Hitler, Fascism and the right wing

[bripat9643]

No, he was never elected, at least not by the people. He lost both elections that he ran in. He was appointed and then took power over the whole damn thing. Learn fucking history, then learn Liberalism. You know jack-shit about both.

Doesn't present day "Liberalism" support government supremacy?

Adolf Hitler's rise to power

The Nazi party lost 35 seats in the November 1932 election, but remained the Reichstag's largest party. The most shocking move of the early election campaign was to send the SA to support a Rotfront action against the transport agency and in support of a strike.

After Chancellor Papen left office, he secretly told Hitler that he still held considerable sway with president Hindenburg and that he would make Hitler chancellor as long as he, Papen, could be the vice chancellor.


Hindenburg appointed Hitler as Chancellor on January 30, 1933, in a coalition arrangement between the Nazis and the Nationalist-Conservatives. Papen was to serve as Vice-Chancellor in a majority conservative Cabinet – still falsely believing that he could "tame" Hitler.[43] Initially, Papen did speak out against some Nazi excesses, and only narrowly escaped death in the night of the long knives, whereafter he ceased to openly criticize the regime.


On 30 January 1933, Adolf Hitler was appointed chancellor of a coalition government of the NSDAP-DNVP Party. The SA and SS led torchlight parades throughout Berlin. In the coalition government, three members of the cabinet were Nazis: Hitler, Wilhelm Frick (Minister of the Interior) and Hermann Göring (Minister Without Portfolio).

Politics as usual.

It sounds a lot like the Obama administration.

 

[bripat9643]

I've read loads of them. I don't see a whole lot of difference between the two systems. Please explain the differences.

Allow me...nazis were rightwing....there....that pretty much sums up their argument....

How do we know they were right-wing? We know because all the pinko history professors say so.

There, that really sums up their argument.

If the Nazis were the left, who were the rightwingers in Germany in the 20's and 30's?

In Europe people who believed in free enterprise were called liberals. You'll find they were on Hitler's list of enemies along with the communists.

 

[westwall]

You progressives are hilarious! You tell us to "go read a book" and we have probably read more books on an individual basis, than you all have combined. We, who actually read books, and more to the point understand what we are reading, have come to the conclusion that there was very little difference to the average person living in the two countries.

If anything life in Nazi Germany was marginally better.... But only marginally. Ultimately life sucked for the average subject no matter which country they lived in. The difference was in war the Germans cared a little bit more for their troops than the Soviets did. Which is why they only lost 3.5 million as opposed to 11 million soldiers.

Exactly so.....the average person living in those countries wouldn't give two shits about your thin distinctions.

If the average citizen couldn't tell the difference between the two systems, what difference was there?

 

[Saigon]

Short answer: you don't know a fucking thing about Franco's economics, and you don't care.

BTW, I know people keep telling you this, but I'll do it one more time to reinforce the lesson. Telling people to "go read a book" is not proof of anything. It's an admission that you are unable to post any actual facts.

Actually I've read quite a lot about Fascist economics in a variety of countries - again, this is covered in the Ian Kerhshaw book I've cited a few times. Spain is quite a classic example of extreme right-wing eonomics. I'm not an expert, but I know enough to see the obvious.

Put it this way - does THIS sound like socialism to you?

As these developments steadily converted Spain's economic structure into one more closely resembling a free-market economy, t.

HUH?

If it "resembles" then it isn't.

A homosexual individual "resembles" a heterosexual individual.

In a free market economy there is NO NO NO government involvement. N O N E >

.

Franco's administration was not free-market. No one said it was.

Franco's adminsitration was capitalist. That's it.

 

[Saigon]

Ok, so just to conclude another point -

We have seen that Franco's economy was very much capitalist in nature, with it actually approaching free-market economics late in his time in office. We have also seen that Franco is universally described as being right-wing fascist or para-fascist, and is of course also closely associated with other Fascist leaders.

We could go through the administrations of other Fascist leaders in Croatia, Paraguay, Hungary and Romania and find the same patterns that we see in Spain and Germany - private ownership of property, the flow of capital, the targetting of minorities, extreme nationalism and militarism, an ambivalent to positive relationship with the Church, and of course the support of the upper classes and the wealthy.

ALL of these points are reversed in a communist society.

Hence, I think we can consider these points proven beyond any reasonable doubt.

 

[regent]

Communists did not believe in Democracy, they believed government should be run by an elite group of folks who understood economics.

Conservatives do not believe in Democracy, they believe government should be run by an elite group of folks who understand economics

Conservatives = Communists

Nope. I don't believe in government period. That's why it should be kept as small as possible.

Under communism the government would slowly wither away.

