How we know Hitler was right wing.

[Uncensored2008]

Then they are not "right-wing" governments. This is akin to saying "most African-American's are not black"

The defining characteristic of "right-wing" is small government with limited powers just as the defining characteristic of "African-American" is being black.

Some left wing governments in other countries have used the small government model.

Clearly you do not understand political ideologies (at all). At first, I thought you were just being a typical left-wing nut trying to rewrite history as liberals always do. But now I realize you genuinely don't understand the political spectrum or what defines each part of it.

Right and Left are terms that arose in England. Saigon is correct that they had distinctly different meanings in the 18th century. The "right" promoted a stronger monarchy. We look at right and left now through the evolved terminology tempered by the upheaval of the 20th century.

 

[Saigon]

Right and Left are terms that arose in England

Actually, they arose in France, though otherwise your definition is correct vis a vis the monarchy:

The terms "left" and "right" appeared during the French Revolution of 1789 when members of the National Assembly divided into supporters of the king to the president's right and supporters of the revolution to his left. One deputy, the Baron de Gauville explained, "We began to recognize each other: those who were loyal to religion and the king took up positions to the right of the chair so as to avoid the shouts, oaths, and indecencies that enjoyed free rein in the opposing camp." However the Right opposed the seating arrangement because they believed that deputies should support private or general interests but should not form factions or political parties. The contemporary press occasionally used the terms "left" and "right" to refer to the opposing sides

Left?right politics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Although monarchy might be less of an issue in left/right thinking today, even as far back as 1789, the right wing was more conservative, more business-oriented and drew more support from the middle and upper classes, whereas the left wing was more revolutionary and drew support from the workers.

 

[bripat9643]

Uncensored -

Small government is a relatively new and very American way of looking at right wing governments.

Most right wing governments around the world are not small, and politicians do not campaign on the basis of small government.

Then they are not "right-wing" governments. This is akin to saying "most African-American's are not black"

The defining characteristic of "right-wing" is small government with limited powers just as the defining characteristic of "African-American" is being black.

Some left wing governments in other countries have used the small government model.

Clearly you do not understand political ideologies (at all). At first, I thought you were just being a typical left-wing nut trying to rewrite history as liberals always do. But now I realize you genuinely don't understand the political spectrum or what defines each part of it.

Saigon gets his definitions of economic terms like "capital" and "capitalism" straight from "Das Capital," so it's easy to understand why he believes a big command economy can be "right-wing." Stalin labelled all governments other than the Soviet Union as "fascist." It's simply a propaganda technique. Saigon is a useful idiot who is too stupid to understand that he's spewing Marxist propaganda.

 

[bripat9643]

Rottweiler -

Again, I am happy to explain these points for you, but only if you commit to actually thinking about what is posted, reading the links, and acknolwdgeing points as they come up. I will answer any questions you have.

This is what I do for a living. I know far, far more about it than you will ever know.

If you are just going to spam the thread will gibberish and abuse, I won't bother.

It's your choice.

The problem is that everything you know is wrong. It's Marxist propaganda. Your definition of the term "capital" comes straight from "Das Kapital."

 

[Saigon]

BriPat-

Firstly, "capitalism" is NOT an economics term. It's primary use is in politics.

Secondly, I have listed my main sources a couple of times on this thread, and none of them are in any way Marxist. By all means explain to me how historians like Kershaw and Overy are Marxist.

Thirdly, Stalin patently did not label all other countries as "fascist" - amazingly enough he could actually tell the difference between fascist countries and countries like the US and UK, even if you cannot.

Your definition of the term "capital" comes straight from "Das Kapital."

No, it comes from any dictionary. Do go and check.

"money and possessions, especially a large amount of money used for producing more wealth or for starting a new business: She leaves her capital untouched in the bank and lives off the interest. We've put £20,000 capital into the business, but we're unlikely to see any return for a few years."

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/capital_3

I am aware the definition is different in economic theory, but everyone on this thread is using general English usage.

Stalin labelled all governments other than the Soviet Union as "fascist." It's simple a propaganda technique.

Just as you label all dictionaries, historians and books as "pinko". It's a simple propaganda technique, but the only person here using it is you - as you prove again here by pretending my sources are left wing, when they obviously are not.

