20 in your possession. But you can't do anything with it, unless I tell you can.

Do you really own that $20? No. You don't.

Again, Hitler was infamous for saying, I don't care if you own the cow, as long as I own you.

His point was, if he controls your life, he'll let you have the myth that you own something.

Generally I am against regulation. Most of the time, it does more harm than good. In fact, I'd be hard pressed to find when it really was beneficial.

Clearly by any REAL definition of socialism we are either talking about government ownership of the means of production (obviously not the case in America) or regulation.

We Clearly require regulation. You don't dispute that do you? That would be stupidly dishonest. So again...you are full of shit. We are talking about how MUCH socialism we require

I think most regulation is utterly useless, and causes more problems that it solves.

The banking crash of 2008 is a perfect example. By any measure, banking is the most regulated aspect of the US economy... and it imploded.

Ironically, most of the regulations people on the left claim would have stopped the crash, never existed, and still don't exist in must of the rest of the world. Yet the crash happened here, not there.

The lending regulations... much lower in Canada and Europe. The Glass-Steagal requirements that Commercial, Retail banks be separate entities.... never existed in Europe. Capital reserve requirements, much lower in Canada and Europe.

Those regulations did nothing helpful, and by some perspectives contributed to the crash, because banks that were otherwise healthy, were forced into administration because they didn't meet the regulations.

AIG is a perfect example. They never had a cash problem. All the issues the government forced AIG into administration over, were all on paper. They never had a cash flow problem. The CEO of AIG testified to this in Congress.

Whatever amount of "necessary regulation" is a tiny fraction of the amount we have now.

 

[Moonglow]

If it wasn't for capitalism the US and Great Britain would have not been able to flood Chinese markets with opium which pizzed off China so much there were two wars over it...

The United States was flooding China with Opium? Have a citation for that?

Ever hear of the opium wars in the 1840's?

 

[basquebromance]

Zimbabwe is an example of failed capitalism

Venezuela failed because its authoritarian, not because its socialist!

 

[sealybobo]

The Nazis. The Nazis controlled everything. There is a famous, or infamous story of Hitler saying "I don't care if you own the cow, as long as I own you".

The Nazis were very much for the appearance of private ownership, but they made it clear they controlled the owners. Yes, you can own that factory, but you build what we want you to build, and the way we want you to build it.

It was very much a socialist system. As the name "National Socialists" implied.

You are absolutely correct: "Nationalized socialism."

All industry and production was for the support of the state. Industrialists could make good money but they were directed by the government to manufacture mainly certain things needed for Hitler's military expansionism.

We spend more on military than the rest of the world combined. That’s all government spending. A lot. Trillions can’t even be accounted for. So shady.

What are we manufacturing?

Military superiority against our adversaries, at any cost. Last I checked, we weren't marching across the border to annex Mexico or Canada.

Just because hitler used nationalized socialism doesn’t make socialism bad. If bush used capitalism to lie us into the Iraq war, do you blame capitalism?

Actually I blame government being in bed with haloburton for that one. Dick Chaney’s company made a fortune.

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Halliburton had anything to do with the Iraq war. None. Zero.

Saying someone made money, does not mean that magically that somehow it was the point, or goal, or had any influence on the decision making.

Um... Bush using Capitalism to justify a war, is impossible. Capitalism has nothing ideologically, to support war. If anything Capitalism would support peace, because dead people do not engage in trade.

Socialism, is an ideology that has an 'us vs them' perspective. Socialism naturally results in war, because fundamental to ideology is the belief that other people are preventing you from succeeding. Things are not equal, and those other people are hindering equality, so we need to take their stuff, and distribute it.

A perfect example of the natural progression of socialism, is Venezuela. Again Hugo Chavez laid out the typical progression.

First we demand food be shared equally. Then you have stores selling food illegal at black market prices. So you activate the military and order them into stores.

Then you have shortages, because produces refuse to sell at a price that is too low. So you order the military to the farms and factories.

Then you end up no food there, and you blame Columbia, and send troops to the border in the name of 'economic sabotage'.

Chavez followed this to the letter. The only reason war didn't break out between Columbia and Venezuela, is because the US put marines there, and Venezuela backed down.

But this is the why all socialists countries naturally move towards violence and war. The problem can't be that their system doesn't work... it has to be that all the factories are in the Rhineland, so we need to take over that land... then Austria, then on and on and on.

Us Vs Them, is the underpinning of the entire Socialist belief system.

