Democrats connections to Adolph Hitler

[Robert W]

The age is on you today, is it not, Robert W? You are blathering.

Dem policies had no parallels with the Nazis, as there were with the GOP.

There were no concentration camps for Americans fashioned by the Dems. Hitler admired Ford, Rockefeller, and Dewey. He really liked the reservations fashioned by the GOP presidents of the 1860s, 70s, 80s, and 90s. His concentration camps were fashioned on those GOP created reservations.

FDR kept Italians, German American citizens and Japanese as political prisoners. I am 85 until late in August. I still have a bit more than 5 months to spend at age 85.
The GOP has never held political prisoners save for Abraham Lincoln whom I speak candidly about often and blame him.

So Dems in the South never had concentration camps? Those were Democrats. Hitler had little to admire the USA for. FDR did not do much to make us proud. At least you may hate Abraham Lincoln as it sure seems you do.

 

[Stryder50]

You do realise don’t you that Reagan was originally a Dem right? Lol

Oh and you also realise don’t you DICK Nixon and LBJ were the best of pals both involved in the jfk assassination up to their ears right,they were the murderers of 58,000 Americans after Dick lied to the American people to immediately end the war expanding it into cambodi and extending it another four years.John Connolly who was the best of pals with LBJ was originally a dem then later switched to the Republican Party with Nixon,oh and Clinton has been the best of best pals with the bushes going all the way back to the 70;s,they go around golfing canoeing with each other,you name it,proof the two party system is a joke and one party system designed as two.

Oh and traiter ike was the best of pals with stalin same as fellow traiter fdr.

Proves people can and will change their minds and positions.
Disproves one is born as either a Democrat or Republican, socialist or libertarian, conservative or liberal, etc.
Also, definitions of some political poles/factions have changed over time.
JFK wouldn't be allowed in the Democrat party of today, 60+ years later. He'd most likely be a RINO today.

 

[my2¢]

The one thing I liked about Trump's administration was the return to a more isolationist America of the kind early in FDR's presidency.

 

[Robert W]

You do realise don’t you that Reagan was originally a Dem right? Lol

Oh and you also realise don’t you DICK Nixon and LBJ were the best of pals both involved in the jfk assassination up to their ears right,they were the murderers of 58,000 Americans after Dick lied to the American people to immediately end the war expanding it into cambodi and extending it another four years.John Connolly who was the best of pals with LBJ was originally a dem then later switched to the Republican Party with Nixon,oh and Clinton has been the best of best pals with the bushes going all the way back to the 70;s,they go around golfing canoeing with each other,you name it,proof the two party system is a joke and one party system designed as two.

Oh and traiter ike was the best of pals with stalin same as fellow traiter fdr.

What is the purpose of that remark to me? I know what Reagan used to be in part because I also was a very long term Democrat. I can't accept the claim of Nixon and LBJ out to murder JFK. Claims should be backed by evidence. The North Vietnamese killed our Troops except for the routine accidents. Cambodia was the path used by North Vietnam to supply their militia in South Vietnam. Nixon tried to end that path. I was in the Army and in Germany when Kennedy got shot. Troops do not get the same publiciations in Europe they can get in the USA. So stuff that could be rumor is not put into the Stars and Stripes.

Ike I did not like at all since I was then a Democrat. But IKE was the supreme commander over the forces that invaded Normandy. Naturally he would be on first name basis with the forces against the Germans so he would need to know Stalin. A lot of younger Americans are not aware of how many millions of Americans believed we should be friends of Stalin.

 

[Robert W]

In 1933 Hitler purged the German government of Socialists, Communists, Democrats and Jews.

You must know all about the Enabling Act. Dachau was newly built so Hitler killed them or put them in Dachau.

The concentration camp was not new, it was used as a munitions factory, prior to Hitler being in charge. In fact it still was a munitions factory producing munitions for the Nazis.
I am curious why so many Democrats get upset when I call the Nazis socialists?

