Hitler, Fascism and the right wing

[Iceweasel]

I agree a lot of students are getting a raw deal at universities today.

Hitler was originally an agent for the Conservative German military hierarchy. He was paid to infiltrate one of the workers parties existing shortly after WWI, the (DAP). The German economy was in dire condition. Leftist parties were very popular. It seems Hitler was probably tasked to manipulate his party to oppose and disrupt the other parties. He became its leader and changed the name to NSDAP adding National and Socialist. This probably was done to draw members of both an existing nationalist party and various leftist/socialist parties. As someone else posted here the night of the long knives largely purged those who led a wing who actually believed the Socialist part of the rhetoric. Having created their Frankenstein the Conservatives probably lost some control over Hitler as he gained power, but he never really worked in the interest of the left.

Hitler did not create the NSDAP, that was Drexler.

Background Overview of the Nazi Party NSDAP Jewish Virtual Library
In April, 1920, Hitler advocated that the party should change its name to the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP).

However....
The German Army was worried that it was a left-wing revolutionary group and sent Adolf Hitler, one of its education officers, to spy on the organization. Hitler discovered that the party's political ideas were similar to his own

In February 1920, the NSDAP published its first programme which became known as the "Twenty-Five Points." In the programme the party refused to accept the terms of the Versailles Treaty and called for the reunification of all German people. To reinforce their ideas on nationalism, equal rights were only to be given to German citizens. "Foreigners" and "aliens" would be denied these rights.

To appeal to the working class and socialists, the programme included several measures that would redistribute income and war profits, profit-sharing in large industries, nationalization of trusts, increases in old-age pensions and free education.

 

[Iceweasel]

Iceweasel-

I suggest that at this point you spend some time catching up on the history and politics of the Nazi regime, and then get back to us.

I have tried to explain things to you quite patiently, but at this stage it is clear how difficult you find these comcepts to understand.

I find your comcepts quite easy to understand and articulated my objection to them. I've been more than patient with you and realize you probably actually belief the lies. But your mind is not your own, you've been programed to see only what they wanted you to see and filter out all objectionable material. Just like the Nazis.

 

[Saigon]

Weasel -

If you are bright enough to understand the politics, then explain where you place Stroessner, Antonescu and Franco on the political spectrum.

I have asked you this repeatedly, and you have repeatedly dodged the question.

If you are not bright enough to understand the politics, then leave the thread for people who are, and spam somewhere else.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I think it's worth mentioning here that the alliance between the Nazis and major corporations is something that exists to a lesser extent in most capitalist economies.

Where would Boeng, Lockheed or Halliburton be without government contracts?

Do people really think that there is no behind the scenes discussion on how those deals come about?

It amazes me that some people apparently believe that governments have to be pure, shining examples of ideological purity before they can be placed on an ideological scale. They don't. Most governments are muddled, confused and even contradictory messes, beset with faults and ideas borrowed from other parties. It did not stop Stalin's government from being labeled socialist (despite being a fairly poor example of socialism) and it did not stop Hitler from being labeled right-wing.

Boeing are Nazis?

 

[Iceweasel]

Weasel -

If you are bright enough to understand the politics, then explain where you place Stroessner, Antonescu and Franco on the political spectrum.

I have asked you this repeatedly, and you have repeatedly dodged the question.

If you are not bright enough to understand the politics, then leave the thread for people who are, and spam somewhere else.

LOL. You arrogant asshole. I suggest you try a grade school. You are typical of the left and exactly what's wrong with them. I supported my statements, you said go read a book, go educate yourself, blah blah blah. It won't work here, Slick. Peddle your lies elsewhere. And take your smug personality with you.

 

[bripat9643]

Accept, it wasn't truly private ownership and you dam' well know it.

Large swaths of the culture were forbidden from owning anything and anyone who was caught assisting those those within those swaths were subsequently forbidden from owning anything. Now who decided THAT? The Collective? No... THE STATE decided that... Therefore, in every SENSE of the concept: The NAZI STATE CONTROLLED THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION, DISTRIBUTION AND EXCHANGE.

So what you're pointing to distinction without a difference; two sides to the same socialist coin.

The HYSTERICAL PART OF IT, is that you're ARGUING that they're OPPOSITE.

And you can't BUY that level of delusion friend. THAT you gotta be BORN with.

It was within the Nationalist structure. So was everything else. But those who owned businesses made their profit from it. It was less nationalised than it had been before.

