Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You're confusing terms. National Socialists hated liberals almost as much as Jews.In order to gain leadership of the National Socialists, yes.absolutely!! thats why you said Hitler was a capitalist!!
“We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.” ~ Adolf Hitler, May 1st, 1927
Context, moron, context! You've proven to be an uneducated partisan parrot, but can you learn? I doubt it, but others may I'll repeat an important lesson: Don't watch the lips of pol, watch their feet. Now, I know you don't understand, so I'll type slow, just for you.
Hitler on 5/1/29 was not in power but wanted it. Thus, he engaged in the time honored practice of demagoguery, tell the audience what they want to hear.
ROFLMNAO!
Once again: A RightWinger is said to NEED to pretend to be a Leftist, in order to gain power.
When in truth, a right-winger would have presented himself as an adherent of the Laws of Nature, championed those immutable laws and rose to power on the merits of the truth.
Ya see scamp, Right-wingers understand that truth wins, as nature requires that it must.
LOL... National Socialists were Leftists scamp.
Hey! Lemme ask ya this: Stalin claimed that Leon Trotsky was a fascist. Since you agree with Stalin that National Socialists were rightwingers, do you also agree with Stalin that Trotsky was a rightwinger?
Lot's of people resist the following grouping of terms, but it's what I see.
Groups more likely have similarities to the platforms of modern day American liberals include:
Communists
Socialists
Leftists
Democrats
On the modern day American conservative side I see:
Fascists
Nationalists
Theocracies
Republicans
I know Glenn Beck and Jonah Goldberg have worked to relieve the GOP from associations with those groupings, by saddling Democratic candidates and incumbents with them today.
I understand their arguments, but reject them because I feel it's simple electioneering.
"Liberalism is a disease of the mind that weakens and corrupts human beings." Adolf Hitler, 1939
I suggest you read and learn. To get started, I recommend the books "Socialism" and "Omnipotent Government" by Ludwig von Mises. However, you don't want to learn. You simply want to spout your ignorance.
I suggest you read and learn. To get started, I recommend the books "Socialism" and "Omnipotent Government" by Ludwig von Mises. However, you don't want to learn. You simply want to spout your ignorance.
Who knew BriPat could be ironic?
Seriously man, you recommending books is like a homeless guy dispensing interior decorating tips.
Also interesting that the books you recommend are self-published and apprently littered with typos and printing errors. Clearly very authoritive stuff!
I suggest you read and learn. To get started, I recommend the books "Socialism" and "Omnipotent Government" by Ludwig von Mises. However, you don't want to learn. You simply want to spout your ignorance.
Who knew BriPat could be ironic?
Seriously man, you recommending books is like a homeless guy dispensing interior decorating tips.
Also interesting that the books you recommend are self-published and apprently littered with typos and printing errors. Clearly very authoritive stuff!
What a shallow snob you are. So is it any wonder you would equate, Hitler, fascism and the right wing as being one and the same.
What a shallow snob you are. So is it any wonder you would equate, Hitler, fascism and the right wing as being one and the same.
National Socialism emerged out of a decadent liberal and secular society lacking a conservative order with the collapse of the Monarchy and the rise of the Weimar Republic in Germany. Its a non-conservative reaction to the excesses of liberal democracy and capitalism.
National Socialism doesn't emerge in conservative societies with stability and continuity.
Not a single one of those countries was National Socialist.National Socialism emerged out of a decadent liberal and secular society lacking a conservative order with the collapse of the Monarchy and the rise of the Weimar Republic in Germany. Its a non-conservative reaction to the excesses of liberal democracy and capitalism.
National Socialism doesn't emerge in conservative societies with stability and continuity.
Well, it emerged in Romania, Paraguay, Spain and Hungary, didn't it?
And in some of those cases did so with the support of monarchy, did it not?
Not a single one of those countries was National Socialist.National Socialism emerged out of a decadent liberal and secular society lacking a conservative order with the collapse of the Monarchy and the rise of the Weimar Republic in Germany. Its a non-conservative reaction to the excesses of liberal democracy and capitalism.
National Socialism doesn't emerge in conservative societies with stability and continuity.
Well, it emerged in Romania, Paraguay, Spain and Hungary, didn't it?
