How we know Hitler was right wing.

[Political Junky]

Umm... West Virginia wasn't part of the Confederacy, dumbass. That was the whole point of seceding from Virginia.

I live in the South and I can assure you-- where there's a Confederate flag there ain't no liberals, and vice versa. And even in the daze before the Southern Strategy and the Civil Rights Act when the Democratic Party dominated the South, they were anything but "liberal". I'm related to some of them. Including Strom Thurmond.


My god, what a maroon... (/offtopic)

Your belief that liberal democrats aren't racists is false. LBJ was a well known racist and a liberal Democrat. Al Gore Sr. was a liberal Democrat and a segregationist. Sen. J. William Fulbright, Clinton's mentor, was a well known racist. 21 Democrat senators voted against the 1964 civil rights act. More Republicans voted for it than Democrats.

Everything you've got in that post is either undocumented speculation or in the case of the last sentence, flat out bullshit, but none of that is the topic here. Feel free to take it to a new thread where it may be merrily shot down, but for the purposes here amend your last sentence to: "more liberals (of both parties) voted for it than conservatives (of both parties) and you'll have something closer to an understanding of how things actually work.

In other words -- get over this simplistic toy-soldier game of "Democrats" and "Republicans". Politics is not a freaking board game where every piece is clearly red or blue.

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

By party and region
Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.
The original House version:
Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)
Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)
The Senate version:
Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas)
Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)
Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)
[edit]

 

[ABikerSailor]

If there are no racists in the Republican party, then why did a congress critter (R) from Alaska refer to Mexicans as "wetbacks" in a radio interview?

 

[P@triot]

Feel free to take it to a new thread where it may be merrily shot down, but for the purposes here amend your last sentence to: "more liberals (of both parties) voted for it than conservatives (of both parties) and you'll have something closer to an understanding of how things actually work.

Oh God - here we go! Every time they are backed into a corner they will try to make the absurd case that liberals "used to be" Republicans and conservatives "used to be" dumbocrats.

In other words -- get over this simplistic toy-soldier game of "Democrats" and "Republicans". Politics is not a freaking board game where every piece is clearly red or blue.

Why, because that "simplistic toy-soldier game" shakes everything you were brainwashed to believe in to your very core since there is a voting record when you break it down to Republicans and Democrats (as it should be)?

Yeah - we can't have those pesky facts hanging around, uh dumbocrats? It's imperative we try to skew reality and history so that everything is fuzzy. It helps make the propaganda in the future just a little easier to swallow!

 

[Pogo]

Feel free to take it to a new thread where it may be merrily shot down, but for the purposes here amend your last sentence to: "more liberals (of both parties) voted for it than conservatives (of both parties) and you'll have something closer to an understanding of how things actually work.

Oh God - here we go! Every time they are backed into a corner they will try to make the absurd case that liberals "used to be" Republicans and conservatives "used to be" dumbocrats.

In other words -- get over this simplistic toy-soldier game of "Democrats" and "Republicans". Politics is not a freaking board game where every piece is clearly red or blue.

Why, because that "simplistic toy-soldier game" shakes everything you were brainwashed to believe in to your very core since there is a voting record when you break it down to Republicans and Democrats (as it should be)?

Yeah - we can't have those pesky facts hanging around, uh dumbocrats? It's imperative we try to skew reality and history so that everything is fuzzy. It helps make the propaganda in the future just a little easier to swallow!

That voting record, which Finger-boy lied about, and which I already knew, is actually sitting three posts above here, posted by PJ. And it completely backs up everything I said here.

Read 'em and weep.



And it's STILL not the topic here.

 

[P@triot]

If there are no racists in the Republican party, then why did a congress critter (R) from Alaska refer to Mexicans as "wetbacks" in a radio interview?

Who said there were "none"? I'm sure the Republican Party has had their fair share over the years. But it certainly has not been one of the defining qualities of the party as it has been for the left.

Abraham Lincoln (Republican) ended slavery. The Democrats fought against it.

The Republicans lead the charge during the Civil Rights movement. The Democrats fought against it

The history is very clear and the voting records do not reflect kindly on your side.

