Democrats connections to Adolph Hitler

[Ringo]

Is it true, that Henry Ford sued the US government for bombing his factories in Nazi Germany and won?

 

[Ringo]

Paper Trail of Nazi Gold Leads To US and Canadian Banks

Jewish leaders find records of transactions between Switzerland and Portugal assisted by N. Americans

www.csmonitor.com

 

[surada]

You go out of your way to defend socialism. I understand why you go out of your way.
You think my comments about Hitler being a socialist attacks your personal ideology.
My sole aim is to correctly steer Americans into a path so they understand Hitler and a bit to steer them into the path of socialism itself.

I found this in Mises.org.
Contrary to the impression Sehon gives, Hitler didn’t see himself as a partisan of business. In a conversation with Carl J. Burckhardt, the League of Nations high commissioner in Danzig, Hitler called himself a “proletarian.”

Sehon’s answer to this is that Hitler in power wasn’t a radical. There were socialists in the Nazi Party, such as Gregor Strasser, but Hitler kicked them out and in many cases killed them. He surrendered to big business in order to gain power. He did not nationalize the major industries of Germany. He was no socialist but favored private property and business enterprise.

In answer to Sehon, I mentioned Mises’s vital distinction between two kinds of socialism. In one of them, the state owns the means of production. In the other, private property still exists but the state tells the owners what to do. This is a form of central planning and still counts as socialism, and it was this that the Nazis put into practice.

Sehon says that this isn’t an accurate account of the Nazi economy and cites an article by Christoph Buchheim and Jonas Scherner to support his claim that private business enjoyed considerable autonomy in the Third Reich. Thanks to Mr. Paul McElroy, I now have access to the article.

Before I discuss this article, I need to mention another of Mises’s vital insights. As readers will remember, Mises in his famous socialist calculation argument proved that a fully socialist economy would collapse into chaos. If this is right, how can ostensibly socialist economies such as Soviet Russia exist? In answer, Mises said that these economies weren’t fully socialist. They allowed scope for private enterprise, albeit of a limited sort. Mises’s point applies to the German form of socialism as well as the Russian.

Thus, Buchheim and Scherner’s argument, even if we accept it, doesn’t disprove Mises’s claim that the Nazi economy was a form of socialism. Nazi control of business wasn’t complete, but neither was the Soviet economy totally socialist.

But should we accept Buchheim and Scherner’s argument? No, we shouldn’t. It is a response to a number of economic historians who accept an analysis of the Nazi economy like that of Mises. In particular, these authors criticize the famous MIT economist Peter Temin’s article “Soviet and Nazi Economic Planning in the 1930s,” available here by scrolling down.

In my opinion, Temin has the better of the argument. Buchheim and Scherner acknowledge:

Yes, the Nazis Were Socialists | Mises Institute

Contrary to popular assertions, the Nazis weren't only trying to expropriate Jewish wealth. They wanted the German people to come together as a collective

mises.org

I have never defended socialism. You can't even get that right. Hitler certainly told companies what to produce, but he split with the socialists in 1926.... and imprisoned them by 1933.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Democrats are well known deniers. But this is one piece of history they can never Deny.

First item of education is: Name a President who has been treated as the Enemy of Democrats?
Don't be shy because you will be helped name them.

Abraham Lincoln
Herbert Hoover
Dwight Eisenhower
Richard Nixon
Ronald Reagan
Both Bush Presidents
Donald Trump
Feel free to add others

Now on to FDR

Did you realise how close to Hitler he was?

