How we know Hitler was right wing.

[SuperDave]

Prior coming to this board, I had never heard anyone suggest Hitler was anything but right wing. This may be something to do with living in Europe where the awareness of fascism is so very high because it occured here, or maybe it's something our education system focuses on. Or maybe coincidence.

Either way, recently I've noticed two posters recently insist Hitler was left wing....and even liberal.

Here is SSDD:

Hitler's government was called right wing by communists and socialists of the time, but his governemnt was still socialist. It consisted of a large and powerful central authority which is, by definition, not a conservative, or classically lberal government

Right wing and left wing are two wings of the same house and the house is socialism.

In cases like this, I am not sure facts have a great deal of impact, but maybe it is interesting to discuss some of the features of Fascism anyway.

Let's start with some quotes from Hitler:

"The main plank in the Nationalist Socialist program is to abolish the liberalistic concept of the individual and the Marxist concept of humanity and to substitute for them the folk community, rooted in the soil and bound together by the bond of its common blood."

"The German state is gravely attacked by Marxism."

"In the years 1913 and 1914, I… expressed the conviction that the question of the future of the German nation was the question of destroying Marxism."

"In the economic sphere Communism is analogous to democracy in the political sphere."

"The Marxists will march with democracy until they succeed in indirectly obtaining for their criminal aims the support of even the national intellectual world, destined by them for extinction."

"Marxism itself systematically plans to hand the world over to the Jews."

"The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight."

Myth: Hitler was a leftist

Is the fact that you have never personally heard anyone call Hitler Right-wing supposed to be some kind of proof? There is absolutely no debate that his political views fell to the Far Left, the fact that he did not like Marxism isn't relevant because he wasn't a Marxist. You say in Europe you learn a great deal about Fascism, did you learn that Hitler was also not a Fascist, Mussolini was but not Hitler. Being allies with Mussolini didn't mean he agreed with his philosophy anymore than being allies with Japan made him think the Emperor was a god.

Again you stated it, the Nazi party was the National Socialist Party but Socialism is not Marxism and neither is Fascism. The only quote that I could see causing confusion from someone is the one that states that the "individual" is a Liberalistic concept but that would only be confusing for someone who didn't know that the modern term "Liberal" is a relatively new concept in politics.

The concept of maximum freedom for the individual comes from the same political philosophy adhered to by the Founding Fathers of the United States which is called Classical Liberalism. It is most closely related today to Libertarianism and to a somewhat lesser extent Conservatism. It has virtually nothing in common with Modern Liberalism, which is simply a title change from the early 20th Century philosophy of Progressivism.

As for the oddball list you compiled in your next post of Hitler liked this more than that most are just wrong, others are strange in that they are not opposites as one would expect in such a list. In such a list you would expect comparisons such as Hitler liked Order vs Chaos but for your list you have examples which are the equivalent of Hitler liked Order vs Bunnys, the comparison is meaningless.

Individualism over collectivism.... Actually he liked neither concept, he preferred a Centralized Authority
Merit over equality... It's hard to even understand what you mean here because I can't imagine what you think Merit and equality have in common that makes them opposite terms. Hitler did not believe people were equal but it had nothing to do with merit it was based on bizarre genetic beliefs
Competition over cooperation.... Again this is another of the meaningless comparisons which sounds deep to someone who only thinks about problems on the surface but really has no meaning when you dig a little deeper. The Olympics is a series of competitions, are they evil, are they Right-Wing? Sports are competitions almost by definition yet they also require tremendous cooperation so are they good or bad?
Capitalism over Marxism.... No, he preferred Socialism.
Nationalism over internationalism.... I don't even know what "Internationalism" is and I probably don't want to since I'm guessing it's one of the things that led to Libya and Iraq being on the U.N. Human Rights Council.
Exclusiveness over inclusiveness.... He believed Germans were the master race but holding one view in common with a political philosophy doesn't mean you follow that philosophy. I'm opposed to the Death Penalty, don't make me a Liberal.
Common sense over theory or science.... What evidence do you have to support such a claim? Hitler held some bizarre notions. He spent a tremendous amount of money looking for religious artifacts that he could use from Thor's Hammer to, yes, even the Ark of the Covenant but he also spent the modern equivalent of hundreds of millions of dollars in scientific research. And just to let you know the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

 

[Pogo]

Prior coming to this board, I had never heard anyone suggest Hitler was anything but right wing. This may be something to do with living in Europe where the awareness of fascism is so very high because it occured here, or maybe it's something our education system focuses on. Or maybe coincidence.

