How we know Hitler was right wing.

[ima]

Hitler was also responsible for israel coming into being. So basically, 9/11 was Hitler's fault.

 

[bripat9643]

Because it is not confirmed by every history book, every dictionary, or every historian.

Actually, it is.

Definition of fascism
noun
[mass noun]

an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
(in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practices: this is yet another example of health fascism in action.

Definition of fascism in Oxford Dictionaries (British & World English)

fascism (ˈfæʃɪzəm) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]

— n
1. any ideology or movement inspired by Italian Fascism, such as German National Socialism; any right-wing nationalist ideology or movement with an authoritarian and hierarchical structure that is fundamentally opposed to democracy and liberalism
2. any ideology, movement, programme, tendency, etc, that may be characterized as right-wing, chauvinist, authoritarian, etc
3. prejudice in relation to the subject specified: body fascism

Fascism | Define Fascism at Dictionary.com

That's three sources. You said "EVERY" source agrees with your definition.

All of the major historians to write on this topic have focused on Hitler's extreme right-wing views, many of whom are already listed on this thread. I've mentioned Richard Overy, Michael Marris, Ian Kershaw and Hannah Arendt, but also historians working at the time like Hildebrand are very clear on this.


I will ignore you usual incessant ranting and off-topic abuse.

You mean all the pinko propagandist who call themselves historians agree with your view. Hannah Arendt is one the biggest pinkos ever to get published. I don't know much about the other authors you mention, but my research indicates they were mostly uninterested in the economics of Fascism. They therefore have nothing to say about whether the Nazis were right-wing or left-wing. However, I'm sure they themselves are all just as left-wing as Hannah Arendt.

You keep referring to theses authors, but you never quote anything from them that supports your claims. My suspicion is that you can't.

 

[editec]

China so-called socialist government enjoys a MONOPOLY on labor, folks.

The Chinese military owns many of its factories.

Even more than the USA China's INSIDERS are becoming fabulously wealthy off the labors of its beleaguered working class.

Those of you seeking to prove that capitalism or communism or socialism is why our nation or China is doing well or badly are missing the obvious.

Neither the USA or China are either authentic capitalist or socialist nations.

They are BOTH kleptocracies

 

[Intense]

Locke -

Socialism is definitely a disease of the left. There is no question at all about that.

However, as has been explained earlier on this thread, at the time the Nazis were formed in the 1920's, the term was being used right across the political spectrum, and had not become the synonym for Marxism it is used as today.

What you fail to distinguish is the competition between different brands of Socialism. Hitler was an advocate of National Socialism.

 

[Saigon]

Locke -

Socialism is definitely a disease of the left. There is no question at all about that.

However, as has been explained earlier on this thread, at the time the Nazis were formed in the 1920's, the term was being used right across the political spectrum, and had not become the synonym for Marxism it is used as today.

What you fail to distinguish is the competition between different brands of Socialism. Hitler was an advocate of National Socialism.

True, but as stated earlier on the thread, Hitler preferred the term 'Social Revolutionary' because he did not want people to make the mistake some posters here have - of thinking he meant Marxian socialism.

 

[Saigon]

You mean all the pinko propagandist who call themselves historians agree with your view. Hannah Arendt is one the biggest pinkos ever to get published. I don't know much about the other authors you mention, but my research indicates they were mostly uninterested in the economics of Fascism. They therefore have nothing to say about whether the Nazis were right-wing or left-wing. However, I'm sure they themselves are all just as left-wing as Hannah Arendt.

Actually, Hannah Arendt spent 4 years in a relationship with Nazi philosopher Martin Heidigger, and was in no way a 'pinko'. It's your bias that is evident here, not hers. Her book on Eichmann is startlingly balanced and fair - which is probably why she is the scourge of Revisionists.

For material on Nazi economics, Richard Overy is your man.

When Hitler came to power in 1933 he had two aims for the economy: a rapid recovery from the depths of the Great Slump and the creation of a vast economic foundation for Germany's renewed bid for world power. These eleven essays explore the tension between Hitler's vision of an armed economy and the reality of German economic and social life. Richard Overy argues that the German economy was much less crisis-ridden in 1939 than its enemies supposed, and that Hitler, far from limiting his war effort, tried to mobilize the economy for "total war" from 1939 onwards. Only the poor organization of the Nazi state and the interference of the military prevented higher levels of military output. Many of these essays challenge accepted views of the Third Reich. In his introduction Richard Overy reflects on the issues the essays raise, and the ways in which the subject is changing. Often thought-provoking, always informed, War and Economy opens a window on a essential aspect of Hitler's Germany.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/War-Economy-Third-Reich-Overy/dp/0198205996]War and Economy in the Third Reich: R. J. Overy: 9780198205999: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]

Again, he is very fair, very balanced - and in no way at all left wing.