 

[Discombobulated]

You progressives are hilarious! You tell us to "go read a book" and we have probably read more books on an individual basis, than you all have combined. We, who actually read books, and more to the point understand what we are reading, have come to the conclusion that there was very little difference to the average person living in the two countries.

If anything life in Nazi Germany was marginally better.... But only marginally. Ultimately life sucked for the average subject no matter which country they lived in. The difference was in war the Germans cared a little bit more for their troops than the Soviets did. Which is why they only lost 3.5 million as opposed to 11 million soldiers.

Exactly so.....the average person living in those countries wouldn't give two shits about your thin distinctions.

If the average citizen couldn't tell the difference between the two systems, what difference was there?

Must be that comprehension problem of yours again. Refer to post #1477.

 

[frigidweirdo]

He did not privatized industry - he did not nationalized it.

He was simply a fascist - fascists tend to massively regulate - they don't nationalize it.

The point being made here is that Hitler was a Socialist. To be a Socialist he had to have Nationalized industry.

Would you say Hitler wasn't a Socialist then?

Early on he was a socialist.

But he realized that socialists can not be trusted with the economy , so became a fascist.

.

No, not really. Early on he didn't seem to know what to think. He was actually against those who had lost Germany WW1. The fact that they were from the old guard was something he went against. He hated Capitalism because of the fact that those who controlled WW1 in Germany, the Emperor etc, were all Capitalists.

.

Incorrect.



Junker, (German: “country squire”), member of the landowning aristocracy of Prussia and eastern Germany, which, under the German Empire (1871–1918) and the Weimar Republic (1919–33), exercised substantial political power. Otto von Bismarck himself, the imperial chancellor during 1871–90, was of Junker stock and at first was regarded as representing its interests. Politically, Junkers stood for extreme conservatism, support of the monarchy and military tradition, and protectionist policies for agriculture. The Agrarian League represented Junker interests throughout the imperial era. Because the Junkers staffed the Prussian army, which had brought about Germany’s unification, they were accorded great influence, particularly in Prussia, where a highly illiberal constitution remained in force (1850–1918). During the Weimar period, Junkers were continuously hostile to the republic, the collapse of which contributed to the rise of Adolf Hitler.

Also , the Bismarck Administration was responsible for the socialist SOCIAL SECURITY which FDR emulated.

.

We're not talking what actually happened here. We're talking what Hitler BELIEVED happened.

 

[bripat9643]

Communists did not believe in Democracy, they believed government should be run by an elite group of folks who understood economics.

Conservatives do not believe in Democracy, they believe government should be run by an elite group of folks who understand economics

Conservatives = Communists

Nope. I don't believe in government period. That's why it should be kept as small as possible.

Under communism the government would slowly wither away.

So first you build it up to enormous proportions until its so vast it requires an army of slaves to prop it up. Then it just goes away?

Strange, so far that hasn't seemed to work.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Communists did not believe in Democracy, they believed government should be run by an elite group of folks who understood economics.

Conservatives do not believe in Democracy, they believe government should be run by an elite group of folks who understand economics

Conservatives = Communists

No, that's not Communism. That was what happened in the USSR and other places that claimed to be Communist.

You have to separate the theory from the reality. A lot of Communists defend Stalin as if he were great, and claim the USSR was Communist, and they're a little bit delusional. A lot of people who have believed a lot of the US anti-Communist propaganda also fail to separate the two.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Communists did not believe in Democracy, they believed government should be run by an elite group of folks who understood economics.

Conservatives do not believe in Democracy, they believe government should be run by an elite group of folks who understand economics

Conservatives = Communists

Nope. I don't believe in government period. That's why it should be kept as small as possible.

Under communism the government would slowly wither away.

So first you build it up to enormous proportions until its so vast it requires an army of slaves to prop it up. Then it just goes away?

Strange, so far that hasn't seemed to work.

The theory behind Communism is that you'd go through various stages to reach Communism. However in Russia it happened in the space of 6 months and not centuries as predicted. Clearly the people were not ready for this and therefore it required strongarming by the govt to make it happen.

The govt did wither away, just not in the manner they expected.

 

[bripat9643]

Communists did not believe in Democracy, they believed government should be run by an elite group of folks who understood economics.

Conservatives do not believe in Democracy, they believe government should be run by an elite group of folks who understand economics

Conservatives = Communists

Nope. I don't believe in government period. That's why it should be kept as small as possible.

Under communism the government would slowly wither away.

So first you build it up to enormous proportions until its so vast it requires an army of slaves to prop it up. Then it just goes away?

Strange, so far that hasn't seemed to work.

The theory behind Communism is that you'd go through various stages to reach Communism. However in Russia it happened in the space of 6 months and not centuries as predicted. Clearly the people were not ready for this and therefore it required strongarming by the govt to make it happen.

