Hitler Hated Communism, Socialist, Homosexuals, and Jews

pal_of_poor

VIP Member
Aug 14, 2009
193
29
66
In fact, he went after them before he started exterminating Jews. So, who hates communism, socialism, and homosexuals more, democrats, or republicans. Here is an excerpt from a book, you know, a good, historical account, rather than a right-wing idiot paid to mislead you, so you can get all irritated about something that isn't even true, and look like a dummy.

Begin excerpt:

Perhaps to emphasize this anti-capitalist focus, and to align itself with similar groups in Austria and Czechoslovakia, the party changed its name in February 1920 to the National Socialist German Workers’ Party; hostile commentators soon abbreviated this to the word ‘Nazi”, just as the enemies of the Social Democrats had abbreviated the name of that party earlier on to ‘Sozi’. Despite the change of name, however, it would be wrong to see Nazism as a form of or an outgrowth from, Socialism. True, as some have pointed out, its rhetoric was frequently egalitarian, it stressed the need to put common needs above the needs of the individual, and it often declared itself opposed to big business and international finance capital. Famously, too, anti-Semitism was once declared to be ‘the socialism of fools’. But from the very beginning Hitler declared himself implacably opposed to Social Democracy and, initially to a much smaller extent, Communism: after all, the ‘November traitors’ who had signed the Armistice and later the Treaty of Versailles were not Communists at all, but the Social Democrats and their allies.
The ‘National Socialists’ wanted to unite the two political camps of the left and right into which, they argued, the Jews had manipulated the German nation. The basis for this was to be the idea of race. This was light years removed from the class-based ideology of socialism. Nazism was in some ways an extreme counter-ideology to socialism, borrowing much of its rhetoric in the process, from its self-image as a movement rather than a party, to its much-vaunted contempt for bourgeois convention and conservative timidity. The idea of ‘party’, suggested allegiance to parliamentary democracy, working steadily within a settled democratic polity. In speeches and propagandas however, Hitler and his followers preferred on the whole to talk of ‘National Socialist movement’, just as the Social Democrats had talked of “workers’ movement” or, come to that, the feminists of the ‘women’s movement’ and the apostles of prewar teenage rebellion of ‘youth movement’. The term not only suggested dynamism and unceasing forward motion, it also more than hinted at an ultimate goal, an absolute object to work towards that was grander and more final than the endless compromises of conventional politics. By presenting itself as a ‘movement’, National Socialism, like the labor movement, advertised is opposition to conventional politics and is intention to subvert and ultimately overthrow the system within which it was initially forced to work.

By replacing class with race, and the dictatorship of the proletariat with the dictatorship of the leader, Nazism reversed the usual terms of socialist ideology. The synthesis of right and left was neatly symbolized in the Party’s official flag, personally chosen by Hitler in the mid-1920’s: the field was bright red, the color of socialism, with the swastika, the emblem of racist nationalism, outlined in black in the middle of a white circle at the centre of the flag, so that the whole ensemble made a combination of black, white, and red, the colors of the official flag of the Bismarckian rejection of the Weimar Republic and all it stood for; but by changing the design and adding the swastika, a symbol already used by a variety of far-right racist movements and Free Corps units in the postwar period, the Nazis also announced that what they wanted to replace it with was a new, Pan-German racial state, not the old Wilhelmine status quo.

The Coming of the Third Reich, by Richard J. Evans pp. 173-74

I might just add, there was a entirely different party, called the Socialist Party, in Germany. Nazis were "National Socialists." They were nationalist, country first above all things, you must believe my ideas, or watch what you say, we'll torture you, kind of people. They were Fascists, not Socialists, and Fascism is that endpoint of the spectrum when Republicans keep on moving to the right, as they did during the Bush years.

I would say I'm surprised that people can be so uninformed, but with FOX, Limbaugh, and the host of other misinformation sites out there, I understand it perfectly. They are willing to fine a quick flash of Janet Jackson's nipple, but they allow corporate media to flood the airwaves with lies, and misinformation, without penalty. No wonder?
 
