Hitler, Fascism and the right wing

[Discombobulated]

The internet is a very effective tool for spreading ignorance and disinformation. I encourage all you dummies to try reading books.

 

[Discombobulated]

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".

Begs the questions: Are the people who say they believe Fascism is not right wing stupid or dishonest? Which has greater influence in determining their half wit responses, are they ignorant or disingenuous?

 

[2aguy]

Begs the questions: Are the people who say they believe Fascism is not right wing stupid or dishonest? Which has greater influence in determining their half wit responses, are they ignorant or disingenuous?

Are the twits who believe that nazism, communism and fascism are actually different things rather than just different styles of socialism products of a democrat controlled education or suffering from a genetic problem where the rational part of their brain is abnormally small and underdeveloped....since truth and facts can find no home in their heads.....

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Begs the questions: Are the people who say they believe Fascism is not right wing stupid or dishonest? Which has greater influence in determining their half wit responses, are they ignorant or disingenuous?

Are the twits who believe that nazism, communism and fascism are actually different things rather than just different styles of socialism products of a democrat controlled education or suffering from a genetic problem where the rational part of their brain is abnormally small and underdeveloped....since truth and facts can find no home in their heads.....

Case in point. Most here, like this poster and most Americans, are morons,

 

[bripat9643]

Your Komrade Saigon keeps giving me a list of historians and telling me to read their books. That's his conception of evidence. Go tell it to him.

Yes, I do.

Yesterday I cited books by 2 Nazi Party members, and 4 by right-wing German historians.

They all confirm - obviously - that Hitler ws right wing.

You simply do not have a case here, and if you read, you will find out why. And that is why you won't read.

Wrong. They didn't confirm jack shit. Saying "go read a book" doesn't prove a thing, and some history professor saying "the Nazis were right-wing" doesn't prove the Nazis were right-wing. That's just another useless asshole with a useless opinion. Facts and logic are what prove something to be true or false, not the worthless opinions of an entire army of humbug history professors.

Your entire spiel is just one long appeal to authority, and your authorities have no evidence to back their opinions.

 

[bripat9643]

Attacking the source is typical left-wing strategy. The only valid sources are left-wing sources. Anyone who disagrees with a liberal must be a kook.

Says the person who refuses to read books, and who once described dictionaries as being 'socialist'.

You're not exactly a very self-aware person, are you BriPat?

When have I ever said I refuse to read books? I simply refuse to accept the opinion of humbug history professors when it's backed by nothing but their prejudices. You have yet to quote a single history professor who actually gives a reason for labelling fascism as "right-wing."

What you fail to understand is that no matter what kind of credentials a person has, his opinions are just opinions unless he backs them up with facts and logic, and so far none of your cited history professors have managed to do that.

Anyone who believes the definitions of highly charged political terms in the Dictionary isn't biased is simply an idiot.

 

[Political Junky]

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.

Oh yes, Lucianne's boy.

 

[bripat9643]

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".

hmmmmmm . . . The great purge is where Stalin sent his entire support base to the Gulag or had them shot. Stalin sent all the menshiveks to the Gulag, all the old Bolsheviks, almost his entire officer corpse, in fact, almost the entire membership of the communist party, especially the leadership.

Wrong again. So far your demonstrated knowledge of history is 100% wrong.

You should read a history book titled "The Great Purge." The ruthlessness of Stalin is truly stunning.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Oh yes, Lucianne's boy.

What's your point, jackass?

 

[HUGGY]

The fact that Communism and the various brands of socialism have some aspects in comon with fascism are in the area of economics. Fascism is actually a type of capitalism where the government's chosen vendors are granted access to the public consumers and no bid government contracts eliminating most if not all competition. That in effect starves the companies that don't have the governments favorite status. It gives power to approved vendors. It obligates both parties political support for candidates and those incumbants that remain in office. Fascism is the ultimate sweetheat buisness deal between government and business.

One recent case in point is the Halliburton company's sweetheat deal to supply goods and services for the recent Afghanistan and Iraq invasions. That arrangement was/is PURE Fascism.

 

[bripat9643]

The internet is a very effective tool for spreading ignorance and disinformation. I encourage all you dummies to try reading books.

Books also contain plenty of ignorance, especially the ones written by pinko history professors about fascism.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

A little known fact relative to this discussion is the wave of pinko German professors who migrated to the U.S. just before and just after WW II. These pinko professors stunk up their own nest by paving the way for socialism/communism/fascism in Germany. When the shit hit the fan, they all bailed to the United States and then promptly proceeded to stink up this country with their subversive dogmas. That is one of the worst outcomes of WW II.

 

[bripat9643]

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]

Don't bother Saigon with actual facts. He's only interested in the unsupported opinions of pinko history professors.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

You have yet to demonstrate your intellectual superiority, Saigon. For one thing, you keep getting the basic facts of history wrong. You also don't have a clue about economics. You demonstrated that you misunderstand the meaning of the term "capital" when you claimed the Soviets didn't make use of capital. I laughed my ass off when I read that. You have also claimed that socialists aren't racists or nationalists.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The only evidence I have seen in this thread that Nazis were "far right" is the constant insistence by left-wingers that they were right-wingers. That included all the leftwing source you have all cited. None of you can even produce a coherent definition of what "right-wing" means.

Actually I've defined right wing quite a few times.

It started off in the French revolution as:

"The conservative or reactionary section of a political party or system.
[with reference to the National Assembly in France (1789–91), where the nobles sat to the president's right and the commons to the left]"

Right wing - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

"the part of a political group that consists of people who support conservative or traditional ideas and policies : the part of a political group that belongs to or supports the Right"

right wing Free On-Line English Dictionary Thesaurus Children s Intermediate Dictionary Wordsmyth

"those within a political group who are the most conservative or reactionary. (Cf. left wing.)"