Here is some information
Brent Cooper
·
Follow
Trial and appellate counsel for Cooper & Scully (1993–present)Upvoted by
Wendy Weaver
, B.A. History & Mathematics, Willamette University (1973)2y

FDR, like most of Europe, was concerned about Hitler. But FDR, like most of Europe, took no action and tried to appease him.
“President Roosevelt is best remembered for leading America towards military preparedness and, later, in the war against Nazi Germany—yet he was remarkably reluctant to even verbally criticize Hitler in the 1930s.”
“Throughout the pre-war period, FDR strove to maintain cordial diplomatic and economic relations with Nazi Germany. He sent Secretary of Commerce Daniel Roper to speak at a German-American rally in New York City in 1933, where the featured speaker was the Nazi ambassador to Washington, and a large swastika flag was displayed on stage. The president allowed U.S. diplomats to attend the mass Nazi Party rally in Nuremberg in 1937, and his administration helped the Nazis evade the American Jewish community’s boycott of German goods in the 1930s by permitting the Nazis to deceptively label their goods with the city or province of origin, instead of “Made in Germany.””
“Despite the intensifying anti-Jewish persecution in Germany in the 1930s, Roosevelt not only refused to criticize the Hitler government, but he personally removed critical references to Hitler from at least three planned speeches by Interior Secretary Harold Ickes in 1935 and 1938. Even Roosevelt’s criticism of the infamous Kristallnacht pogrom—a public statement which has often been cited as proof of the president’s willingness to denounce the Nazis—did not contain a single explicit mention of Hitler, Nazism, or the Jews.”
“Roosevelt said nothing about Hitler’s action in the Rhineland (1936); applauded the Munich agreement, which handed western Czechoslovakia to the Nazis (1938); and, eighty years ago this week, ducked reporters’ questions rather than utter a single critical word regarding Hitler’s threat to Danzig.”
“FDR was, of course, saddled with the burden of a largely isolationist public and Congress. He was understandably reluctant to be seen as doing anything that might seem to edge America close to war with Germany. Yet a president’s job is to lead, not to follow. A few words from the White House directly taking issue with Hitler’s aggressive actions and persecution of the Jews could have helped alert the public to the Nazi danger. “
“Explaining President Roosevelt’s refusal to comment on Hitler’s remilitarization of the Rhineland in 1936, the diplomatic correspondent of the Washington Evening Standard reported that the president “is determined not to take sides under any circumstances.” But there are circumstances when, even if it is unpopular, a president needs to publicly “take sides”—to take the side of good against the side of evil.”
“A stronger response from President Roosevelt over Danzig or the earlier crises also would have indicated to Hitler that there might be consequences for his actions—something that was particularly important in the early and mid 1930s, when the Nazi leader was still testing the waters. “
“It is not trade but empire that is Hitler’s goal,” a New York Times editorial acknowledged following the Danzig speech. “How far he will go and how fast he will go toward acquiring it will depend solely upon how much opposition is offered him.”
“FDR’s non-response to Danzig sent Hitler exactly the wrong message.”
Why FDR Wouldn't Condemn Hitler

Loading…

www.quora.com

FDR was also a great admirer of mass murderer “Uncle Joe” Stalin

 

[surada]

FDR was also a great admirer of mass murderer “Uncle Joe” Stalin

Dr. Rafael Medoff is founding director of The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, and the author of The Jews Should Keep Quiet: President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, and the Holocaust, forthcoming from The Jewish Publication Society in 2019.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Dr. Rafael Medoff is founding director of The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, and the author of The Jews Should Keep Quiet: President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, and the Holocaust, forthcoming from The Jewish Publication Society in 2019.

Did you have a point??

 

[surada]

Did you have a point??

These days Holocaust studies blame Roosevelt. It's a thing.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

These days Holocaust studies blame Roosevelt. It's a thing.

Have you read Larson’s In the Garden of the Beasts?

Fantastic insight into how the West was sleepwalking through Hitler’s rise to power

Einstein was smart enough to leave in 1933

 

[surada]

Have you read Larson’s In the Garden of the Beasts?

Fantastic insight into how the West was sleepwalking through Hitler’s rise to power

Einstein was smart enough to leave in 1933

Nope. Will look for it.

In 1933 Hitler purged the German government of Socialists, Communists, Jews and Democrats.

In 1933 Samuel Untermyer declared economic war on Germany from Madison Square Garden.