Either way, recently I've noticed two posters recently insist Hitler was left wing....and even liberal.

Here is SSDD:

Hitler's government was called right wing by communists and socialists of the time, but his governemnt was still socialist. It consisted of a large and powerful central authority which is, by definition, not a conservative, or classically lberal government

Right wing and left wing are two wings of the same house and the house is socialism.

In cases like this, I am not sure facts have a great deal of impact, but maybe it is interesting to discuss some of the features of Fascism anyway.

Let's start with some quotes from Hitler:

"The main plank in the Nationalist Socialist program is to abolish the liberalistic concept of the individual and the Marxist concept of humanity and to substitute for them the folk community, rooted in the soil and bound together by the bond of its common blood."

"The German state is gravely attacked by Marxism."

"In the years 1913 and 1914, I… expressed the conviction that the question of the future of the German nation was the question of destroying Marxism."

"In the economic sphere Communism is analogous to democracy in the political sphere."

"The Marxists will march with democracy until they succeed in indirectly obtaining for their criminal aims the support of even the national intellectual world, destined by them for extinction."

"Marxism itself systematically plans to hand the world over to the Jews."

"The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight."

Myth: Hitler was a leftist

Is the fact that you have never personally heard anyone call Hitler Right-wing supposed to be some kind of proof? There is absolutely no debate that his political views fell to the Far Left, the fact that he did not like Marxism isn't relevant because he wasn't a Marxist.

"Absolutely no debate"?? what do you think over a thousand posts in this thread have been doing?

It's true there was absolutely no debate until maybe about three years ago that Hitler was on the extreme right; that was a given. Only recently has anyone tried to float the revision-reversal. Holocaust denialism seems to have been the pace car, sent ahead to test the waters.

I did hear this theory floated before this board, but only because I was on another board where right-wing wackos hung out. But other than that, in the real world it's fringey stuff. You could stop strangers on the street all day and I doubt you'd find a single one to declare that Hitler has suddenly moved to the left.

I see you're new to the thread; there's a lot of water under the bridge that addresses most if not all of the points you laid out. By all means catch up on them rather than rehash what's already been said. Think of it as reading the FAQ

 

[Saigon]

"The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight."

He seems to be talking about the tyranny of the majority here, can't say I disagree. Democracy and socialism devolves the nation to the lowest common denominator social and economically. Ironically, he betrayed those principles and used the democratic majority he won in parliamentary elections as a bludgeon against is political enemies, many of whom were actually on the right(monarchists and conservatives alike).

What everyone fails to realize is that the most effective resistance to Hitler in Germany was from the right wing, not the left. Surely you all saw the movie Valkyrie. The conspiracy to assassinate Hitler was led by conservative politicians and traditionalists within the German military.

Look up Operation Valkyrie.

I'm sure everyone is familir with it Galnuc, but the reason Hitler's main operation came from within his own obviously right-wing organisation is because most of the left wing leaders were in Auschwitz.

Hitler was smart enough to move quickly against the leaders of any group who could oppose him, targeting journalists, university professors, union leaders...anyone capable of forming opinion against him.

It was thus only people within the party who were really capable of launching an attack against him, and they were few in number - and ultimately unsucessful, of course.

Frank -

If you could debate the topic, you probably would. You spam threads with off-topic nonsense because that is all your level of literacy allows.

 

[Saigon]

"Super" Dave -

did you learn that Hitler was also not a Fascist

Why would I learn something that everyone knows is not true?