 

[surada]

What so called Democrats did he put to work at Dachau?

Dachau was a concentration camp that made munitions. In 1933 Hitler used the Enabling Act to purge the German government of Socialists, Communists, Jews and Democrats.

He put them in Dachau. He hated them. I flew into Munich to pick up a car in Dusseldorf with my family. We spent 6 weeks in Germany that time.

 

[surada]

The concentration camp was not new, it was used as a munitions factory, prior to Hitler being in charge. In fact it still was a munitions factory producing munitions for the Nazis.
I am curious why so many Democrats get upset when I call the Nazis socialists?

Hitler broke with the socialists in 1926. He hated them.

 

[surada]

USA wasn't dropping bombs during the 1930s
FDR did little to oppose tyranny and fascism during that period.

At first there was hope that Hitler could help Germany. They were hard hit by the Depression and the reparations they owed because of WW1.

I take it you could see into the future.

 

[Robert W]

Yep, the bombs that were being dropped on Hitler by FDR were very close.

Have you seen the actual bombed buildings? I personally saw many of them.

 

[Robert W]

Hitler broke with the socialists in 1926. He hated them.

Why would he hate what he did himself?

 

[candycorn]

Have you seen the actual bombed buildings? I personally saw many of them.

Bombs of love no doubt.

Really...are you on drugs?

 

[Robert W]

FDR, like most of Europe, was concerned about Hitler. But FDR, like most of Europe, took no action and tried to appease him.
“President Roosevelt is best remembered for leading America towards military preparedness and, later, in the war against Nazi Germany—yet he was remarkably reluctant to even verbally criticize Hitler in the 1930s.”
“Throughout the pre-war period, FDR strove to maintain cordial diplomatic and economic relations with Nazi Germany. He sent Secretary of Commerce Daniel Roper to speak at a German-American rally in New York City in 1933, where the featured speaker was the Nazi ambassador to Washington, and a large swastika flag was displayed on stage. The president allowed U.S. diplomats to attend the mass Nazi Party rally in Nuremberg in 1937, and his administration helped the Nazis evade the American Jewish community’s boycott of German goods in the 1930s by permitting the Nazis to deceptively label their goods with the city or province of origin, instead of “Made in Germany.””
“Despite the intensifying anti-Jewish persecution in Germany in the 1930s, Roosevelt not only refused to criticize the Hitler government, but he personally removed critical references to Hitler from at least three planned speeches by Interior Secretary Harold Ickes in 1935 and 1938. Even Roosevelt’s criticism of the infamous Kristallnacht pogrom—a public statement which has often been cited as proof of the president’s willingness to denounce the Nazis—did not contain a single explicit mention of Hitler, Nazism, or the Jews.”
“Roosevelt said nothing about Hitler’s action in the Rhineland (1936); applauded the Munich agreement, which handed western Czechoslovakia to the Nazis (1938); and, eighty years ago this week, ducked reporters’ questions rather than utter a single critical word regarding Hitler’s threat to Danzig.”
“FDR was, of course, saddled with the burden of a largely isolationist public and Congress. He was understandably reluctant to be seen as doing anything that might seem to edge America close to war with Germany. Yet a president’s job is to lead, not to follow. A few words from the White House directly taking issue with Hitler’s aggressive actions and persecution of the Jews could have helped alert the public to the Nazi danger. “
“Explaining President Roosevelt’s refusal to comment on Hitler’s remilitarization of the Rhineland in 1936, the diplomatic correspondent of the Washington Evening Standard reported that the president “is determined not to take sides under any circumstances.” But there are circumstances when, even if it is unpopular, a president needs to publicly “take sides”—to take the side of good against the side of evil.”
“A stronger response from President Roosevelt over Danzig or the earlier crises also would have indicated to Hitler that there might be consequences for his actions—something that was particularly important in the early and mid 1930s, when the Nazi leader was still testing the waters. “
“It is not trade but empire that is Hitler’s goal,” a New York Times editorial acknowledged following the Danzig speech. “How far he will go and how fast he will go toward acquiring it will depend solely upon how much opposition is offered him.”
“FDR’s non-response to Danzig sent Hitler exactly the wrong message.”
Why FDR Wouldn't Condemn Hitler

https://www.quora.com/What-did-FDR-think-of-Hitler-before-WWII-or-even-Kristallnacht

