Hitler, Fascism and the right wing

[HUGGY]

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.

This is a complex topic, and I can certainly understand some of the confusion. Both Hitler and Stalin were dictators with a lot in common, and the origins of Nazism do lie on both the left and right wings, and yet generally speaking there is very little controversy or disagreement about this topic amongst historians and experts.

Prior coming to this board I don’t think that I had ever heard the theory before – and certainly not on Stormfront, where the extreme right idolizes the man and is proud to do so. History has recorded fascism as being right wing since the late-1930’s, and most dictionaries confirm the standard definition.

I think there are three misconceptions and four overlooked factors that explain why people have become confused about this, and I’ll run through those seven points here. This IS complex, so do read the points carefully before making knee-jerk comments.

Misconception #1: Hitler attacked conservatives and capitalism

At some stage in his career, Hitler attacked almost everyone. He was a master of playing to the crowd, and prior to the age of the internet, he could attack capitalism in one crowd on one day, and attack socialism in another crowd on another day without a powerful media to point out the often obvious contradictions.

When he first joined the Nazi party it was very much a populist party that combined left and right wing themes, and in early speeches, Hitler tended to follow the party line of trying to draw on working class support. Attacking traditional conservatism both achieved this goal and helped differentiate the Nazis from potential right-wing rivals. Most of the quotes of Hitler criticizing capitalism come from this early era, prior to his refocusing of the party during the mid- to late 1930’s.Even so, he continued to attack conservatism to differentiate Nazis from other, earlier conservative parties, establishing Nazism as an entirely new concept well to the right of existing conservatism.

Misconception #2: Hitler backed big government, hence was left wing.

The myth here is not that Hitler backed big government – of course, he did – but that there were other parties in Europe in 1939 who did not. The whole concept of small government is both relatively recent and relatively American. Prior to Reagan and Thatcher’s administrations, it was rarely used to differentiate left from right, because in 1939 every government in the world was big and state controlled. As late as the 1970’s a lot of strong right wing governments backed massive bureaucracy and state control. What made them right wing were positions on economic and social factors that were considered far more crucial than the idea of a streamlined administration. In short, only recently has small government been seen as a key ideological issue.

Misconception #3: Stalin and Hitler’s regimes were both dictators – so must have been left wing.

Yes, they were both dictators, and all dictators will control the press, the prisons and judiciary. However, dictatorships can occur on the left wing (Mao, Castro, Pol Pot) and on the extreme right wing (Cristiani, Franco, Rios Montte) both within fascism and in slightly more moderate forms such as Pinochet. People often post Hitler’s famous 25 Points as being evidence of left-wing policy, whereas actually they are more evidence of extremism and tyranny. Most politicians do ‘borrow’ policies when it makes sense to do so, but without compromising their ideological core. Hitler did this often and more than other fascists.

Right wing factors #1: Capital

This is one topic I think most of us can agree on: communism is about removing capital from the equation. In a perfect communist system, there is no money. All production is of, by and for the state. Fascism, on the other hand, is all about capital. Private investors pour money into shares, and earn huge dividends. Thus the middle and upper classes are bought off, their loyalty established, and the economy functions on a cycle of strong investments and the free flow of money through the domestic economy. The middle class blossoms. Under Communism, the middle class is crushed. In this, fascism and communism are polar opposites.

This alone clearly defines a right-wing capitalist society in opposition to a left-wing, anti-capitalist regime.

Right wing factor #2: Class

Communism looks to smash the middle and upper classes, and create a society in which workers rule. The perfect communist system is without class. Fascism is based on class distinctions and in particular in the loyalty of the middle and upper classes. The aristocracy were the key people in Hitler’s world view. While he played to the workers and gave them rousing speeches, in fact they were intended to work hard and remain quiet. It was the upper classes who would benefit from the surging economy and expansion into neighbouring countries.