Honestly, do you not have access to Google where you live?

I could post a dozen definitions for you - but I suggest you do a bit of reading first yourself.

 

[Political Junky]

"The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight."

He seems to be talking about the tyranny of the majority here, can't say I disagree. Democracy and socialism devolves the nation to the lowest common denominator social and economically. Ironically, he betrayed those principles and used the democratic majority he won in parliamentary elections as a bludgeon against is political enemies, many of whom were actually on the right(monarchists and conservatives alike).

What everyone fails to realize is that the most effective resistance to Hitler in Germany was from the right wing, not the left. Surely you all saw the movie Valkyrie. The conspiracy to assassinate Hitler was led by conservative politicians and traditionalists within the German military.

Look up Operation Valkyrie.

I'm sure everyone is familir with it Galnuc, but the reason Hitler's main operation came from within his own obviously right-wing organisation is because most of the left wing leaders were in Auschwitz.

Hitler was smart enough to move quickly against the leaders of any group who could oppose him, targeting journalists, university professors, union leaders...anyone capable of forming opinion against him.

It was thus only people within the party who were really capable of launching an attack against him, and they were few in number - and ultimately unsucessful, of course.

Frank -

If you could debate the topic, you probably would.

Oh my, who else is targeting those groups?

 

[Saigon]

It's a shame they failed, had they succeeded, the Third Reich might have possibly been preserved. They could have potentially sued for peace with the western powers and prevented the Soviet Union from break up their nation.

You are suggesting that it would have been a good thing if a regime that had already cost 8 million German lives could have continued?

I agree that the division of Germany was tragic - but then I consider the Holocaudt fairly tragic as well.

 

[Jroc]

Walter Eucken was a professor of economics at the University of Freiburg, Germany and an architect of the economic reforms that led to the Economic Miracle. In this article Eucken wanted to explain the problems and weaknesses of centrally administered economies such as that of National Socialist (Nazi) Germany and the Soviet Union.

The Nazi economic system developed unintentionally. The initial objective in 1932-33 of its economic policy was just to reduce the high unemployment associated with the Great Depression. This involved public works, expansion of credit, easy monetary policy and manipulation of exchange rates. Generally Centrally Administered Economies (CAE's) have little trouble eliminating unemployment because they can create large public works projects and people are put to work regardless of whether or not their productivity exceeds their wage cost. Nazi Germany was successful in solving the unemployment problem, but after a few years the expansion of the money supply was threatening to create inflation.

The Nazi Government reacted to the threat of inflation by declaring a general price freeze in 1936. From that action the Nazi Government was driven to expand the role of the government in directing the economy and reducing the role played by market forces. Although private property was not nationalized, its use was more and more determined by the government rather than the owners.

Eucken uses the case of the leather industry. An individual leather factory produces at the direction of the Leather Control Office. This Control Office arranged for the factory to get the hides and other supplies it needed to produce leather. The output of leather was disposed of according to the dictates of the Leather Control Office. The Control Offices set their directives through a process involving four stages:

•1. The collection of statistical information by a Statistical Section. The Statistical Section tried to assemble all the important data on past production, equipment, storage facilities and raw material requirements.
•2. The planning of production taking into account the requirements of leather by other industries in their plans; e.g. the needs of the Shoe Control Office for supplies of leather. The available supply of hides limited the production of leather. There had to be a balancing of supply and demand. The result of the planning of all the control offices was a Balance Sheet. There was some effort at creating some system for solving the planning, such as production being limited by the narrowest bottleneck, but in practice the planning ended up being simply scaling up past production and planning figures.
•3. The issuing of production orders to the individual factories.
•4. Checking up on compliance with the planning orders.

In practice the authorities of the control offices often intervened and there was continual negotiation and political battles as the users of products tried to use political influence to improve their allocations. The prices of 1936 made little economic sense, particularly after Germany was at war. So there economic calculations using the official prices were meaningless. In particular, the profitability of a product was of no significance in determining whether it should be produced or not. Losses did not result in a factory ceasing production; the control offices made sure that it got the raw materials and that the workers got rations of necessities.