 

[Robert W]

You are a troll, as shown by your words above. You even are a troll when you talk about history, which you seem to have no real respect for. I assume you were just as unprincipled, and equally or even more ignorant, when you were a young Democrat.

If you were interested in talking meaningfully about some pre-WWII Democratic policies and Hitler’s own fascist policies, you might have talked — thoughtfully — about America’s tragic Jim Crow apartheid system … which Hitler admired and took inspiration from, and which was most strongly institutionalized in those days precisely in the Democratic Party-controlled Deep South.

Those are the sorts of historical subjects that honest historians can and do discuss … without acting like hyper-partisan trolls. Of course the U.S. was not comparable to Nazi Germany in those days in most other ways, indeed also had a strong “melting pot” democratic culture. We were able, finally and with difficulty, to remove our own remaining Jim Crow apartheid laws ... a terrible legacy of slavery and the failure of Reconstruction after the Civil War.

FDR was extremely racist. Surely you understand he was. As to how I talk vs you is I plan to engage on the topic and not resort to taunts or insults as you have a habit of doing.

Hitler was a Socialist. I have a clue why this bugs Democrats because they think talking about them and him makes them socialists. But they are really extreme authoritarians for the most part. They do engage in socialism, but they nibble at the extreme edges.

 

[Robert W]

Have you read Larson’s In the Garden of the Beasts?

Fantastic insight into how the West was sleepwalking through Hitler’s rise to power

Einstein was smart enough to leave in 1933

I just read the summary of Garden of the Beasts and have in fact been to that garden. It is the Tiergarten meaning it is the huge park which has the zoo. It is a huge magnificent zoo and I recommend it to any visitor of Berlin. A bonus is it is in the middle of town.
I will now judge the book though all I know is the summary. I lived in Germany early in the 1960s and it was there I got very interested in that history. I stayed for some days at a Mansion that sits at Lake Wannsee and there was on a wall the history of that mansion and it was written it was lived in by the Nazi Finance minister as I recall. Maybe it was a different Nazi Minister but the mansion was used by the US Army to house troops on leave so it was a great experience.

We see Hitler on films where he shouts a lot. I do not deny he did shout. But the man mesmerized the Germans. They really loved him. Those who did not found themselves in deep trouble and many were executed.

Think for some moments how can a dictator enthrall the country and pull evil acts that we all know he did. It was not done in the open. When he wanted to send messages to others, those times he was open. He persecuted the Jews primarily in secret. Also Americans today tend to overestimate how many Jews lived in Germany at the time.

Also think of the survivors now in prison in the Federal prisons who were protesting at the Capitol on Jan 6. They evoke loathing from the press and naturally the public goes for this.
Democrats remind me of the Nazis back then in how they love persecuting the victims put into prison over protesting Jan 6. Then you can understand what it was like for the Jews.
****************************On FDR
I can cite examples where it seems that Democrats deny FDR was a socialist and also a racist. Why Democrats defend him is anybody's guess. Hitler at first to the west was a person who pretty much cured the German Depression. So they wanted to mimic him on that score. This is not popular to report here due to the nature of Democrats. Him being socialist does not mean he was a nice person. He surely was nothing close to being more than a Dictator.

 

[surada]

FDR was extremely racist. Surely you understand he was. As to how I talk vs you is I plan to engage on the topic and not resort to taunts or insults as you have a habit of doing.

Hitler was a Socialist. I have a clue why this bugs Democrats because they think talking about them and him makes them socialists. But they are really extreme authoritarians for the most part. They do engage in socialism, but they nibble at the extreme edges.

Hitler broke from the socialists in 1926. If brains were gunpowder you couldn't blow your nose.

 

[Robert W]

Hitler broke from the socialists in 1926. If brains were gunpowder you couldn't blow your nose.

Man oh man, were you ever fooled.

 

[surada]

Man oh man, were you ever fooled.

In 1933 Hitler purged the German government of Socialists, Communists, Jews and Democrats.