Right wing factor #3: Other fascist leaders

Hitler is only one example of fascism. There are several others. Franco’s Spain, Paraguay’s Stroessner and particularly Romania’s Antonescu all provide a portrait of fascism that are often less confused that Hitler. All of these states were fiercely anti-Communist, all enjoyed some support from the aristocracy (or even royalty) and all were fundamentally capitalist. Antonescu, in particular, is often seen the as link between Fascism and Conservatism.

Right wing factor #4: Minorities & religion

For all Lenin’s faults, he was not a racist. Communists have always opposed racism, with the Soviet ‘One nation, many peoples’ ideal the polar opposite of fascist racism. Under Lenin and Stalin, the Politburo favoured Azeris, Armenians, Kazaks and even the occasional Jew! Under fascism, minorities were more often rounded up and slaughtered, and all fascist regimes have been fiercely anti-Semitic and antizigaist.

Likewise with religion, where Communism sought to dismantle and crush all religious activity, fascists often found common ground with the church; or at least managed to organize a degree of compliance. This is particularly clear in Romania, with Antonescu enjoying strong links with the Orthodox Church.

I would also add in that all of the major academic biographies and histories of the regime that I am aware of discuss Hitler's right-wing ideology in detail. No doubt there are a few partisan attempts to say otherwise, but I doubt there are many written by genuine historians.

All well and good but the RW also lies their ass off. They ARE fascists just like the saying "It looks like a duck...walks like a duck..quacks like a duck.." but they deny what they IN FACT are and attempt to turn the word around and pin it on the so called hated liberals. That is one of their favorite ploys is the word smithing game where they run fast and loose with definitions. Hitler had his Goebles..The American RW Christian Fascists have Newt Gingrich and Karl Rove. They are the absolute KINGS of public political hate propaganda. Twisting words and outright lying are their bread and butter.

 

[Discombobulated]

One thing von Kuehnelt made clear, Nazism and Fascism rose from democracies.

Correct.

Nazism (/ˈnɑːtsɪz(ə)m/; alternatively spelled Naziism),[1] or National Socialism in full (German: Nationalsozialismus) . However , Hitler understood that socialism sucks ---that central planning is useless so he decided that fascism was better.


Fascism allows the government to use (force) private entrepreneurs into assisting the bureaucracy in perpetrating its dastardly deeds.

And there's one fundamental difference between left wing totalitarians and right wing totalitarians. Private entrepreneurs make lots of money with right wing totalitarians.

Really?


Have you asked Soros and Buffett?


.

Yes......really.

Soros and Buffett? No......have you?

Again, the point is irrelevant.

What difference does it make whether you are being tyrannize in the name of god or the fatherland?

Imagine you are a deer

It doesn't make any difference to me personally. Why do you ask?

 

[Saigon]

BillC

So just to be sure that I understand your theory -

After the war in which the socialists fought the socialists, the Nazis lied and pretended that they were actually not socialists, because they wanted to 'get in' with the socialists.

Is that about right?

I'm not even foig to ask why the Jews, the British and Americans all lied.

 

[Impenitent]

Visceral Poetry

Republicans and Nazis we should never compare
To do so would be outrageous and unfair!
But there's a question that continually keeps me awake
Would old Nazis good Republicans make?

Republicans could never be Nazis, for goodness sake!
But could Nazis, in the Grand Old Party, ever partake?
Could the founding fathers of the Thousand Year Reich
Adapt to the party of a Thousand Points of Light?

Given some thought, it's not so unfeasible
Even General Eisenhower thought it conceivable
When he found Wernher Von Braun hiding in the thistles
Only to make him father of NASA and our ballistic missiles

Given that example, why couldn't more rehabilitate their brand?
This time, be good soldiers for the Republican high command
Wouldn't Rommel, a Panzer Commander of Field Marshal rank
Be equally comfortable running a right wing think tank?