THE ECONOMIC HISTORY OF GERMANY

 

[Saigon]

It would have obviously been a different regime, that is the whole point of an assassination, to change the regime, duh. Hitler would have been replaced by military high command. It was Hitler's military incompetence that cost them the war, not the high command(ie. his strategic failures at Dunkirk, Stalingrad, Leningrad, and in the North African Theater).

I agree, the Holocaust as portrayed in the media and academic spheres is very tragic, killing 6 million jews is a very atrocious thing. However, even as portrayed, the holocaust does not match the death toll racked up by Stalin before during and after world war two.

Assassination does not mean genuine regime change would have occured - it may only have meant that Göring or Goebeels had taken charge. The military high command would hardly have been a regime the west could have worked with. Either way, we'll never know for sure!

I agree about Hitler's incompetence, and I also agree Hitler ultimately killed less people than Stalin - but that doesn't make him any less evil. Had he remained in power, he could certainly have killed millions more people. Imagine how many would have died if he had taken Britain?

 

[Saigon]

It's true there was absolutely no debate until maybe about three years ago that Hitler was on the extreme right; that was a given. Only recently has anyone tried to float the revision-reversal. Holocaust denialism seems to have been the pace car, sent ahead to test the waters.

I did hear this theory floated before this board, but only because I was on another board where right-wing wackos hung out. But other than that, in the real world it's fringey stuff. You could stop strangers on the street all day and I doubt you'd find a single one to declare that Hitler has suddenly moved to the left.

My thoughts exactly...I had never heard the idea that Hitler was left-wing prior to coming to this board - and I work in this area!!

The amount of hours that I have spent chatting with history researchers, political philosophers, journalists and experts on Fascism, and I don't recall anyone ever suggesting that Hitler was not right wing. It's a very new theory, and clearly one motivated largely by modern politics rather than by history or facts.

 

[Pogo]

It's true there was absolutely no debate until maybe about three years ago that Hitler was on the extreme right; that was a given. Only recently has anyone tried to float the revision-reversal. Holocaust denialism seems to have been the pace car, sent ahead to test the waters.

I did hear this theory floated before this board, but only because I was on another board where right-wing wackos hung out. But other than that, in the real world it's fringey stuff. You could stop strangers on the street all day and I doubt you'd find a single one to declare that Hitler has suddenly moved to the left.

My thoughts exactly...I had never heard the idea that Hitler was left-wing prior to coming to this board - and I work in this area!!

The amount of hours that I have spent chatting with history researchers, political philosophers, journalists and experts on Fascism, and I don't recall anyone ever suggesting that Hitler was not right wing. It's a very new theory, and clearly one motivated largely by modern politics rather than by history or facts.

And as noted a while back, motivated only in the US, where it's a propaganda tool-in-training to paint the Left in Hitler Brown to further the whole "eliminationism" crap game. That's why it can't be taken as anything more serious than a carnival sideshow -- because that's what it is.

 

[Political Junky]

It's true there was absolutely no debate until maybe about three years ago that Hitler was on the extreme right; that was a given. Only recently has anyone tried to float the revision-reversal. Holocaust denialism seems to have been the pace car, sent ahead to test the waters.

I did hear this theory floated before this board, but only because I was on another board where right-wing wackos hung out. But other than that, in the real world it's fringey stuff. You could stop strangers on the street all day and I doubt you'd find a single one to declare that Hitler has suddenly moved to the left.

My thoughts exactly...I had never heard the idea that Hitler was left-wing prior to coming to this board - and I work in this area!!

The amount of hours that I have spent chatting with history researchers, political philosophers, journalists and experts on Fascism, and I don't recall anyone ever suggesting that Hitler was not right wing. It's a very new theory, and clearly one motivated largely by modern politics rather than by history or facts.

And as noted a while back, motivated only in the US, where it's a propaganda tool-in-training to paint the Left in Hitler Brown to further the whole "eliminationism" crap game. That's why it can't be taken as anything more serious than a carnival sideshow -- because that's what it is.

