Why Oligarchs Loved Hitler

Throughout history, economic elites have often played a significant role in the rise of authoritarian regimes. Faced with political instability and economic crises, wealthy oligarchs frequently align themselves with strongman rulers to safeguard their wealth, crush labor movements, and suppress ideological adversaries.

The United States, like other democracies, is not immune to these influences. Examining historical parallels can offer valuable insights into the current risks posed by unchecked corporate power in political affairs.

This article explores one of the most infamous historical examples of this phenomenon: the role of wealthy industrialists in Adolf Hitler’s rise to power.

Oligarch support was instrumental in transforming Hitler from a radical agitator into the absolute ruler of Nazi Germany. By understanding their motivations, contributions, and the consequences they faced, we can better recognize the current dangers of economic elites aligning themselves with authoritarian leaders for personal gain.

Wealthy Industrialists and Their Support for Hitler

The rise of the Communist Party in Germany during the early 20th century deeply alarmed business leaders, who feared nationalization and expropriation. Many industrialists, devastated by the Great Depression, saw Hitler’s promises of economic stability as a way to protect and expand their business interests.

They also viewed Nazi militarization as a lucrative opportunity, benefiting from state-sponsored contracts for weapons and infrastructure projects. Additionally, Hitler’s outlawing of independent trade unions in 1933 removed a major obstacle to corporate control over wages and labor conditions. His policies of economic nationalism further favored German-owned industries, reducing foreign competition and ensuring that the wealth generated by war preparation remained within the country.

These industrialists played a pivotal role in legitimizing the new government by funding political movements, endorsing economic policies, and securing lucrative contracts that reinforced their own financial dominance. In return, the regime provided stability, eliminated political opposition, and created an economic environment that allowed these businesses to flourish.

This symbiotic relationship ensured mutual benefits, as both sides relied on one another to consolidate and maintain power. Many also exploited forced labor to increase production, further cementing their profitability within the authoritarian system.

Non-German Oligarchs and Companies Supporting Nazi Germany

While German industrialists played a crucial role in Hitler’s rise, several foreign corporations also partnered with Nazi Germany for economic and strategic reasons. Some companies viewed Nazi policies as beneficial for business, while others engaged in trade and investment due to geopolitical calculations or anti-communist sentiment.

In many cases, these businesses helped facilitate Hitler’s rise by providing critical financial backing, technology, or resources that bolstered the Nazi regime’s capabilities. Some firms facilitated mass surveillance and data management, while others supplied vehicles, synthetic fuel, and industrial equipment essential for military operations.

The regime selectively embraced foreign partnerships when they served its strategic interests, ensuring that external resources were used to strengthen domestic economic and military power.

Consequences for Nazi Collaborators and Corporate Complicity

Despite their deep involvement, many of these companies and their leaders largely avoided post-war accountability. Executives often claimed ignorance or framed their actions as standard business operations under an authoritarian government.

Some industrialists faced trials for their roles in enabling authoritarian rule, but overall, consequences were limited. While a few executives received prison sentences, many served only short terms before reintegrating into the business world. Some companies faced temporary restructuring, but they soon re-emerged, often merging with other firms to form new corporate giants.

The minimal consequences for complicity in authoritarian regimes send a clear message: aligning with such governments can yield immense profits with little risk.

Those who refuse to participate may find themselves at an economic disadvantage, losing lucrative state contracts, market share, or access to essential resources. Over time, non-cooperation may lead to long-term financial struggles, while those who support the regime solidify their economic dominance. This dynamic ensures that opportunistic businesses often see collaboration as a rational strategy, knowing that history suggests few long-term repercussions.

Moreover, corporations, as entities, do not possess emotions or morals. Their primary function, dictated by their charters, is to maximize profits. Shareholders hold executives accountable for fulfilling this goal, replacing those who fail to do so. In this sense, large, profit-driven corporations may have little choice in the matter. If a business is not designed to prioritize morality, it is unrealistic to expect it to act in a moralistic way. In an economic system that rewards profitability above all else, aligning with power, regardless of its ethical implications, is often the most viable path for corporate survival and success.

Following World War II, the Cold War dictated that stability and economic growth took precedence over full de-Nazification. The Nuremberg Trials prosecuted some high-profile figures, but most executives reintegrated into the business world.

The Allies, particularly the United States, saw West Germany as a crucial bulwark against communism and were reluctant to dismantle its industrial base entirely. This pragmatic approach allowed many of the same corporate entities to continue thriving, and their leaders faced few meaningful repercussions.

Decades later, efforts to acknowledge past complicity have been minimal. In some cases, financial compensation for the use of forced labor was established, but the amounts were negligible compared to the profits amassed during the war. Many of the same industries continued to thrive, with little long-term disruption to their operations.

Inherent Risk of Fascism in Capitalist Societies

The historical precedent set by Nazi-era industrialists demonstrates that supporting autocratic regimes often carries little long-term consequence for the wealthy elites involved.

The economic and political structures that enabled German oligarchs to retain their power have repeated throughout the 20th and 21st centuries. From Cold War military juntas in Latin America to contemporary autocratic regimes in Russia and China, business elites have frequently aligned themselves with strongmen in exchange for economic favors and policy influence. The lack of accountability ensures that this pattern persists.

The ability of business magnates to avoid true accountability suggests that capitalist systems, when left unchecked, have an inherent risk of drifting toward authoritarianism and oligarchy.