Hitler, Fascism and the right wing

[CrusaderFrank]

Meathead -

By the way - what does USSR stand for?

Right - so this theory of Hitler's Socialists vs Stalin's Communists doesn't make much sense does it?

Yes and FDR wanted to be like Stalin, what's your point?

 

[Londoner]

Report Finds College Students Fail Basic Civics Test

It's even worse than that.

Consider the decision to invade Iraq in 2003, a decision that has not only bled trillions of dollars from the taxpayer, but has set up deep regional instability across places like Syria, while making Iran stronger - all of which will require a never-ending stream of tax dollars to "fix" (as we surge + stabilize and declare victory only to find out that good ol' Uncle Sam may need to keep coming back to your wallet for a little mo' surge and re-stabilization money... (and on and on and on) . . . until we finally learn that Washington can't save the world, despite how much dear leader scares you into draping yourself in a flag and opening your wallet).

What if?
... Washington's bureaucratic planning isn't the holy nectar that will make the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds sacrifice their 1,000s years war so that they may join a Washington imposed free market love-pile?

Washington bureaucrats, no matter how much you trust them, can't always make things better, despite our best intentions of turning Iraq into stable US-style free market democratic utopia.

But to your point.

How much does the American voter know about American foreign policy in the middle east? Has dear leader supplied any cut-&-paste weapons for that?

What specifics does the U.S. voter know about foreign policy in the gulf region? What specifics does the U.S. voter know about what took place in northern Iran with the Soviets in the mid 40s - and how Truman used this issue as a springboard to create the Truman Doctrine, which like the Cater Doctrine after it, made every regional conflict a matter of US national security? How about Eisenhower and what transpired with Mossadegh, leaving the brutal Shah in place, who was more amenable to western energy needs? -and how this played a role in the Iranian Revolution in 1979? Do you know any historical specifics of what lead to the current Middle East map, and all the various conflicts left in place by the end of British rule followed by the insanely complex maneuvers made by successive U.S. presidents in response to a growing competition for the region's territorial and natural resources?

And what about Reagan's partnership with Hussein in Iraq, which was a direct reaction to losing our guy, the Shah, in Iran? How much do you know about our partnership with the mujahideen (the embryonic cell of Al Qaeda) when we were trying to trap the Soviets in Afghanistan quick sand? Can you believe that people actually supported the Iraq War without knowing our history in the region? How can we support policies that will eat up massive portions of our budget with this kind of ignorance? Why don't any rightwing websites post bull points about our ignorance over Middle Eastern foreign policy? [Is it possible that a certain class of voters are literally being educated by rightwing websites that selectively post bullet points because of a political agenda?]

What specifics do you know about the creation of Israel or the Suez Crisis in 1956? -the Lebanon Invasion of 1958? -The Six Day's War in 1967? The Camp David Accords in 1978? Do you know any specifics about Reagan sanctioning Israel's policy in the West Bank in 1983 - and how this affected the Israel/Palestine conflict?

In other words: we agree. When the US Voter is ignorant about history, in all its complexity, he or she is more vulnerable to talk radio cliche, like "Freedom is on the march". I wish the world was this simple.

I cannot believe we have raised a generation of voters who are passionate about the Iraq War but know nothing about our long and complex history in the region.

God help us (they vote).

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The greatest murderers of the 20th century, all socialists:

Mao 60 million
Stalin 40 million
Hitler 30 million

They were all considered "Progressives" and Democratic" or "Democrats"

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

Ahhhhh, you Fabian Socialists are all alike. It's quite simple. There are TWO types of government.... Collectivist and individualist. ALL totalitarian governments are collectivist. "Communist", "Fascist", "Socialist" are all gradations of a collectivist government.

The opposite of a collectivist government is ANARCHY or for you who don't read much, the LACK OF A CENTRALIZED GOVERNMENT. Choose whichever side of the teeter totter you wish, collectivist is left side or right side, it doesn't matter. What does matter is that they are ALL basically the same governmental system. COLLECTIVIST.

It's really quite simple.

True... Only the most pathetic of imbeciles advocate for anarchy. As I've noted many times, this discussion is merely that which debates the merits and discrepancies of 'right' versus 'wrong'; which is to say good -v- evil.

The left being evil, advocates for the wrong way to govern collectively... but hey, they're idiots, so... it follows that they would.

The experiment that has been the United States proves in incontrovertible terms that the collective is regulated best where the individual is responsible for their own behavior and that their interests are served BEST when they recognize that their own RIGHTS are governed and otherwise sustained by their means to BEAR THE RESPONSIBILITIES that sustain those rights.