Yep

 

[francoHFW]

As a francophile, I should point out that Hitler was a genius until he had beaten France. THEN he became an unlucky idiot lol. The Anglo-Americans were very fortunate. See Dunkirk, changing to bombing London rather than radar and military targets, aircraft carriers out of Pearl Harbor, catching the Japs at Midway...thank god. But they can shove their idiotic surrender monkey talk- just stupid.

 

[P@triot]

It's true there was absolutely no debate until maybe about three years ago that Hitler was on the extreme right; that was a given. Only recently has anyone tried to float the revision-reversal. Holocaust denialism seems to have been the pace car, sent ahead to test the waters.

I did hear this theory floated before this board, but only because I was on another board where right-wing wackos hung out. But other than that, in the real world it's fringey stuff. You could stop strangers on the street all day and I doubt you'd find a single one to declare that Hitler has suddenly moved to the left.

My thoughts exactly...I had never heard the idea that Hitler was left-wing prior to coming to this board - and I work in this area!!

The amount of hours that I have spent chatting with history researchers, political philosophers, journalists and experts on Fascism, and I don't recall anyone ever suggesting that Hitler was not right wing. It's a very new theory, and clearly one motivated largely by modern politics rather than by history or facts.

Up until the past few months here, it was universally accepted that Hitler was a radical left-wing nut case. How anyone could possibly even attempt to make the case that Hitler was a small-government, maximum freedom for the people, low taxes conservative "right-winger" is just so stupid, it's actually hilarious. Made all the more funny that the Nazi's were the National SOCIALIST party

But, it only goes to reason. Libtards have attempted to rewrite every other portion of history. The fact that Hitler (like all dictators) was unquestionably a left-wing loony was only a matter of time until you libtards tried to rewrite that one too (after all, if you people ever actually told the truth, nobody would stand with you).

 

[francoHFW]

"a small-government, maximum freedom for the people, low taxes conservative "right-winger" "

That's a brand new definition too. Another example of the dupes knowing less and less the more they listen to RW BS, dupe.

This Hiter was a lefty is brand new BS, from Beck and "Liberal Fascism" -DRIVEL, like classical liberalism and Obama is a marxist LOL.

 

[francoHFW]

Hint- Hitler loved corporate aristocrats, dumbazzes.

 

[Pogo]

It's true there was absolutely no debate until maybe about three years ago that Hitler was on the extreme right; that was a given. Only recently has anyone tried to float the revision-reversal. Holocaust denialism seems to have been the pace car, sent ahead to test the waters.

I did hear this theory floated before this board, but only because I was on another board where right-wing wackos hung out. But other than that, in the real world it's fringey stuff. You could stop strangers on the street all day and I doubt you'd find a single one to declare that Hitler has suddenly moved to the left.

My thoughts exactly...I had never heard the idea that Hitler was left-wing prior to coming to this board - and I work in this area!!

The amount of hours that I have spent chatting with history researchers, political philosophers, journalists and experts on Fascism, and I don't recall anyone ever suggesting that Hitler was not right wing. It's a very new theory, and clearly one motivated largely by modern politics rather than by history or facts.

Up until the past few months here, it was universally accepted that Hitler was a radical left-wing nut case. How anyone could possibly even attempt to make the case that Hitler was a small-government, maximum freedom for the people, low taxes conservative "right-winger" is just so stupid, it's actually hilarious. Made all the more funny that the Nazi's were the National SOCIALIST party

But, it only goes to reason. Libtards have attempted to rewrite every other portion of history. The fact that Hitler (like all dictators) was unquestionably a left-wing loony was only a matter of time until you libtards tried to rewrite that one too (after all, if you people ever actually told the truth, nobody would stand with you).

And voilà, demonstration of what I just said, right on time.

Thanks Rottenwhiner. I can always count on you to step right in (it).

 

[bripat9643]

BriPat -
At the risk of stating the obvious, this discussion is about politics.
Capitalism is used here as a political term, not an economic one.