You're saying it is Socialist, yet "Large swaths of the culture were forbidden" from anything which you deem to be Socialist. Only what you're claiming is socialist just isn't. Socialism is when the production is in the hands of the govt. IT WASN'T IN THE HANDS OF THE GOVT.

Actually, it was in the hands of the government. Nazi bureaucrats controlled businesses, not their so-called "owners." Businesses also didn't earn anything that could properly be called a "profit." The "owners" were paid a return specified by the government. True profits are not determined by government regulations.

So basically what you're saying is that the US was a Socialist state up to the end of the Civil War because in many cases blacks could own thing businesses, especially in the South, so, essentially they controlled all of these businesses?

Great argument...... [cough cough]

Moronic.

 

[bripat9643]

I think it's worth mentioning here that the alliance between the Nazis and major corporations is something that exists to a lesser extent in most capitalist economies.

Where would Boeng, Lockheed or Halliburton be without government contracts?

Do people really think that there is no behind the scenes discussion on how those deals come about?

It amazes me that some people apparently believe that governments have to be pure, shining examples of ideological purity before they can be placed on an ideological scale. They don't. Most governments are muddled, confused and even contradictory messes, beset with faults and ideas borrowed from other parties. It did not stop Stalin's government from being labeled socialist (despite being a fairly poor example of socialism) and it did not stop Hitler from being labeled right-wing.

Boeing are Nazis?

The defence industry is certainly much more fascist than the rest of the economy.

 

[bripat9643]

Weasel -

If you are bright enough to understand the politics, then explain where you place Stroessner, Antonescu and Franco on the political spectrum.

I have asked you this repeatedly, and you have repeatedly dodged the question.

If you are not bright enough to understand the politics, then leave the thread for people who are, and spam somewhere else.

LOL. You arrogant asshole. I suggest you try a grade school. You are typical of the left and exactly what's wrong with them. I supported my statements, you said go read a book, go educate yourself, blah blah blah. It won't work here, Slick. Peddle your lies elsewhere. And take your smug personality with you.

It sounds like you're becoming familiar with Saigon. Those are his typical debate tactics. It arrogantly insists he's right without offering a shred of proof other than the arrogant pronunciations of obviously biased pinko history professors.

 

[bripat9643]

Iceweasel-

I suggest that at this point you spend some time catching up on the history and politics of the Nazi regime, and then get back to us.

I have tried to explain things to you quite patiently, but at this stage it is clear how difficult you find these comcepts to understand.

I suggest you try reading something that isn't approved by the communist party.

 

[Contumacious]

One claim that I'veseen quite often made on this board is that Hitler was left-wing, and not right-wing as almost every book on the subject states.

IRRELEVANT.

Fascism is a socio-economic system wherein the government allows private entrepreneurship under massive government regulation. Individuals rights depend on bureaucratic discretion.

The bureaucrats ideology can be leftist, rightist or theocratic.


.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Actually, it was in the hands of the government. Nazi bureaucrats controlled businesses, not their so-called "owners." Businesses also didn't earn anything that could properly be called a "profit." The "owners" were paid a return specified by the government. True profits are not determined by government regulations.

So basically what you're saying is that the US was a Socialist state up to the end of the Civil War because in many cases blacks could own thing businesses, especially in the South, so, essentially they controlled all of these businesses?

Great argument...... [cough cough]

Moronic.

I'm not saying that this was pure Capitalism. This was extremist govt. But was also not left wing in any shape or form.

The Nazi Party henchmen often were out to make as much money for themselves. Clearly the hallmark of a left wing govt? No.


As for moronic, maybe you should look at what I was replying to.

 

[Iceweasel]

It sounds like you're becoming familiar with Saigon. Those are his typical debate tactics. It arrogantly insists he's right without offering a shred of proof other than the arrogant pronunciations of obviously biased pinko history professors.

That's him in a nutshell. Not atypical of the left either. If he is a journalist he's writing for Mother Earth Jones or something. Can't spell for crap either.

 

[dcraelin]

Almost goes without saying that Fascism and Nazism were right wing, reactionary, bottom up, populist movements.

I agree they were closer to right-wing then left wing. Always been irritated by the term reactionary...what does it mean really? Bottom up?....no. Populist?...no, that would be the equivalent of calling them socialist really.