 

[P@triot]

And somehow "PROUD" doesn't seem to follow from the known facts, such as this interview from twenty years ago:
>> Q: What has been your biggest mistake and your biggest success?

A: Well, it's easy to state what has been my biggest mistake. The greatest mistake I ever made was joining the Ku Klux Klan. And I've said that many times. But one cannot erase what he has done. He can only change his ways and his thoughts. That was an albatross around my neck that I will always wear. You will read it in my obituary that I was a member of the Ku Klux Klan.

Well DUH!!! By 1993, getting elected as a proud member of the Klu Klux Klan was just a little tricky! Cable news, cell phones, and even internet (dial-up style of course) was in full swing by 1993. And from a cultural perspective, racism was frowned upon by that time.

He wasn't denouncing his hatred, he was trying to win re-election. What next - you believe that Bill Clinton "did not have sexual relations with that woman"?

 

[bripat9643]

And somehow "PROUD" doesn't seem to follow from the known facts, such as this interview from twenty years ago:
>> Q: What has been your biggest mistake and your biggest success?

A: Well, it's easy to state what has been my biggest mistake. The greatest mistake I ever made was joining the Ku Klux Klan. And I've said that many times. But one cannot erase what he has done. He can only change his ways and his thoughts. That was an albatross around my neck that I will always wear. You will read it in my obituary that I was a member of the Ku Klux Klan.

Well DUH!!! By 1993, getting elected as a proud member of the Klu Klux Klan was just a little tricky! Cable news, cell phones, and even internet (dial-up style of course) was in full swing by 1993. And from a cultural perspective, racism was frowned upon by that time.

He wasn't denouncing his hatred, he was trying to win re-election. What next - you believe that Bill Clinton "did not have sexual relations with that woman"?

Pogo has managed to derail this thread from the subject of whether Nazis were leftists to whether Republicans are racists. It's just another sleazy left-wing propaganda technique.

 

[Pogo]

And somehow "PROUD" doesn't seem to follow from the known facts, such as this interview from twenty years ago:
>> Q: What has been your biggest mistake and your biggest success?

A: Well, it's easy to state what has been my biggest mistake. The greatest mistake I ever made was joining the Ku Klux Klan. And I've said that many times. But one cannot erase what he has done. He can only change his ways and his thoughts. That was an albatross around my neck that I will always wear. You will read it in my obituary that I was a member of the Ku Klux Klan.

Well DUH!!! By 1993, getting elected as a proud member of the Klu Klux Klan was just a little tricky! Cable news, cell phones, and even internet (dial-up style of course) was in full swing by 1993. And from a cultural perspective, racism was frowned upon by that time.

He wasn't denouncing his hatred, he was trying to win re-election. What next - you believe that Bill Clinton "did not have sexual relations with that woman"?

Uh... we don't have Congressional elections in odd numbered years, so no this wasn't an election year ploy. "1993" refers to the date of the interview, not his disassociation with the Klan, which appears to have been back in the 1940s.

But two points come to mind here.

You just barked in an earlier post that the KKK membership was part of "racists" electing Byrd. Now how would that work, with him having left the Klan fifty years before this interview?

The other thing that comes to mind: The KKK, being an übernationalist, racist, communist-hating bunch, is a far right fringe group. The same elements that make Hitler a far right fringe lunatic. I thought you wanted Byrd as a "liberal", and yet there he is in a far-right fringe group.

Which way you wanna go here?

 

[bripat9643]

Uh... we don't have Congressional elections in odd numbered years, so no this wasn't an election year ploy. "1993" refers to the date of the interview, not his disassociation with the Klan, which appears to have been back in the 1940s.

But two points come to mind here.

You just barked in an earlier post that "racists" elected Byrd. Now how would he keep the "racist" vote having left the Klan fifty years before this interview?

The other thing that comes to mind: The KKK, being an übernationalist, racist, communist-hating bunch, is a far right fringe group. The same elements that make Hitler a far right fringe lunatic. I thought you wanted Byrd as a "liberal", and yet there he is in a far-right fringe group.