Such worked with clocklike precision for 150 years, until the regression back into collective rights came back into vogue, by those individuals who lacked sufficient character to rise to meet their individual responsibilities, but who felt that they were entitled to the same benefits as those who DID recognize such, were realizing.

They felt that "IT WASN'T FAIR" that the responsible people got all the good stuff, while the irresponsible constantly got SCREWED!

Of course, in truth, thus in reality, it was PERFECTLY fair... and still is.

 

[Iceweasel]

You'd have to be pretty extreme to think Hitler a socialist.

He says he was. So you think you know Hitler better than Hitler knew Hitler.
That's special.

But unless you think you're Hitler, I'm not talking with him. Taking quotes out of context does not mean you are the voice of Hitler.

I used his own words. You can't handle it apparently. You don't get to define what he really meant.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Iceweasel -

It's in the Nazi economy that we see the hallmarks of right wing government - very strong use of investment and dividends from the private sector, and a close relationship with the aristocracy as a result. This is crucial in understanding both the emphasis on class as well.

Thus, it is in this context that I also talk about small government as being a modern concept, unknown to the architects of the Nazi economy.

I'd be happy to recommend books on this if you are interested - particularly this one by the always excellent Richard Overy:

http://www.amazon.com/Economic-Recovery-1932-1938-Studies-History/dp/0521557674/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1416671455&sr=1-5&keywords=the nazi economy

I really have little interest in the US context here - it just isn't relevant to fascism.

Socialism is not right wing government..

See how the far left does not understand beyond their limited programming.

Socialism can be authoritarian or democratic. Your ignorance never ceases to amaze.

All Socialism is authoritarian, as democratic socialism rests entirely in Deceit... its execution being exclusively Fraudulent and all of such resting in the Ignorance of the culture which succumbs to both.

You see scamp, absent Deceit, Fraud and Ignorance, socialism cannot exist.

It's how they all get the power they need. Like our Progressives, they lie and lie and lie and Lie and LIE and LIE about who they and what they are and what they want

 

[blackhawk]

Seriously what is the point to threads like this? Was Hitler right wing or left wing to borrow a line from Hillary Clinton what difference does it make at this point the right and the left of today have nothing in common with Hitler his polices or his ideology.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

What if?
... Washington's bureaucratic planning isn't the holy nectar that will make the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds sacrifice their 1,000s years war so that they may join a Washington imposed free market love-pile?

I whole heartedly agree... we should have stripped Iraq bare, killed every male capable of waging war and left them where they fell, marched into Saudi Arabia done the same for them, turned it back toward Iran, done the same there and so on throughout the Islamic world, including all of Asia... finishing up with a lovely Thermo-nuclear mushroom over Pyongyang... provided the women and children of those respective former states, with a firm understanding of God's grace through Christ, given them the opportunity to turn from the cult of Islam, killed those who refused for the 3rd time... turned over the title of that desert over to Silicon Valley and told Europe, Russia and China that they could buy our oil for $300 brl and limited the sale of such to just enough for them to keep the hinges quiet.

But... no one asked me.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Iceweasel -

It's in the Nazi economy that we see the hallmarks of right wing government - very strong use of investment and dividends from the private sector, and a close relationship with the aristocracy as a result. This is crucial in understanding both the emphasis on class as well.

Thus, it is in this context that I also talk about small government as being a modern concept, unknown to the architects of the Nazi economy.

I'd be happy to recommend books on this if you are interested - particularly this one by the always excellent Richard Overy:

http://www.amazon.com/Economic-Recovery-1932-1938-Studies-History/dp/0521557674/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1416671455&sr=1-5&keywords=the nazi economy

I really have little interest in the US context here - it just isn't relevant to fascism.

Socialism is not right wing government..

See how the far left does not understand beyond their limited programming.

Socialism can be authoritarian or democratic. Your ignorance never ceases to amaze.

All Socialism is authoritarian, as democratic socialism rests entirely in Deceit... its execution being exclusively Fraudulent and all of such resting in the Ignorance of the culture which succumbs to both.

You see scamp, absent Deceit, Fraud and Ignorance, socialism cannot exist.

It's how they all get the power they need. Like our Progressives, they lie and lie and lie and Lie and LIE and LIE about who they and what they are and what they want

Yup...

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Seriously what is the point to threads like this? Was Hitler right wing or left wing to borrow a line from Hillary Clinton what difference does it make at this point the right and the left of today have nothing in common with Hitler his polices or his ideology.

