Hitler, Fascism and the right wing

[bripat9643]

BriPat -

Yes, I could go spend the entire day going through the books and typing out entire chapters for you to dismiss out of hand. But I'm not going to.

I just don't believe you are in the slightest bit interested, and if you are, you'll read the book. You can read more about it here:

Hitler 1889-1936 Hubris Ian Kershaw 9780393320350 Amazon.com Books

BriPat wants you to feed him information, as his pundits on the Right do. He's not one to think for himself, and he's not alone.

"GO read a book" is not an argument. It's a weasel. I realize the intellectually challenged have a difficult time comprehending that. When you are trying to support an argument, you have to supply all the information that supports it. Asking your opponent to do it is the sign of a nitwit.

 

[bripat9643]

We would think that after all this time and all the histories written that most Americans would have at least a slight understanding of fascism, Hitler, the night of the long knives and so forth, but politics comes first and the historical truth is left far behind.

Yeah, but unfortunately they still believe the same shit you believe. You're a brainwashed troll, just like every other lib in this forum.

 

[westwall]

So we have proven that fascist and para-fascist leaders can definitely be right.wing, no?

No, you haven proven shit. As always, all you have done is quote some pinko history professor spewing his totally unsupported opinion that Franco was right-wing.

You're a child really, aren't you?

Everything just comes down to "I won't read. I won't research. I won't learn" Learning is pinko! Reading is pinko!

Explain the differences between Stalins government and Hitlers. C'mon child. You make big statements but then can't back them up.

It takes a special kind of stupid to think they're alike.

Then explain the differences.

 

[westwall]

He did not privatized industry - he did not nationalized it.

He was simply a fascist - fascists tend to massively regulate - they don't nationalize it.

The point being made here is that Hitler was a Socialist. To be a Socialist he had to have Nationalized industry.

Would you say Hitler wasn't a Socialist then?

When you have government bureaucrats telling the "owners" of a company, what to make, how much to make, how much to charge for it and when to make it.....who REALLY controls the company?

 

[westwall]

So we have proven that fascist and para-fascist leaders can definitely be right.wing, no?

No, you haven proven shit. As always, all you have done is quote some pinko history professor spewing his totally unsupported opinion that Franco was right-wing.

You're a child really, aren't you?

Everything just comes down to "I won't read. I won't research. I won't learn" Learning is pinko! Reading is pinko!

Explain the differences between Stalins government and Hitlers. C'mon child. You make big statements but then can't back them up.

Historians have already done that for you.....try reading a book some time.

I've read loads of them. I don't see a whole lot of difference between the two systems. Please explain the differences.

 

[2aguy]

I've read loads of them. I don't see a whole lot of difference between the two systems. Please explain the differences.

Allow me...nazis were rightwing....there....that pretty much sums up their argument....

 

[bripat9643]

I've read loads of them. I don't see a whole lot of difference between the two systems. Please explain the differences.

Allow me...nazis were rightwing....there....that pretty much sums up their argument....

How do we know they were right-wing? We know because all the pinko history professors say so.

There, that really sums up their argument.

 

[2aguy]

Bripat9643, I hope you had a good Thanksgiving...Same to you Westwall....

 

[westwall]

You progressives are hilarious! You tell us to "go read a book" and we have probably read more books on an individual basis, than you all have combined. We, who actually read books, and more to the point understand what we are reading, have come to the conclusion that there was very little difference to the average person living in the two countries.

If anything life in Nazi Germany was marginally better.... But only marginally. Ultimately life sucked for the average subject no matter which country they lived in. The difference was in war the Germans cared a little bit more for their troops than the Soviets did. Which is why they only lost 3.5 million as opposed to 11 million soldiers.

 

[westwall]

Bripat9643, I hope you had a good Thanksgiving...Same to you Westwall....

Many thanks, and likewise to you Billc, and have a Merry Christmas as well!

 

[regent]

So should states drop history from their school curriculums, or should schools hire non-history majors to teach history or what?

 

[frigidweirdo]

There's no evidence either way in his entry in Wikipedia. He seems to avoid discussing economic concepts at all costs. However, his ideas are full of the usual leftwing babble that seems to have meaning but in reality means nothing.

However, since about 95% of all history professors are pinkos, it's highly unlikely that he isn't one himself.

Sounds like a reason to ignore anyone who actually can put a few things together and make a decent argument.

If you spend your whole time listening to people who have an agenda and present things badly and you just accept, but deliberately ignore those who do things correctly then for sure you're going to end up believing whatever the hell you want to believe and chances are it's going to be wrong.