Which way you wanna go here?

The composition of the clan is totally irrelevant to the people who populated the membership if the German Nazi party in the 1920s and 1930s. Any attempt to equate the two is simply a sleazy exercise in propaganda.

 

[Pogo]

And somehow "PROUD" doesn't seem to follow from the known facts, such as this interview from twenty years ago:
>> Q: What has been your biggest mistake and your biggest success?

A: Well, it's easy to state what has been my biggest mistake. The greatest mistake I ever made was joining the Ku Klux Klan. And I've said that many times. But one cannot erase what he has done. He can only change his ways and his thoughts. That was an albatross around my neck that I will always wear. You will read it in my obituary that I was a member of the Ku Klux Klan.

Well DUH!!! By 1993, getting elected as a proud member of the Klu Klux Klan was just a little tricky! Cable news, cell phones, and even internet (dial-up style of course) was in full swing by 1993. And from a cultural perspective, racism was frowned upon by that time.

He wasn't denouncing his hatred, he was trying to win re-election. What next - you believe that Bill Clinton "did not have sexual relations with that woman"?

Pogo has managed to derail this thread from the subject of whether Nazis were leftists to whether Republicans are racists. It's just another sleazy left-wing propaganda technique.

Uh-- that was Rot Whiner, post 1227. I've been constantly noting that this is all off topic.

Don't take my word for it-- have a look.

Again I agree it is a derailment. One wonders why Rott needs to derail it so badly. Probably because he's going down in flames.

 

[Pogo]

Uh... we don't have Congressional elections in odd numbered years, so no this wasn't an election year ploy. "1993" refers to the date of the interview, not his disassociation with the Klan, which appears to have been back in the 1940s.

But two points come to mind here.

You just barked in an earlier post that "racists" elected Byrd. Now how would he keep the "racist" vote having left the Klan fifty years before this interview?

The other thing that comes to mind: The KKK, being an übernationalist, racist, communist-hating bunch, is a far right fringe group. The same elements that make Hitler a far right fringe lunatic. I thought you wanted Byrd as a "liberal", and yet there he is in a far-right fringe group.

Which way you wanna go here?

The composition of the clan is totally irrelevant to the people who populated the membership if the German Nazi party in the 1920s and 1930s. Any attempt to equate the two is simply a sleazy exercise in propaganda.

Yes, it is irrelevant. Another point sails over your tiny little head.

 

[Saigon]

1. Dictators are bad
2. Leftists are bad
3. Therefore, dictators are leftists.

The "Nazis are leftists!" crowd can go home now. I've got their arguments covered.

1. We want Hitler to be a right-winger
2. Hitler is a right-winger

Nothing could be less relevant to history than what anyone wants.

BriPat -

Do you accept that the following leaders were right wing:

1) Antonescu

2) Pinochet

3) Argentina's Dirty Generals

4) Franco

 

[westwall]

1. Dictators are bad
2. Leftists are bad
3. Therefore, dictators are leftists.

The "Nazis are leftists!" crowd can go home now. I've got their arguments covered.

1. We want Hitler to be a right-winger
2. Hitler is a right-winger

Nothing could be less relevant to history than what anyone wants.

BriPat -

Do you accept that the following leaders were right wing:

1) Antonescu

2) Pinochet

3) Argentina's Dirty Generals

4) Franco

No dipshit. They were totalitarians. The complete opposite of "right wing" which is anarchy.

Get it? Ultra left wing equals totalitarian government. Ultra right wing equals NO government.

 

[Saigon]

The complete opposite of "right wing" which is anarchy.

Is the Tea Party right wing?

Does the Tea Party support anarchy?

 

[Saigon]

Well said, Galnuc.

The Argentine Generals followed similar policies to Pinochet, but were arguably more extreme. Jews (Jabobo Timmerman being one example) were subject to arrest and imprisonment because they were considered likely to be socialists. The message from government was about patriotism and duty in the face of the socialist threat. The upper classes were revered and developed enormous wealth, while the poor starved.