 

[Uncensored2008]

No, not at all!!

They date back to the 18th century and the French Revolution.

They do date back the the 18th century, this is true. Although they had to do with the seating in the English House of Commons, not the French. However, my statement remains correct.

There was a desperation on the part of the left to paint Hitler on the right. Serious historians such as Shirer pointed out that this was absurd at the time, but leftist academia was desperate to cull Hitler from the pack. Our beloved ally Josef Stalin was of the left, FDR was of the left, Lord John Maynard Keynes was of the left. To academia, these were the good guys. Therefore Hitler MUST be defined as the opposite.

The reality is significantly different, of course.

As you pointed out, Hitler knew nothing of economics and appeared to have little interest in it. He stumbled about for years, then latched on to Mussolini's Fascism. Shirer argued that Hitler never really grasped (nor cared) even this. Fascism offered a working model, allowing Hitler to concentrate on his military aims.

Fascism, the control of the means of production by the state through the merger of government and corporate power structures is born of Mussolini attempting to make Marxist doctrine work. As you are sure to know, Mussolini was a Bolshevik and compatriot of Lenin. When he formed the Fascisti, he declared that Marxism could not work (clearly correct, as Lenin showed a few years later) and sought to refine socialism into a workable system.

So Hitler adopted the economic system of Bolshevik and radical leftist as the foundation for the Reich. Further, after the complete and total failure of Marxism in the USSR, Lenin adopted virtually the same system with his NEP.

Of course usage only increased with the formation of nation states and party politics (as opposed to monarchies or principalities), but the terms pre-date the widespread usage of the concept of small government by around two centuries. The terms still mean today basically what they meant in 1789...with some 'evolution', as you say.

The terms have utterly no similarity to the original use. The American left is far closer to the Monarchists, both seeking an all powerful state which cares for and rules a subservient populace. Where the liberals, seeking to shed the shackles of kings and barons, is very close to the American right.

One very good example of a left-wing government campaigning on the basis of small government is the Lane administration in New Zealand during the mid-1980's. Under Finance Minister Roger Douglas the government slashed spending, sold assets and privatised government departments in a manner most GOP supporters would absolutely admire.

Then what was "left wing?"

But they were also true to their left-wing social policies, banning US ships from NZ harbours, increasing welfare spending and promoting green values.

So the held liberal social positions and conservative economic positions? Sounds like Libertarians.

No, that is not true at all - Hitler was put into power by the aristocracy,

Hindenberg put Hitler in power due to coercion.

and many of his policies were about repaying that debt. He focused on delivering dividends to share holders above all, and did so with some success. It's easy to make a profit when you can use slave labour, of course.

Nonsense. Hitler cleared the holdings of the old money, putting Nazi stooges into all the critical positions, including the boards of all major industry.

The single biggest factor in Hitler's hold on power was his support amongst the wealthy industrialists who controled production. They worked with him, and him with them.

Hitlers hold on power was based on terror. And many became wealthy, but these were Nazi stooges, not the Deutscher Adel.

 

[Saigon]

Uncensored-

There was never any question in Europe in the 1930's that Hitler was right wing. Every newspaper article, every historian and every commentator of the time who mentioned his political ideology (and many did not) of course confirmed his politics as being right wing. I can list German historians who did write this kind of material, or you can read this in detail in Ian Kershaw's "Nazi Dictatorship" or Michael Marris's excellent "Holocaust in History".

Possibly there is a source from prior to 2005 that suggests Hitler was left wing, but it would be hard to find.

Have you noticed that no one the left denies that Stalin, Mao, Castro, Julius Nyere, Ortega or Lumumba were left wing?

It's simply recorded history.

And have you also noticed a slight reticence of the right to embrace Sese, Pinochet, Cristiani, Antonescu or the Argentine Dirty Generals?

The fact is that neither left nor right have a monopoloy on good government, and both sides need to be honest about evil where it occurs.

 

[P@triot]

Rottweiler - Again, I am happy to explain these points for you

Sure you're happy to explain (socialists love to spread propaganda). The problem is, I've already proved everything you said to be wrong. Hitler was as left-wing as you wing nuts get.