 

[frigidweirdo]

He seems to avoid discussing economic concepts at all costs. However, his ideas are full of the usual leftwing babble that seems to have meaning but in reality means nothing.

I suggest you read the books first - tell us what they said second.

We both know that you won't, and we both know why.

btw, Kershaw is usually considered mildly conservative. He's about as pinko as you are.

He's a prisoner of his own tiny little mind. He can't be taught, he can't learn, he's a lost cause.

That's the libturd way of saying that I'm immune to bullshit and propaganda.

No, it's actually a way of saying that this is a debate and that people should be able to debate. This involves looking at evidence and using it to come to logical conclusions.

Instead what's being seen is often mass repetition of things with one or two sources only being pounded to death because they think it's the be all and end all of the debate. Usually the debate stalls very quickly with a few short sentences being passed and not much in the way of anything happening.

You won't find the truth if you keep acting like that. Though I'm sure many aren't interested in the truth, it's too hard to find the truth, just pretend you know it already and you don't need to look.

Why someone would do that I have no idea, but each to their own I guess.

 

[bripat9643]

There's no evidence either way in his entry in Wikipedia. He seems to avoid discussing economic concepts at all costs. However, his ideas are full of the usual leftwing babble that seems to have meaning but in reality means nothing.

However, since about 95% of all history professors are pinkos, it's highly unlikely that he isn't one himself.

Sounds like a reason to ignore anyone who actually can put a few things together and make a decent argument.

If you spend your whole time listening to people who have an agenda and present things badly and you just accept, but deliberately ignore those who do things correctly then for sure you're going to end up believing whatever the hell you want to believe and chances are it's going to be wrong.

Only a fool believes government subsidized history professors don't have an agenda.

 

[frigidweirdo]

He did not privatized industry - he did not nationalized it.

He was simply a fascist - fascists tend to massively regulate - they don't nationalize it.

The point being made here is that Hitler was a Socialist. To be a Socialist he had to have Nationalized industry.

Would you say Hitler wasn't a Socialist then?

When you have government bureaucrats telling the "owners" of a company, what to make, how much to make, how much to charge for it and when to make it.....who REALLY controls the company?

And was this the case in Nazi Germany? Because I must be having problems with my eyes because I don't see your sources.

http://www.ub.edu/graap/nazi.pdf

"Guillebaud (1939, p. 55) stresses that the Nazi regime wanted to leave management and risk
in business in the sphere of private enterprise, subject to the general direction of the government.
Thus, “the State in fact divested itself of a great deal of its previous direct participation in
industry….But at the same time state control, regulation and interference in the conduct of the
economy affairs was enormously extended.” Guillebaud (1939, p. 219) felt that National
Socialism was opposed to state management, and saw it as a “cardinal tenet of the Party that the
economic order should be based on private initiative and enterprise (in the sense of private
ownership of the means of production and the individual assumption of risks) though subject to
guidance and control by state.” This can be seen as the basic rationale for privatization in
Guillebaud’s analysis. "

Here's one of mine.

Was it private? Yes it was. Was there a lot of state control? Yes there was. Is this Socialism? Clearly not. Is it unrestrained Capitalism? Clearly not. Does it have to be black or white? No it does not.

"In this way, privatization was seen as a tool in the hands of the Nazi Party to “facilitate the accumulation of private fortunes and industrial empires by its foremost members and collaborators.” "

The interesting thing about this is, it's not much different to the US today. The govt helps its friends who give the govt lots of money for helping them out. So, if Nazi Germany were Socialist, then so too is the USA today.

"Early analysis of Nazi privatization explicitly stated that German privatization of the 1930s was intended to benefit the wealthiest sectors and enhance their economic position, in search of their political support. "

Socialism is about the means of production in the hands of THE PEOPLE, the govt as representing the people in a left wing sense. Hitler simply was not representing the people, he was doing what he wanted to do and the people had to accept it. It was for the good of Germany (as Hitler saw it), not necessarily the German people's wishes.
The power was in the hands of an elite, a hierarchical system. Ie, right wing.

"Even if Hitler was an enemy of free market economies (Overy, 1994, p. 1), he could by no means be considered a sympathizer of economic socialism or nationalization of private firms (Heiden, 1944, p. 642). "

So, Hitler wasn't a Capitalist, he wasn't a Socialist. What was he?
He was a National Socialist.

Was this left wing? No it wasn't. Did it have certain things that are considered left wing? Yes it did.

Certainly it was extreme, and to a large extent it was also right wing.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Only a fool believes government subsidized history professors don't have an agenda.

With some things they might have an agenda. Why they'd have an agenda when it comes to discussing Hitler I'm not sure. Certainly historians in the modern world are going to suffer a lot if their integrity is put into question. And you're looking at someone like Ian Kershaw whose peers were German as well as British.