Yes.. what difference does [The TRUTH] make?

Some of us feel, 'it' makes ALL THE DIFFERENCE.

 

[Iceweasel]

I'm looking at your articles. Not sure who wrote the bit when you click "state socialism", just some person, it's not a peer reviewed article or anything like this. I wonder if this person is a right wing person with an agenda or not.

He backed it up with quotes. I'll quote it again for you since you're having trouble with it, plus the source of the quote.


"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." --Adolf Hitler

(Speech of May 1, 1927. Quoted by Toland, 1976, p. 306)

However, I'll take what is there.

Hitler was right wing because he had a hierarchical society. The idea that the Aryans (whoever they were) were higher than others. Hitler was at the top, his cronies were just below him, those in the Nazi Party were above those who weren't.

There's nothing inherently right wing about a hierachy. All socialist systems have one too. You are trying to squirm away from reality.

 

[regent]

Just because skinheads/KKK in this country mistakenly grabbed the Nazi symbols for their beliefs doesn't make the original Nazis like bumpkins in the US. They both share a hatred of Jews and non-Aryans, but the Nazis were a social/culture/economic revolution in Germany where they made everyone in society conform for the "common good."

Conservatives don't believe in a centralized government forcing everyone to conform and blindly follow a leader bloviating from a podium.....uh that would be liberals. Liberals are the ones that want to socialize medical care in this country like the Nazis. Liberals believe in communal groups working together as a collective like the Nazis. Liberals believe in the government taking over companies for the "common good" while letting a few elites control those companies....like the Nazis.

When someone goes out of their way to point their finger at conservatives and claim we are like the Nazis....they are doing it to cover their own ass, their own Nazi ass.

For the record Otto Von Bismarck brought socialized medicine to Germany in the late 1800's; Otto was hardly a liberal and in fact, brought socialized medicine to Germany to beat the the communist's to the draw. As for the German companies they worked hand in glove with the Nazi's and Hitler.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Progressive Holy Trinity

 

[blackhawk]

Seriously what is the point to threads like this? Was Hitler right wing or left wing to borrow a line from Hillary Clinton what difference does it make at this point the right and the left of today have nothing in common with Hitler his polices or his ideology.

Yes.. what difference does [The TRUTH] make?

Some of us feel, 'it' makes ALL THE DIFFERENCE.

The truth is Hitler was a sick deranged genocidal son of a bitch.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Just because skinheads/KKK in this country mistakenly grabbed the Nazi symbols for their beliefs doesn't make the original Nazis like bumpkins in the US. They both share a hatred of Jews and non-Aryans, but the Nazis were a social/culture/economic revolution in Germany where they made everyone in society conform for the "common good."

Conservatives don't believe in a centralized government forcing everyone to conform and blindly follow a leader bloviating from a podium.....uh that would be liberals. Liberals are the ones that want to socialize medical care in this country like the Nazis. Liberals believe in communal groups working together as a collective like the Nazis. Liberals believe in the government taking over companies for the "common good" while letting a few elites control those companies....like the Nazis.

When someone goes out of their way to point their finger at conservatives and claim we are like the Nazis....they are doing it to cover their own ass, their own Nazi ass.

For the record Otto Von Bismarck brought socialized medicine to Germany in the late 1800's; Otto was hardly a liberal and in fact, brought socialized medicine to Germany to beat the the communist's to the draw. As for the German companies they worked hand in glove with the Nazi's and Hitler.

Yeah... ya see, that is what happens. Now where would Germany have been in 1914, if it had not been flat ass broke from trying to out communist the communists? Odds are that they would not have made the SUPREMELY bad decisions which lead them into the first inevitable result of socialism, which would not have left them bankrupt and primed to make the supremely bad decisions which lead them to the second inevitable result of socialism.

 

[Iceweasel]

Quotations from Hitler

In this excerpt from his memoirs General Leon Degrelle, former leader of the Belgian contingent of the Waffen-SS, describes how Adolf Hitler gained the enthusiastic support of the working people of Germany.

One of the first labor reforms to benefit the German workers was the establishment of annual paid vacation. The Socialist French Popular Front, in 1936, would make a show of having invented the concept of paid vacation, and stingily at that, only one week per year. But Adolf Hitler originated the idea, and two or three times as generously, from the first month of his coming to power in 1933.