This is what I do for a living

Which is why you do it in socialist Europe - where you don't have to know what the fuck you're doing to "do it for a living".

I know far, far more about it than you will ever know

Clearly not as I have run circles around you here on USMB and exposed you for having zero knowledge about this and every other issue.

It's your choice.

And I choose to expose the propaganda you post in hopes of spreading your socialist ideology. You've already proven yourself to be both dishonest (you know that government control and oppression is left-wing) and uninformed (you don't have a clue what radical right-wing is, leaving you nothing to "attack" with your propaganda, hence the need to falsely accuse Hitler of being a "conservative" ).

 

[editec]

You folks sure do love semantic debates.


What a waste of your precious time debating the meaning of a word.

 

[billyerock1991]

Who gives a crap, both leftist/Marxist governments and the Nazis are murdering bastards, the only difference being the Nazis where amatuers when it came to murdering their own citizens when compared to their Marxist brethren. I mean what Hitler did seems like an Ice Cream Social when compared to what Stalin and Mao did.

thats always cracked me up ... idiots like this one call us leftist/marxist commie pink-o's when its been clear,anyone with a brain, its has been known that republicans force their ideals on us all ... where they will try to kill you if you don't follow their view and this loser want to call us liberals leftist/marxist thats funny...

 

[Uncensored2008]

thats always cracked me up ... idiots like this one call us leftist/marxist commie pink-o's when its been clear,anyone with a brain, its has been known that republicans force their ideals on us all ... where they will try to kill you if you don't follow their view and this loser want to call us liberals leftist/marxist thats funny...

You use a lot of meth, don't you?

 

[P@triot]

You folks sure do love semantic debates.


What a waste of your precious time debating the meaning of a word.

You really just summed up the entire problem with libtards. Words mean nothing to them. That's why the pervert the Constitution. That's why everything is "semantics". And that's why this conversation is more important than ever.

 

[P@triot]

Firstly, "capitalism" is NOT an economics term

Folks, we are literally trying to debate with the mentally handicapped. Of all the outrageous and absurd comments Saigon as made, this one is the gem to end all gems.

Straight from Merriam-Webster's dictionary:

an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

Capitalism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

 

[P@triot]

Rottweiler -

You are spamming the thread.

The subject here is Fascism and Hitler.

I'll ignore all posts on other topics.

You named the thread How we know Hitler was "right-wing" lmao - not "Hitler & Fascism".

Like a typical libtard, you do two things when facts humiliate you:

1.) Lie (in this case - what this thread is about)

2.) Run like a coward

How unhinged have you become over the past few days that you would literally scream (and I quote here) "capitalism is NOT an economic term" and then claim this thread is not about you falsely claiming that Hitler is "right-wing" and trying to convince everyone of that lie which you know to be a lie?

 

[P@triot]

Who gives a crap, both leftist/Marxist governments and the Nazis are murdering bastards, the only difference being the Nazis where amatuers when it came to murdering their own citizens when compared to their Marxist brethren. I mean what Hitler did seems like an Ice Cream Social when compared to what Stalin and Mao did.

thats always cracked me up ... idiots like this one call us leftist/marxist commie pink-o's when its been clear,anyone with a brain, its has been known that republicans force their ideals on us all ... where they will try to kill you if you don't follow their view and this loser want to call us liberals leftist/marxist thats funny...

Like Saigon, you're an asshole libtard who knowingly lies. Notice you couldn't give ONE freaking example of how "Republican's force their ideals on all of us"? That's because they don't. Never have. They believe in freedom and the INDIVIDUAL - including individual choice.

It's the asshole wing-nuts like you who believe that we all need to "row in the same direction" and insist that we all follow your twisted ideology. How about some real world examples (you know - that thing you couldn't give):

Guns
Liberals want to ban guns because they don't like them. They think EVERYONE should NOT own a gun. As with everything else, they knowingly attempt to pervert the Constitution claiming either "its no longer relevant" or "it applies only to militia"

Republicans recognize it is a Constitutional right. Yet, they don't demand that everyone carry a gun. They leave the CHOICE up to the INDIVIDUAL.