 

[Saigon]

He hated Marxism, not socialism. You keep trying to ignore that fact no matter how many times someone informs you of it.

I do ignore it, because it is has no basis in reality.

Marxism (and/or Marxism-Leninism) is not only the predominant form of socialism, but Marx was the author of what we understand Socialism to be. There would likely be no Socialism witout Marx (and Engels) and the difference between the two terms is paper thin, if there is a difference at all. Many sources use the terms interchangeably when discussing movements such as the FSLN, Russian Bolsheviks or other peasant rebellions.

You might as well claim that someone hated Maoism, but loved Chinese Communism.

 

[regent]

The incredible thing about this whole concept is to some that Hitler was the voice of truth. It seems if Hitler called a horse's tail a leg the horse had to have five legs. Most of the world was on to fascism early on and now, more than ever, they have correctly labeled Hitler's Nazi Germany as fascist.
The bigger question, is why is it so important to now try and change Hitler's Germany to socialism, and the evidence used, is a label of an organization that Hitler simply used to gain power. The evidence was and is overwhelming that Hitler inserts "Socialism into the party name simply as a lure to discontented workers." Time magazine 1933.

 

[Uncensored2008]

.

Hey, how many people think that desperately trying to tie Adolph Hitler to a contemporary American political ideology -- while shamelessly trivializing the slaughter of millions of inoocent people -- just for a temporary sliver of perceived political advantage on an internet message board is absurd, insulting, tedious, embarrassing, ridiculous and transparent?

There is a good reason to tie Hitler to Obama, Obama is a fascist.

Oh, not in the cartoon sense that you of the left use, but in actual policy. Obama has engaged in government control of the means of production through a synthesis of corporate and federal power structures. Where Blue Cross starts, and the IRS ends, is impossible to say. The lines are blurred under Obamacare, well connected corporations are agents of the state. This isn't speculation or rhetoric, this is Obamacare.

It's reasonable that people would want to examine Fascists of earlier eras, to gauge what we might expect from Obama.

 

[Saigon]

There is a good reason to tie Hitler to Obama, Obama is a fascist.

Let's try and keep this thread on the level of common sense, shall we?

Surely there are enough threads of the "Obama is a (insert adjective at random)" threads for the children to play on already?

 

[WUN]

Finaly, what seperates right wing tyranny from left wing tyranny are the facts of Capital and Class.

Socialism and Marxism are based around the worker and the working classes. Although Hitler appealed to the masses as well, his key support came from the upper classes. Socialism sought to destroy class. Fascism sought to entrench the classes even more deeply into society.

Socialism sought to remove capital from society. Fascism worked through capital, enriching the upper classes and using wealth to garner support. Hitler imagined a society in which capitalism and investment thrived - Stali imagined a society in which capitalism and investment did not exist.

There are other areas of difference as well. Hitler favoured:

Individualism over collectivism.
Merit over equality.
Competition over cooperation.
Capitalism over Marxism.
Nationalism over internationalism.
Exclusiveness over inclusiveness.
Common sense over theory or science.

Stalin's views were essentially the opposite in each instance.

Hitler did not ascribe to American capitalism or Russian communism/socialism. He thought U.S. and Russia both got it wrong and Fascism is it's own separate animal. Fascism is not geared towards capitalism or socialism, it's geared to the state, but without the 'sharing' or collectivism. Facism doesn't want corporations or workers to have much power, it wants corporations and workers to succeed only as it benefits the government. Fascism dictates that government controls BOTH businesses and workers to benefit the state, not that the government supports either businesses or workers.

I agree with most political scientists that it is more rightwing than leftwing, but it's a strange rightwing that borrows some of the authortarian tactics/elements from communism, which is one reason why I find it ironic that Hitler hated communism so much.

That's because authoritarianism is not intrinsically linked with communism. We see examples in the world that embody both traits and assume those states bought those two ideas as a package -- rather than two separate ideas that arrived on different trains and just happened to wind up in the same place.

Otherwise, good analysis.

