How we know Hitler was right wing.

[bripat9643]

The point is that only socialists need to try to differentiate "left" socialism from "right" socialism.

Fact remains that they are the same authoritarian central planner shit wrapped in different toilet paper.

You want to pick flecks of pepper out of those piles of shit and make big scholarly observations about their minute differences in color and grain, that's your time to waste.

I'm very glad this came up - maybe I should have addressed it in the OP.

I am not a socialist, and couldn't give a shit what socialists think. Actually, I don't much care what anyone who wants to re-write history thinks.

I am fascinated by this topic purely and simply because I love history. Facts are facts.

Anyone who denies that thugs like Stalin, Mao, Lenin, Castro, Ceacescu, Xoxha and Tito were left wing is wrong. It is as simple as that.

The left needs to own it, and teach it.

Anyone who denies that thugs like Antonescu, Franco, Pinochet and Hitler were right right wing is wrong. It is as simple as that.

The right needs to own it, and teach it.

And ask yourself - which side on this board are denying those lists?

The claim that you aren't a left-winger is hysterical.

 

[bripat9643]

Westwall -

I have been to Katyn and yes, I have studied the subject.

I agree that Poles were less than popular in both regimes, but that hardly changes the fact that the regimes were essentially opposite in their view of populations.

At the risk of posting the same thing again and again and again, many racial minorities prospoered under Stalin, who was himself from a racial minority. Under Hitler, no racial minority was safe.

Their attitude was the same in that both felt free to persecute and even murder large groups of people, something they could never get away with under a limited constitutional government.

Hitler rewarded academics and business leaders (if they played ball), whereas Stalin purged them.

Neither one of those behaviors is endorsed by conservatives, (i.e., right-wingers.)

It's not difficult stuff, this.

What I do agree with that is that "normal" people, perhaps a family living in the suburbs and working in a factory, would have experienced fear. Probably more so under Stalin, where they may have been cast as "wreckers" if they questioned anything.

No it isn't difficult. Your carping about particulars specific to each situation rather than the broad principles that made it possible.

 

[jgarden]

Trade Unions and Nazi Germany

When Hitler came to power in January 1933, he saw trade unions as exercising more power over the workers than he could. Therefore, trade unions were seen as a challenge to be dispensed with. Hitler knew that he needed the workers to be on his side but he could not allow trade unions to exert the potential power they had. Therefore, trade unions were banned in Nazi Germany and the state took over the role of looking after the working class.

Just months after Hitler was appointed Chancellor, he took the decision to end trade unions in Nazi Germany. On May 2nd, 1933, police units occupied all trade unions headquarters and union officials and leaders were arrested. The funds that belonged to the trade unions – effectively this was workers money – were confiscated.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/trade_unions_nazi_germany.htm

The leadership rade unions were considered to be left-wing and were systematically arrested, along with all Germans who were identified as communists.

Hitler was aligned with Mussolini and provided military assistance to General Franco during the Spanish Civil War - against the republicans.

 

[editec]

Authoritarianism is a form of social organization characterized by submission to authority as well as the administration of said authority. In politics, an authoritarian government is one in which political authority is concentrated in a small group of politicians.[1] It is usually opposed to individualism and libertarianism.

It is more accurate to describe regimes based on their behaviors.

Partisans, naturally want to cloud the issue by using terms that have NO REAL MEANINGS.

Left means NOTHING because Authoritarians goverments that call themselves socialist or communist are as common as dust

Right means NOTHING because Authopritarian goverments that call themselves democratic or republican are likewise as common as dust (hell folks we are living in one, right now!)

That is EXACTLY WHY partisans choose to use words that have no meaning when they come here setting out to score one for THEIR TEAM

Partisans are NOT interested in truth, they're interested in repressing the truth. that is exactly thyy they use words that have no meaning and plenty of wiggle room to obscure the REAL meanings

Where do YOU fit on the Authoritarianism-Rebellion Scale?

http://www.yorku.ca/rokada/psyctest/author.pdf

It would be fascinating if the people on this board took this test answering these questions honestly.

I suspect that many of posters here would find that they lean more into the authoritarian personality type than libertarian personality types. (I also suspect every one of them already knows it, too)

Simply hating today's government does NOT make one a LIBERTARIAN.

Some of you can scream about how much you love freedom till the jackboots come home, but your POSTS tell the REAL story about who you guys really are.


Your rhetorical games impress absolutely no one.