And in some of those cases did so with the support of monarchy, did it not?
listen); June 15, 1882 – June 1, 1946) was a Romanian soldier and authoritarian politician who was convicted of war crimes. The Prime Minister and Conducător during most of World War II, he presided over two successive wartime dictatorships. A Romanian Army career officer who made his name during the 1907 peasants' revolt and the World War I Romanian Campaign, the antisemitic Antonescu sympathized with the far right and fascist National Christian and Iron Guard groups for much of the interwar period. He was a military attaché to France and later Chief of the General Staff, briefly serving as Defense Minister in the National Christian cabinet of Octavian Goga. During the late 1930s, his political stance brought him into conflict with King Carol II and led to his detainment. Antonescu nevertheless rose to political prominence during the political crisis of 1940, and established the National Legionary State, an uneasy partnership with the Iron Guard's leader Horia Sima. After entering Romania into an alliance with Nazi Germany and the Axis and ensuring Adolf Hitler's confidence, he eliminated the Guard during the Legionary Rebellion of 1941. In addition to leadership of the executive, he assumed the offices of Foreign Affairs and Defense Minister. Soon after Romania joined the Axis in Operation Barbarossa, recovering Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina, Antonescu also became Marshal of Romania.
Extreme socialism. Socialism in the modern sese is always democratic.That is very true. Especially since Marxism is simply putting in place policies that result in a completely socialist government.So would we have fared as well, with fifty independent state governments, each deciding how it wanted to progress?LOL. We became great because of government!America had an extremely limited government, so limited the government could do almost nothing. The framers then decided to increase both the size and power of our government, and with the new size and power we became the greatest nation on earth. We are certainly not going back to the limited government some conservatives envision. Those days of weak limited government, like so many Republican ideas, are history.
Horseshit dude. We became great because of American ingenuity, resources and the pursuit of making a better life for yourself and your family. You stupid commie asshole.
We would have faired better. We also wouldn't have gotten involved in any of the following wars:
Civil War
Mexican American War
Spanish American War
WW I
WW II
Korean War
Vietnam War
Gulf War I
Gulf War II
SOviet UnionAlso wonder if you can name one Marxian-communist government?
China
Vietnam
Cambodia
North Korea
Laos
Mozambique
Angola
Cuba
East Germany
Czechoslovakia
Lithuania
Latvia
Estonia
Romania
No nation has ever practiced Marxist communism. The Soviet's dropped it pretty quick as unworkable and developed a new system. Some very small groups, if tied to a religion, may have made it work, but a nation, no way.
Marxism is almost a verb.
Communism is the form of socialism that Maoist China and Stalinist Russia wound up with after Marxism in both countries
Fascism isn't National Socialism. You are talking about two different things.Not a single one of those countries was National Socialist.National Socialism emerged out of a decadent liberal and secular society lacking a conservative order with the collapse of the Monarchy and the rise of the Weimar Republic in Germany. Its a non-conservative reaction to the excesses of liberal democracy and capitalism.
National Socialism doesn't emerge in conservative societies with stability and continuity.
Well, it emerged in Romania, Paraguay, Spain and Hungary, didn't it?
And in some of those cases did so with the support of monarchy, did it not?
All of the countries listed were fascist. By all means go and check.
Romania under Antonescu, Paraguay under Stroessner, Spain under Franco, and Hungary under the Iron Guard. You could also add in Ustache Croatia and one or two others.
One of the baffling things about this thread has been how many posters were unaware of the number of fascist governments there were during the 20th century, and how strong their links were with Hitler.
Just because you allied with Hitler doesn't make you a national socialist. For example, Finland, a democracy under attack from the USSR, aligned with the Axis powers.An overview of Antonescu:
Ion Victor Antonescu (Romanian pronunciation: [iˈon antoˈnesku] (
An atypical figure among Holocaust perpetrators, Antonescu enforced policies independently responsible for the deaths of as many as 400,000 people, most of them Bessarabian, Ukrainian and Romanian Jews, as well as Romanian Romani. The regime's complicity in the Holocaust combined pogroms and mass murders such as the Odessa massacre with ethnic cleansing, systematic deportations to occupied Transnistria and widespread criminal negligence. The system in place was nevertheless characterized by singular inconsistencies, prioritizing plunder over killing, showing leniency toward most Jews in the Old Kingdom, and ultimately refusing to adopt the Final Solution as applied throughout Nazi-occupied Europe.