And violence is the natural result. Why do you think Antifa was so quick to resort to violence, and none of the left-wing governments on the west coast have done much to stop them?
Ted Wheeler, Portland mayor, stands by decision to allow Antifa to block traffic

No. The perfect examples are Canada or Australia. Are they eventually headed to war?

 

[sealybobo]

Zimbabwe is an example of failed capitalism

Venezuela failed because its authoritarian, not because its socialist!

Exactly. I asked him if socialism is leading canada to war. If not then he is misguided about socialism.

The government should control industry. There is no free market. The market is regulated by the government or law.

 

[georgephillip]

Like all socialists they wanted to rule the world, force everyone to bend to their will, Same reason Stalin invaded Poland and the Baltic's.

Why did Hitler kill communists and tolerate capitalists?

Hitler was a socialist. Do you even know the name of his party without looking it up? I doubt it. And, OBTW, HE personally named it.

Hitler killed communist apparatchiks and socialist nomenklatura mostly because they were in rival political parties. Not because of their beliefs but because they were a political threat to his party.

You people are just simply stupid.

socialism is when the government owns the means of production. communism is when there is no government.

Do you know what a 'soviet' is? I doubt that one, too.

This is like reading 3rd graders debate Relativity

socialism is when the government owns the means of production. communism is when there is no government.

Who owned the means of production in Nazi Germany?

It wasn't the socialists.

The Nazis. The Nazis controlled everything. There is a famous, or infamous story of Hitler saying "I don't care if you own the cow, as long as I own you".

The Nazis were very much for the appearance of private ownership, but they made it clear they controlled the owners. Yes, you can own that factory, but you build what we want you to build, and the way we want you to build it.

It was very much a socialist system. As the name "National Socialists" implied.

The Nazis were very much for the appearance of private ownership, but they made it clear they controlled the owners. Yes, you can own that factory, but you build what we want you to build, and the way we want you to build it

Was Fritz Thyssen a socialist or capitalist?

How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power

"By the time Fritz Thyssen inherited the business empire in 1926, Germany's economic recovery was faltering.

"After hearing Adolf Hitler speak, Thyssen became mesmerised by the young firebrand. He joined the Nazi party in December 1931 and admits backing Hitler in his autobiography, I Paid Hitler, when the National Socialists were still a radical fringe party.

"He stepped in several times to bail out the struggling party: in 1928 Thyssen had bought the Barlow Palace on Briennerstrasse, in Munich, which Hitler converted into the Brown House, the headquarters of the Nazi party.

"The money came from another Thyssen overseas institution, the Bank voor Handel en Scheepvarrt in Rotterdam."

German and American capitalists created Hitler as a buffer against Stalin.

"The Bush family links to Nazi Germany’s war economy were first brought to light at the Nuremberg trials in the testimony of Nazi Germany’s steel magnate Fritz Thyssen. Thyssen was a partner of George W. Bush’s grandfather Prescott Bush..."

"George Bush’s grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.

"The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism.

"His business dealings, which continued until his company’s assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, has led more than 60 years later to a civil action for damages being brought in Germany against the Bush family by two former slave labourers at Auschwitz and to a hum of pre-election controversy."

Bush Family Links to Nazi Germany: “A Famous American Family” Made its Fortune from the Nazis

 

[georgephillip]

Like all socialists they wanted to rule the world, force everyone to bend to their will, Same reason Stalin invaded Poland and the Baltic's.

Why did Hitler kill communists and tolerate capitalists?

There are two reasons Hitler opposed the communists.

One.... Communists wanted to be a puppet under Stalin. Stalin wanted control over the world. Hitler wanted to be in control over the world.

These are mutually exclusive goals. Thus, while communists shared many beliefs ideologically, they were mutually exclusive on the key factor of 'who is king'. Hitler was not going to be under the control of Russia. So Hitler killed the communists.

Second reason was because Hitler had already seen that communism failed in Russia.

When Lenin and then Stalin, wiped out the wealthy business owners in Russia, the economy was wrecked. Shortages and starvation swept across Russia.

Hitler, wisely, figured out that going around slaughtering the business owners was a bad idea. He also correctly figured out that if he merely nationalized all the companies, the rich and wealthy business owners would pack up and leave, such as they did in Venezuela.

Hitler's new plan, was instead of trying to take over all the companies and steal the wealth from the elite, he intended to control them. Force them to act in the best interest of the government, while maintaining the illusion of private ownership.