I might just add, there was a entirely different party, called the Socialist Party, in Germany. Nazis were "National Socialists." They were nationalist, country first above all things, you must believe my ideas, or watch what you say, we'll torture you, kind of people. They were Fascists, not Socialists, and Fascism is that endpoint of the spectrum when Republicans keep on moving to the right, as they did during the Bush years.

except the political spectrum is a circle.....i always wonder about people that accuse others of things they temselves are doing all while trying to disarm the population and telling them what is good for them.....
 
I might just add, there was a entirely different party, called the Socialist Party, in Germany. Nazis were "National Socialists." They were nationalist, country first above all things, you must believe my ideas, or watch what you say, we'll torture you, kind of people. They were Fascists, not Socialists, and Fascism is that endpoint of the spectrum when Republicans keep on moving to the right, as they did during the Bush years.

except the political spectrum is a circle.....i always wonder about people that accuse others of things they temselves are doing all while trying to disarm the population and telling them what is good for them.....

Yes, in fact, the socialist party and communist party took enough votes away from each other that it allowed the Nazis to come to power.
 
Robert Paxton wrote on Facism:

a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion
========================================

depending on your political bent you can make facism and nazism swing left or right, but the fact neither Nazis or facists were left or right, they were in their own catigory, and have no real connection to modern politics.
 
I might just add, there was a entirely different party, called the Socialist Party, in Germany. Nazis were "National Socialists." They were nationalist, country first above all things, you must believe my ideas, or watch what you say, we'll torture you, kind of people. They were Fascists, not Socialists, and Fascism is that endpoint of the spectrum when Republicans keep on moving to the right, as they did during the Bush years.

except the political spectrum is a circle.....i always wonder about people that accuse others of things they temselves are doing all while trying to disarm the population and telling them what is good for them.....

If you are saying that totalitarianism, often mistaken for Marxism, can be reached from both sides, then yea, I agree. I think the conditions under Marxist Totalitarianism are quite different than under Fascism, as displayed in Germany, and Italy. And by the way, tyrannical leaders can manifest under any economic system, even ours. Look at Cheney, Rove, and Rummy.
 
I might just add, there was a entirely different party, called the Socialist Party, in Germany. Nazis were "National Socialists." They were nationalist, country first above all things, you must believe my ideas, or watch what you say, we'll torture you, kind of people. They were Fascists, not Socialists, and Fascism is that endpoint of the spectrum when Republicans keep on moving to the right, as they did during the Bush years.

except the political spectrum is a circle.....i always wonder about people that accuse others of things they temselves are doing all while trying to disarm the population and telling them what is good for them.....

If you are saying that totalitarianism, often mistaken for Marxism, can be reached from both sides, then yea, I agree. I think the conditions under Marxist Totalitarianism are quite different than under Fascism, as displayed in Germany, and Italy. And by the way, tyrannical leaders can manifest under any economic system, even ours. Look at Cheney, Rove, and Rummy.

Cheny, Rove, and Rummy are not Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin, or Stalin. Try again.
 
Well you're partially correct. Hitler did hate Communists but he considered himself to be a loyal Socialist. The Nazi party itself was a Socialist Party. It's actually kind of funny reading about Hitler's hatred of the Communists when you realize that Communists aren't really any different than Socialists in the end. Hey the guy was a whacko right?
 
Robert Paxton wrote on Facism:

a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion
========================================

depending on your political bent you can make facism and nazism swing left or right, but the fact neither Nazis or facists were left or right, they were in their own catigory, and have no real connection to modern politics.

You can try to be party ambivalent on this if you like. It is certainly the brainwashing opinion that the corporate media seems to push. But the quote you posted sounds way more like Republicans, and like I say, the republicans are the ones who hate the same group Hitler and Nazis hated, and attacked and removed before they even took on the Jews. Today's Jews, or hated ones in the republican party, are Blacks and of course, Muslims. You've got to have someone to hate in Fascism, it seems.

And like I said, there is a spectrum of politics, and Socialism is to the left of being a Democrat, and Fascism is to the right of being a Republican. Are we there yet? Pretty close, as it seems corporations pull the strings and manipulate our politicians at will. Since Fascism is most easily described as corporatism, we've pretty much arrived. Getting power back into the hands of people really requires a compete reform of how we finance our campaigns.
 