Antonescu was so extreme that at one point Hitler threatened to start returning his train loads of Jews because Romania was deporting them to camps with such enthusiasm that the camps were overwhelmed. He came from a military background, and was virulenty opposed to any influence by ethnic groups in Romania. He's a fascinating character historically, but in some ways a more "pure" vision of fascism than Hitler.

This is from Wiki:

Ion Victor Antonescu (Romanian pronunciation: [iˈon antoˈnesku]; June 15, 1882 – June 1, 1946) was a Romanian soldier, authoritarian politician, and convicted war criminal. The Prime Minister and Conducător during most of World War II, he presided over two successive wartime dictatorships. A Romanian Army career officer who made his name during the 1907 peasants' revolt and the World War I Romanian Campaign, the antisemitic Antonescu sympathized with the far right and fascist National Christian and Iron Guard groups for much of the interwar period. He was a military attaché to France and later Chief of the General Staff, briefly serving as Defense Minister in the National Christian cabinet of Octavian Goga. During the late 1930s, his political stance brought him into conflict with King Carol II and led to his detainment. Antonescu nevertheless rose to political prominence during the political crisis of 1940, and established the National Legionary State, an uneasy partnership with the Iron Guard's leader Horia Sima. After entering Romania into an alliance with Nazi Germany and the Axis and ensuring Adolf Hitler's confidence, he eliminated the Guard during the Legionary Rebellion of 1941. In addition to leadership of the executive, he assumed the offices of Foreign Affairs and Defense Minister. Soon after Romania joined the Axis in Operation Barbarossa, recovering Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina, Antonescu also became Marshal of Romania.

An atypical figure among Holocaust perpetrators, Antonescu enforced policies independently responsible for the deaths of as many as 400,000 people, most of them Bessarabian, Ukrainian and Romanian Jews, as well as Romani Romanians. The regime's complicity in the Holocaust combined pogroms and mass murders such as the Odessa massacre with ethnic cleansing, systematic deportations to occupied Transnistria and widespread criminal negligence. The system in place was nevertheless characterized by singular inconsistencies, prioritizing plunder over killing, showing leniency toward most Jews in the Old Kingdom, and ultimately refusing to adopt the Final Solution as applied throughout Nazi-occupied Europe.

Confronted with heavy losses on the Eastern Front, Antonescu embarked on inconclusive negotiations with the Allies, just before a political coalition, formed around the young monarch Michael I, toppled him during the August 23, 1944 Coup. After a brief detention in the Soviet Union, the deposed Conducător was handed back to Romania, where he was tried by a special People's Tribunal and executed. This was part of a series of trials that also passed sentences on his various associates, as well as his wife Maria. The judicial procedures earned much criticism for responding to the Romanian Communist Party's ideological priorities, a matter that fueled nationalist and far right attempts to have Antonescu posthumously exonerated. While these groups elevated Antonescu to the status of hero, his involvement in the Holocaust was officially reasserted and condemned following the 2003 Wiesel Commission report.

Ion Antonescu - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[bripat9643]

1. Dictators are bad
2. Leftists are bad
3. Therefore, dictators are leftists.

The "Nazis are leftists!" crowd can go home now. I've got their arguments covered.

1. We want Hitler to be a right-winger
2. Hitler is a right-winger

Nothing could be less relevant to history than what anyone wants.

BriPat -

Do you accept that the following leaders were right wing:

1) Antonescu

2) Pinochet

3) Argentina's Dirty Generals

4) Franco

Nope. Pinochet is the only one I know of that actually believed in the free market. He had to fight a civil war against communist traitors, and some of them got killed. But he won and Chile thrived as a result. That's why the commies hate him so profoundly.

 

[bripat9643]

The complete opposite of "right wing" which is anarchy.

Is the Tea Party right wing?

Does the Tea Party support anarchy?

The TEA party supports less government. That makes it more right wing than your typical liberal.