 

[bripat9643]

Trade Unions and Nazi Germany

When Hitler came to power in January 1933, he saw trade unions as exercising more power over the workers than he could. Therefore, trade unions were seen as a challenge to be dispensed with. Hitler knew that he needed the workers to be on his side but he could not allow trade unions to exert the potential power they had. Therefore, trade unions were banned in Nazi Germany and the state took over the role of looking after the working class.

Just months after Hitler was appointed Chancellor, he took the decision to end trade unions in Nazi Germany. On May 2nd, 1933, police units occupied all trade unions headquarters and union officials and leaders were arrested. The funds that belonged to the trade unions – effectively this was workers money – were confiscated.

Trade Unions and Nazi Germany

The leadership rade unions were considered to be left-wing and were systematically arrested, along with all Germans who were identified as communists.

Hitler was aligned with Mussolini and provided military assistance to General Franco during the Spanish Civil War - against the republicans.

The "Republicans" were communists. No one has ever denied that claim that Hitler didn't like communists. However, that doesn't make him a right-winger. Hitler believed in socialism, and so did Franco.

As for the trade unions, Lenin and Stalin also did away with trade unions. That proves exactly nothing. Getting rid of opposition groups is always done once total control is achieved.

 

[editec]

The "Republicans" were communists. No one has ever denied that claim that Hitler didn't like communists. However, that doesn't make him a right-winger. Hitler believed in socialism, and so did Franco.

As for the trade unions, Lenin and Stalin also did away with trade unions. That proves exactly nothing. Getting rid of opposition groups is always done once total control is achieved.

ABsolutely right.

The term RIGHT or LEFT means NOTHING when it comes to describing what a government really is.

Its a meaningless term.

 

[bripat9643]

The "Republicans" were communists. No one has ever denied that claim that Hitler didn't like communists. However, that doesn't make him a right-winger. Hitler believed in socialism, and so did Franco.

As for the trade unions, Lenin and Stalin also did away with trade unions. That proves exactly nothing. Getting rid of opposition groups is always done once total control is achieved.

ABsolutely right.

The term RIGHT or LEFT means NOTHING when it comes to describing what a government really is.

Its a meaningless term.

Horseshit. We can characterize the ideology of the people who run the government and create its laws. Nazis and fascists are left-wingers.

End of story.

 

[Saigon]

BriPat -

Do you think it is coincidence that the posters who deny Hitler are right wing are also the posters who simply refuse outright to read?

In the time you spent posting absolute gibberish on this thread, you could have read a book on a topic you claim to be interested in, and learnt enought to post sensibly on the topic.

 

[Saigon]

No one has ever denied that claim that Hitler didn't like communists. However, that doesn't make him a right-winger. Hitler believed in socialism, and so did Franco.

You really could not make this stuff up!!

 

[jgarden]

The Spanish Civil War (1936 - 1939)

The Nationalists (nacionales), (also called insurgents, rebels—or, by opponents, Francoists or Fascists) feared national fragmentation and opposed the separatist movements. They were chiefly defined by their anti-communism, which galvanized diverse or opposed movements like falangists and monarchists. Their leaders had a generally wealthier, more conservative, monarchist, landowning background.

The Nationalist side included the Carlists and Alfonsist monarchists, Spanish nationalists, the fascist Falange, and most conservatives and monarchist liberals. Virtually all Nationalist groups had strong Catholic convictions and supported the native Spanish clergy. The Nationals included the majority of the Catholic clergy and practitioners (outside of the Basque region), important elements of the army, most large landowners, and many businessmen.

The war ended with the victory of the Nationalists and the exile of thousands of left-leaning Spaniards, many of whom fled to refugee camps in Southern France. With the establishment of a Fascist dictatorship led by General Francisco Franco in the aftermath of the Civil War, all right-wing parties were fused into the structure of the Franco regime

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Civil_War

The Spanish Civil War provides one of the clearest indicators that Nazi Germany was a right-wing dictatorship that was intent on supported the emergence of other right-wing dictatorships that would later serve as allies.

Germany, Italy and Portugal all sent troops and military equipment to support the Nationalists led by General Franco and supported by much of the military and other conservative elements in Spanish society. Another strong supporter of the Nationalists was the conservative Catholic clergy who were adamantly anti communist (atheism).

Their opponents, the Republicans, "ranged from centrists who supported a moderately capitalist liberal democracy to revolutionary anarchists." They were primarily secular, the educated middle class. trade unionists and centered in Spain's major urban centers.