Pure communism is not instrinsically linked with authortarianism, but pure communism has never existed in the real world, only in theory or on paper. You look at any communist regime in history and there is an element of authortarianism. True, if you pick Stalin he is probably the most authortarian dictator in the history of communist regimes, but he is not the only one. Mao was a authortarian dictator, no doubt about it. More recent Communist regimes are typically authortarian oligarchies that exert a great amount of control over the populace (for their own good?). If you can come up with an example of a communist regime that wasn't/isn't authortarian in nature, I'd be interested in discussing that.

 

[Oddball]

.

Hey, how many people think that desperately trying to tie Adolph Hitler to a contemporary American political ideology -- while shamelessly trivializing the slaughter of millions of inoocent people -- just for a temporary sliver of perceived political advantage on an internet message board is absurd, insulting, tedious, embarrassing, ridiculous and transparent?

There is a good reason to tie Hitler to Obama, Obama is a fascist.

Oh, not in the cartoon sense that you of the left use, but in actual policy. Obama has engaged in government control of the means of production through a synthesis of corporate and federal power structures. Where Blue Cross starts, and the IRS ends, is impossible to say. The lines are blurred under Obamacare, well connected corporations are agents of the state. This isn't speculation or rhetoric, this is Obamacare.

It's reasonable that people would want to examine Fascists of earlier eras, to gauge what we might expect from Obama.

QFT.

 

[Oddball]

Locke -

I am sure you aware (from the OP if nowhere else) that Hitler devoted his life to destroying Marxism, but your post does not seem to reflect that reality.

He hated Marxism, not socialism. You keep trying to ignore that fact no matter how many times someone informs you of it.

He hated Marxism because it was a competitor with National Socialism.

Stalin and Hitler were little more than urban street hoodlums, fighting for drug turf on a continental scale.

The whole navel contemplating exercise in trying to make fascists out as right wingers, makes as much sense as the Bloods are conservative because they have red colors and the Crips are democrats for their blue bandanas.....As in none at all.

 

[Pogo]

Locke -

Socialism is definitely a disease of the left. There is no question at all about that.

However, as has been explained earlier on this thread, at the time the Nazis were formed in the 1920's, the term was being used right across the political spectrum, and had not become the synonym for Marxism it is used as today.

What you fail to distinguish is the competition between different brands of Socialism. Hitler was an advocate of National Socialism.

True, but as stated earlier on the thread, Hitler preferred the term 'Social Revolutionary' because he did not want people to make the mistake some posters here have - of thinking he meant Marxian socialism.

True. In the term "national socialism" as used in 1930s Germany, the keyword, and all the emphasis, was on the word "national". That was their whole focus-- the nation, the Volk, the glorious Fatherland. The word "socialism", already there before Hitler, meant little more than the word "party" did.

 

[bripat9643]

Locke -

Socialism is definitely a disease of the left. There is no question at all about that.

However, as has been explained earlier on this thread, at the time the Nazis were formed in the 1920's, the term was being used right across the political spectrum, and had not become the synonym for Marxism it is used as today.

What you fail to distinguish is the competition between different brands of Socialism. Hitler was an advocate of National Socialism.

True, but as stated earlier on the thread, Hitler preferred the term 'Social Revolutionary' because he did not want people to make the mistake some posters here have - of thinking he meant Marxian socialism.

No one has claimed Hitler has a Marxist. He was a socialist, however, and that makes him a leftist.

 

[bripat9643]

What you fail to distinguish is the competition between different brands of Socialism. Hitler was an advocate of National Socialism.

True, but as stated earlier on the thread, Hitler preferred the term 'Social Revolutionary' because he did not want people to make the mistake some posters here have - of thinking he meant Marxian socialism.

True. In the term "national socialism" as used in 1930s Germany, the keyword, and all the emphasis, was on the word "national". That was their whole focus-- the nation, the Volk, the glorious Fatherland. The word "socialism", already there before Hitler, meant little more than the word "party" did.

What a load of horse squeeze. The bottom line is that Hitler opposed capitalism and supported socialism. He was a leftist. Nationalism is neither left nor right, expect in the imaginations of modern day left-wing imbeciles.

 

[Pogo]

Hitler did not ascribe to American capitalism or Russian communism/socialism. He thought U.S. and Russia both got it wrong and Fascism is it's own separate animal. Fascism is not geared towards capitalism or socialism, it's geared to the state, but without the 'sharing' or collectivism. Facism doesn't want corporations or workers to have much power, it wants corporations and workers to succeed only as it benefits the government. Fascism dictates that government controls BOTH businesses and workers to benefit the state, not that the government supports either businesses or workers.

I agree with most political scientists that it is more rightwing than leftwing, but it's a strange rightwing that borrows some of the authortarian tactics/elements from communism, which is one reason why I find it ironic that Hitler hated communism so much.