 

[bripat9643]

You didn't even discuss the economic policies of the so-called Argentine generals. My recollection is that they were far from being great believers in the free market. Certainly, Peron's economic policies involved massive government interference in the economy and wealth redistribution schemes. Around the turn of the century Argentina was the wealthiest country in South America. It's standard of living rivaled that of the United States. However, a series of interventionist governments quickly reduced Argentina to the economic basket case we observe today.

Well said, Galnuc.

The Argentine Generals followed similar policies to Pinochet, but were arguably more extreme. Jews (Jabobo Timmerman being one example) were subject to arrest and imprisonment because they were considered likely to be socialists. The message from government was about patriotism and duty in the face of the socialist threat. The upper classes were revered and developed enormous wealth, while the poor starved.

Antonescu was so extreme that at one point Hitler threatened to start returning his train loads of Jews because Romania was deporting them to camps with such enthusiasm that the camps were overwhelmed. He came from a military background, and was virulenty opposed to any influence by ethnic groups in Romania. He's a fascinating character historically, but in some ways a more "pure" vision of fascism than Hitler.

This is from Wiki:

Ion Victor Antonescu (Romanian pronunciation: [iˈon antoˈnesku]; June 15, 1882 – June 1, 1946) was a Romanian soldier, authoritarian politician, and convicted war criminal. The Prime Minister and Conducător during most of World War II, he presided over two successive wartime dictatorships. A Romanian Army career officer who made his name during the 1907 peasants' revolt and the World War I Romanian Campaign, the antisemitic Antonescu sympathized with the far right and fascist National Christian and Iron Guard groups for much of the interwar period. He was a military attaché to France and later Chief of the General Staff, briefly serving as Defense Minister in the National Christian cabinet of Octavian Goga. During the late 1930s, his political stance brought him into conflict with King Carol II and led to his detainment. Antonescu nevertheless rose to political prominence during the political crisis of 1940, and established the National Legionary State, an uneasy partnership with the Iron Guard's leader Horia Sima. After entering Romania into an alliance with Nazi Germany and the Axis and ensuring Adolf Hitler's confidence, he eliminated the Guard during the Legionary Rebellion of 1941. In addition to leadership of the executive, he assumed the offices of Foreign Affairs and Defense Minister. Soon after Romania joined the Axis in Operation Barbarossa, recovering Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina, Antonescu also became Marshal of Romania.

An atypical figure among Holocaust perpetrators, Antonescu enforced policies independently responsible for the deaths of as many as 400,000 people, most of them Bessarabian, Ukrainian and Romanian Jews, as well as Romani Romanians. The regime's complicity in the Holocaust combined pogroms and mass murders such as the Odessa massacre with ethnic cleansing, systematic deportations to occupied Transnistria and widespread criminal negligence. The system in place was nevertheless characterized by singular inconsistencies, prioritizing plunder over killing, showing leniency toward most Jews in the Old Kingdom, and ultimately refusing to adopt the Final Solution as applied throughout Nazi-occupied Europe.

Confronted with heavy losses on the Eastern Front, Antonescu embarked on inconclusive negotiations with the Allies, just before a political coalition, formed around the young monarch Michael I, toppled him during the August 23, 1944 Coup. After a brief detention in the Soviet Union, the deposed Conducător was handed back to Romania, where he was tried by a special People's Tribunal and executed. This was part of a series of trials that also passed sentences on his various associates, as well as his wife Maria. The judicial procedures earned much criticism for responding to the Romanian Communist Party's ideological priorities, a matter that fueled nationalist and far right attempts to have Antonescu posthumously exonerated. While these groups elevated Antonescu to the status of hero, his involvement in the Holocaust was officially reasserted and condemned following the 2003 Wiesel Commission report.

Ion Antonescu - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[buckeye45_73]

I love liberals they think that if you dont have complete and total state ownership, you are a capitalist....which they must think Marx was one, because he said it was one of the stages......and accepted it.......WOW
Capitalism is an economic system that works under the political system of democracy......How do you have free markets if you dont have a free political system? Again Hitler allowed the illusion of capitalism, so he could
a) slowly take control-knowing if he just outlawed it, he would have huge problems
b)so he could blame someone when his policies failed (sounds like someone I know!)
c)He could take over anytime he wanted.......and didnt even need a bailout, just a phone call.