So the dictionaries are quite consistent on this one. Conservative and reactionary.

Right-wing politics - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"Right-wing politics are political positions or activities that view some forms of social hierarchy or social inequality as either inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable,[1][2][3] typically justifying this position on the basis of natural law or tradition.[4][5][6][7][8][9] Within the right-wing spectrum, views differ on whether hierarchy and inequality stem from traditional social differences[10] or from competition in market economies."

Now, the wikipedia view is based up with sources from books, some of which are published by university presses etc.
They suggest that hierarchy is also an important part, mostly because this was the traditional conservative way of society before the extremes came along.

While Hitler was changing things with his extremity, looking at lower down people, he also saw social inequality as a natural thing, Jews were below the Aryans, for example.

But you say that people can't give a straight definition, it's because there isn't one. On a simple level you can define, on a more complex level it becomes harder because the term existed in French Revolution based on one example. As time has gone by this example has not been sufficient to hold all of the right wing groups.

Far-right politics - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"Far-right politics or extreme-right politics are right-wing politics to the right of the mainstream centre right on the traditional left-right spectrum. They often involve a focus on tradition as opposed to policies and customs that are regarded as reflective ofmodernism. They tend to include disregard or disdain for egalitarianism, if not overt support for social inequality and social hierarchy, elements of social conservatism and opposition to most forms of liberalism and socialism. The terms are commonly used to describefascism, neo-fascism and other ideologies or organizations that feature extreme nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, racist, orreactionary views.[1] Some far-right movements, such as the Nazis, have pursued oppression and genocide against groups of people on the basis of their alleged inferiority or their alleged threat to the nation or state."

Here's what Wikipedia has to say.

So, focus on tradition. Hitler focused a lot on traditions.

Egalitarianism, well, he was going around putting Jews and others into ghettos and then killing them. Egalitarian? I don't think so. This is one of the main points of the argument that he was a left wing Socialist. Clearly he wasn't egalitarian which is a left wing policy for the most part.

Social hierarchy. Again, he supported the Aryans over others. This was social hierarchy.

He was a Nationalist, which is usually placed into the right too.

"and major elements of fascism have been deemed clearly far-right, such as its belief that supposedly superior people have the right to dominate society while purging allegedly inferior elements, and—in the case of Nazism—genocide of people deemed to be inferior."

From wiki using the source below.
Woshinsky, Oliver H., Explaining Politics: Culture, Institutions, and Political Behavior(Oxon, England; New York City, United States: Routledge, 2008) p. 156.

Is this enough for you? Or will you ask again in a couple of weeks?

 

[frigidweirdo]

What the USSR wasn't Communism by any stretch of the imagination. Certainly there were lots of right wing elements to the USSR, like the hierarchical system...

"Excuse me sir, could you repeat that? The forum was laughing too hard."

It's not MY fault you don't get it.

 

[bripat9643]

btw, Bill, as you obviously know - every major history book written in the past 60 years describes Hitler as being right wing.

As I posted yesterday, most right-wing German historians also describe Hitler as being right wing, as do the books written by Nazis like Albert Speer and Tradul Junge.

Where did they get it wrong, do you think?

What do you know that the entire 60 years of history, including the people involved, do not?

That's your claim, but you have yet to demonstrate it. Please quote some "right-wing" German historians who claim the Nazis were "right-wing." Don't just mention their names. Quote where they actually said the Nazis were right-wing.

 

[frigidweirdo]

cept the Nazis weren't socialists. They were NATIONAL SOCIALISTS. Ie, they were far right nationalists who weren't monarchists.

The reasons people say the Nazis were Socialists are the same reasons why you should be saying the US is Socialist. Damn, shoot yourself in the foot why don't you?

So now the US is on par with Nazi Germany. Oy vey. Socialists don't stop being socialists when they adopt a national/racial element. YOU want to tie that aspect in with the "right wing" because that's how you see the right wing. It's a lie. It's wrong. It's your bias and it's not fact.

Ah, again, you use the tactic of trying to ridicule.

YOU'RE the one trying to claim Nazi Germany was SOCIALIST when it is accepted wisdom that it is far right.

You're making this claim, but then when someone makes a counter claim, you completely ignore it, trying the typical BS response of just attacking.

Do you want to debate on this or do you want to present yourself as the village idiot? You want to debate on this, then debate, don't come crying to me because you don't like what I've said. You can either debate this properly or just accept that Nazism is far right. YOU CHOOSE, but none of this nonsense.

 

[bripat9643]

Your Komrade Saigon keeps giving me a list of historians and telling me to read their books. That's his conception of evidence. Go tell it to him.

Yes, I do.

Yesterday I cited books by 2 Nazi Party members, and 4 by right-wing German historians.

They all confirm - obviously - that Hitler ws right wing.

You simply do not have a case here, and if you read, you will find out why. And that is why you won't read.

If they claim Nazis were right-wing, then quote them. Simply listing their names doesn't prove a fucking thing.

You simply do not have a case here. You read and then quote the stuff the supports your obviously wrong claims. That's how a debate works.

 

[Saigon]

So just to run through BillC's theory here, in case anyone missed it:

Hitler was a sociialist who banned socialism, and sent the socialists to prison, because he did not want competition.

After the war, the socialists lied about being socialists, because they needed to get in with the socialists. The British and Jews also lied and pretended that Hitler was not a socialist, because they were sppeasing the socialists.

And now the truth is coming out.

I am beginning to understand why most of the other revisionists refuse to answer any questions.