The govt did wither away, just not in the manner they expected.

Yeah. There's also a theory that the ground horn of a unicorn makes a good aphrodisiac. It doesn't matter what a theory says that can never be put into practice. The Soviet Union was a sincere attempt to implement communism, and everyone is correctly horrified at the results.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yeah. There's also a theory that the ground horn of a unicorn makes a good aphrodisiac. It doesn't matter what a theory says that can never be put into practice. The Soviet Union was a sincere attempt to implement communism, and everyone is correctly horrified at the results.

Some were horrified because it don't succeed, others were horrified at how it happened, and others were horrified because they were told to be horrified.

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

Poor clueless Saigon. I'd think that you more than most people here would understand that in totalitarian regimes there are no "wings". There is no toleration for opposing views. There is only a dictator, a strong man, a Pol Pot, or an Uncle Ho, or a Che, or a Hitler or a Stalin. They establish dystopias based on terror, reigned in by mass murder. Stalin left and Hitler right? Sorry, there wasn't two cents of difference between them. That was the whole point of George Orwell's most famous portent, 1984. Maybe you should put on your reading list.

 

[Saigon]

I'd think that you more than most people here would understand that in totalitarian regimes there are no "wings".

Right.

Excellent post, Tom. I'm glad we cleared that up.

 

[Contumacious]

[

Franco's administration was not free-market. No one said it was.

Franco's adminsitration was capitalist. That's it.

Shut the fuck up.


Francisco Franco was a the typical fascist militarist, right winger , dictator.


.

 

[Saigon]

[

Franco's administration was not free-market. No one said it was.

Franco's adminsitration was capitalist. That's it.

Shut the fuck up.


Francisco Franco was a the typical fascist militarist, right winger , dictator.


.

Yes, I absolutely agree.

Spain was also a capitalist country during his time in office (even though his economic policies veered widely back and forth, as policies tend to under Fascism).

 

[Contumacious]

[

Franco's administration was not free-market. No one said it was.

Franco's adminsitration was capitalist. That's it.

Shut the fuck up.


Francisco Franco was a the typical fascist militarist, right winger , dictator.


.

Yes, I absolutely agree.

Spain was also a capitalist country during his time in office (even though his economic policies veered widely back and forth, as policies tend to under Fascism).

Spain was a FASCISTIC COUNTRY FASCISTIC - merely because there were some wealthy people does not make it Capitalistic.

.

 

[Discombobulated]

Poor clueless Saigon. I'd think that you more than most people here would understand that in totalitarian regimes there are no "wings". There is no toleration for opposing views. There is only a dictator, a strong man, a Pol Pot, or an Uncle Ho, or a Che, or a Hitler or a Stalin. They establish dystopias based on terror, reigned in by mass murder. Stalin left and Hitler right? Sorry, there wasn't two cents of difference between them. That was the whole point of George Orwell's most famous portent, 1984. Maybe you should put on your reading list.

Poor stupid fucked up Tom.....he thinks history is based on a novel.

 

[dcraelin]

Communists did not believe in Democracy, they believed government should be run by an elite group of folks who understood economics.
Conservatives do not believe in Democracy, they believe government should be run by an elite group of folks who understand economics
Conservatives = Communists

No, that's not Communism. That was what happened in the USSR and other places that claimed to be Communist.
You have to separate the theory from the reality. A lot of Communists defend Stalin as if he were great, and claim the USSR was Communist, and they're a little bit delusional. A lot of people who have believed a lot of the US anti-Communist propaganda also fail to separate the two.

see below

Communists did not believe in Democracy, they believed government should be run by an elite group of folks who understood economics.
Conservatives do not believe in Democracy, they believe government should be run by an elite group of folks who understand economics
Conservatives = Communists

Nope. I don't believe in government period. That's why it should be kept as small as possible.

Under communism the government would slowly wither away.

So first you build it up to enormous proportions until its so vast it requires an army of slaves to prop it up. Then it just goes away?
Strange, so far that hasn't seemed to work.

The theory behind Communism is that you'd go through various stages to reach Communism. However in Russia it happened in the space of 6 months and not centuries as predicted. Clearly the people were not ready for this and therefore it required strongarming by the govt to make it happen.
The govt did wither away, just not in the manner they expected.

Well I think, Communism at its etymological base, indicates rule by the commune, a word for town in french. It seems to imply small limited government. The same thing Conservatives claim to want.
Thus: Conservatism = Communism

I think Frigid you may be thinking of Socialism, that was supposed to go through stages....Communism was twisted early into being the idea that an elite group should bypass Democracy to accelerate the transition to Socialism/ or more ideal Communism. This also is similar to some Conservative thought that Democracy is a bad thing.

Thus: Conservatism = Communism