Or Joseph Goebbels, charged to propagandize and flummox
Could become a talking head with his own show on Fox
While Eichmann and his concentration camp guards
Would be pole watchers, checking our registration cards

And those entitlement programs that never really worked
Our leaders bold proposals they've flip flopped and shirked
Would Nazis be like these windsocks and spin it?
Or would they throw grandma off the cliff? ...In a Wehrmacht minute!

Yes...you must have graduated top of your class at the government school controlled by the education wing of the democrat party...

Which part of the Constitution of the United States or the Bill of Rights even comes close to supporting any idea that the nazis would have supported....you sir are another twit....

Conservatives, libertarians, Tea party members and regular Republicans support limited government, individual rights, and freedoms, equality among people, free market capitalism....and yet you think those are things nazis would embrace....

You need to start your education over...I would say the 1st grade....but you need more work than that....

Visceral Poetry

Republicans and Nazis we should never compare
To do so would be outrageous and unfair!
But there's a question that continually keeps me awake
Would old Nazis good Republicans make?

Republicans could never be Nazis, for goodness sake!
But could Nazis, in the Grand Old Party, ever partake?
Could the founding fathers of the Thousand Year Reich
Adapt to the party of a Thousand Points of Light?

Given some thought, it's not so unfeasible
Even General Eisenhower thought it conceivable
When he found Wernher Von Braun hiding in the thistles
Only to make him father of NASA and our ballistic missiles

Given that example, why couldn't more rehabilitate their brand?
This time, be good soldiers for the Republican high command
Wouldn't Rommel, a Panzer Commander of Field Marshal rank
Be equally comfortable running a right wing think tank?

Or Joseph Goebbels, charged to propagandize and flummox
Could become a talking head with his own show on Fox
While Eichmann and his concentration camp guards
Would be pole watchers, checking our registration cards

And those entitlement programs that never really worked
Our leaders bold proposals they've flip flopped and shirked
Would Nazis be like these windsocks and spin it?
Or would they throw grandma off the cliff? ...In a Wehrmacht minute!

Yes...you must have graduated top of your class at the government school controlled by the education wing of the democrat party...

Which part of the Constitution of the United States or the Bill of Rights even comes close to supporting any idea that the nazis would have supported....you sir are another twit....

Conservatives, libertarians, Tea party members and regular Republicans support limited government, individual rights, and freedoms, equality among people, free market capitalism....and yet you think those are things nazis would embrace....

You need to start your education over...I would say the 1st grade....but you need more work than that....

You have that right, if by:

Supporting limited government, you mean privatizing it
Supporting individual rights, you mean the right to refuse service
Supporting individual freedoms, you mean dissolving the voting rights act
Supporting equality in people, you mean all white people
Supporting free market capitalism, you mean legalizing vulture capitalism

If that's what your code speak really means, then I do agree with you.

 

[Political Junky]

This is for you Saigon...

A Little Secret About the Nazis They were left-wing socialists like the modern left of today

But the history of the past century has been grossly distorted by the predominantly left-wing media and academic elite. The Nazis have been universally condemned -- as they obviously should be -- but they have also been repositioned clear across the political spectrum and propped up as false representatives of the far right -- even though Hitler railed frantically against capitalism in his infamous demagogic speeches.

At the same time, heinous crimes of larger magnitude by communist regimes have been ignored or downplayed, and the general public is largely unaware of them. Hence, communism is still widely regarded as a fundamentally good idea that has just not yet been properly ``implemented.'' Santayana said, ``Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.'' God help us if we forget the horrors of communism and get the historical lessons of Nazism backwards.

Frontpage Magazine, that fascist rag, no wonder you remain ignorant.

 

[2aguy]

After the war in which the socialists fought the socialists, the Nazis lied and pretended that they were actually not socialists, because they wanted to 'get in' with the socialists.

Twit...the nazis writers explained away their failed beliefs...national socialism....because the international socialists won...the Soviets were occupying large parts of Europe...and looking to take it all...