I endorse a lot of that. FDR was not bothered by Hitler for a good 9 years if not 10. Why? Because Hitler was rebuilding Germany. Hitler worked to build a great economy. FDR did not believe Hitler was constructing a war machine. When he was told that Hitler was, FDR was not willing to believe it. Even when the allies handed Hitler lands he took, due to the promises of Hitler to stop at that point, it was of little concern to FDR. FDR did not believe that Hitler could invade the USA.

What happened to Germany at the end of WW1 not only agonized Germany but even allies believed it was far too hard on Germany and perhaps would provoke a leader if one showed up willing to have a war. Hitler definitely was willing.

 

[Robert W]

Bombs of love no doubt.

Really...are you on drugs?

What the hell is your problem? You buzzed out?

 

[Robert W]

Dachau was a concentration camp that made munitions. In 1933 Hitler used the Enabling Act to purge the German government of Socialists, Communists, Jews and Democrats.

He put them in Dachau. He hated them. I flew into Munich to pick up a car in Dusseldorf with my family. We spent 6 weeks in Germany that time.

Dachau was the first German concentration camp that opened up in 1933. For years Hitler did not execute the jews over them being Jews. He gave them chances to leave Germany. Even though he permitted them to leave, FDR refused to allow them into the USA. FDR caused a lot of Jews to be killed when they came back to Germany. Dachau held Communists and others Himmler wanted locked up. But for a time he put no Jews there.

 

[surada]

Have you seen the actual bombed buildings? I personally saw many of them.

Were the Nazis Socialists?

What’s the difference between National Socialists and every other kind of socialist?

www.britannica.com

Were the Nazis socialists? No, not in any meaningful way, and certainly not after 1934. But to address this canard fully, one must begin with the birth of the party.

Snip

Hitler allied himself with leaders of German conservative and nationalist movements, and in January 1933 German President Paul von Hindenburg appointed him chancellor. Hitler’s Third Reich had been born, and it was entirely fascist in character. Within two months Hitler achieved full dictatorial power through the Enabling Act. In April 1933 communists, socialists, democrats, and Jews were purged from the German civil service, and trade unions were outlawed the following month.

That July Hitler banned all political parties other than his own, and prominent members of the German Communist Party and the Social Democratic Party were arrested and imprisoned in concentration camps.

Lest there be any remaining questions about the political character of the Nazi revolution, Hitler ordered the murder of Gregor Strasser, an act that was carried out on June 30, 1934, during the Night of the Long Knives. Any remaining traces of socialist thought in the Nazi Party had been extinguished.

 

[Stryder50]

At first there was hope that Hitler could help Germany. They were hard hit by the Depression and the reparations they owed because of WW1.

I take it you could see into the future.

You get a "fake news" because your comment about my "see into the future" makes no sense.
I wasn't around in the 1930s to see any future.

I have studied history a bit and that is the source of my post comments.

 

[Robert W]

Were the Nazis Socialists?

What’s the difference between National Socialists and every other kind of socialist?

www.britannica.com

Were the Nazis socialists? No, not in any meaningful way, and certainly not after 1934. But to address this canard fully, one must begin with the birth of the party.

Snip

Hitler allied himself with leaders of German conservative and nationalist movements, and in January 1933 German President Paul von Hindenburg appointed him chancellor. Hitler’s Third Reich had been born, and it was entirely fascist in character. Within two months Hitler achieved full dictatorial power through the Enabling Act. In April 1933 communists, socialists, democrats, and Jews were purged from the German civil service, and trade unions were outlawed the following month.