Ion Antonescu - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
The GOP also caused the Great Depression that led to chaos and the rise of militarists in Germany and Japan (same kind of thing in the Booosh SECOND corrupt Pub depression-see ME and Russia). AND stopped us from stopping them in Spain and elsewhere. AND wrecked the League of Nations. Great job as always...
Arthur Miller - McCarthyism American Masters PBSName one "innocent" McCarthy "ruined"And ruin the lives of MANY innocents. Great job, Pubbies. J Edgar and McCarthy were a RW disgrace.McCarthy's power was not so much in his accusations but in his suggestions that one is a communist. He suggested Ike leaned towards communism, the US army leaned toward communism, as did General Marshall, every body that did not fall into his line of patter was a commie.Was McCarthy part of the communist party? I mean McCarthy took a position that he was exposing communism and then made a number of people realize that he was an idiot and therefore the whole anti-communism thing might be a farce. Why did he make anti-communism program sound so foolish and why did the Republican party let him?McCarthy vastly understated the extend to which the FDR and Truman White House reported to Stalin
How specifically did "McCARTHY" 'make' the 'anti-communist program sound foolish'.
Again... I am asking you for SPECIFICS!
That suggestive power gave McCarthy his power to intimidate. McCarthy had only to suggest that one might be a communist and for many that individual was without a doubt a communist. The evidence many accepted only had to be McCarthy's suggestion, and therein was McCarthy's power.
Zero Mostel? Lionel Barrymore? Who?
Fascism is capitalist totalitarianism. So NAZISM WAS definitely THAT, Franco too, whether he avoided WWII or not.And I lived in Franco's Spain. Many foreign ex-pat conservatives loved fascism- law and order, safe streets, no trials to bother with. IDIOTS like many American conservatives.Fascism isn't National Socialism. You are talking about two different things.Not a single one of those countries was National Socialist.National Socialism emerged out of a decadent liberal and secular society lacking a conservative order with the collapse of the Monarchy and the rise of the Weimar Republic in Germany. Its a non-conservative reaction to the excesses of liberal democracy and capitalism.
National Socialism doesn't emerge in conservative societies with stability and continuity.
Well, it emerged in Romania, Paraguay, Spain and Hungary, didn't it?
And in some of those cases did so with the support of monarchy, did it not?
All of the countries listed were fascist. By all means go and check.
Romania under Antonescu, Paraguay under Stroessner, Spain under Franco, and Hungary under the Iron Guard. You could also add in Ustache Croatia and one or two others.
One of the baffling things about this thread has been how many posters were unaware of the number of fascist governments there were during the 20th century, and how strong their links were with Hitler.
Antonescu considered himself a national conservative. He was an authoritarian, but certainly not a fascist or national socialist. He arrested Iron Guard members in Romania because he viewed them as threats to the conservative order, Antonescu feared a revolt. But Iron Guard, a fascist movement sympathetic to Nazi Germany, but it did not control Romania and are no no way related to Hungary. Considering the bad blood between Romanians and Hungarians, to confuse the Iron Guard with Hungary is laughable.
Franco deliberately distanced himself from European Fascist movements, particularly over the course of WW2 and while he collaborated with the Fascist Falange(again not National Socialist) he absorbed them and created a Catholic Authoritarian state. Franco was a monarchist, not a Fascist, and upon his death ceded his position as head of State to the Monarch.
And Utashe Croatia was a client state of Nazi Germany. They weren't a stable society with a conservative government that transitioned to Fascism, they were an fascist state that was created in the wake of Germany conquering the Kingdom of Yugoslavia.
Masters in World History, first half 20th century Europe concentration. You, a-hole Pubtroll?The GOP also caused the Great Depression that led to chaos and the rise of militarists in Germany and Japan (same kind of thing in the Booosh SECOND corrupt Pub depression-see ME and Russia). AND stopped us from stopping them in Spain and elsewhere. AND wrecked the League of Nations. Great job as always...