So you are saying that when two rival criminal gangs fight each other....that means only one of them is actually a criminal gang....because two groups of the same type can't fight each other....right? So communists never...say....murdered each other for control....like say....trotsky getting the ice axe in the head...or the purges in the soviet union...that couldn't have happened right....because socialists never fight each other...right? That's what you are saying ....right?

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Saigon]

No one is disputing it, even now.

Yeah...106 pages from people reading people who dispute it....you need to think about things a little more....

Pick up any book, any dictionary, any history, and the facts are there.

Written by lefties....yeah....they don't have a bias.....

• 
  
• 
  
• 

Firstly, none of the 20 sources cited here are by "leftists". They are all by reknowned, respected sources. Some Jewish, some right-wing German, some British.

Apparently they are all lying.

Secondly, what we see on this thread is 106 pages of a dozen people disputing the dictionary definitions, granted. And look at the education, intelligence and generl knowledge of those people. Let's be honest here - probaböy not one has ever been to Germany. Not one has ever studied history or politics. Most openly refuse to read books on the topic. Most had obviously never heard of Franco, let along Stoessner or Antonescu - all key figures in Fascism.

And you wonder how those people could get it SO wrong?

 

[2aguy]

But....but....Saigon said socialists can't fight each other for power...or send other socialists to labor or death camps...right?

Leon Trotsky - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

In August 1936, the first Moscow show trial of the so-called "Trotskyite-Zinovievite Terrorist Center" was staged in front of an international audience. During the trial, Zinoviev, Kamenev and 14 other accused, most of them prominent Old Bolsheviks, confessed to having plotted with Trotsky to kill Stalin and other members of the Soviet leadership. The court found everybody guilty and sentenced the defendants to death, Trotsky in absentia.

The second show trial, of Karl Radek, Grigory Sokolnikov, Yuri Pyatakov and 14 others, took place in January 1937, during which more alleged conspiracies and crimes were linked to Trotsky. In April 1937, an independent "Commission of Inquiry" into the charges made against Trotsky and others at the "Moscow Trials" was held in Coyoacán, with John Dewey as chairman.[105] The findings were published in the book Not Guilty.[106]

 

[Saigon]

After the war in which the socialists fought the socialists, the Nazis lied and pretended that they were actually not socialists, because they wanted to 'get in' with the socialists.

Twit...the nazis writers explained away their failed beliefs...national socialism....because the international socialists won...the Soviets were occupying large parts of Europe...and looking to take it all...

So you are saying that when two rival criminal gangs fight each other....that means only one of them is actually a criminal gang....because two groups of the same type can't fight each other....right? So communists never...say....murdered each other for control....like say....trotsky getting the ice axe in the head...or the purges in the soviet union...that couldn't have happened right....because socialists never fight each other...right? That's what you are saying ....right?

Read the first paragraph of your post.

Do you HONESTLY believe that?

No, I didn't think so.

Give it up, dude.

 

[2aguy]

Ah yes....historians who have a sympathy toward the left...and the soviet union, write about the nazi, left wing socialists after the death camps were liberated....while the mass murder of the communists wouldn't be revealed until decades later...and was hidden by communist sympathizers in the west....

Yeah, they wouldn't try to separate out the left wing nazi mass murderers from their favorite socialists in the soviet union....right? Since socialism lead to the mass murder...right?

 

[Discombobulated]

No one is disputing it, even now.

Yeah...106 pages from people reading people who dispute it....you need to think about things a little more....

Pick up any book, any dictionary, any history, and the facts are there.

Written by lefties....yeah....they don't have a bias.....

• 
  
• 
  
• 

Firstly, none of the 20 sources cited here are by "leftists". They are all by reknowned, respected sources. Some Jewish, some right-wing German, some British.

Apparently they are all lying.