Every factory employee from then on would have the legal right to a paid vacation. Until then, in Germany paid holidays where they applied at all did not exceed four or five days, and nearly half the younger workers had no leave entitlement at all. Hitler, on the other hand, favored the younger workers. Vacations were not handed out blindly, and the youngest workers were granted time off more generously. It was a humane action; a young person has more need of rest and fresh air for the development of his strength and vigor just coming into maturity. Basic vacation time was twelve days, and then from age 25 on it went up to 18 days. After ten years with the company, workers got 21 days, three times what the French socialists would grant the workers of their country in 1936.

…. The work day itself had been reduced to a tolerable norm of eight hours, since the forty-hour week as well, in Europe, was first initiated by Hitler. And beyond that legal limit, each additional hour had to be paid at a considerably increased rate. As another innovation, work breaks were made longer; two hours every day in order to let the worker relax and to make use of the playing fields that the large industries were required to provide.




… workers' rights to job security were non-existent. Hitler saw to it that those rights were strictly spelled out. The employer had to announce any dismissal four weeks in advance. The employee then had a period of up to two months in which to lodge a protest. The dismissal could also be annulled by the Honor of Work Tribunal. What was the Honor of Work Tribunal? Also called the Tribunal of Social Honor, it was the third of the three great elements or layers of protection and defense that were to the benefit of every German worker. The first was the Council of Trust. The second was the Labor Commission.

The Council of Trust was charged with attending to the establishment and the development of a real community spirit between management and labor. "In any business enterprise", the Reich law stated, "the employer and head of the enterprise, the employees and workers, personnel of the enterprise, shall work jointly towards the goal of the enterprise and the common good of the nation."


Neither would any longer be the victim of the other-not the worker facing the arbitrariness of the employer nor the employer facing the blackmail of strikes for political purposes. Article 35 of the Reich labor law stated that: "Every member of an Aryan enterprise community shall assume the responsibilities required by his position in the said common enterprise." In other words, at the head of the company or the enterprise would be a living, breathing executive in charge, not a moneybags with unconditional power. "The interest of the community may require that an incapable or unworthy employer be relieved of his duties"

The employer would no longer be inaccessible and all-powerful, authoritatively determining the conditions of hiring and firing his staff. He, too, would be subject to the workshop regulations, which he would have to respect, exactly as the least of his employees. The law conferred honor and responsibility on the employer only insofar as he merited it.

Every business enterprise of 20 or more persons was to have its "Council of Trust". The two to ten members of this council would be chosen from among the staff by the head of the enterprise. The ordinance of application of 10 March 1934 of the above law further stated: "The staff shall be called upon to decide for or against the established list in a secret vote, and all salaried employees, including apprentices of 21 years of age or older, will take part in the vote. Voting shall be done by putting a number before the names of the candidates in order of preference, or by striking out certain names.


In contrast to the business councils of the preceding régime, the Council of Trust was no longer an instrument of class, but one of teamwork of the classes, composed of delegates of the staff as well as the head of the enterprise. The one could no longer act without the other. Compelled to coordinate their interests, though formerly rivals, they would now cooperate to establish by mutual consent the regulations which were to determine working conditions.


The second agency that would ensure the orderly development of the new German social system was the institution of the "Workers' Commissioners". They would essentially be conciliators and arbitrators. When gears were grinding, they were the ones who would have to apply the grease. They would see to it that the Councils of trust were functioning harmoniously to ensure that regulations of a given business enterprise were being carried out to the letter.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Seriously what is the point to threads like this? Was Hitler right wing or left wing to borrow a line from Hillary Clinton what difference does it make at this point the right and the left of today have nothing in common with Hitler his polices or his ideology.

Yes.. what difference does [The TRUTH] make?

Some of us feel, 'it' makes ALL THE DIFFERENCE.

The truth is Hitler was a sick deranged genocidal son of a bitch.

Yes... Hitler succumbed to perverse reasoning. Sadly such is the standard upon which left-think rests.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Oh so all those private enterprises were free to do what they would?

ROFLMNAO!

You're adorable. Ya really are.

What's the point you're trying to get out of this?

No, they would not have been "free to do what they would", but then which businesses in which countries are? Are businesses in the US allowed to do what they want? Assassinate who they like, get all the deals they would like?

Nazi Germany wasn't the freest place on earth. You seem to be trying to make out that if a business isn't free then it's Socialism. I don't get the link.

The point is, they were private business, run by private business people who often had strong links to the Nazi regime and did what many US companies do, go to their govt and throw favors, money etc at them (some would call it bribing) in order to win contracts and the like.

So the US is Socialist then?