But you haven't proven he has an agenda. You haven't said which party he votes for. You haven't proven his works are overtly biased, you haven't made a claim of anything with substance.

You're doing a Putin. When the plane was shot down over the Ukraine all Putin needed to do was make a short statement. "It might have been the Ukrainians", there all of a sudden you have put in a certain amount of doubt, and then you just leave it more or less at the level of doubt. You don't need to provide anything in the way of evidence, in fact when Putin tried to provide evidence it backfired because it was heavily changed and basically shows what Putin is up to.

You just say History professors are something, you've attempted to take away the sources from someone without ever doing a proper analysis of their sources, without even needing to look at what is written.

It's lazy debating, it kills the debate and makes me wonder why the hell you bother to stay on a debate forum when all you do is destroy debate instead of taking part in it.

 

[Discombobulated]

So we have proven that fascist and para-fascist leaders can definitely be right.wing, no?

No, you haven proven shit. As always, all you have done is quote some pinko history professor spewing his totally unsupported opinion that Franco was right-wing.

You're a child really, aren't you?

Everything just comes down to "I won't read. I won't research. I won't learn" Learning is pinko! Reading is pinko!

Explain the differences between Stalins government and Hitlers. C'mon child. You make big statements but then can't back them up.

Historians have already done that for you.....try reading a book some time.

I've read loads of them. I don't see a whole lot of difference between the two systems. Please explain the differences.

So we have proven that fascist and para-fascist leaders can definitely be right.wing, no?

No, you haven proven shit. As always, all you have done is quote some pinko history professor spewing his totally unsupported opinion that Franco was right-wing.

You're a child really, aren't you?

Everything just comes down to "I won't read. I won't research. I won't learn" Learning is pinko! Reading is pinko!

Explain the differences between Stalins government and Hitlers. C'mon child. You make big statements but then can't back them up.

Historians have already done that for you.....try reading a book some time.

I've read loads of them. I don't see a whole lot of difference between the two systems. Please explain the differences.

You seem to have a comprehension problem then because you obviously didn't learn anything. You really don't seem to understand, your interpretations of history don't matter. Politically motivated pop culture historical revisionism is nothing like actual history, no actual research required. But I'll oblige your completely dishonest(or ignorant) question with an answer anyway.

Fascism and Nazism were reactionary, populist, ultra conservative (the very definition of right wing) movements that formed in direct reaction to Communism.
The economic systems were fundamentally different. Private enterprise did just fine under Fascists and Nazis, Capitalists made huge profits.......there were no capitalists under Communism.

 

[Discombobulated]

You progressives are hilarious! You tell us to "go read a book" and we have probably read more books on an individual basis, than you all have combined. We, who actually read books, and more to the point understand what we are reading, have come to the conclusion that there was very little difference to the average person living in the two countries.

If anything life in Nazi Germany was marginally better.... But only marginally. Ultimately life sucked for the average subject no matter which country they lived in. The difference was in war the Germans cared a little bit more for their troops than the Soviets did. Which is why they only lost 3.5 million as opposed to 11 million soldiers.

Exactly so.....the average person living in those countries wouldn't give two shits about your thin distinctions.

 

[Contumacious]

He did not privatized industry - he did not nationalized it.

He was simply a fascist - fascists tend to massively regulate - they don't nationalize it.

The point being made here is that Hitler was a Socialist. To be a Socialist he had to have Nationalized industry.

Would you say Hitler wasn't a Socialist then?

Early on he was a socialist.

But he realized that socialists can not be trusted with the economy , so became a fascist.

.

 

[frigidweirdo]

He did not privatized industry - he did not nationalized it.

He was simply a fascist - fascists tend to massively regulate - they don't nationalize it.

The point being made here is that Hitler was a Socialist. To be a Socialist he had to have Nationalized industry.

Would you say Hitler wasn't a Socialist then?

Early on he was a socialist.

But he realized that socialists can not be trusted with the economy , so became a fascist.

.

No, not really. Early on he didn't seem to know what to think. He was actually against those who had lost Germany WW1. The fact that they were from the old guard was something he went against. He hated Capitalism because of the fact that those who controlled WW1 in Germany, the Emperor etc, were all Capitalists.

This doesn't make him a Socialist. Yes, he saw how the rich treated people and did want to improve the lot of SOME of the population, ie, because of his angry racial views.

He was more a reactionary against certain things, and this formed his opinion, some of which could be compared to Socialism, other parts to fascism, nationalism, etc etc.

However as he developed as a person he became more right wing.