It is a fact that the control over the economy still had negative effects, but it didn't result in the catastrophic decline that happened in Russia under communism.

The two ideologies may have used different methods, but the goal was the same, total control under the government.

There are two reasons Hitler opposed the communists.

One.... Communists wanted to be a puppet under Stalin. Stalin wanted control over the world. Hitler wanted to be in control over the world.

Stalin wanted to defend his country from the world, not dominate it. It was capitalists in Berlin, London, and DC, and Tokyo who sought global domination.
"Did Stalin share Hitler's dream of World Domination too?..."

https://www.quora.com/Did-Stalin-share-Hitlers-dream-of-World-Domination-too

"The main ideological conflict in the USSR following Lenin’s death in 1924 was between Trotsky, who wanted a global revolution, and Stalin, who wanted to achieve Communism in the Soviet Union before spreading it.

"Stalin emerged victorious from that conflict. He was, arguably, still at work on the project up to his death.

"That he grabbed whatever influence he could over other countries was more opportunistic; there was also an element of trying to get allies, as the USSR was very isolated internationally up to WWII."

 

[Billy000]

Most every advancement in technology, medicine, agriculture, transportation, communication, construction, energy and power, etc. this world has ever seen was conceived and developed by countries that practiced a capitalist ideology. Yet many Democrats are pushing socialism, the goal of which is communism as Lenin explained.

So what groundbreaking things have socialism/communism ever contributed to this world, aside from what they stole from capitalist countries?

Okay for one thing, capitalism isn’t the antithesis of socialism. They very much go hand in hand in this country. Yep, that means the US is part socialist like literally every other country around the world.

There’s no denying that capitalism works and produces value. Far lefties like me don’t want to abolish capitalism. We just want it controlled and regulated so that it benefits the entire population and not just the wealthy. The socialist running for office are pushing for social democracy which are programs that benefit the people like tuition free college or universal healthcare. That doesn’t somehow mean capitalism goes out the window.

 

[georgephillip]

Like all socialists they wanted to rule the world, force everyone to bend to their will, Same reason Stalin invaded Poland and the Baltic's.

Why did Hitler kill communists and tolerate capitalists?

There are two reasons Hitler opposed the communists.

One.... Communists wanted to be a puppet under Stalin. Stalin wanted control over the world. Hitler wanted to be in control over the world.

These are mutually exclusive goals. Thus, while communists shared many beliefs ideologically, they were mutually exclusive on the key factor of 'who is king'. Hitler was not going to be under the control of Russia. So Hitler killed the communists.

Second reason was because Hitler had already seen that communism failed in Russia.

When Lenin and then Stalin, wiped out the wealthy business owners in Russia, the economy was wrecked. Shortages and starvation swept across Russia.

Hitler, wisely, figured out that going around slaughtering the business owners was a bad idea. He also correctly figured out that if he merely nationalized all the companies, the rich and wealthy business owners would pack up and leave, such as they did in Venezuela.

Hitler's new plan, was instead of trying to take over all the companies and steal the wealth from the elite, he intended to control them. Force them to act in the best interest of the government, while maintaining the illusion of private ownership.

It is a fact that the control over the economy still had negative effects, but it didn't result in the catastrophic decline that happened in Russia under communism.

The two ideologies may have used different methods, but the goal was the same, total control under the government.

When Lenin and then Stalin, wiped out the wealthy business owners in Russia, the economy was wrecked. Shortages and starvation swept across Russia.

How did Stalin's communists manage to fight off invading German capitalists with a "wrecked economy"?

Five-year plans for the national economy of the Soviet Union - Wikipedia

"From 1928 to 1940, the number of Soviet workers in industry, construction, and transport grew from 4.6 million to 12.6 million and factory output soared.[6] Stalin's first five-year plan helped make the USSR a leading industrial nation...."

"Stalin announced the start of the first five-year plan for industrialization on October 1, 1928, and it lasted until December 31, 1932.

"Stalin described it as a new revolution from above.[7]When this plan began, the USSR was fifth in industrialization, and with the great success of the first five-year plan moved up to second, with only the United States in first.[8]

"This plan was achieved with great success in less time than had been predicted. When the plan was initially proposed it was instantly rejected as being too modest.

"The target goals were then increased by a reported 50%.[9]

"Much of the emphasis was placed on heavy industry.

"In fact, 86% of all industrial investments during this time went directly to heavy industry.