Religion
Libtards want to ban God from America. They think EVERYONE should be prevented from religion.

Republicans recognize it is a Constitutional right and want it left government (including school) for the INDIVIDUAL to DECIDE for themselves whether they want to pray, place a religious item, etc.

Social issues
Libtards believe that everyone should be forced to share their wealth.

Republicans recognize that the INDIVIDUAL should DECIDE for themselves how much money they want to give to charity, when, where, and why.

 

[Intense]

Personally I view Hitler as a Prejudiced National Socialist, opposed to competing brands of his vision, be they Socialist or Free Market. He was a control Freak. Most Despots were, both Right and Left. Fortunately, for us, he was his own worst enemy, aiding us in his destruction.

 

[Saigon]

Personally I view Hitler as a Prejudiced National Socialist, opposed to competing brands of his vision, be they Socialist or Free Market. He was a control Freak. Most Despots were, both Right and Left. Fortunately, for us, he was his own worst enemy, aiding us in his destruction.

Indeed he was, but the 'free market' has not been the goal of any right wing dictator.

Take Pinochet, Antonescu, Cristiani or Sese - none of them believed in either small government nor a free market, and yet all four were very obviously right wing.

Rottie -

Ay any point you are interested in getting up to speed on this issue, I'm happy to explain a few key points for you. Your illiterate spamming I'm less interested in.

 

[Jroc]

Personally I view Hitler as a Prejudiced National Socialist, opposed to competing brands of his vision, be they Socialist or Free Market. He was a control Freak. Most Despots were, both Right and Left. Fortunately, for us, he was his own worst enemy, aiding us in his destruction.

Indeed he was, but the 'free market' has not been the goal of any right wing dictator.

Take Pinochet, Antonescu, Cristiani or Sese - none of them believed in either small government nor a free market, and yet all four were very obviously right wing.

Rottie -

Ay any point you are interested in getting up to speed on this issue, I'm happy to explain a few key points for you. Your illiterate spamming I'm less interested in.

What’s "right wing" in your mind? Maybe you Europeans have a different view of "right wingers” since you're coming from democratic socialism to begin with. Here if one believes in the liberty of the individual, liberals call that person a "right winger". Individual liberty and a tyrannical dictator don’t equate and they cannot coexist

 

[Saigon]

Jroc -

Much of the problem on this thread has come from the fact that many posters assume that what the Tea Party might claim is right wing today is what the world has always known to be right wing. In actual fact, the idea of small government and a free market are very American points of view and very recent ideas - particularly small government.

Of the 20 or so conservative governments in the developed world right now, perhaps 2 campaigned on small government. In countries like Germany, France, Australia or Scandinavia it is very rarely referred to.

Likewise, as I explained earlier, some left wing governments have campaigned on the basis of small government and asset sales as well.

This is not to say that the Tea Party is not right wing, simply that they do not represent the entire spectrum of right-wing thinking. They are just one point along the line.

The definition of right wing needs to be so broad, because it extends from someone like Sakorzy or Angela Merkel in the centre, to Antonescu and Pinochet at the extreme edge.

 

[Political Junky]

Personally I view Hitler as a Prejudiced National Socialist, opposed to competing brands of his vision, be they Socialist or Free Market. He was a control Freak. Most Despots were, both Right and Left. Fortunately, for us, he was his own worst enemy, aiding us in his destruction.

Indeed he was, but the 'free market' has not been the goal of any right wing dictator.

Take Pinochet, Antonescu, Cristiani or Sese - none of them believed in either small government nor a free market, and yet all four were very obviously right wing.

Rottie -

Ay any point you are interested in getting up to speed on this issue, I'm happy to explain a few key points for you. Your illiterate spamming I'm less interested in.

What’s "right wing" in your mind? Maybe you Europeans have a different view of "right wingers” since you're coming from democratic socialism to begin with. Here if one believes in the liberty of the individual, liberals call that person a "right winger". Individual liberty and a tyrannical dictator don’t equate and they cannot coexist

Europeans view it the same as Americans, except for a portion of American right wingers who find it inconvenient to be of the same persuasion as Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, and Pinochet.