How we know Hitler was right wing.

[Oddball]

Bush said you're a ******* nincompoop troll.

Go find a leftbat circle jerk thread to deposit your drain droppings...Adults are trying to converse here.

 

[francoHFW]

Masters in History, dupe...you? PHD in Beckidiocy?

 

[francoHFW]

That's all any of you RW loons seem to have...lol

 

[Pogo]

I found one of the old posts I was looking for to bring forth (never use the quote function on this site to set aside a quote-- search ignores it)-- the quotations here will be rendered in blue with topical emphais added:

The German Nazi Führer Adolf Hitler had objected to the party's previous leader's decision to use the word "Socialist" in its name, as Hitler at the time preferred to use "Social Revolutionary". Upon taking over the leadership, Hitler kept the term but defined socialism as being based upon a commitment of an individual to a community. Hitler did not want the ideology's socialism to be conflated with Marxian socialism.

... Nazism, or National Socialism (German: Nationalsozialismus) in full, was the ideology of the Nazi Party in Germany and related movements outside Germany. It is a variety of fascism that incorporates biological racism and antisemitism. Nazism developed in Germany from the influence of the far-right racist Völkisch German nationalist movement and the anti-communist Freikorps paramilitary culture which fought against the communists in post-World War I Germany.

... The Nazis were strongly influenced by the post-World War I far-right in Germany, which held common beliefs such as anti-Marxism, anti-liberalism, and anti-Semitism, along with nationalism, contempt towards the Treaty of Versailles, and condemnation of the Weimar Republic for signing the armistice in November 1918 that later led to their signing of the Treaty of Versailles. A major inspiration for the Nazis were the far-right nationalist Freikorps, paramilitary organizations that engaged in political violence after World War I.

-- Nazism​

March 20, 1933 - Dachau Opens - Heinrich Himmler, SS leader and chief of the Munich police, announces the opening of the Dachau concentration camp. The camp is located about 10 miles northwest of Munich in southern Germany. Dachau is one of the first concentration camps the Nazis establish. The first prisoners arrive two days later. They are mainly Communists and Socialists and other political opponents of the Nazi party.

-- Timeline of Dachau
​

In the space of fourteen months in 1935-36, 2,197 persons from left-wing circles were arrested in Berlin alone. In 1936, 11,687 persons were arrested throughout Germany for illegal socialist activity. In 1936 the Gestapo seized 1,643,200 illicit leaflets distributed by the Communist and Social-Democratic Parties alone and, in 1937, 927,430.
--

-- History of the German Resistance, 1933-1945 (p. 16)​

​

Between 1933 and 1945, Nazi Germany established about 20,000 camps to imprison its many millions of victims. These camps were used for a range of purposes including forced-labor camps, transit camps which served as temporary way stations, and extermination camps built primarily or exclusively for mass murder. From its rise to power in 1933, the Nazi regime built a series of detention facilities to imprison and eliminate so-called "enemies of the state." Most prisoners in the early concentration camps were German Communists, Socialists, Social Democrats, Roma (Gypsies), Jehovah's Witnesses, homosexuals, and persons accused of "asocial" or socially deviant behavior.

-- Holocaust Encyclopedia​

Nazism is a right wing ideology. It is violently racist, anti-socialist, and it targets the political left for extermination. This is underscored by Albert Einstein's embrace of socialism throughout his life -- and in particular in his 1949 essay, Why Socialism? -- along with the fact that Einstein's name was included on a nazi death list with a bounty of $50,000 offered for his assassination. If nazism really is socialism, why would Einstein have identified himself as a socialist a scant four years after WWII?

-- Hitler, Nazis, Socialims and Right Wing Propaganda​

One graphic puts it like this:

 

[Saigon]

The German Nazi Führer Adolf Hitler had objected to the party's previous leader's decision to use the word "Socialist" in its name, as Hitler at the time preferred to use "Social Revolutionary". Upon taking over the leadership, Hitler kept the term but defined socialism as being based upon a commitment of an individual to a community. Hitler did not want the ideology's socialism to be conflated with Marxian socialism.