 

[Robert W]

In 1933 Hitler purged the German government of Socialists, Communists, Jews and Democrats.

However he ran the country as a socialist does. If Hitler did all you claim, why did he engage in a treaty with the communists? Why did he kill very few jews for many years until the final solution which began no in 1933 but in 1942? Jews were captured and given jobs to serve the country. Classic Socialism in operation.

 

[surada]

However he ran the country as a socialist does. If Hitler did all you claim, why did he engage in a treaty with the communists? Why did he kill very few jews for many years until the final solution which began no in 1933 but in 1942? Jews were captured and given jobs to serve the country. Classic Socialism in operation.

Were the Nazis Socialists?

What’s the difference between National Socialists and every other kind of socialist?

www.britannica.com

No, not in any meaningful way, and certainly not after 1934. But to address this canard fully, one must begin with the birth of the party.

 

[surada]

Hitler hated everyone, even his own people.

Hater's gotta hate.

You might say he had a chip on his shoulder since he failed in life regarding pretty much everything.

At the end of the war Hitler gave an order to destroy what they could of Germany, but they just ignored him.

Yep, he failed again.

Nazism - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

The majority of scholars identify Nazism in both theory and practice as a form of far-right politics.[2] Far-right themes in Nazism include the argument that superior people have a right to dominate other people and purge society of supposed inferior elements.[30] Adolf Hitler and other proponents denied that Nazism was either left-wing or right-wing: instead, they officially portrayed Nazism as a syncretic movement.[31][32] In Mein Kampf, Hitler directly attacked both left-wing and right-wing politics in Germany, saying:

Today our left-wing politicians in particular are constantly insisting that their craven-hearted and obsequious foreign policy necessarily results from the disarmament of Germany, whereas the truth is that this is the policy of traitors ... But the politicians of the Right deserve exactly the same reproach. It was through their miserable cowardice that those ruffians of Jews who came into power in 1918 were able to rob the nation of its arms.[33]

 

[Robert W]

FDR was extremely racist. Surely you understand he was. As to how I talk vs you is I plan to engage on the topic and not resort to taunts or insults as you have a habit of doing.

Hitler was a Socialist. I have a clue why this bugs Democrats because they think talking about them and him makes them socialists. But they are really extreme authoritarians for the most part. They do engage in socialism, but they nibble at the extreme edges.

Your aim is what? To defend socialism here on this forum? So far you keep this up yet not one time have you gave reasons why Hitler would get rid of all socialists when I told you I lived in Germany a few years after the war ended and am trying to get you to accept better information than you do for us or seem to intend to do. Your reaction is as if you get attacked and you must then attack me. What is your problem?

Hitler was a great believer in making the citizens of Germany go to work. And he captured many and kept them locked up so they had to work for him. Your talk of purge acts as if hitler simply did not make use of those he captured. I am not sure if you are his fan. It seems your a huge fan of socialists, communists and Jews. What are your points about what we are discussing?

 

[surada]

Your aim is what? To defend socialism here on this forum? So far you keep this up yet not one time have you gave reasons why Hitler would get rid of all socialists when I told you I lived in Germany a few years after the war ended and am trying to get you to accept better information than you do for us or seem to intend to do. Your reaction is as if you get attacked and you must then attack me. What is your problem?

Hitler was a great believer in making the citizens of Germany go to work. And he captured many and kept them locked up so they had to work for him. Your talk of purge acts as if hitler simply did not make use of those he captured. I am not sure if you are his fan. It seems your a huge fan of socialists, communists and Jews. What are your points about what we are discussing?

Fascism="Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power” ― Benito Mussolini - Chicago Public Library

Fascism="Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power” ― Benito Mussolini by Rattusnorvegicus - a community-created list : “The 10 pillars of fascism are: ..number one, a mythic past, a great mythic past which the leader harkens back…Number two, propaganda. There’s a certain...

chipublib.bibliocommons.com

 

[Ringo]