Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
P.Chic -
Your questions were answered in posts #135 and #143.
You are more than welcome to reply to those posts.
P.Chic -
Your questions were answered in posts #135 and #143.
You are more than welcome to reply to those posts.I'll even post them again for you here.
One of the other (many) mistakes made on this thread is to apply 21st century US terminology and thinking to Europe in 1939.
If big government = tyranny, then ALL governments in 1940 were tyrannical.
The whole idea of streamlining and downsizing adminsitrations, both public and private, really only came into focus during the 1980s or even 1990s - largely because of the global economic meltdown accompanying the fall of the Berlin wall, and the Reagan-Thatcher views on free market economics. Since then, the focus on 'big government' has maintained a high profile in the US, but less so elsewhere. In Europe, the idea of small government has never really been a big issue. It certainly isn't a major left/right issue as it is in the US, probably because a lot of left-wing adminstrations also slashed public sector jobs in the 1990s.
So on this thread we see posters claiming Hitler must be left wing because he ran a massive public sector. The problem with this thinking is that so did every other country in the developed world.
The schism between left and right wing thinking in Europe in 1940 did not depend on big vs small government, but on the role of a) class and b) capital.
In these senses, the various administrations in Europe fall quite clearly into left and right wing camps, with the right wing backing a class-based society with a strong upper and middle class; while the left looked to smash class structures. The right wing promoted the ownership of shares and used dividends to ensure the wealthy elite remained wealthy, thus ensuring their political support; the left wing looked to remove capital from the equation altogether.
* * *
My point is not whether or not it was a good or bad thing for governments to sell assets, privatise departments or slash bureaucracy in the Reagan-Thatcher era - only to point out that these changes took place in the 1980s, and not in the 1940s.
Hence, the mistake a couple of posters are making here is a little like asking why the Founding Fathers did not refer to internet porn or assault weapons in the constiution. i.e., Because one can not apply a principle or policy decades before anyone has thought of it.
Additionally, to this day, the idea of big small government is not widely used in Europe to determine left vs right wing thinking. It is not, and never has been, the determining factor that it is in the US.
P. Chic -
Please see post #160, where I posted my reply for the second time.
P. Chic -
Do you really wonder why people ignore your questions?
My answer is the same as it was the first time you asked - as it appears in post #160. As it appeared in posts #135 and #143. It addresses your question exactly.
Please read the comments sensibly, and feel to ask any points that you do not feel have been adequately covered.
btw. I really am trying to be patient here, because I can see that you genuinely don't understand why Fascism is considered right wing. That's fine, and I don't mind explaining these things, but I hope you will also have the integrity to acknolwedge the points and your own mistakes as they become clear to you. If not, there is little point in posters explaining things for you in future.
6 million has been the number long before Hitler got in.
Not nearly enough bodies have been found to document the millions for whom the Nazis must answer. Where are those bodies?
So state some of those who deny that the Holocaust took place.
Before considering the argument of the Holocaust deniers, that not nearly enough bodies of victims have been found to validate the charges raised about the Holocaust.....let's go back to get a sense of the time.......
1. At the very least, Franklin Roosevelt's economic policies reflected his infatuation with Mussolini and with Hitler, with both of whom he enjoyed amiable relations.
In fact, his sending Americans into concentration camps, based on their race, opens up the question as to what other polices of theirs he also envied.
2. Nor should one see Nazism as totally separate and different from a number of other political practices....
Nazism is but one variant of totalitarian government....the totalitarian impulse in each nation is fed through the prism of that nation's history, people, culture.....
“Nazism was the product of German culture, grown out of a German context. The Holocaust could not have occurred in Italy, because Italians are not Germans. And in America, where hostility to big government is central to the national character, the case for statism must be made in terms of 'pragmatism' and decency.
In other words, our version of fascism must be nice and for your own good.
American progressives, for the most part, did not disavow fascism until the horrors of the Nazi Holocaust became manifest during World War II.
After the war, those progressives who had praised Mussolini and Hitler in the 1920s and 1930s had no choice but to dissociate themselves from fascism. “Accordingly,” writes Jonah Goldberg, “leftist intellectuals redefined fascism as 'right-wing' and projected their own sins onto conservatives, even as they continued to borrow heavily from fascist and pre-fascist thought.” This progressive campaign to recast fascism as the "right-wing" antithesis of communism was aided by Joseph Stalin, ...."
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1223
Hitler, Stalin...Roosevelt.....the policies were similar....the extent to which they were carried out differed.
a. " Fascism did not acquire an evil name in Washington until Hitler became a menace to·the Soviet Union."