This is the most useless conversation in the world. There is more to politics than a single axis - right or left. Arguing about with party today is closer to Nazi is both factually inaccurate and a really stupid way to make a point.
 
I might just add, there was a entirely different party, called the Socialist Party, in Germany. Nazis were "National Socialists." They were nationalist, country first above all things, you must believe my ideas, or watch what you say, we'll torture you, kind of people. They were Fascists, not Socialists, and Fascism is that endpoint of the spectrum when Republicans keep on moving to the right, as they did during the Bush years.

except the political spectrum is a circle.....i always wonder about people that accuse others of things they temselves are doing all while trying to disarm the population and telling them what is good for them.....

If you are saying that totalitarianism, often mistaken for Marxism, can be reached from both sides, then yea, I agree. I think the conditions under Marxist Totalitarianism are quite different than under Fascism, as displayed in Germany, and Italy. And by the way, tyrannical leaders can manifest under any economic system, even ours. Look at Cheney, Rove, and Rummy.

Cheny, Rove, and Rummy are not Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin, or Stalin. Try again.

I don't know, wars for oil, and dominence in a region, over a certain group, the Muslims, for oil, and for pipelines. Torture. Tremendous nationalism was being promoted, over all other American policies. Personal privacy was coopted, and people who dissented where threatened, and for a while there, during his first four years, they pretty much had a ministry of propaganda, totally all in for Bush's wars.

They were certainly entering the room where Hitler and his buddies had been.

They were damn sure knocking on the door.

You see, when I have compared the Republicans to the NAZIS, it has always been to the 1930s, and the leading up to the world war, you know, how they managed to corrupt everything, destroy dissent, and torture people, how they seized power, 9/11 and the Reichstag fire being precipitating events.
 
Well you're partially correct. Hitler did hate Communists but he considered himself to be a loyal Socialist. The Nazi party itself was a Socialist Party. It's actually kind of funny reading about Hitler's hatred of the Communists when you realize that Communists aren't really any different than Socialists in the end. Hey the guy was a whacko right?
National socialism is basically nationalism, country above all else, your private life, common decency, not torturing people, agreeing unquestioningly to everything whatever government puts in your head, through their corporatized media.

And once again, they had a Socialist Party, an entirely different party. Capitalism as we have been practicing it in the last ten years or so, perhaps 20, is more or less Fascism. There is this pretense that we have some power, we vote, leaders get in, they are bribed to do things, allow more pollution, allow companies to screw us with high drug prices, allow almost anything that helps corporations.

Of course there is this massive takeover of right-wing media, so they can give these authoritarian types that don't like to do their own thinking, but just want to take marching orders, and show up yelling at meetings to disrupt intercourse.
 
Well you're partially correct. Hitler did hate Communists but he considered himself to be a loyal Socialist. The Nazi party itself was a Socialist Party. It's actually kind of funny reading about Hitler's hatred of the Communists when you realize that Communists aren't really any different than Socialists in the end. Hey the guy was a whacko right?

The Nazis were Socialists like the German Democratic Republic was Democratic...or a Republic. :lol:
 
Robert Paxton wrote on Facism:

a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion
========================================

depending on your political bent you can make facism and nazism swing left or right, but the fact neither Nazis or facists were left or right, they were in their own catigory, and have no real connection to modern politics.

You can try to be party ambivalent on this if you like. It is certainly the brainwashing opinion that the corporate media seems to push. But the quote you posted sounds way more like Republicans, and like I say, the republicans are the ones who hate the same group Hitler and Nazis hated, and attacked and removed before they even took on the Jews. Today's Jews, or hated ones in the republican party, are Blacks and of course, Muslims. You've got to have someone to hate in Fascism, it seems.

And like I said, there is a spectrum of politics, and Socialism is to the left of being a Democrat, and Fascism is to the right of being a Republican. Are we there yet? Pretty close, as it seems corporations pull the strings and manipulate our politicians at will. Since Fascism is most easily described as corporatism, we've pretty much arrived. Getting power back into the hands of people really requires a compete reform of how we finance our campaigns.
I was being polite about it, but the argument you trying to make is asinine.