That July Hitler banned all political parties other than his own, and prominent members of the German Communist Party and the Social Democratic Party were arrested and imprisoned in concentration camps.

Lest there be any remaining questions about the political character of the Nazi revolution, Hitler ordered the murder of Gregor Strasser, an act that was carried out on June 30, 1934, during the Night of the Long Knives. Any remaining traces of socialist thought in the Nazi Party had been extinguished.

You go out of your way to defend socialism. I understand why you go out of your way.
You think my comments about Hitler being a socialist attacks your personal ideology.
My sole aim is to correctly steer Americans into a path so they understand Hitler and a bit to steer them into the path of socialism itself.

I found this in Mises.org.
Contrary to the impression Sehon gives, Hitler didn’t see himself as a partisan of business. In a conversation with Carl J. Burckhardt, the League of Nations high commissioner in Danzig, Hitler called himself a “proletarian.”

Sehon’s answer to this is that Hitler in power wasn’t a radical. There were socialists in the Nazi Party, such as Gregor Strasser, but Hitler kicked them out and in many cases killed them. He surrendered to big business in order to gain power. He did not nationalize the major industries of Germany. He was no socialist but favored private property and business enterprise.

In answer to Sehon, I mentioned Mises’s vital distinction between two kinds of socialism. In one of them, the state owns the means of production. In the other, private property still exists but the state tells the owners what to do. This is a form of central planning and still counts as socialism, and it was this that the Nazis put into practice.

Sehon says that this isn’t an accurate account of the Nazi economy and cites an article by Christoph Buchheim and Jonas Scherner to support his claim that private business enjoyed considerable autonomy in the Third Reich. Thanks to Mr. Paul McElroy, I now have access to the article.

Before I discuss this article, I need to mention another of Mises’s vital insights. As readers will remember, Mises in his famous socialist calculation argument proved that a fully socialist economy would collapse into chaos. If this is right, how can ostensibly socialist economies such as Soviet Russia exist? In answer, Mises said that these economies weren’t fully socialist. They allowed scope for private enterprise, albeit of a limited sort. Mises’s point applies to the German form of socialism as well as the Russian.

Thus, Buchheim and Scherner’s argument, even if we accept it, doesn’t disprove Mises’s claim that the Nazi economy was a form of socialism. Nazi control of business wasn’t complete, but neither was the Soviet economy totally socialist.

But should we accept Buchheim and Scherner’s argument? No, we shouldn’t. It is a response to a number of economic historians who accept an analysis of the Nazi economy like that of Mises. In particular, these authors criticize the famous MIT economist Peter Temin’s article “Soviet and Nazi Economic Planning in the 1930s,” available here by scrolling down.

In my opinion, Temin has the better of the argument. Buchheim and Scherner acknowledge:

The Nazi regime did not have any scruples to apply force and terror, if that was judged useful to attain its aims. And in economic policy it did not abstain from numerous regulations and interventions in markets, in order to further rearmament and autarky as far as possible. Thus the regime, by promulgating Schacht’s so-called “New Plan” in 1934, very much strengthened its influence on foreign exchange as well as on raw materials’ allocation, in order to enforce state priorities. Wage-setting became a task of public officials, the capital market was reserved for state demand, a general price stop decreed in 1936. In addition state demand expanded without precedent. Between 1932 and 1938 it increased with an average annual rate of 26 per cent; its share in GNP exploded in these years from 13.6 to 30.5 percent. As a consequence private consumption as well as exports were largely crowded out.

Yes, the Nazis Were Socialists | Mises Institute

Contrary to popular assertions, the Nazis weren't only trying to expropriate Jewish wealth. They wanted the German people to come together as a collective

mises.org

 

[Zebra]

Democrats are well known deniers. But this is one piece of history they can never Deny.