"Officially the first five-year plan for industry was fulfilled to the extent of 93.7% in just four years and three months.[8"

 

[SandSquid]

You atill fail to demonstrate any comprehension of what a coup is

Here's the simple version. An ILLEGAL and usually sudden and violent overthrow of a leader/government.

Now, the US has the 25th amendment and other Constitutional clauses that provide the LEGAL framework for removing a leader. So far nothing, not even in the rumors has supported anything but a LEGAL move IF evidence were to substantiate their beliefs.

Sure, in Russia, they don't have those LEGAL avenues, so if you are a Russian that would be a coup in your country. In Iran and North Korea, the same.

Some people I guess would rather we take the pages out of their books than our own Constitution.

your ignorance is on full display for the world, huh newbie?


Impeachment in Russia - Wikipedia


In accordance with the current Russian legislation, the removal from office of the President are regulated by article 93 of the Constitution.[1] It provides for indictment by the State Duma, should be accompanied by the opinion of the Supreme Court of Russia and Constitutional Court of Russia on observance of prescribed procedure for charging. The decision to impeach the President accepts the Federation Council.

The decision of the State Duma on bringing charges and the decision of the Federation Council on dismissal of the President from office must be adopted by two-thirds of the total number in each of chambers (300 and 114 respectively) on the initiative of not less than one third (150) of deputies of the State Duma and with the conclusion of the special Commission formed by the State Duma. The decision of the Federation Council on impeachment of the President of the Russian Federation from office must be adopted not later than within three months after the extension of the State Duma of the charges against the President. If within this period the Federation Council's decision is not accepted, charges against the President shall be considered rejected.

So you are saying not even Russia. That Iran, Venezuela, and North Korea are the ones you think we should follow? Why so un-American? Why the attack on our Constitution from you?

 

[Blues Man]

Most every advancement in technology, medicine, agriculture, transportation, communication, construction, energy and power, etc. this world has ever seen was conceived and developed by countries that practiced a capitalist ideology. Yet many Democrats are pushing socialism, the goal of which is communism as Lenin explained.

So what groundbreaking things have socialism/communism ever contributed to this world, aside from what they stole from capitalist countries?

the socialism of command economics took us to the Moon, last millennium.

the private sector has yet to discover a profit motive.

When the government owns the means of production there can be no profit for the private sector

 

[Cellblock2429]

Like all socialists they wanted to rule the world, force everyone to bend to their will, Same reason Stalin invaded Poland and the Baltic's.

Why did Hitler kill communists and tolerate capitalists?

Hitler was a socialist. Do you even know the name of his party without looking it up? I doubt it. And, OBTW, HE personally named it.

Hitler killed communist apparatchiks and socialist nomenklatura mostly because they were in rival political parties. Not because of their beliefs but because they were a political threat to his party.

You people are just simply stupid.

socialism is when the government owns the means of production. communism is when there is no government.

Do you know what a 'soviet' is? I doubt that one, too.

This is like reading 3rd graders debate Relativity

socialism is when the government owns the means of production. communism is when there is no government.

Who owned the means of production in Nazi Germany?

It wasn't the socialists.

The Nazis. The Nazis controlled everything. There is a famous, or infamous story of Hitler saying "I don't care if you own the cow, as long as I own you".

The Nazis were very much for the appearance of private ownership, but they made it clear they controlled the owners. Yes, you can own that factory, but you build what we want you to build, and the way we want you to build it.

It was very much a socialist system. As the name "National Socialists" implied.

The Nazis were very much for the appearance of private ownership, but they made it clear they controlled the owners. Yes, you can own that factory, but you build what we want you to build, and the way we want you to build it

Was Fritz Thyssen a socialist or capitalist?

How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power

"By the time Fritz Thyssen inherited the business empire in 1926, Germany's economic recovery was faltering.

"After hearing Adolf Hitler speak, Thyssen became mesmerised by the young firebrand. He joined the Nazi party in December 1931 and admits backing Hitler in his autobiography, I Paid Hitler, when the National Socialists were still a radical fringe party.

"He stepped in several times to bail out the struggling party: in 1928 Thyssen had bought the Barlow Palace on Briennerstrasse, in Munich, which Hitler converted into the Brown House, the headquarters of the Nazi party.

"The money came from another Thyssen overseas institution, the Bank voor Handel en Scheepvarrt in Rotterdam."

German and American capitalists created Hitler as a buffer against Stalin.