Secondly, what we see on this thread is 106 pages of a dozen people disputing the dictionary definitions, granted. And look at the education, intelligence and generl knowledge of those people. Let's be honest here - probaböy not one has ever been to Germany. Not one has ever studied history or politics. Most openly refuse to read books on the topic. Most had obviously never heard of Franco, let along Stoessner or Antonescu - all key figures in Fascism.

And you wonder how those people could get it SO wrong?

The dummies who say they believe Nazis and Fascists were some how not right wing have yet to substantiate any part of their alleged view. What's really funny is that these idiots seem to believe that they've co-opted the concept of right wing, as if they have copy rights on a political orientation. I wonder if they get paid royalties for the patent rights? As if they invented it, as if they ever had any original thoughts of their own to begin with. They seem not to understand that history doesn't care about their superficial interpretations.

 

[2aguy]

Saigon...you twit...you posted this stupidity...

I'll ask again - why would a man you claim was a socialist ban socialism and send socialists to prison?

You are here referring to hitler...right? trying to say that hitler wasn't a socialist because he, according to you, banned socialism and sent socialists to prison.....

Sort of like what stalin did to trotsky....right....?

Considering trotsky was a socialist...and stalin was a socialist...but they were competing with each other for power...right....and what happened....a man who was a socialist banned another type of socialism, trotsky's brand, and sent socialists to prison....you know...the gulags....

Moscow show trial of the so-called "Trotskyite-Zinovievite Terrorist Center" was staged in front of an international audience. During the trial, Zinoviev, Kamenev and 14 other accused, most of them prominent Old Bolsheviks, confessed to having plotted with Trotsky to kill Stalin and other members of the Soviet leadership. The court found everybody guilty and sentenced the defendants to death, Trotsky in absentia.

Karl Radek, Grigory Sokolnikov, Yuri Pyatakov and 14 others, took place in January 1937, during which more alleged conspiracies and crimes were linked to Trotsky. In April 1937, an independent"Commission of Inquiry" into the charges made against Trotsky and others at the "Moscow Trials" was held in Coyoacán, with John Dewey as chairman.[105] The findings were published in the book Not Guilty.[106]

 

[2aguy]

They seem not to understand that history doesn't care about their superficial interpretations.

see, that is where you fail because the truth...and facts...."doesn't care about (your) superficial interpretations..."

 

[2aguy]

I like the way Jonah Goldberg addresses the issues here....

Nazis Still Socialists National Review Online

Ah. So deviating from the definition of Marxism disqualifies one from being a socialist? Preferring national unity to international class solidarity will get your socialist membership card revoked? If that’s true, no one is a socialist in the real world. Stanley’s standard, if uniformly applied, would expel from the ranks of socialists: Stalin, Mao, Lenin, Castro, Chavez, Maduro, Ortega, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot, Kim Il Sung (and progeny), Norman Thomas and all of the American Socialist Party, the Fabians of England, virtually every social-democratic or avowedly socialist party in the West now or recently. If none of them are socialists, then why ever again talk about socialism?

Simply put, no one talks about uniting the workers of the world anymore. Every socialist movement or party that comes to power promises national unity, not international solidarity.

And again, why is only Nazism disqualified from the “honor” of belonging in the socialist club because of its bigotry? Why is it alone held up to the theoretical ideals of socialism, rather than compared to other socialist systems? (And, it’s worth noting, even in theory, socialism fails Stanley’s test. One need only read what Marx had to say about “the Jewish question” or blacks to recognize that.)

Stalin was hardly a racial egalitarian (or any other kind of egalitarian). Before he died, Stalin was planning a major new assault on the Jews to improve on the impressive work he’d already done. And he had no problem treating non-Russian Soviet populations as expendable playthings and puzzle pieces. Even later regimes had preferential policies for ethnic Russians. But, hey, is North Korea not socialist because its ideology is racist?

 

[Discombobulated]

They seem not to understand that history doesn't care about their superficial interpretations.

see, that is where you fail because the truth...and facts...."doesn't care about (your) superficial interpretations..."