First item of education is: Name a President who has been treated as the Enemy of Democrats?
Don't be shy because you will be helped name them.

Abraham Lincoln
Herbert Hoover
Dwight Eisenhower
Richard Nixon
Ronald Reagan
Both Bush Presidents
Donald Trump
Feel free to add others

Now on to FDR

Did you realise how close to Hitler he was?

Here is some information
Brent Cooper
·
Follow
Trial and appellate counsel for Cooper & Scully (1993–present)Upvoted by
Wendy Weaver
, B.A. History & Mathematics, Willamette University (1973)2y

FDR, like most of Europe, was concerned about Hitler. But FDR, like most of Europe, took no action and tried to appease him.
“President Roosevelt is best remembered for leading America towards military preparedness and, later, in the war against Nazi Germany—yet he was remarkably reluctant to even verbally criticize Hitler in the 1930s.”
“Throughout the pre-war period, FDR strove to maintain cordial diplomatic and economic relations with Nazi Germany. He sent Secretary of Commerce Daniel Roper to speak at a German-American rally in New York City in 1933, where the featured speaker was the Nazi ambassador to Washington, and a large swastika flag was displayed on stage. The president allowed U.S. diplomats to attend the mass Nazi Party rally in Nuremberg in 1937, and his administration helped the Nazis evade the American Jewish community’s boycott of German goods in the 1930s by permitting the Nazis to deceptively label their goods with the city or province of origin, instead of “Made in Germany.””
“Despite the intensifying anti-Jewish persecution in Germany in the 1930s, Roosevelt not only refused to criticize the Hitler government, but he personally removed critical references to Hitler from at least three planned speeches by Interior Secretary Harold Ickes in 1935 and 1938. Even Roosevelt’s criticism of the infamous Kristallnacht pogrom—a public statement which has often been cited as proof of the president’s willingness to denounce the Nazis—did not contain a single explicit mention of Hitler, Nazism, or the Jews.”
“Roosevelt said nothing about Hitler’s action in the Rhineland (1936); applauded the Munich agreement, which handed western Czechoslovakia to the Nazis (1938); and, eighty years ago this week, ducked reporters’ questions rather than utter a single critical word regarding Hitler’s threat to Danzig.”
“FDR was, of course, saddled with the burden of a largely isolationist public and Congress. He was understandably reluctant to be seen as doing anything that might seem to edge America close to war with Germany. Yet a president’s job is to lead, not to follow. A few words from the White House directly taking issue with Hitler’s aggressive actions and persecution of the Jews could have helped alert the public to the Nazi danger. “
“Explaining President Roosevelt’s refusal to comment on Hitler’s remilitarization of the Rhineland in 1936, the diplomatic correspondent of the Washington Evening Standard reported that the president “is determined not to take sides under any circumstances.” But there are circumstances when, even if it is unpopular, a president needs to publicly “take sides”—to take the side of good against the side of evil.”
“A stronger response from President Roosevelt over Danzig or the earlier crises also would have indicated to Hitler that there might be consequences for his actions—something that was particularly important in the early and mid 1930s, when the Nazi leader was still testing the waters. “
“It is not trade but empire that is Hitler’s goal,” a New York Times editorial acknowledged following the Danzig speech. “How far he will go and how fast he will go toward acquiring it will depend solely upon how much opposition is offered him.”
“FDR’s non-response to Danzig sent Hitler exactly the wrong message.”
Why FDR Wouldn't Condemn Hitler

https://www.quora.com/What-did-FDR-think-of-Hitler-before-WWII-or-even-Kristallnacht

why do you spell Adolf with ph?

 

[Robert W]

why do you spell Adolf with ph?

I lived in Germany for about 16 months and perhaps that is why.

 

[Zebra]

I lived in Germany for about 16 months and perhaps that is why.

In France it is Adolphe …. In Germany it is Adolf.