Oh, you're more than adorable, you're just down right sexy.

 

[frigidweirdo]

What's this got to do with what I actually wrote?

It refutes it.

Really? Then you need to learn to communicate better.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Quotations from Hitler

In this excerpt from his memoirs General Leon Degrelle, former leader of the Belgian contingent of the Waffen-SS, describes how Adolf Hitler gained the enthusiastic support of the working people of Germany.

One of the first labor reforms to benefit the German workers was the establishment of annual paid vacation. The Socialist French Popular Front, in 1936, would make a show of having invented the concept of paid vacation, and stingily at that, only one week per year. But Adolf Hitler originated the idea, and two or three times as generously, from the first month of his coming to power in 1933.


Every factory employee from then on would have the legal right to a paid vacation. Until then, in Germany paid holidays where they applied at all did not exceed four or five days, and nearly half the younger workers had no leave entitlement at all. Hitler, on the other hand, favored the younger workers. Vacations were not handed out blindly, and the youngest workers were granted time off more generously. It was a humane action; a young person has more need of rest and fresh air for the development of his strength and vigor just coming into maturity. Basic vacation time was twelve days, and then from age 25 on it went up to 18 days. After ten years with the company, workers got 21 days, three times what the French socialists would grant the workers of their country in 1936.

…. The work day itself had been reduced to a tolerable norm of eight hours, since the forty-hour week as well, in Europe, was first initiated by Hitler. And beyond that legal limit, each additional hour had to be paid at a considerably increased rate. As another innovation, work breaks were made longer; two hours every day in order to let the worker relax and to make use of the playing fields that the large industries were required to provide.




… workers' rights to job security were non-existent. Hitler saw to it that those rights were strictly spelled out. The employer had to announce any dismissal four weeks in advance. The employee then had a period of up to two months in which to lodge a protest. The dismissal could also be annulled by the Honor of Work Tribunal. What was the Honor of Work Tribunal? Also called the Tribunal of Social Honor, it was the third of the three great elements or layers of protection and defense that were to the benefit of every German worker. The first was the Council of Trust. The second was the Labor Commission.

The Council of Trust was charged with attending to the establishment and the development of a real community spirit between management and labor. "In any business enterprise", the Reich law stated, "the employer and head of the enterprise, the employees and workers, personnel of the enterprise, shall work jointly towards the goal of the enterprise and the common good of the nation."


Neither would any longer be the victim of the other-not the worker facing the arbitrariness of the employer nor the employer facing the blackmail of strikes for political purposes. Article 35 of the Reich labor law stated that: "Every member of an Aryan enterprise community shall assume the responsibilities required by his position in the said common enterprise." In other words, at the head of the company or the enterprise would be a living, breathing executive in charge, not a moneybags with unconditional power. "The interest of the community may require that an incapable or unworthy employer be relieved of his duties"

The employer would no longer be inaccessible and all-powerful, authoritatively determining the conditions of hiring and firing his staff. He, too, would be subject to the workshop regulations, which he would have to respect, exactly as the least of his employees. The law conferred honor and responsibility on the employer only insofar as he merited it.

Every business enterprise of 20 or more persons was to have its "Council of Trust". The two to ten members of this council would be chosen from among the staff by the head of the enterprise. The ordinance of application of 10 March 1934 of the above law further stated: "The staff shall be called upon to decide for or against the established list in a secret vote, and all salaried employees, including apprentices of 21 years of age or older, will take part in the vote. Voting shall be done by putting a number before the names of the candidates in order of preference, or by striking out certain names.


In contrast to the business councils of the preceding régime, the Council of Trust was no longer an instrument of class, but one of teamwork of the classes, composed of delegates of the staff as well as the head of the enterprise. The one could no longer act without the other. Compelled to coordinate their interests, though formerly rivals, they would now cooperate to establish by mutual consent the regulations which were to determine working conditions.


The second agency that would ensure the orderly development of the new German social system was the institution of the "Workers' Commissioners". They would essentially be conciliators and arbitrators. When gears were grinding, they were the ones who would have to apply the grease. They would see to it that the Councils of trust were functioning harmoniously to ensure that regulations of a given business enterprise were being carried out to the letter.

So he was interested in the GERMAN WORKERS (note, this is ethnically German, not Jews, not blacks, not Slavs, but ethnically German, hence the National in National Socialist).

You're basically saying if you do anything for the workers of society, you're a socialist? Is this the Republican view of things? Screw the workers, give them nothing, absolutely nothing, take all for the business people?