There are no legitimate historians anywhere who would concur with your alleged view. Fascism and Nazism were right wing, ultra conservative, bottom up, populist movements. End of story. There never was any actual controversy on this point.....never could have been.

 

[Discombobulated]

I like the way Jonah Goldberg addresses the issues here....

Nazis Still Socialists National Review Online

Ah. So deviating from the definition of Marxism disqualifies one from being a socialist? Preferring national unity to international class solidarity will get your socialist membership card revoked? If that’s true, no one is a socialist in the real world. Stanley’s standard, if uniformly applied, would expel from the ranks of socialists: Stalin, Mao, Lenin, Castro, Chavez, Maduro, Ortega, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot, Kim Il Sung (and progeny), Norman Thomas and all of the American Socialist Party, the Fabians of England, virtually every social-democratic or avowedly socialist party in the West now or recently. If none of them are socialists, then why ever again talk about socialism?

Simply put, no one talks about uniting the workers of the world anymore. Every socialist movement or party that comes to power promises national unity, not international solidarity.

And again, why is only Nazism disqualified from the “honor” of belonging in the socialist club because of its bigotry? Why is it alone held up to the theoretical ideals of socialism, rather than compared to other socialist systems? (And, it’s worth noting, even in theory, socialism fails Stanley’s test. One need only read what Marx had to say about “the Jewish question” or blacks to recognize that.)

Stalin was hardly a racial egalitarian (or any other kind of egalitarian). Before he died, Stalin was planning a major new assault on the Jews to improve on the impressive work he’d already done. And he had no problem treating non-Russian Soviet populations as expendable playthings and puzzle pieces. Even later regimes had preferential policies for ethnic Russians. But, hey, is North Korea not socialist because its ideology is racist?

Jonah Goldberg........nothing like an actual historian.

 

[2aguy]

There are no legitimate historians anywhere who would concur with your alleged view. Fascism and Nazism were right wing, ultra conservative, bottom up, populist movements. End of story. There never was any actual controversy on this point.....never could have been.

Except there is....the group think is coming to an end now that history isn't controlled by the left anymore....that is also why they want to control the internet....

 

[Discombobulated]

There are no legitimate historians anywhere who would concur with your alleged view. Fascism and Nazism were right wing, ultra conservative, bottom up, populist movements. End of story. There never was any actual controversy on this point.....never could have been.

Except there is....the group think is coming to an end now that history isn't controlled by the left anymore....that is also why they want to control the internet....

No, your wrong, actual universally recognized and researched history is done by real scholars of history.....not just by some assholes with a blog.

 

[Saigon]

But....but....Saigon said socialists can't fight each other for power...or send other socialists to labor or death camps...right?

Leon Trotsky - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

In August 1936, the first Moscow show trial of the so-called "Trotskyite-Zinovievite Terrorist Center" was staged in front of an international audience. During the trial, Zinoviev, Kamenev and 14 other accused, most of them prominent Old Bolsheviks, confessed to having plotted with Trotsky to kill Stalin and other members of the Soviet leadership. The court found everybody guilty and sentenced the defendants to death, Trotsky in absentia.

The second show trial, of Karl Radek, Grigory Sokolnikov, Yuri Pyatakov and 14 others, took place in January 1937, during which more alleged conspiracies and crimes were linked to Trotsky. In April 1937, an independent "Commission of Inquiry" into the charges made against Trotsky and others at the "Moscow Trials" was held in Coyoacán, with John Dewey as chairman.[105] The findings were published in the book Not Guilty.[106]

No, I never said that, obviously.

Of course a lot of dictators will send their political opponents to prison, we see this is in both extreme left and right wing administrations.

What we do nott see is a political party sending their entire support base to prison - and making it illegal. When was the last time a communist party made communism illegal?

This is just another silly, childish, desperate and dishonest "theory".