You are an ignorant fool in every possible way.
Fascism is capitalist totalitarianism. So NAZISM WAS definitely THAT, Franco too, whether he avoided WWII or not.And I lived in Franco's Spain. Many foreign ex-pat conservatives loved fascism- law and order, safe streets, no trials to bother with. IDIOTS like many American conservatives.Fascism isn't National Socialism. You are talking about two different things.Not a single one of those countries was National Socialist.National Socialism emerged out of a decadent liberal and secular society lacking a conservative order with the collapse of the Monarchy and the rise of the Weimar Republic in Germany. Its a non-conservative reaction to the excesses of liberal democracy and capitalism.
National Socialism doesn't emerge in conservative societies with stability and continuity.
Well, it emerged in Romania, Paraguay, Spain and Hungary, didn't it?
And in some of those cases did so with the support of monarchy, did it not?
All of the countries listed were fascist. By all means go and check.
Romania under Antonescu, Paraguay under Stroessner, Spain under Franco, and Hungary under the Iron Guard. You could also add in Ustache Croatia and one or two others.
One of the baffling things about this thread has been how many posters were unaware of the number of fascist governments there were during the 20th century, and how strong their links were with Hitler.
Antonescu considered himself a national conservative. He was an authoritarian, but certainly not a fascist or national socialist. He arrested Iron Guard members in Romania because he viewed them as threats to the conservative order, Antonescu feared a revolt. But Iron Guard, a fascist movement sympathetic to Nazi Germany, but it did not control Romania and are no no way related to Hungary. Considering the bad blood between Romanians and Hungarians, to confuse the Iron Guard with Hungary is laughable.
Franco deliberately distanced himself from European Fascist movements, particularly over the course of WW2 and while he collaborated with the Fascist Falange(again not National Socialist) he absorbed them and created a Catholic Authoritarian state. Franco was a monarchist, not a Fascist, and upon his death ceded his position as head of State to the Monarch.
And Utashe Croatia was a client state of Nazi Germany. They weren't a stable society with a conservative government that transitioned to Fascism, they were an fascist state that was created in the wake of Germany conquering the Kingdom of Yugoslavia.
The Generalissimo? WTF is wrong with you? Our decline is caused by RW Reaganism, STILL.Fascism is capitalist totalitarianism. So NAZISM WAS definitely THAT, Franco too, whether he avoided WWII or not.And I lived in Franco's Spain. Many foreign ex-pat conservatives loved fascism- law and order, safe streets, no trials to bother with. IDIOTS like many American conservatives.Fascism isn't National Socialism. You are talking about two different things.Not a single one of those countries was National Socialist.Well, it emerged in Romania, Paraguay, Spain and Hungary, didn't it?
And in some of those cases did so with the support of monarchy, did it not?
All of the countries listed were fascist. By all means go and check.
Romania under Antonescu, Paraguay under Stroessner, Spain under Franco, and Hungary under the Iron Guard. You could also add in Ustache Croatia and one or two others.
One of the baffling things about this thread has been how many posters were unaware of the number of fascist governments there were during the 20th century, and how strong their links were with Hitler.
Antonescu considered himself a national conservative. He was an authoritarian, but certainly not a fascist or national socialist. He arrested Iron Guard members in Romania because he viewed them as threats to the conservative order, Antonescu feared a revolt. But Iron Guard, a fascist movement sympathetic to Nazi Germany, but it did not control Romania and are no no way related to Hungary. Considering the bad blood between Romanians and Hungarians, to confuse the Iron Guard with Hungary is laughable.
Franco deliberately distanced himself from European Fascist movements, particularly over the course of WW2 and while he collaborated with the Fascist Falange(again not National Socialist) he absorbed them and created a Catholic Authoritarian state. Franco was a monarchist, not a Fascist, and upon his death ceded his position as head of State to the Monarch.
And Utashe Croatia was a client state of Nazi Germany. They weren't a stable society with a conservative government that transitioned to Fascism, they were an fascist state that was created in the wake of Germany conquering the Kingdom of Yugoslavia.
Ah, Franco
Hopefully we can have a right wing authoritarian to steam the decline if only temporarily.