The Republlicans were also supported by the "international brigades" of volunteers, the Soviet Union and Mexico.

 

[Oddball]

The war ended with the victory of the Nationalists and the exile of thousands of left-leaning Spaniards, many of whom fled to refugee camps in Southern France. With the establishment of a Fascist dictatorship led by General Francisco Franco in the aftermath of the Civil War, all right-wing parties were fused into the structure of the Franco regime

Wow...In a war between socialist factions, the socialists that lost were exiled?

Say it ain't so!

 

[Saigon]

The war ended with the victory of the Nationalists and the exile of thousands of left-leaning Spaniards, many of whom fled to refugee camps in Southern France. With the establishment of a Fascist dictatorship led by General Francisco Franco in the aftermath of the Civil War, all right-wing parties were fused into the structure of the Franco regime

Wow...In a war between socialist factions, the socialists that lost were exiled?

Say it ain't so!

It ain't so.

If you are going to make up history, at least try and come up with stories that someone might believe.

 

[editec]

ABsolutely right.

The term RIGHT or LEFT means NOTHING when it comes to describing what a government really is.

Its a meaningless term.

Horseshit. We can characterize the ideology of the people who run the government and create its laws. Nazis and fascists are left-wingers.

End of story.

Afterward to your story

No, we cannot do that, but You can... because why?

Because YOU are partisan, Lad.

 

[editec]

BriPat -

Do you think it is coincidence that the posters who deny Hitler are right wing are also the posters who simply refuse outright to read?

In the time you spent posting absolute gibberish on this thread, you could have read a book on a topic you claim to be interested in, and learnt enought to post sensibly on the topic.

I think it no coincidence that the partisans on this board insist on debating nonsense.

That's the nature of partisans.

They imagine that if they win a debate, they can change reality.

 

[beagle9]

Now I have debated in the past only to his affiliations. He used the social wing and then he turned around and used the wealthy as well.

Bottom line he was brilliant. He played both sides against each other.

Does this tactic ring a bell?

"Using the wealthy" is meaningless. Obama uses the wealthy. Is he a right-winger? Being wealthy doesn't make you a right-winger as examples like Soros and Buffet make emphatically clear.

Yes, if anything could Obama be just as wise or could he be driven to become as brilliantly insane as Hitler was possibly, in which could make him just as dangerous as Hitler was possibly ? This nation if not careful about what he is capable of himself while in power (i.e. best keep a sharp eye out on this one maybe), could possibly travel down some deep dark roads as well during his 8 year run. So far his ability to have many gravitate towards him regardless of his past is noteworthy, especially after all that is known about him so far, yet he still charms the vote out of them with his slickness and demeanor as is used, and for many these days it is all that is needed, just a simple smile & handshake and their done. He has a persuasion about him in this way with the masses, and Hitler also had this persuasion about himself as well did he not? So how are they different still yet I wonder ? Could it be that Obama has the same attributes possibly, but looks through his glass favoring a different set of circumstances and people as being dealt with now, and is he the same in his favoritisms as Hitler was, thus becoming popular in the same ways with certain people just as Hitler had become ? Looking back at history can usually allow us to compare the attributes, demeanors, characteristics of a leader, and make ourselves aware of those who will rise again in character in which could easily be found yet again within them, and at any given time in history. History has a way "always" of repeating itself, and as long as there are nations struggling, and people warring with each other be it within and/or without, economies struggling, resources becoming scarce, the poor being looked upon as pariah's, the wealthy becoming to greedy and controlling with most of the wealth, governments becoming to greedy in taxation along with other bogus revenue drawing needs, it could easily give rise to another tyrant/dictator once again in the world (even in America this could happen), therefore causing history to repeat itself yet again and again if not careful.

What is the best comparison so far to Obama, as to be found when looking back in history now at the various leaders around the world, or is it to early to tell yet ? In the twenty five stated Nazi policies I read here, I see a lot of Obama in those Nazi policies laid out, did anyone else take note of that maybe ? Not picking on Obama, but as he is our leader now, is it fair to assess his character by his actions thus far in these ways ? I know he is not Hitler, but comparing policies in which I read in those 25, there is a lot of similarities to grapple with in analyzing these leaders or parties being dealt with as found within the history of this world.

 

[beagle9]

The "Republicans" were communists. No one has ever denied that claim that Hitler didn't like communists. However, that doesn't make him a right-winger. Hitler believed in socialism, and so did Franco.