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 48
b. In fact, Roosevelt did not envision entering the war against the Germans....not at first. Not until May 16, 1940, did Roosevelt address Congress and asked for more than a billion dollars for defense, with a commitment for fifty thousand military aircraft. He knew, also, that he needed the good will of business to win the war: no longer would he call them “privileged princes…thirsting for power.”
Roosevelt chose sides early....a question remains: why did he pick Stalin over Hitler?
It is more than interesting that Franklin Roosevelt had no problem associating himself and his nation with the far more homicidal monster, Joseph Stalin, having full knowledge of the millions he killed in the Ukrainian Famine, and the thousands he slaughtered in the Katyn Forest....but turned on the junior monster even before he knew of the atrocities of the 'Final Solution.'
Hitler declared war on the United States....."December 11, 1941, On this day, Adolf Hitler declares war on the United States, bringing America, which had been neutral, into the European conflict. "Germany declares war on the United States mdash History.com This Day in History mdash 12 11 1941
What if Japan hadn't forced Hitler's hand.......?
Wow, knew you were a partisan hack, but I didn't realize how much I was low-balling it.
6 million has been the number long before Hitler got in.
11 million is the more accurate number. 6 million Jews, but another 5 million Christians, Jehovah's witnesses, homosexuals, mongrels, idiots, etc.
BTW, the term "ovens" is literal. What happened to the bodies? The Nazis burned them.
P. Chic -
Jesus wept....is this SERIOUSLY the best you can do? Really?
I really have explained this to you as clearly and patiently as I can - and to answer again: your question makes no sense because the entire concept of small government as an indicator of right wing thinking did not exist prior to 1980, and has never existed in Germany.
ALL western governments in 1940 were, by todays standards, big government, and very obviously they were not all left wing.
As explained earlier - you might as well demand to know why internet porn isn't mentioned in the constitution.
Again - PLEASE try and understand this. Really. I can't make it any clearer.
Not nearly enough bodies have been found to document the millions for whom the Nazis must answer. Where are those bodies?
So state some of those who deny that the Holocaust took place.
Before considering the argument of the Holocaust deniers, that not nearly enough bodies of victims have been found to validate the charges raised about the Holocaust.....let's go back to get a sense of the time.......
1. At the very least, Franklin Roosevelt's economic policies reflected his infatuation with Mussolini and with Hitler, with both of whom he enjoyed amiable relations.
In fact, his sending Americans into concentration camps, based on their race, opens up the question as to what other polices of theirs he also envied.
2. Nor should one see Nazism as totally separate and different from a number of other political practices....
Nazism is but one variant of totalitarian government....the totalitarian impulse in each nation is fed through the prism of that nation's history, people, culture.....
“Nazism was the product of German culture, grown out of a German context. The Holocaust could not have occurred in Italy, because Italians are not Germans. And in America, where hostility to big government is central to the national character, the case for statism must be made in terms of 'pragmatism' and decency.
In other words, our version of fascism must be nice and for your own good.
American progressives, for the most part, did not disavow fascism until the horrors of the Nazi Holocaust became manifest during World War II.
After the war, those progressives who had praised Mussolini and Hitler in the 1920s and 1930s had no choice but to dissociate themselves from fascism. “Accordingly,” writes Jonah Goldberg, “leftist intellectuals redefined fascism as 'right-wing' and projected their own sins onto conservatives, even as they continued to borrow heavily from fascist and pre-fascist thought.” This progressive campaign to recast fascism as the "right-wing" antithesis of communism was aided by Joseph Stalin, ...."
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1223
Hitler, Stalin...Roosevelt.....the policies were similar....the extent to which they were carried out differed.
a. " Fascism did not acquire an evil name in Washington until Hitler became a menace to·the Soviet Union."
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 48
b. In fact, Roosevelt did not envision entering the war against the Germans....not at first. Not until May 16, 1940, did Roosevelt address Congress and asked for more than a billion dollars for defense, with a commitment for fifty thousand military aircraft. He knew, also, that he needed the good will of business to win the war: no longer would he call them “privileged princes…thirsting for power.”
Roosevelt chose sides early....a question remains: why did he pick Stalin over Hitler?
It is more than interesting that Franklin Roosevelt had no problem associating himself and his nation with the far more homicidal monster, Joseph Stalin, having full knowledge of the millions he killed in the Ukrainian Famine, and the thousands he slaughtered in the Katyn Forest....but turned on the junior monster even before he knew of the atrocities of the 'Final Solution.'
Hitler declared war on the United States....."December 11, 1941, On this day, Adolf Hitler declares war on the United States, bringing America, which had been neutral, into the European conflict. "Germany declares war on the United States mdash History.com This Day in History mdash 12 11 1941
What if Japan hadn't forced Hitler's hand.......?