 

[buckeye45_73]

You didn't even discuss the economic policies of the so-called of the Argentine generals. My recollection is that they were far from being great believers in the free market. Certainly, Peron's economic policies involved massive government interference in the economy and wealth redistribution schemes. Around the turn of the century Argentina was the wealthiest country in South America. It's standard of living rivaled that of the United States. However, a series of interventionist governments quickly reduced Argentina to the economic basket case we observe today.

Well said, Galnuc.

The Argentine Generals followed similar policies to Pinochet, but were arguably more extreme. Jews (Jabobo Timmerman being one example) were subject to arrest and imprisonment because they were considered likely to be socialists. The message from government was about patriotism and duty in the face of the socialist threat. The upper classes were revered and developed enormous wealth, while the poor starved.

Antonescu was so extreme that at one point Hitler threatened to start returning his train loads of Jews because Romania was deporting them to camps with such enthusiasm that the camps were overwhelmed. He came from a military background, and was virulenty opposed to any influence by ethnic groups in Romania. He's a fascinating character historically, but in some ways a more "pure" vision of fascism than Hitler.

This is from Wiki:

Ion Victor Antonescu (Romanian pronunciation: [iˈon antoˈnesku]; June 15, 1882 – June 1, 1946) was a Romanian soldier, authoritarian politician, and convicted war criminal. The Prime Minister and Conducător during most of World War II, he presided over two successive wartime dictatorships. A Romanian Army career officer who made his name during the 1907 peasants' revolt and the World War I Romanian Campaign, the antisemitic Antonescu sympathized with the far right and fascist National Christian and Iron Guard groups for much of the interwar period. He was a military attaché to France and later Chief of the General Staff, briefly serving as Defense Minister in the National Christian cabinet of Octavian Goga. During the late 1930s, his political stance brought him into conflict with King Carol II and led to his detainment. Antonescu nevertheless rose to political prominence during the political crisis of 1940, and established the National Legionary State, an uneasy partnership with the Iron Guard's leader Horia Sima. After entering Romania into an alliance with Nazi Germany and the Axis and ensuring Adolf Hitler's confidence, he eliminated the Guard during the Legionary Rebellion of 1941. In addition to leadership of the executive, he assumed the offices of Foreign Affairs and Defense Minister. Soon after Romania joined the Axis in Operation Barbarossa, recovering Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina, Antonescu also became Marshal of Romania.

An atypical figure among Holocaust perpetrators, Antonescu enforced policies independently responsible for the deaths of as many as 400,000 people, most of them Bessarabian, Ukrainian and Romanian Jews, as well as Romani Romanians. The regime's complicity in the Holocaust combined pogroms and mass murders such as the Odessa massacre with ethnic cleansing, systematic deportations to occupied Transnistria and widespread criminal negligence. The system in place was nevertheless characterized by singular inconsistencies, prioritizing plunder over killing, showing leniency toward most Jews in the Old Kingdom, and ultimately refusing to adopt the Final Solution as applied throughout Nazi-occupied Europe.

Confronted with heavy losses on the Eastern Front, Antonescu embarked on inconclusive negotiations with the Allies, just before a political coalition, formed around the young monarch Michael I, toppled him during the August 23, 1944 Coup. After a brief detention in the Soviet Union, the deposed Conducător was handed back to Romania, where he was tried by a special People's Tribunal and executed. This was part of a series of trials that also passed sentences on his various associates, as well as his wife Maria. The judicial procedures earned much criticism for responding to the Romanian Communist Party's ideological priorities, a matter that fueled nationalist and far right attempts to have Antonescu posthumously exonerated. While these groups elevated Antonescu to the status of hero, his involvement in the Holocaust was officially reasserted and condemned following the 2003 Wiesel Commission report.

Ion Antonescu - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They dont even look at political or economics, they just see they had a military uniform and say right wing.....it's predictable. Im sure to these people Khadafi was a right wing, and anyone wearing a uniform