The beauty of these boards is that there doesn't have to be any scholarship of note. Tie an opinion to politics and start a chant, soon others will pick up the chant and the chant becomes believable for a few.
How do historians, political scientists, and other Social Scientists, those that teach in our universities, define and place Nazism, as socialist or fascist?

If they are in universities they are likely spinning it to avoid any association with socialism. While enjoying fucking the students out of a LOT of money.

I agree a lot of students are getting a raw deal at universities today.

Hitler was originally an agent for the Conservative German military hierarchy. He was paid to infiltrate one of the workers parties existing shortly after WWI, the (DAP). The German economy was in dire condition. Leftist parties were very popular. It seems Hitler was probably tasked to manipulate his party to oppose and disrupt the other parties. He became its leader and changed the name to NSDAP adding National and Socialist. This probably was done to draw members of both an existing nationalist party and various leftist/socialist parties. As someone else posted here the night of the long knives largely purged those who led a wing who actually believed the Socialist part of the rhetoric. Having created their Frankenstein the Conservatives probably lost some control over Hitler as he gained power, but he never really worked in the interest of the left.

Yes... Hitler was all about the freedom and respect for human rights! He also clearly used those principles to sway all those socialists he murdered; who were all celebrating their recent victory over the poor slobs of the ACTUAL SOCIALIST PARTY to follow him, just before he murdered them, because he no longer needed the dead weight and muscle... (Plus they didn't really fit the snappy NAZI uniforms, with al that polished leather...which, was likely due to their communist tendencies which left 'em prone to prefer the drab, loose fitting, itchy wool and furry hats common to such.

ROFLMNAO!

You kids are all over it!

Clearly you haven't, so I would invite you to read the Memoirs of Joe Geobbels, you will not believe your eyes... in from day one and a true believing socialist, he set it all to paper from soup to socialist.

Enjoy.

I dont understand what your saying, but Geobbels isnt Hitler. Anyway why would you believe what he said anyway?
I certainly never said Hitler was all about freedom and respect for human life. I see that you think that is what conservatism is all about. Perhaps in the minds of some, but Conservatism really just means you like a system the way it is and dont want to change.

 

[dcraelin]

Almost goes without saying that Fascism and Nazism were right wing, reactionary, bottom up, populist movements.

I agree they were closer to right-wing then left wing. Always been irritated by the term reactionary...what does it mean really? Bottom up?....no. Populist?...no, that would be the equivalent of calling them socialist really.

The beauty of these boards is that there doesn't have to be any scholarship of note. Tie an opinion to politics and start a chant, soon others will pick up the chant and the chant becomes believable for a few.
How do historians, political scientists, and other Social Scientists, those that teach in our universities, define and place Nazism, as socialist or fascist?

If they are in universities they are likely spinning it to avoid any association with socialism. While enjoying fucking the students out of a LOT of money.

I agree a lot of students are getting a raw deal at universities today.

I agree that you're a moron

Hitler was originally an agent for the Conservative German military hierarchy. He was paid to infiltrate one of the workers parties existing shortly after WWI, the (DAP). The German economy was in dire condition. Leftist parties were very popular. It seems Hitler was probably tasked to manipulate his party to oppose and disrupt the other parties. He became its leader and changed the name to NSDAP adding National and Socialist. This probably was done to draw members of both an existing nationalist party and various leftist/socialist parties. As someone else posted here the night of the long knives largely purged those who led a wing who actually believed the Socialist part of the rhetoric. Having created their Frankenstein the Conservatives probably lost some control over Hitler as he gained power, but he never really worked in the interest of the left.

Nothing you posted proves Hitler was a right-winger.

If you have to resort to name-calling you probably don't really have an argument.
Wasnt really trying to prove he was a right-winger.....just that he was a tool of right wingers, and really never did anything to advance the left.

 

[Bush92]

Fascism is not a "right wing" ideology. Spectrum is based on amount of government control. Hence Nazi Germany is on the political left. The spectrum below is flawed, but pretty close to reality.

 

[dcraelin]

I agree a lot of students are getting a raw deal at universities today.

Hitler was originally an agent for the Conservative German military hierarchy. He was paid to infiltrate one of the workers parties existing shortly after WWI, the (DAP). The German economy was in dire condition. Leftist parties were very popular. It seems Hitler was probably tasked to manipulate his party to oppose and disrupt the other parties. He became its leader and changed the name to NSDAP adding National and Socialist. This probably was done to draw members of both an existing nationalist party and various leftist/socialist parties. As someone else posted here the night of the long knives largely purged those who led a wing who actually believed the Socialist part of the rhetoric. Having created their Frankenstein the Conservatives probably lost some control over Hitler as he gained power, but he never really worked in the interest of the left.