No I doubt the gas chambers and they didn't put bodies in ovens, how much time do you think they had fighting war? Also 6 mil jews were perishing before 1920, watch the video I posted. Lots of Jews died, most from typhus and starvation. I do not believe the holocaust story as presented, and I sure don't believe in gas chambers.
Hitler set out to destroy Marxism. Marx was a Jew. Hitler hated Jews.The national socialism that PCs's decries is exactly the type of right wing fascist conservatism she wants big government to bring to America.
1) fascism is not right wing it is left wing (even in Europe where they always claim fascism is "right" it is actually far, far left wing...since if you look at the "right wing" in Europe, they tend to support as much if not more government control of the people...but they are distinguished by their racism and wanting the socialism for their own national group)
2) fascism and conservatism are diametrically opposed ideas
3) PoliticalChic is not left wing or fascist...she would be American Right wing in that she is one of these...a conservative, a libertarian, or a tea party sympathizer...all of which would be good things and far better than any of the mass murdering left wing brands of socialism...
Hitler set out to destroy Marxism. Marx was a Jew. Hitler hated Jews.
No I doubt the gas chambers and they didn't put bodies in ovens, how much time do you think they had fighting war? Also 6 mil jews were perishing before 1920, watch the video I posted. Lots of Jews died, most from typhus and starvation. I do not believe the holocaust story as presented, and I sure don't believe in gas chambers.
Then I suggest you visit some gas chambers.
Not many people need a lot of time at Birkenau before they understand something of the horror and insanity that took place there.
No I doubt the gas chambers and they didn't put bodies in ovens, how much time do you think they had fighting war? Also 6 mil jews were perishing before 1920, watch the video I posted. Lots of Jews died, most from typhus and starvation. I do not believe the holocaust story as presented, and I sure don't believe in gas chambers.
Then I suggest you visit some gas chambers.
Not many people need a lot of time at Birkenau before they understand something of the horror and insanity that took place there.
P. Chic -
At this stage I think we both have to accept that this is simply over your head. I really cannot make it any simpler, and believe me - I have tried.
I can even put it in A-B-C for you:
A) Big government vs small government can not be used to determine left wing vs right wing in 1940s Europe, because the concept of small government had not yet been fully realised anywhere in the world.
B) Hence, asking the Sesame Street question of 'Which of these big governments is not like the other' is a nonsense - ALL 1940s European governments were big governments. They were not all left wing.
C) The determining factors of left vs right wing are the role of capital, and the role of class. Follow those, and the answers to your questions are obvious.
That said - I think we both realise that you are not going to figure this out, whether because of you are not intelligent enough to get it or simply don't want to get it; I don't know.
The only thing I can suggest is that you go through my comments with a friend, and have them explain to you why your question is nonsensical, and then we can perhaps try again.
Friedrich Hayek CH (German: [ˈfʁiːdʁɪç ˈaʊ̯ɡʊst ˈhaɪ̯ɛk]; 8 May 1899 – 23 March 1992), born in Austria-Hungary as Friedrich August von Hayek and frequently referred to as F. A. Hayek, was an Austrian, later British,[1] economist[2] and philosopher best known for his defence of classical liberalism. Hayek shared the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences (with Gunnar Myrdal) for his "pioneering work in the theory of money and economic fluctuations and ... penetrating analysis of the interdependence of economic, social and institutional phenomena".[3]
Hayek was a major political thinker of the twentieth century,[4] and his account of how changing prices communicate information which enables individuals to co-ordinate their plans is widely regarded as an important achievement in economics.[5]
Hayek served in World War I and said that his experience in the war and his desire to help avoid the mistakes that had led to the war led him to his career. Hayek lived in Austria, Great Britain, the United States and Germany, and became a British subject in 1938. He spent most of his academic life at the London School of Economics (LSE), the University of Chicago, and the University of Freiburg.
In 1984, he was appointed a member of the Order of the Companions of Honour by Queen Elizabeth II on the advice of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher for his "services to the study of economics".[6] He was the first recipient of the Hanns Martin Schleyer Prize in 1984.[7] He also received the US Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1991 from President George H. W. Bush.[8] In 2011, his article "The Use of Knowledge in Society" was selected as one of the top 20 articles published in The American Economic Review during its first 100 years.[9
It would, indeed, hardly have been possible for the Nationalists to advance fundamental objections to the economic policy of the other socialist parties when their own published programme differed from these only in that its socialism was much cruder and less rational. The famous 25 points drawn up by Herr Feder, one of Hitler's early allies, repeatedly endorsed by Hitler and recognized by the by-laws of the National-Socialist party as the immutable basis of all its actions, which together with an extensive commentary is circulating throughout Germany in many hundreds of thousands of copies, is full of ideas resembling those of the early socialists.
