The Instigator
Jacob_Womcak
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ford_prefect
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points

Could Nazi Germany's Regime work in the US?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
ford_prefect
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/2/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 808 times Debate No: 69178
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

Jacob_Womcak

Pro

It is impossible to accept the argument please post a comment in the delegated section if you want to take the opposing role

Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Arguments
Round 3: Rebuttals and further arguments
Round 4: Summary




Before things are said my proposal in this debate is that the
Economic and Government organization of Germany circa. 1929-45, with the anti-Semitic and “Master Race” tones removed, would not only help the United States but help the country flourish.

The Nazi Government main views were:

  • Fascism
  • Mercantilism
  • Militarism
  • Führerprinzip (Leader's word is Law)

Side Note: this is my first debate, I apologize in advance for any mistakes on my part


ford_prefect

Con

I accept this challenge, and I look forward to a good debate. Good luck to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 1
Jacob_Womcak

Pro

To understand my side of the argument I must repeat my original statement, the government of Germany circa 1933 to 45 with the removal of the racist, anti-sematic, and master race idealisms is a reasonable and effective government that should be introduced into American culture. I find this to be true because America has the land to be self-sufficient, the Nationalism sewn into the fabric of American society, and the fact that America has similar programs already in effect.


Fascism, many people group all government together, but with different countries so come different governments. The beginning of the Third Reich showed a very strongly planted form of fascism but Adolf Hitler did not arrive at the Reichstag alone. Along with the Führer came five cabinet members that were to advice and if the event came about take the reins if the leader were to perish. What I think would be more effective though would be the "Flensburg Government" a government consisting of twelve ministers, counting the head who wielded a little more power. This government lasted roughly two weeks before berlin was taken and the Nazi regime destroyed.


Something that few people know is that the Second World War was more or less started in search of food for the German people, or rather in search of farmland, this was to turn Germany into a self-sufficient nation and support the German economic system of the time, mercantilism, or the theory that a country can prosper if it imports nothing and exports huge amounts of goods.


America however is not Germany, America has some of the most arable land in the world and a huge amount of it. This abundance of farmland would mean that we would not need to start wars to get more land and support our populous. The secondary reasoning of my argument is America has executed Nazi legislature before, shortly after coming into office the Nazi party institutes free healthcare, social welfare centers, and animal rights programs. In combination with the laws and programs America has executed a form of mercantilism already, but under the name of isolationism.


In conclusion my belief that the Nazi regime could work in place of the American government because of the efficiency of the system of leadership, the abundance of land providing for the economic system of mercantilism, and the presence of the government within our own.




http://en.wikipedia.org...


http://en.wikipedia.org...


https://books.google.com...

ford_prefect

Con

Thanks to my opponent for his arguments. I will address them first, then continue to present my own.

My opponent has proposed four main economic and governmental principles that the Nazi system was built on: Fascism, Mercantilism, Militarism, and Fuhrerprinzip (Leader"s word is law). He has provided examples of each, but he has not offered arguments explaining why the US would benefit from adopting Militarism or Fuhrerprinzip.

The only argument he proposes in favor of Fascism is that he thinks the US would benefit from emulating the Flensburg Government. He does not explain why this would be an improvement over the current US form of government. In any case, I strongly disagree with this assertion. The Flensburg Government is not a good model for the US. This government lasted 21 days and its only actions were to immediately surrender to the Allied forces and dissolve itself. Additionally, none of its members were democratically elected, and there were no checks and balances to their (very limited) power. The current US government is largely democratically elected, and has separated the powers between three branches in order to prevent any part of the government from getting too powerful. These are widely seen as good qualities for a government to have, and Fascist regimes like the Flensburg Government do not possess them. Since my opponent has not explained any tangible benefits from switching to Fascism, we must conclude that adopting a Fascist government over our current Democratic Republic would not be beneficial to the US.

The only argument my opponent proposes in favor of Mercantilism is that the US has lots of arable land, meaning we could be self sufficient without starting wars, and that the US has already practiced mercantilism under the name of isolationism.

There are several problems with this assertion. First, isolationism is chiefly a diplomatic relations policy, not an economic policy. Second, even though one could argue that the US has followed isolationist policies in the past, they did not prevent us from starting wars, which my opponent has implicitly conceded as a bad thing. The US started the following wars of conquest during times of supposed isolationism/mercantilism:
1)All of the conflicts with Native American tribes
2)Mexican-American war
3)Spanish-American war
4)Philippine-American war
5)Occupations of Nicaragua, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic
6)Bay of Pigs Invasion
7)Invasion of Panama

If my opponent"s claim were true, our abundance of arable land should have prevented us from waging those wars. However, clearly that is not the case. So we cannot accept my opponent"s assertion that the US is capable of being self-sufficient through mercantilism without attacking other nations.