"The Bush family links to Nazi Germany’s war economy were first brought to light at the Nuremberg trials in the testimony of Nazi Germany’s steel magnate Fritz Thyssen. Thyssen was a partner of George W. Bush’s grandfather Prescott Bush..."

"George Bush’s grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.

"The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism.

"His business dealings, which continued until his company’s assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, has led more than 60 years later to a civil action for damages being brought in Germany against the Bush family by two former slave labourers at Auschwitz and to a hum of pre-election controversy."

Bush Family Links to Nazi Germany: “A Famous American Family” Made its Fortune from the Nazis

/——/ And don’t forget Nazi fan Joe Kennedy.

 

[Lesh]

Most every advancement in technology, medicine, agriculture, transportation, communication, construction, energy and power, etc. this world has ever seen was conceived and developed by countries that practiced a capitalist ideology. Yet many Democrats are pushing socialism, the goal of which is communism as Lenin explained.

So what groundbreaking things have socialism/communism ever contributed to this world, aside from what they stole from capitalist countries?

the socialism of command economics took us to the Moon, last millennium.

the private sector has yet to discover a profit motive.

When the government owns the means of production there can be no profit for the private sector

Which is clearly not the case nor is it likely to be in this country

 

[Lesh]

There’s no denying that capitalism works and produces value. Far lefties like me don’t want to abolish capitalism. We just want it controlled and regulated so that it benefits the entire population and not just the wealthy. The socialist running for office are pushing for social democracy which are programs that benefit the people like tuition free college or universal healthcare. That doesn’t somehow mean capitalism goes out the window.

Thank you for that brief moment of sanity in this right wing cesspool

 

[georgephillip]

Why did Hitler kill communists and tolerate capitalists?

Hitler was a socialist. Do you even know the name of his party without looking it up? I doubt it. And, OBTW, HE personally named it.

Hitler killed communist apparatchiks and socialist nomenklatura mostly because they were in rival political parties. Not because of their beliefs but because they were a political threat to his party.

You people are just simply stupid.

socialism is when the government owns the means of production. communism is when there is no government.

Do you know what a 'soviet' is? I doubt that one, too.

This is like reading 3rd graders debate Relativity

socialism is when the government owns the means of production. communism is when there is no government.

Who owned the means of production in Nazi Germany?

It wasn't the socialists.

The Nazis. The Nazis controlled everything. There is a famous, or infamous story of Hitler saying "I don't care if you own the cow, as long as I own you".

The Nazis were very much for the appearance of private ownership, but they made it clear they controlled the owners. Yes, you can own that factory, but you build what we want you to build, and the way we want you to build it.

It was very much a socialist system. As the name "National Socialists" implied.

The Nazis were very much for the appearance of private ownership, but they made it clear they controlled the owners. Yes, you can own that factory, but you build what we want you to build, and the way we want you to build it

Was Fritz Thyssen a socialist or capitalist?

How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power

"By the time Fritz Thyssen inherited the business empire in 1926, Germany's economic recovery was faltering.

"After hearing Adolf Hitler speak, Thyssen became mesmerised by the young firebrand. He joined the Nazi party in December 1931 and admits backing Hitler in his autobiography, I Paid Hitler, when the National Socialists were still a radical fringe party.

"He stepped in several times to bail out the struggling party: in 1928 Thyssen had bought the Barlow Palace on Briennerstrasse, in Munich, which Hitler converted into the Brown House, the headquarters of the Nazi party.

"The money came from another Thyssen overseas institution, the Bank voor Handel en Scheepvarrt in Rotterdam."

German and American capitalists created Hitler as a buffer against Stalin.

"The Bush family links to Nazi Germany’s war economy were first brought to light at the Nuremberg trials in the testimony of Nazi Germany’s steel magnate Fritz Thyssen. Thyssen was a partner of George W. Bush’s grandfather Prescott Bush..."

"George Bush’s grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.

"The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism.

"His business dealings, which continued until his company’s assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, has led more than 60 years later to a civil action for damages being brought in Germany against the Bush family by two former slave labourers at Auschwitz and to a hum of pre-election controversy."

Bush Family Links to Nazi Germany: “A Famous American Family” Made its Fortune from the Nazis

/——/ And don’t forget Nazi fan Joe Kennedy.

/——/ And don’t forget Nazi fan Joe Kennedy.

Support for Nazi capitalism was a bipartisan affair in the US. Prior to Hitler's invasion of Russia some expected a stalemate in Europe with America and Germany emerging as rival superpowers. Capitalists on both sides were well hedged for that possibility.