Hitler did not create the NSDAP, that was Drexler.

Background Overview of the Nazi Party NSDAP Jewish Virtual Library
In April, 1920, Hitler advocated that the party should change its name to the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP).

However....
The German Army was worried that it was a left-wing revolutionary group and sent Adolf Hitler, one of its education officers, to spy on the organization. Hitler discovered that the party's political ideas were similar to his own

In February 1920, the NSDAP published its first programme which became known as the "Twenty-Five Points." In the programme the party refused to accept the terms of the Versailles Treaty and called for the reunification of all German people. To reinforce their ideas on nationalism, equal rights were only to be given to German citizens. "Foreigners" and "aliens" would be denied these rights.

To appeal to the working class and socialists, the programme included several measures that would redistribute income and war profits, profit-sharing in large industries, nationalization of trusts, increases in old-age pensions and free education.

Never said he started the party....just that he manipulated it once in. I think I agree on most of this post. But the "programme" as far as I now wasnt ever implemented...it was just window dressing.

 

[Iceweasel]

Wasnt really trying to prove he was a right-winger.....just that he was a tool of right wingers, and really never did anything to advance the left.

You don't consider socialism a left wing ideal then? They were national socialists for a reason. The name was not accidental or misleading. Hitler was used by the right, infiltrated the left and found much to agree with. Took over the party and added the nationalistic/racial flare. To say it's right wing is to focus on the nationalistic aspect and ignore the entire rest of the socio-economic system that became the law of the land.

Which has zip to do with right wing America so the purpose of the thread is a farce.

 

[Bush92]

I do not understand how people in Europe today can tolerate the level of government control that is allowed by people living there. Have they no concept of liberty?

 

[Bush92]

Wasnt really trying to prove he was a right-winger.....just that he was a tool of right wingers, and really never did anything to advance the left.

You don't consider socialism a left wing ideal then? They were national socialists for a reason. The name was not accidental or misleading. Hitler was used by the right, infiltrated the left and found much to agree with. Took over the party and added the nationalistic/racial flare. To say it's right wing is to focus on the nationalistic aspect and ignore the entire rest of the socio-economic system that became the law of the land.

Which has zip to do with right wing America so the purpose of the thread is a farce.

Spot on Ice, spot on!

 

[Wry Catcher]

Free contraceptives would go along way in preventing unwanted pregnancies, yet many of the anti abortion crowd opposes providing contraceptives freely to everyone of child bearing age, and opposing age appropriate sex education in the public schools.

Anyone who thinks through this issue must conclude that those who hold these positions must be stupid, or want to control the behavior of millions of others. I suppose for some it's both.

What is it with you people and your consistent inability to take responsibility for your own behavior?

Buy your own contraceptives and where that doesn't work, raise your kids!

If you can't DO THAT, then you have no business engaging in intercourse.

You aren't entitled to other people's property to make your life easier... and it is not someone else's responsibility to raise your children.

What you don't seem to understand is that where you are incapable of taking responsibility for yourselves, then you aren't qualified for freedom. And it is as simple as THAT.

Yep, you want to control others, and thus really don't care to reduce the number of abortions. In fact, if there were zero abortions you would still want to control the sexual life of others - but deny you're an authoritarian. You'd make a 'good' Nazi.

Question

Fundamentally what is the difference between wanting to control people by keeping gay marriage illegal and wanting to control people by forcing them to do business with people they don't like?

Try to just straight up answer if it is possible. I don't want , or need, any deflection.

Keys, I see you thanked this post, but you MUST realize that the opposite is also true. You ARE trying to control people.

Let faggots get "married" who cares

Except it isn't about homosexuals getting married it is about government tyranny. If the people of a state dont want homosexual marriage it isnt the government's place to deny that state its tenth amendment right

Tapatalk

Crazy talk, if the people of a given state want to deny two people of different races the right to engage in a contract of marriage, isn't that an example of the tyranny of the majority?

The Libertarian movement is based on a foundation of shifting sand. Let's suppose State of A allows two men to marry; State B denies this right, and makes sexual activity between two men a felony.