As for the trade unions, Lenin and Stalin also did away with trade unions. That proves exactly nothing. Getting rid of opposition groups is always done once total control is achieved.

ABsolutely right.

The term RIGHT or LEFT means NOTHING when it comes to describing what a government really is.

Its a meaningless term.

It's simply a good cop / bad cop term is it not ? This way the government politicians can keep the people off balance while they do just what they want to do while in power, and this keeps going while the people argue and stay confused just as we see going on right here.

 

[beagle9]

BriPat -

Do you think it is coincidence that the posters who deny Hitler are right wing are also the posters who simply refuse outright to read?

In the time you spent posting absolute gibberish on this thread, you could have read a book on a topic you claim to be interested in, and learnt enought to post sensibly on the topic.

I think it no coincidence that the partisans on this board insist on debating nonsense.

That's the nature of partisans.

They imagine that if they win a debate, they can change reality.

Obama won the debates, became President, and therefore is trying to change reality as we speak.

 

[Intense]

This is the Political Forum. Let's try to focus on making your point, supporting it, yourself, and moving on. Let's limit the derailing. Thanks.

 

[Pogo]

Now I have debated in the past only to his affiliations. He used the social wing and then he turned around and used the wealthy as well.

Bottom line he was brilliant. He played both sides against each other.

Does this tactic ring a bell?

"Using the wealthy" is meaningless. Obama uses the wealthy. Is he a right-winger? Being wealthy doesn't make you a right-winger as examples like Soros and Buffet make emphatically clear.

Yes, if anything could Obama be just as wise or could he be driven to become as brilliantly insane as Hitler was possibly, in which could make him just as dangerous as Hitler was possibly ? This nation if not careful about what he is capable of himself while in power (i.e. best keep a sharp eye out on this one maybe), could possibly travel down some deep dark roads as well during his 8 year run. So far his ability to have many gravitate towards him regardless of his past is noteworthy, especially after all that is known about him so far, yet he still charms the vote out of them with his slickness and demeanor as is used, and for many these days it is all that is needed, just a simple smile & handshake and their done. He has a persuasion about him in this way with the masses, and Hitler also had this persuasion about himself as well did he not? So how are they different still yet I wonder ? Could it be that Obama has the same attributes possibly, but looks through his glass favoring a different set of circumstances and people as being dealt with now, and is he the same in his favoritisms as Hitler was, thus becoming popular in the same ways with certain people just as Hitler had become ? Looking back at history can usually allow us to compare the attributes, demeanors, characteristics of a leader, and make ourselves aware of those who will rise again in character in which could easily be found yet again within them, and at any given time in history. History has a way "always" of repeating itself, and as long as there are nations struggling, and people warring with each other be it within and/or without, economies struggling, resources becoming scarce, the poor being looked upon as pariah's, the wealthy becoming to greedy and controlling with most of the wealth, governments becoming to greedy in taxation along with other bogus revenue drawing needs, it could easily give rise to another tyrant/dictator once again in the world (even in America this could happen), therefore causing history to repeat itself yet again and again if not careful.

What is the best comparison so far to Obama, as to be found when looking back in history now at the various leaders around the world, or is it to early to tell yet ? In the twenty five stated Nazi policies I read here, I see a lot of Obama in those Nazi policies laid out, did anyone else take note of that maybe ? Not picking on Obama, but as he is our leader now, is it fair to assess his character by his actions thus far in these ways ? I know he is not Hitler, but comparing policies in which I read in those 25, there is a lot of similarities to grapple with in analyzing these leaders or parties being dealt with as found within the history of this world.

You ain't fooling anybody. You're trying to say "Obama is Hitler/Obama is a fascist" in dressed-up words so it looks more reasonable than a picture with a bone through his nose. This thread isn't about O'bama; it's about Hitler and the mythmaking some of y'all are desperately, desperately trying to sell. And this post exemplifies what the purpose of selling that myth is.

This bullshit is transparent as a new pane of glass. You're swaying absolutely nobody who's not already self-exiled from reality in the Bubble.

 

[beagle9]

This is the Political Forum. Let's try to focus on making your point, supporting it, yourself, and moving on. Let's limit the derailing. Thanks.

Umm isn't there like many categories or articles found under the topic Political Forum, so what is to keep people from moving on when they feel like they are through with this specific topic or another ?

Just curious is all, or is it that you feel some are making fools of themselves, so instead of calling them out by name, you decide to edge them with your elbow by writing this post in hopes that they will get the message maybe ?