And in fact, the current political left is far closer to the antics of the nazi party on its rise to power (1921-31) then the right was, which such nonsense as truth squads, stacking and faux protests, trying to intimdate voters, lying and demonizing opponents (The dems hae this down to a science, it was Hitler's favorite tactic also).

Both the American left and right have similarities to the Nazis, but you are trying to hint its more the GoP.

No, they are both the same in this.
 
Fascism & communism, by definition are forms of socialism, (basic gov studies 101). Bolsheviks (Soviet style communists) and their associated communist offshoots saw facism as the final step in the logical progression from capitalism to communism. Fascists however viewed their system as being the perfected system which they saw as the ultimate socialist system.
(2nd part paraphrased from The Dark Vally, a panorama of the 1930s by Piers Brendon)
 
Robert Paxton wrote on Facism:

a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion
========================================

depending on your political bent you can make facism and nazism swing left or right, but the fact neither Nazis or facists were left or right, they were in their own catigory, and have no real connection to modern politics.

You can try to be party ambivalent on this if you like. It is certainly the brainwashing opinion that the corporate media seems to push. But the quote you posted sounds way more like Republicans, and like I say, the republicans are the ones who hate the same group Hitler and Nazis hated, and attacked and removed before they even took on the Jews. Today's Jews, or hated ones in the republican party, are Blacks and of course, Muslims. You've got to have someone to hate in Fascism, it seems.

And like I said, there is a spectrum of politics, and Socialism is to the left of being a Democrat, and Fascism is to the right of being a Republican. Are we there yet? Pretty close, as it seems corporations pull the strings and manipulate our politicians at will. Since Fascism is most easily described as corporatism, we've pretty much arrived. Getting power back into the hands of people really requires a compete reform of how we finance our campaigns.
I was being polite about it, but the argument you trying to make is asinine.

And in fact, the current political left is far closer to the antics of the nazi party on its rise to power (1921-31) then the right was, which such nonsense as truth squads, stacking and faux protests, trying to intimdate voters, lying and demonizing opponents (The dems hae this down to a science, it was Hitler's favorite tactic also).

Both the American left and right have similarities to the Nazis, but you are trying to hint its more the GoP.

No, they are both the same in this.

you are stacking the deck by limiting the comparison to the time frame you arbitrarily chose, 1921-31. why did you choose this time frame? by 1930 most lefties left the party. i say what was left were ultra right wing nationalists. wrapping themselves in the flag and pointing fingers at enemies outside and inside the reich who were responsible for everything that was wrong. claiming germany was the best, germans the best, everyone else should shut the fuck up. see how easy it is to warp it to make it sound like you want it to sound like. this is no accusation at you personally.

but i am sick of hearing even insinuations that hitler was to the "left", a "liberal" etc. he was nothing of this sort, he was special, granted, but he was to the RIGHT.

additionally, i don't like your time frame because when you think of nazis, NO ONE thinks of nazis out of power. this is annoying.

to sum up, why did you choose the time frame 1921-31?
 
In fact, he went after them before he started exterminating Jews. So, who hates communism, socialism, and homosexuals more, democrats, or republicans. Here is an excerpt from a book, you know, a good, historical account, rather than a right-wing idiot paid to mislead you, so you can get all irritated about something that isn't even true, and look like a dummy.

Begin excerpt:

Perhaps to emphasize this anti-capitalist focus, and to align itself with similar groups in Austria and Czechoslovakia, the party changed its name in February 1920 to the National Socialist German Workers’ Party; hostile commentators soon abbreviated this to the word ‘Nazi”, just as the enemies of the Social Democrats had abbreviated the name of that party earlier on to ‘Sozi’. Despite the change of name, however, it would be wrong to see Nazism as a form of or an outgrowth from, Socialism. True, as some have pointed out, its rhetoric was frequently egalitarian, it stressed the need to put common needs above the needs of the individual, and it often declared itself opposed to big business and international finance capital. Famously, too, anti-Semitism was once declared to be ‘the socialism of fools’. But from the very beginning Hitler declared himself implacably opposed to Social Democracy and, initially to a much smaller extent, Communism: after all, the ‘November traitors’ who had signed the Armistice and later the Treaty of Versailles were not Communists at all, but the Social Democrats and their allies.
The ‘National Socialists’ wanted to unite the two political camps of the left and right into which, they argued, the Jews had manipulated the German nation. The basis for this was to be the idea of race. This was light years removed from the class-based ideology of socialism. Nazism was in some ways an extreme counter-ideology to socialism, borrowing much of its rhetoric in the process, from its self-image as a movement rather than a party, to its much-vaunted contempt for bourgeois convention and conservative timidity. The idea of ‘party’, suggested allegiance to parliamentary democracy, working steadily within a settled democratic polity. In speeches and propagandas however, Hitler and his followers preferred on the whole to talk of ‘National Socialist movement’, just as the Social Democrats had talked of “workers’ movement” or, come to that, the feminists of the ‘women’s movement’ and the apostles of prewar teenage rebellion of ‘youth movement’. The term not only suggested dynamism and unceasing forward motion, it also more than hinted at an ultimate goal, an absolute object to work towards that was grander and more final than the endless compromises of conventional politics. By presenting itself as a ‘movement’, National Socialism, like the labor movement, advertised is opposition to conventional politics and is intention to subvert and ultimately overthrow the system within which it was initially forced to work.

By replacing class with race, and the dictatorship of the proletariat with the dictatorship of the leader, Nazism reversed the usual terms of socialist ideology. The synthesis of right and left was neatly symbolized in the Party’s official flag, personally chosen by Hitler in the mid-1920’s: the field was bright red, the color of socialism, with the swastika, the emblem of racist nationalism, outlined in black in the middle of a white circle at the centre of the flag, so that the whole ensemble made a combination of black, white, and red, the colors of the official flag of the Bismarckian rejection of the Weimar Republic and all it stood for; but by changing the design and adding the swastika, a symbol already used by a variety of far-right racist movements and Free Corps units in the postwar period, the Nazis also announced that what they wanted to replace it with was a new, Pan-German racial state, not the old Wilhelmine status quo.

The Coming of the Third Reich, by Richard J. Evans pp. 173-74

I might just add, there was a entirely different party, called the Socialist Party, in Germany. Nazis were "National Socialists." They were nationalist, country first above all things, you must believe my ideas, or watch what you say, we'll torture you, kind of people. They were Fascists, not Socialists, and Fascism is that endpoint of the spectrum when Republicans keep on moving to the right, as they did during the Bush years.

I would say I'm surprised that people can be so uninformed, but with FOX, Limbaugh, and the host of other misinformation sites out there, I understand it perfectly. They are willing to fine a quick flash of Janet Jackson's nipple, but they allow corporate media to flood the airwaves with lies, and misinformation, without penalty. No wonder?
When it comes to a post like this, I am tempted to say the same thing, but I believe the ugly irony of that truth would be lost on the author of this thread.
 
to sum up, why did you choose the time frame 1921-31?
It should be obvious.

This was the time of the Weimer republic when the Nazis could not simply dictate or remove people, they had to work within the system to gain control.

And yes, they did use large doses of Socialism to get that control, what they did afterward is another story.

It is disingenious and revisionism to paint them as radical right wingers, that postion in Germany was held by teh Stalhemn movement and was backed by the monarchists, they made a marriage of convience with the nazis not understanding that the Nazis were only using them.

This is also where so many people get it wrong when they discuss facsim or Nazism, what those systems preached and what they did were different things, the many modern attempts to compare today to Facism are equaly valid from left or right so as to make the comparison worthless.

National socialism was indeed socialism, an attempt to make all Germans work for germany, that is what it was billed as and Hitler refused to ever change the offical party platform from that, which he wrote in 1924. The fact the he and the other Nazis ignored it is another story.

Getting back to the here and now, hhis is also why many protestors have crossed out swazsikas, they are making the same statement about what they see going on, they recognize the baby steps to totalitarianism and they don't like it.
 

Forum List

Back
Top