That's because authoritarianism is not intrinsically linked with communism. We see examples in the world that embody both traits and assume those states bought those two ideas as a package -- rather than two separate ideas that arrived on different trains and just happened to wind up in the same place.

Otherwise, good analysis.

Pure communism is not instrinsically linked with authortarianism, but pure communism has never existed in the real world, only in theory or on paper. You look at any communist regime in history and there is an element of authortarianism. True, if you pick Stalin he is probably the most authortarian dictator in the history of communist regimes, but he is not the only one. Mao was a authortarian dictator, no doubt about it. More recent Communist regimes are typically authortarian oligarchies that exert a great amount of control over the populace (for their own good?). If you can come up with an example of a communist regime that wasn't/isn't authortarian in nature, I'd be interested in discussing that.

I'd agree with all of that. Another factor that forgot to get mentioned is the cultural: both China and Russia, the examples put forth, already had long legacies of authoritarian rule, which from a practical basis probably had far more to do with the styles of Mao and Stalin than anything else. My point was and is that the authoritarianism they used was coincident with communism, rather than a causal relationship derived from it, as the implication has been put forth. The same is true of Hitler's authoritarianism; it was coincident with his philosophies on the right, not caused by them.

Along with the frantic revisionism of the known history of World War Two there's this disturbing fad of simplistically and slavishly linking authoritarianism with one side or the other of the political spectrum ... rather than the independent dynamic it is. It's every bit as silly as the false equation "right equals less government, left equals more government".

 

[Rocko]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuddISPKaOI]GUESS WHO THIS IS ??????????????? - YouTube[/ame]

 

[bripat9643]

You mean all the pinko propagandist who call themselves historians agree with your view. Hannah Arendt is one the biggest pinkos ever to get published. I don't know much about the other authors you mention, but my research indicates they were mostly uninterested in the economics of Fascism. They therefore have nothing to say about whether the Nazis were right-wing or left-wing. However, I'm sure they themselves are all just as left-wing as Hannah Arendt.

Actually, Hannah Arendt spent 4 years in a relationship with Nazi philosopher Martin Heidigger, and was in no way a 'pinko'. It's your bias that is evident here, not hers. Her book on Eichmann is startlingly balanced and fair - which is probably why she is the scourge of Revisionists.

Hannah Arendt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In 1940, she married the German poet and Marxist philosopher Heinrich Blücher, by then a former member of the Communist Party.​

Furthermore, she taught ad Berkley and The New School for Social Research, both bastions of Marxism in American higher education. She only looks "balanced" from the perspective of the congenital Marxist.

For material on Nazi economics, Richard Overy is your man.

When Hitler came to power in 1933 he had two aims for the economy: a rapid recovery from the depths of the Great Slump and the creation of a vast economic foundation for Germany's renewed bid for world power. These eleven essays explore the tension between Hitler's vision of an armed economy and the reality of German economic and social life. Richard Overy argues that the German economy was much less crisis-ridden in 1939 than its enemies supposed, and that Hitler, far from limiting his war effort, tried to mobilize the economy for "total war" from 1939 onwards. Only the poor organization of the Nazi state and the interference of the military prevented higher levels of military output. Many of these essays challenge accepted views of the Third Reich. In his introduction Richard Overy reflects on the issues the essays raise, and the ways in which the subject is changing. Often thought-provoking, always informed, War and Economy opens a window on a essential aspect of Hitler's Germany.

War and Economy in the Third Reich: R. J. Overy: 9780198205999: Amazon.com: Books

Again, he is very fair, very balanced - and in no way at all left wing.

ROFL! The guy doesn't even understand that nature of the fascist economy. "Poor organization" is the result of government running the economy. It's impossible for the government to make the millions of decisions that must be made in any economy. That's why command economies always fail, and that's what Nazi Germany was: a command economy.

The German economy wasn't mobilized for "total war" until about 1943 when Albert Speer was put in charge.

This guy is a poser. Like most historians, he doesn't know jack squat about economics.

 

[Saigon]

What a load of horse squeeze. The bottom line is that Hitler opposed capitalism and supported socialism. He was a leftist. Nationalism is neither left nor right, expect in the imaginations of modern day left-wing imbeciles.

I don't know where you are getting your information from, BriPat, but any source that tells that that Hitler opposed capitalism is one to avoid. It's nonsense.

It's odd to me that you post a lot about propaganda and avoiding certain sources - but seem to be extremely gullible with what little you do read.