In other words, it's a total bullshit term of propaganda. Karl Marx himself coined the term, and he intended to be an economic term. The term “capitalism” has become entrenched in the popular lexicon, but economists rarely use it because it is deliberately nebulous and abused. Genuine economists refer to “market economies” and “command economies.” Those who rely on the term “capitalism” are almost always demagogues like Marx himself.

Remember, Marx thought of himself as an economist and the book “Das Kapital” as a treatise on economics. He also coined the term “capitalism.” Yet here you are claiming that the term “capital” is not an economic term! In a way you are right because Marx was no economist. He was simply a demagogue and his understanding of economics was total bullshit. So is yours.

The issue of whether your outlook is “left-wing” or “right-wing” is an economic issue. It has to do with how you believe the productive resources of society should be organized. If you believe in private ownership and free exchange, then you are a right-winger. If you believe in government control, then you are a left-winger. Any other designation is nonsensical bullshit.

The use of capital within a political system, and the link between 'capital' and 'capitalism' as terms, should be clear to everyone, I think.

Go back to my post #1072 and #1075 and have another go at understanding the point if you like.

It’s perfectly crystal clear that you know nothing about economics or the meaning of “capital.”

Again:

Right wing ideologies such as fascism promote the role of capital, investment and private business.

Left wing ideologies such as communism seek to limit or even remove the role of capital entirely. .

Again, you already proved you don’t know the meaning of the term “capital.” Furthermore, you insist on a Marxist definition for your economic terms. So you basically insist that those who disagree with your conclusions have to agree with all your premises which are nothing more than Marxist propaganda. You have obliterated any kind of credibility you may have had on this subject. Your sources are obviously a bunch of Marxist hacks because they obviously use the very same bogus Marxist definitions and misunderstandings of basic economic terms.

This does NOT mean that communist societies do not have any infrastructure - the question is HOW that infrastructure is PAID for.

“Infrastructure” is a non-sequitur. It’s not an economic term.

 

[bripat9643]

It's true there was absolutely no debate until maybe about three years ago that Hitler was on the extreme right; that was a given. Only recently has anyone tried to float the revision-reversal. Holocaust denialism seems to have been the pace car, sent ahead to test the waters.

I did hear this theory floated before this board, but only because I was on another board where right-wing wackos hung out. But other than that, in the real world it's fringey stuff. You could stop strangers on the street all day and I doubt you'd find a single one to declare that Hitler has suddenly moved to the left.

My thoughts exactly...I had never heard the idea that Hitler was left-wing prior to coming to this board - and I work in this area!!

The amount of hours that I have spent chatting with history researchers, political philosophers, journalists and experts on Fascism, and I don't recall anyone ever suggesting that Hitler was not right wing. It's a very new theory, and clearly one motivated largely by modern politics rather than by history or facts.

You have already revealed the fact that all your sources are Marxist political hacks. All your terminology in this area comes from Marxism and you are totally ignorant of the basic economics. Your sources are obviously just as ignorant because that's where you obtained your understanding of the terms.

Try reading a book on economics if you really want to understand fascism. Historians are nothing more than paid government propagandists.

 

[bripat9643]

"Super" Dave -

did you learn that Hitler was also not a Fascist

Why would I learn something that everyone knows is not true?

Honestly, do you not have access to Google where you live?

I could post a dozen definitions for you - but I suggest you do a bit of reading first yourself.

Why don't you just quote "Das Kapital" or "The Communist Manifesto?" After all, that is where all your understanding of these terms comes from.

 

[Saigon]

Gainuc -

We are both engaging in speciulation here. There are no facts about the assasination, because the plot failed.

It is possible that the plot would have worked, the entire Bazi leadership collapsed, and the coup leaders been able to sue for peace. It is also possible that a surviving Goebbels would have been able to take power and continue the war.

I am aware Hitler briefly considered an alliance with Britain, but any hopes he had of that were gone lobg before Dunkirk. Hitler could hav delayed war against Stalin, remember, but he chose not to for his own reasons.