Yes, that is very much my take on it, too. That's a good definition.

 

[Obamanation]

Nearly, 68 years after his death and his propaganda is still paying dividends....

The sicko was terrible military tactician, but he really knew how to work the minds of the weak!

 

[Saigon]

Marxism is not left wing, it just look left wing if you refuse to accept that the political spectrum is not two dimensional.

I can't for the life of me imagine how anycone can be so baffled by political terminology that they place one of the grandfathers of left-wing thinking on the right!

I can only suggest you do some research with sources you trust. All and any source will explain how and why Marxism is left wing.

Marxism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

I have read your posts and intended to respond to them, but your posting here is simply so incoherent and nonsensical that I don't see any value in trying to explain this further.

Posts like this -

Two wings of the same house. Both wings are socialist, one is more left one is more right and the rest of socialism fits somewhere in between. Conservativism isn't part of that house and all socialism is to the right of even the most right wing of socialism because the cornerstone of conservativism is the idea of the soveriegn individual

- are simply gibberish. It's a random collection of words placed in a sentence.

There is a lot of VERY good information on this thread, and it might be worth you reading through it and seeing what other posters have to say and trying to learn something from them. Most posters seem to have a reasonable grasp on the basics.

 

[Pogo]

The more extreme you get the bigger government gets, on both sides.

Not getting it Amy, those on the right are for smaller and less intrusive govt with less regulation, while those on the left are for the opposite. So how does a person on the right get to a totalitarian state if he/she wants less and less gov't intervention and regulation?

Because your premises in the first sentence are inoperative.

 

[Pogo]

Finaly, what seperates right wing tyranny from left wing tyranny are the facts of Capital and Class.

Socialism and Marxism are based around the worker and the working classes. Although Hitler appealed to the masses as well, his key support came from the upper classes. Socialism sought to destroy class. Fascism sought to entrench the classes even more deeply into society.

Socialism sought to remove capital from society. Fascism worked through capital, enriching the upper classes and using wealth to garner support. Hitler imagined a society in which capitalism and investment thrived - Stali imagined a society in which capitalism and investment did not exist.

There are other areas of difference as well. Hitler favoured:

Individualism over collectivism.
Merit over equality.
Competition over cooperation.
Capitalism over Marxism.
Nationalism over internationalism.
Exclusiveness over inclusiveness.
Common sense over theory or science.

Stalin's views were essentially the opposite in each instance.

Hitler did not ascribe to American capitalism or Russian communism/socialism. He thought U.S. and Russia both got it wrong and Fascism is it's own separate animal. Fascism is not geared towards capitalism or socialism, it's geared to the state, but without the 'sharing' or collectivism. Facism doesn't want corporations or workers to have much power, it wants corporations and workers to succeed only as it benefits the government. Fascism dictates that government controls BOTH businesses and workers to benefit the state, not that the government supports either businesses or workers.

I agree with most political scientists that it is more rightwing than leftwing, but it's a strange rightwing that borrows some of the authortarian tactics/elements from communism, which is one reason why I find it ironic that Hitler hated communism so much.

That's because authoritarianism is not intrinsically linked with communism. We see examples in the world that embody both traits and assume those states bought those two ideas as a package -- rather than two separate ideas that arrived on different trains and just happened to wind up in the same place.

Otherwise, good analysis.

 

[Saigon]

If we go back to the origins of the term 'Nazi' and its usage in Italy, then there were genuinely socialist influences mixed in with extreme right wing concepts, but few of these ever found their way into Nazism. Nazism jumped some distance to the right as it moved from Italy to Germany.

You mean fascism. The Nazis didn't exist in Italy.

True - but the origin of the term "National Socialist" dates back to World War I Italy, where:

"Fascism was founded during World War I by Italian national syndicalists, who combined elements of left-wing politics with more typically right-wing positions"

Fascism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It was during this time that they started to use the word 'socialist'.

The Italian Fascists did use some geuinely left wing policies combined with very radical right-wing thinking, but those elements were trampled out of Nazi thinking as the ideology moved north from Italy to Germany.

One thing to remember is that the Soviet Union did not exist at the time the Fascists started to toss around the word 'socialist' to describe what they were thinking.

 

[Saigon]

I understand them fine. It is you who is trying to defend the claim that the National Socialist German Workers' party of Germany were not socialists.

And I have done the research which is why I don't need google and whatever revisionist history I might find there. All one need do is look at the social programs hitler instituted in germany to see that he was, in fact, a socialist.

You do not understand the terms and you have clearly not done any reading or research.

If you have any interest in this topic, then start by reading some of the basics - like the Arendt, Kershaw, Overy and Michael Marris books listed earler - and you'll be in a much better position to post comments that make sense. None of the books are 'revisionist', 'socialist' or any other -ist. Check the reviews.

It's amazing that someone who claims to be an expert in Political Philosophy would flat out refuse to read people like Hannah Arendt, one of the foremost influences in modern Political Philosophy.

You simply can not post:

When you use the word wing, either right or left, you are talking about the same house and the house is liberalism

And you throw around the term right wing and left wing thinking that one means liberal and socialist and the other encompasses the conservative philosophy.

and then claim to understand the terminology. You don't.

 

[Pogo]

It’s important to note, of course, that modern American conservatives aren’t ‘Nazis’ or ‘fascists.’ But they all do share the roots of the same political family tree, particularly with regard to the blending of government and militarism, the hostility toward political and social dissent and diversity, and opposition to immigration and the fear of the loss of a racial/ethnic ‘national identity’ as a consequence of immigration and an increase in minority populations.

Exactly that - I think some conservatives react to threads like this as some kind of insult, whereas to my mind Fascism has little to do with modern Conservatism. There is a huge gulf between the centre and the extreme.

^^ Both good points. Clearly there's no valid comparison with the average American conservative with Nazism, but that does invite the answer to the earlier question, "why bring this up at all?". Indeed the same may be asked of the latter-day revisionistas attempting to move Hitler to the opposite goal line. The answer is Eliminationism -- the contemporary tactic used by fringe demagogues to demonize their political opponents into not adversaries with which to be debated or negotiated, but rather evil monsters that must be exterminated, By morphing Adolf Hilter -- a historical figure who seems set in stone as commonly-agreed embodied evil-- as a hero of the other side ("them"), that side by association becomes the same as Hitler, and thus must be destroyed so that the Eliminationists may have their one-party state. Thus begins the spin, even if it flies directly in the face of historical record.

I mean it's always been pretty clear that that's the goal of the revisionistas. They want a monopoly on ideology. They want to exalt Yang by destroying Yin.

As far as Hitler's position, it's pretty universally accepted that the ideas of hypernationalism/hyperpatriotism, the strong military, the strong appeal to social tradition (Fatherland, Kinder, Kirche, Kuche) and the drive for strong ethnic identity/purity, are all principles that live on the right, not the left.

Totalitarianism versus Libertarianism are separate and independent dynamics. Rather than the two-dimensional horseshoe model, I see it as more a three-dimensional figure (a globe) where a voyage too far to the east or west (right or left) takes you to a black hole of extremism, but within that globe you may also be in the southern latitudes of authoritarianism (more government power) or the northern latitudes of libertarianism (less government power), (see graphic, post 264) whether you're in the east or west. It's not like they're ganged together.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

It would be wiser to consult this:

 

[Saigon]

2nd Amendment -

Any model that has Lenin equal and opposite to Nixon is unlikely to be of much value here, particularly as it is so American in nature, when we are discussing leaders who Re not American.

The political horseshoe has been in use for generations - and with some reason.

 

[Agit8r]

Stalin did succeed in complete genocide of the Ukraine, moving Russians into the land after butchering virtually the entire population

Nope. Ukrainians account for 77% of the population of Ukraine. Older Ukrainian immigrants that I've met often speak both Russian (which they learned at school) and Ukrainian which they learned at home.

 

[SSDD]

If Hitler was a socialist, how come he didn't socialize any industry? And you don't count seizing jewish assets...DER!

His 25 points AND socialist in the name of the party were Hitler's PROPAGANDA!! Which you swallow as easily as all the Pubcrappe that makes the GOP the laughingstock of the world. Beck is a HS grad cokehead dj charlatan A-hole...your hero...ay caramba. Change the channel and read a history book.

His brand of socialism didn't require government siezure of industry. In hindsight, it is a good thing that the soviet brand of socialism didn't follow his lead. Hitler left actual business men in charge of production while the soviets put bureaucrats in charge of business. Imagine if the soviets had had people with actual business accumen runnint thier production base rather than know nothing easily corruptable bureaucrat automatons.

Hitler defines the socialization of his nation in his own writing:

"Our socialism reaches much deeper. It does not change the external order of things, it orders solely the relationship of man to the state... Then what does property and income count for? Why should we need to socialize the banks and the factories? We are socializing the people."

It is an error to believe that socialism requires that the state own and manage the means of production. Look at the chinese....do you think they are't still socialist even though they are growing their economy by allowing actual entrepeneurs to manage the means of production after all these years? Imagine if they had been following the present form of socialism all these years..or the soviets.

 

[SSDD]

Thanks to editec, we now know what Hitler was talking about when he opposed liberalism.

LIBERALISMAn ideology that upholds private property, individual rights, legal equality, freedom of choice and democratic government. Liberalism suggests that the essence of freedom is to be free from constraint. Liberalism is an ideology that supports capitalism and advocates the principle of free markets, left largely undirected by governments. While liberalism upholds free markets, it also places great value on equal of opportunity and is strongly opposed to ascriptive processes in society, since they restrict individual choice and deny equal access to satisfaction. In the twentieth century, a more active view of the state's role in creating improved equality of opportunity in society became important within liberalism. (This trend in liberalism was also a reaction to the development of trade unions and of socialist and populist movements.) There was a massive expansion in state -provided education, social programs etc. from the end of the 19th century until the 1960's and 1970's. In the 1980's and 1990's a more classical view of liberalism has returned to prominence, one that advocates a much smaller role for the state and increased reliance on the workings of the free market. In making this argument, classical liberals claim that intervention in the market rarely, if ever, promotes choice, but frustrates the market adjustments that ultimately improve efficiency, the wealth of society and the ability of individuals to make choices. See: CLASSICAL LIBERALISM / NEO-LIBERALISM / .

Keep telling me about how Hitler was right wing.

That sort of liberalism is known as classical liberalism today, or conservativism. In hitler's day it was just liberalism.

 

[SSDD]

Hitler was no "socialist". The term was in the party's name before he came to power and he disapproved of it (the name as well as the ideology). He considered socialists to be enemies of the state and locked them up.

Saigon, I have seen several posters, here and elsewhere on the Net, try to float this revisionism. I'll repost some old stuff if I get the time. As I keep telling them, to conclude "Hitler's a leftist" based on the presence of the word "socialist" in the party's name is going to make it hard to explain the Democratic Republic of Congo, the DPRK, and of course the GDR. A name is a name, and a political name is propaganda. And propagana of course never lies

I am afraid that it is you who is trying to float revisionism. Hitler was socialist by his own words. Do you think he didn't know he was a socialist? He wrote:

"Our socialism reaches much deeper. It does not change the external order of things, it orders solely the relationship of man to the state... Then what does property and income count for? Why should we need to socialize the banks and the factories? We are socializing the people."

Historical revisionism is unfortunately a popular pastime of late. They seem to think if a lie is repeated often enough, some people will eventually believe it. Hard to see where they get that idea.

It is and I wonder why you guys work so hard at altering history to exclude hitler from the socialist ranks. In terms of killing, he was a light weight compared to stalin, lenin, mao, and pol pot who remain members in good standing among the socialist clique.

 

[SSDD]

Masters in History, dupe...?

Someone has to be at the bottom of the class.....congratulations.

By the way, you don't write like someone educated to the masters level. You write like someone who might....might have a GED.