Another problem with this assertion is that the goal of mercantilism (a self-sufficient economy that is isolated from the global economy through the heavy use of protective tariffs) would necessarily be an upgrade from our current lightly regulated free market system. In my arguments, I will demonstrate why mercantilism is no longer accepted as a credible standard by economists.

I will now outline my arguments explaining why the four pillars of Fascism, Militarism, Mercantilism, and Fuhrerprinzip would not be beneficial to the US.

Fascism is built upon several key tenets that are fundamentally opposed to American political ideology. First, ethnic nationalism is the main foundation of fascism. Removing the master race and ethnocentrist tones of fascism, as my opponent specified for the purposes of this debate, would fundamentally weaken it. Part of the reason why fascist governments can be so strong is that they unite the nation"s people against outsiders, who are vilified as state enemies. My opponent has not suggested what would replace this unifying factor, and without its driving motivation, fascism loses a big part of its power. Another key part of Fascism is Totalitarianism. The power and glorification of the state is everything, and this trumps individual rights to freedom. This is directly opposed to the American belief that protecting individual civil liberties is a fundamental part of a government"s job. My opponent argues that a country with a strong tradition of valuing personal freedom would benefit from adopting a system of government that doesn"t value freedom at all. This is not the case. If the US government adopted fascism, its citizens would riot in the streets and organize bloody rebellions to take back their civil liberties. Our peaceful society would devolve into violence and people would live in constant fear.

My opponent did not argue why Militarism would be good for the US, so I will not argue why it would be bad for the US. We can consider this point a non-issue for the purposes of this debate.

Mercantilism has been proven to be a flawed economic philosophy by the observed relationship between price/monetary supply and the notion of comparative advantage. Mercantilist theory holds that international trade is a zero sum game, where any gain to one country is offset by an equivalent loss to the other. However, this doesn"t take into account the idea that two countries can be more efficient in producing different goods. So if one country trades away a good that is easy to produce locally in order to obtain goods that are difficult to produce locally but easily produced elsewhere, both countries benefit from trading and there is no loser.

Additionally, mercantilist theory states that countries should try to retain as much wealth in the form of precious metals as possible, since they believe this will make everyone in their country wealthier. However, price theory shows us that this will only lead to inflation, and prices will adjust to the point where the increased gold/silver is devalued. This is why Mercantilism is not considered a viable economic option for national economies today. It only hurts the country"s wealth by restricting its potential trade partners.

Finally, Fuhrerprinzip is a bad idea for the US for essentially the same reason as Fascism. The American people are used to having a voice in their government, and replacing democracy with a "leader"s word is law" mandate would not go over well. Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that a leader"s word would be more efficient or better informed than the current US government. What if the leader is stupid, or cruel, or inconsistent, or indecisive? There is no guarantee that a national leader would make better decisions than Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court. Furthermore, his authority would not be as legitimate, since he wouldn"t derive his power from an election and he couldn't be held accountable for mistakes.

For all these reasons, the economic and governmental organization of Germany circa 1929-45 would not help the United States if they were adopted in place of the current systems.

I look forward to my opponent"s rebuttals.

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Jacob_Womcak

Pro

Jacob_Womcak forfeited this round.
ford_prefect

Con

I will pass this round just in case my opponent is able to continue in the next round.
Debate Round No. 3
Jacob_Womcak

Pro

Jacob_Womcak forfeited this round.
ford_prefect

Con

Well, since I countered my opponents' arguments and mine stand unopposed, please vote Con. Thank you
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by whiteflame 2 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: lannan13// Mod action: NOT Removed<

6 points to Con (Conduct, Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture

[*Reason for non-removal*] This debate is well past the end of the voting period, and therefore well past the statute of limitations for vote removal. As such, votes on this debate are no longer moderated.
************************************************************************
Posted by ford_prefect 2 years ago
ford_prefect
I would be willing to accept this debate
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
Jacob_Womcakford_prefectTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by LostintheEcho1498 2 years ago
LostintheEcho1498
Jacob_Womcakford_prefectTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit.
Vote Placed by Paleophyte 2 years ago
Paleophyte
Jacob_Womcakford_prefectTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeits