How we know Hitler was right wing.

[bripat9643]

Believe it. The idea that "right = less govt and left = more govt" is a hopelessly simplistic contemporary dumbdown. Reagan loved to sell that line. It's still hard to believe anybody bought it.
(That is, he sold it, then proceeded to grow the government. Go figure.)

"Simplistic" is a word liberals use to dismiss facts without an argument. Nothing could be more obvious or irrefutable than the fact that liberals want bigger government and conservatives want smaller government. Every time republicans propose spending cuts, turds like you scream bloody murder. The recent debate over the sequester is a classic example.

Congress grew the government, not Reagan.

The idea that the two sides of this imaginary political spectrum are merely at odds over what size government we should try on, is absurd. Ideologues and politically interested parties interest themselves in what government does, not how big it is. Do you buy a car on the basis of what color it is?

But as I said, hopelessly simplistic. And look who shows up to hope for simplicity: Finger-boy. 'Nuff said.

Sorry, but it is that simple because I don't want government doing almost everything it currently does. An authoritarian like you imagines that conservatives and libertarians only want government to do something different than what you want it to do. However, we view the mere fact of government compulsion as something to be avoided at all cost. We don't want government to compel us to do something we approve of. We don't want government compelling us at all.

I realize that's hard for the likes of you to fathom.

 

[Pogo]

"Simplistic" is a word liberals use to dismiss facts without an argument. Nothing could be more obvious or irrefutable than the fact that liberals want bigger government and conservatives want smaller government. Every time republicans propose spending cuts, turds like you scream bloody murder. The recent debate over the sequester is a classic example.

Congress grew the government, not Reagan.

The idea that the two sides of this imaginary political spectrum are merely at odds over what size government we should try on, is absurd. Ideologues and politically interested parties interest themselves in what government does, not how big it is. Do you buy a car on the basis of what color it is?

But as I said, hopelessly simplistic. And look who shows up to hope for simplicity: Finger-boy. 'Nuff said.

Sorry, but it is that simple because I don't want government doing almost everything it currently does. An authoritarian like you imagines that conservatives and libertarians only want government to do something different than what you want it to do. However, we view the mere fact of government compulsion as something to be avoided at all cost. We don't want government to compel us to do something we approve of. We don't want government compelling us at all.

I realize that's hard for the likes of you to fathom.

We need a new word in our language for "beyond clueless". Simplistic isn't doing it justice either.

 

[jon_berzerk]

"Simplistic" is a word liberals use to dismiss facts without an argument. Nothing could be more obvious or irrefutable than the fact that liberals want bigger government and conservatives want smaller government. Every time republicans propose spending cuts, turds like you scream bloody murder. The recent debate over the sequester is a classic example.

Congress grew the government, not Reagan.

The idea that the two sides of this imaginary political spectrum are merely at odds over what size government we should try on, is absurd. Ideologues and politically interested parties interest themselves in what government does, not how big it is. Do you buy a car on the basis of what color it is?

But as I said, hopelessly simplistic. And look who shows up to hope for simplicity: Finger-boy. 'Nuff said.

Sorry, but it is that simple because I don't want government doing almost everything it currently does. An authoritarian like you imagines that conservatives and libertarians only want government to do something different than what you want it to do. However, we view the mere fact of government compulsion as something to be avoided at all cost. We don't want government to compel us to do something we approve of. We don't want government compelling us at all.

I realize that's hard for the likes of you to fathom.

there are big government guys in the right spectrum

but they would not be conservatives nor libertarians

 

[bripat9643]

The idea that the two sides of this imaginary political spectrum are merely at odds over what size government we should try on, is absurd. Ideologues and politically interested parties interest themselves in what government does, not how big it is. Do you buy a car on the basis of what color it is?

But as I said, hopelessly simplistic. And look who shows up to hope for simplicity: Finger-boy. 'Nuff said.

Sorry, but it is that simple because I don't want government doing almost everything it currently does. An authoritarian like you imagines that conservatives and libertarians only want government to do something different than what you want it to do. However, we view the mere fact of government compulsion as something to be avoided at all cost. We don't want government to compel us to do something we approve of. We don't want government compelling us at all.

I realize that's hard for the likes of you to fathom.

We need a new word in our language for "beyond clueless". Simplistic isn't doing it justice either.

You're running away like a scared little puppy with his tail between his legs.

 

[Pogo]

Informative history tells us that hitler said:

"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."

Revisionist history tells us that hitler didn't really mean that he was a socialist or had socialist goals or instituted socialist programs. Revisionist history rejects what hitler said and what hitler did and instead tries to make him something other than what he acknowledged that he was.

Hitler4ian Germany had EVERY ASPECT OF A SOCIALIST DICTAORSHIP except for the MOST CRITICAL part of what it takes to TRULY be socialism.

Do you know what that one lack was, Lad?

Ownership of the means of production.

Hitler's Germany did not take possession (nationalize is the PoliSci word) of the nations productive industries.

So yes, it was a kind of socialism, EXCEPT for the ONE thing that makes any government socialist...PROPERTY RIGHTS.

There, kiddo, your political science lesson of the day.

No need to thank me, it was my pleasure to help you learn something important.

Most interesting about property and production rights under Hitler. Let's go more in to depth. The Nazis did not advocate public ownership of the means of production. They did demand that the government oversee and run the nation's economy. The issue of legal ownership, they explained, is secondary; what counts is the issue of CONTROL. Private citizens, therefore, may continue to hold titles to property -- so long as the state reserves to itself the unqualified right to regulate the use of their property.

The leftists in this forum can deny Hitler was a leftist all they want, but with the above mentioned and what I am going to mention below proves, Hitler was indeed a leftist.

Read this:

"As things stand today, the trade unions in my opinion cannot be dispensed with. On the contrary, they are among the most important institutions of the nation's economic life. Their significance lies not only in the social and political field, but even more in the general field of national politics. A people whose broad masses, through a sound trade-union movement, obtain the satisfaction of their living requirements and at the same time an education, will be tremendously strengthened in its power of resistance in the struggle for existence".

That can be found in Chapter 12 of Adolf Hitler's: Mein Kempf. So, like the left, Hitler was pro-union and uhhh...big labour.


How about we go to abortion. Oh yes, Hitler like the left was very pro-abortion. In 1933 one of the first acts Hitler did was to legalize abortion. By 1935 Germany with 65 million people was the place where over 500,000 abortions were being performed each year. A Nazi decree of October 19, 1941 established abortion on demand as the official policy of Poland. Hitler, however, expressed dissatisfaction with this policy. Abortion, he believed, should NOT be limited to Poland. He therefore ordered that abortion be expanded to all populations under the control of the "Ministry of the Occupied Territories of the East. Very left-wing!!!

Then of course, everyone knows about Hitler and gun control/bans. And furthermore, it was Hitler and the Nazis who very much became infatuated with the American leftists/progressive "eugenics".


The left for a very long period of time has been trying to cleanse their beliefs of Hitler with denial, revisionism and falsely labeling their opposition. Really, look at the left even of today. If a person is Black, Latino, Jewish, female or Asian, and they happen to be Republican and/or conservative, they get called certain names by the left, the left revises their race or gender by saying they are not really Black, Latino, Jewish, female or Asian. So, if people of these races get racial revisionism by the leftists simply due to differing political ideology, then it is very easy to see how leftists would try to revise Hitler into something he was not in order to demonize their opposition.

In conclusion, with the truth about just property/production rights, abortion, guns and eugenics - these here prove that Hitler was not a right-winger, he was a left-winger. I want to close this by saying that I am NOT labeling Hitler as a "liberal", because that he was NOT. However, Hitler was a leftist.

Pure unmitigated revisionista dishonest absolute horseshit.

Hitler exuded right-fringe hysteria: übernationalistic rhetoric. Powerful and exalted military. Strong appeal to classical traditions of the past and "ethnic purity". The "Fatherland" and "Lebensraum". "Kinder, Kirche Kuche". These are all core values of what we call the "right" of the political spectrum.

And yes, we do know about the guns. That's another bogus myth some of y'all are peddling. Guns registration was the law of the land in 1928, a product of the Treaty of Versailles which Hitler and his gang hated, and they relaxed those controls:

>> The gun culture is right about one thing, however. Hitler really did enact a new gun law. But it was in 1938, not 1935 &#8211; well after the NAZIs already had the country in its iron grip. Furthermore, the new law in many ways LOOSENED gun restrictions. For example, it greatly expanded the numbers who were exempt, it lowered the legal age of possession from 20 to 18, and it completely lifted restriction on all guns except handguns, as well as on ammunition. << - the Myth of Hitler's Gun "Ban"


And don't look now but here comes your "pro-union big labour" canard. It's not walking too well:

>>When Hitler came to power in January 1933, he saw trade unions as exercising more power over the workers than he could. Therefore, trade unions were seen as a challenge to be dispensed with. Hitler knew that he needed the workers to be on his side but he could not allow trade unions to exert the potential power they had. Therefore, trade unions were banned in Nazi Germany and the state took over the role of looking after the working class.

Just months after Hitler was appointed Chancellor, he took the decision to end trade unions in Nazi Germany. On May 2nd, 1933, police units occupied all trade unions headquarters and union officials and leaders were arrested. The funds that belonged to the trade unions &#8211; effectively this was workers money &#8211; were confiscated. However, Hitler had to be careful. He had only been in power for a few months and there were many members of the working class he had to deal with. If the working class movement in Germany organised itself, it would have presented the new Chancellor with a lot of major issues that would have to be dealt with. Removing trade union leaders helped this but it did not fully guarantee that the working class would &#8216;behave&#8217; itself. Hitler had to offer the workers something more. Hitler announced that the German Labour Force, headed by Robert Ley, would replace all trade unions and would look after the working class. The title was chosen carefully. The new organisation was deliberately cloaked in patriotism, as it was now a German entity as was seen in its title. The working class was now a &#8216;labour force&#8217;. The Nazi Party did all that it could to ensure the workers felt that they were better off under the guidance of the Nazi Party via the German Labour Front.

They had to be brought onto the side of the Nazis as Hitler had major plans for the workers. There were simply too many of them to brutalise into submission, so the workers were offered the &#8216;Strength Through Joy&#8217; movement (Kraft durch Freude&#8217 which offered them subsidised holidays, cheap theatre trips etc.

Hitler offered the working class an improved leisure life in one hand and took away their traditional rights in the other. Strikes &#8211; the traditional way for the working class to vent their anger over an issue &#8211; were banned.

... Hitler was still fearful of large group of unemployed men existing in the fledgling Nazi state. In January 1933, he inherited an unemployment rate of 26.3%. This had the potential for long-term trouble. Therefore, job creation schemes were introduced. An individual had no choice about a job placement as anyone labelled &#8216;work shy&#8217; was sent to prison. << -- Trade Unions and Nazi Germany

Some shop steward, huh?

Maybe you haven't heard, but Hitler was, among other things, dishonest. He double-crossed people that were a threat, as above. He was, in short and among other things, a liar.

Kind of what this charade is doing, trying to get the rest of the world into your ostrich hole. And yet y'all want to center on the word "socialist" in the party's name as if it was some sort of gospel.

I already tore that down in post 264 btw, along with a long list of what kind of people Hitler considered his enemies, arrested, and populated Dachau with. Go ******* learn something.

 

[Pogo]

Sorry, but it is that simple because I don't want government doing almost everything it currently does. An authoritarian like you imagines that conservatives and libertarians only want government to do something different than what you want it to do. However, we view the mere fact of government compulsion as something to be avoided at all cost. We don't want government to compel us to do something we approve of. We don't want government compelling us at all.

I realize that's hard for the likes of you to fathom.

We need a new word in our language for "beyond clueless". Simplistic isn't doing it justice either.

You're running away like a scared little puppy with his tail between his legs.

Ummmmmmmmm.... you're the one making an endless army of strawmen. I just wait for the documentation that's never gonna come.

In other words I'm waiting for your strawmen to answer the question: "let me see your papers..."

 

[bripat9643]

Pure unmitigated revisionista dishonest absolute horseshit.

Hitler exuded right-fringe hysteria: übernationalistic rhetoric. Powerful and exalted military. Strong appeal to classical traditions of the past and "ethnic purity". The "Fatherland" and "Lebensraum". "Kinder, Kirche Kuche". These are all core values of what we call the "right" of the political spectrum.

And yes, we do know about the guns. That's another bogus myth some of y'all are peddling. Guns were controlled by the Treaty of Versailles, which Hitler and his gang hated, and they relaxed those controls.

And don't look now but here comes your "pro-union big labour" canard. It's not walking too well:

Liberal turds are always trying to bring in all kinds of irrelevant criteria so support their claims that Hitler was a right winger. "Nationalism" is a classic example. When has nationalism ever been a fundamental ideal of only the right? According to the libturd mantra, only right-wingers are patriotic. Of course, if you accuse them of lacking patriotism, they'll be the first ones to object. The premise that leftists are never nationalist is too absurd for words.

The only objective criteria that determines the position on the left-right political axis is an ideology's attitude about the size of government and the level of interference in the economy. Either you support government control of economic activity, or you support private control. The former makes you a right-winger. The later makes you a left-winger. All this prattle about "nationalism" and "Kinder, Kirche Kuche" is a diversion intended to distract us from the central issue which is whether we want government running our lives.

 

[bripat9643]

We need a new word in our language for "beyond clueless". Simplistic isn't doing it justice either.

You're running away like a scared little puppy with his tail between his legs.

Ummmmmmmmm.... you're the one making an endless army of strawmen. I just wait for the documentation that's never gonna come.

In other words I'm waiting for your strawmen to answer the question: "let me see your papers..."

You have no specific objection to anything I've posted. You're posts consist almost entirely of vague ad hominems.

 

[Pogo]

You're running away like a scared little puppy with his tail between his legs.

Ummmmmmmmm.... you're the one making an endless army of strawmen. I just wait for the documentation that's never gonna come.

In other words I'm waiting for your strawmen to answer the question: "let me see your papers..."

You have no specific objection to anything I've posted. You're posts consist almost entirely of vague ad hominems.

That's because you haven't substantiated anything. I'm still waiting for something to back up "authoritarians like you" and "turds like you scream bloody murder", to name two.

Talk is cheap. I'll check back in a year or two while you go dig up some clue as to what the hell you're talking about.

 

[Saigon]

BriPat -

I don't think it will be a surprise to many of us that a person who denies the last 50 years if science in favour of his own politicised opnion also wants to deny the last 50 years of history in favour of his own politicised opinion.

I am always happy to explain where and why you have gone wrong on this, but there is very little point in doing so when you ignore any response that is provided.

 

[Saigon]

Nothing could be more obvious or irrefutable than the fact that liberals want bigger government and conservatives want smaller government.

This simply is not true, and it has alrrady been explained several times on this thread why not.

Firstly, small government is very much an American concept - not a global one. Look around the world and you will see a dozen conservative governments that might look to trim spending, but which simply aren't obsessed with small government. It just isn't a big issue elsewhere.

Sceondly, there have been left wing governments that have backed small government. The Lange administration is the obvious example, but there are others.

Thirdly, the key differences between left wing and right wing are not small/large government, but capitalism vs socialism and class vs anti-class. This is what seperates left and right.

 

[Saigon]

.

Hey, how many people think that desperately trying to tie Adolph Hitler to a contemporary American political ideology -- while shamelessly trivializing the slaughter of millions of inoocent people -- just for a temporary sliver of perceived political advantage on an internet message board is absurd, insulting, tedious, embarrassing, ridiculous and transparent?

Exactly that.

To get to square one of this debate means to understand that Hitler did not operate in the USA in 2013 - he operated in Europe at a time when terms like 'liberal' and 'socialist' were used a little differently to today.

 

[Saigon]

Hitler was socialist by his own words and deeds. He was far to the right of most socialists, but he was a socialist none the less. Trying to rewrite history in an effort to distance a political philosophy from someone who was extreme in his methods is worse by far than simply fessing up to the fact that he was socialist...a particularly bad socialist. Of course in so far as killing goes, his pile of corpses was quite small in comparison to those of stalin, lenin, mao and pol pot.....all socialists.

ALL history books tells us that Hitler was right wing, child - the only person saying otherwise is you.

If this board has ever seen more childish posting, I haven't seen it.

I have gone to some effort to explain this to you at least four times on to threads - and here you are still repeating the same old nonsense. Again - if you do not understand what the word "right wing" means - and my sig line proves beyond any doubt that you do not - then you have no place discussing politics at all.

 

[Political Junky]

Nothing could be more obvious or irrefutable than the fact that liberals want bigger government and conservatives want smaller government.

This simply is not true, and it has alrrady been explained several times on this thread why not.

Firstly, small government is very much an American concept - not a global one. Look around the world and you will see a dozen conservative governments that might look to trim spending, but which simply aren't obsessed with small government. It just isn't a big issue elsewhere.

Sceondly, there have been left wing governments that have backed small government. The Lange administration is the obvious example, but there are others.

Thirdly, the key differences between left wing and right wing are not small/large government, but capitalism vs socialism and class vs anti-class. This is what seperates left and right.

I always thought right wingers on here were complicit in re-writing history, but apparently they are just stupid enough to believe it.

 

[Obamanation]

UGH!!!

If political ideology was linear - we may have a scope as to Hitler's thinking...

The bottom line is that neither the American right or left wants to put Hitler in their "group"!!!

Hello!!! That is a good thing!!!

This is my last post on this topic!!!

 

[Bfgrn]

Nothing could be more obvious or irrefutable than the fact that liberals want bigger government and conservatives want smaller government.

This simply is not true, and it has alrrady been explained several times on this thread why not.

Firstly, small government is very much an American concept - not a global one. Look around the world and you will see a dozen conservative governments that might look to trim spending, but which simply aren't obsessed with small government. It just isn't a big issue elsewhere.

Sceondly, there have been left wing governments that have backed small government. The Lange administration is the obvious example, but there are others.

Thirdly, the key differences between left wing and right wing are not small/large government, but capitalism vs socialism and class vs anti-class. This is what seperates left and right.

Conservatives in America have never provided small government. Those are code words for a lot less government for banksters, polluters and the plutocrats they worship. For those people conservatives provide all the socialism they request...subsidies, tax breaks and loopholes, deregulation... BUT, for the working man, the poor, minorities and women, conservatives provide a lot MORE government. For those people we get "fee" market capitalism, state ownership of a woman's uterus, capital punishment (the sooner the better) and piss in a cup and trust government to decide your fate.

 

[Saigon]

Sweden is a welfare state, as is Norway. They aren't any more "socialist" than the United States.

Really?

So the fact that both regimes (Palme, Haarlem Brundtland) offered universal healthcare, state-funded abortion, raised spending on development aid, raised immigration and refugee numbers, provided free education from cradle to grave, and that both governments included Socialist Parties in government is no different from the US?

My God man....I don't know why it is that you, Rottie and SSDD don't read history books, but you must see yourself what it costs you.

 

[Locke11_21]

.

Pogo belligerently bellowed:

Pure unmitigated revisionista dishonest absolute horseshit.

And these accusations coming from what, your leftist revisionist, propagandist agenda? Oh, and profane language used to emphasize a farce most certainly noted.

Hitler exuded right-fringe hysteria: übernationalistic rhetoric. Powerful and exalted military.

So, according to you, Lenin, Stalin, Khruschev, and Mao would also be right-wingers. The mere fact that you think military power is purely right-wing profoundly displays your infinite ingnorance.

And yes, we do know about the guns. That's another bogus myth some of y'all are peddling. Guns registration was the law of the land in 1928, a product of the Treaty of Versailles which Hitler and his gang hated, and they relaxed those controls:

>> The gun culture is right about one thing, however. Hitler really did enact a new gun law. But it was in 1938, not 1935 – well after the NAZIs already had the country in its iron grip. Furthermore, the new law in many ways LOOSENED gun restrictions. For example, it greatly expanded the numbers who were exempt, it lowered the legal age of possession from 20 to 18, and it completely lifted restriction on all guns except handguns, as well as on ammunition. << - the Myth of Hitler's Gun "Ban"

Nazi Weapons Act of 1938 (Translated to English)
Classified guns for "sporting purposes".

All citizens who wished to purchase firearms had to register with the Nazi officials and have a background check.

Presumed German citizens were hostile and thereby exempted Nazis from the gun control law.

Gave Nazis unrestricted power to decide what kinds of firearms could, or could not be owned by private persons.

The types of ammunition that were legal were subject to control by bureaucrats.
Juveniles under 18 years could not buy firearms and ammunition.

Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons 11 November 1938

With a basis in §31 of the Weapons Law of 18 March 1938 (Reichsgesetzblatt I, p.265), Article III of the Law on the Reunification of Austria with Germany of 13 March 1938 (Reichsgesetzblatt I, p. 237), and §9 of the Führer and Chancellor's decree on the administration of the Sudeten-German districts of 1 October 1938 (Reichsgesetzblatt I, p 1331) are the following ordered:
§1
Jews (§5 of the First Regulations of the German Citizenship Law of 14 November 1935, Reichsgesetzblatt I, p. 1333) are prohibited from acquiring, possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition, as well as truncheons or stabbing weapons. Those now possessing weapons and ammunition are at once to turn them over to the local police authority.

§2
Firearms and ammunition found in a Jew's possession will be forfeited to the government without compensation.

§3
The Minister of the Interior may make exceptions to the Prohibition in §1 for Jews who are foreign nationals. He can entrust other authorities with this power.

§4
Whoever willfully or negligently violates the provisions of §1 will be punished with imprisonment and a fine. In especially severe cases of deliberate violations, the punishment is imprisonment in a penitentiary for up to five years.

§5
For the implementation of this regulation, the Minister of the Interior waives the necessary legal and administrative provisions.

§6
This regulation is valid in the state of Austria and in the Sudeten-German districts.

Berlin, 11 November 1938
Minister of the Interior
Frick​

The Night of the Broken Glass (Kristallnacht)--the infamous Nazi rampage against Germany's Jews--took place in November 1938. It was preceded by the confiscation of firearms from the Jewish victims. On Nov. 8, the New York Times reported from Berlin, "Berlin Police Head Announces 'Disarming' of Jews," explaining:

The Berlin Police President, Count Wolf Heinrich von Helldorf, announced that as a result of a police activity in the last few weeks the entire Jewish population of Berlin had been "disarmed" with the confiscation of 2,569 hand weapons, 1,702 firearms and 20,000 rounds of ammunition. Any Jews still found in possession of weapons without valid licenses are threatened with the severest punishment.1

On the evening of Nov. 9, Adolf Hitler, Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels, and other Nazi chiefs planned the attack. Orders went out to Nazi security forces: "All Jewish stores are to be destroyed immediately . . . . Jewish synagogues are to be set on fire . . . . The Führer wishes that the police does not intervene. . . . All Jews are to be disarmed. In the event of resistance they are to be shot immediately.

All hell broke loose on Nov. 10: Nazis Smash, Loot and Burn Jewish Shops and Temples." "One of the first legal measures issued was an order by Heinrich Himmler, commander of all German police, forbidding Jews to possess any weapons whatever and imposing a penalty of twenty years confinement in a concentration camp upon every Jew found in possession of a weapon hereafter."3 Thousands of Jews were taken away.


As long as you want to falsely claim Hitler was right-wing, what does 6 millon Jews matter to you??????

And don't look now but here comes your "pro-union big labour" canard. It's not walking too well:

>>When Hitler came to power in January 1933, he saw trade unions as exercising more power over the workers than he could. Therefore, trade unions were seen as a challenge to be dispensed with. Hitler knew that he needed the workers to be on his side but he could not allow trade unions to exert the potential power they had. Therefore, trade unions were banned in Nazi Germany and the state took over the role of looking after the working class.

Just months after Hitler was appointed Chancellor, he took the decision to end trade unions in Nazi Germany. On May 2nd, 1933, police units occupied all trade unions headquarters and union officials and leaders were arrested. The funds that belonged to the trade unions – effectively this was workers money – were confiscated. However, Hitler had to be careful. He had only been in power for a few months and there were many members of the working class he had to deal with. If the working class movement in Germany organised itself, it would have presented the new Chancellor with a lot of major issues that would have to be dealt with. Removing trade union leaders helped this but it did not fully guarantee that the working class would ‘behave’ itself. Hitler had to offer the workers something more. Hitler announced that the German Labour Force, headed by Robert Ley, would replace all trade unions and would look after the working class. The title was chosen carefully. The new organisation was deliberately cloaked in patriotism, as it was now a German entity as was seen in its title. The working class was now a ‘labour force’. The Nazi Party did all that it could to ensure the workers felt that they were better off under the guidance of the Nazi Party via the German Labour Front.

They had to be brought onto the side of the Nazis as Hitler had major plans for the workers. There were simply too many of them to brutalise into submission, so the workers were offered the ‘Strength Through Joy’ movement (Kraft durch Freude’) which offered them subsidised holidays, cheap theatre trips etc.

Hitler offered the working class an improved leisure life in one hand and took away their traditional rights in the other. Strikes – the traditional way for the working class to vent their anger over an issue – were banned.

... Hitler was still fearful of large group of unemployed men existing in the fledgling Nazi state. In January 1933, he inherited an unemployment rate of 26.3%. This had the potential for long-term trouble. Therefore, job creation schemes were introduced. An individual had no choice about a job placement as anyone labelled ‘work shy’ was sent to prison. << -- Trade Unions and Nazi Germany

Some shop steward, huh?

Yes, Hitler destroyed independent labor unions — by nominally turning them into government unions! So, if Hitler was anti-union, why did he create a union. I mean, you just took a big bite out of the stupid pie with that one. But let's go into this further:

The DAF, was composed of two main areas, the Nationalsozialistische Betriebsorganization, or National Socialist Factory Organization (NSBO) and the Nationalsozialistische Handels und Gewerbeorganization, or Natational Socialist Trade and Industry Organization (NSHABO). A major part of the DAF was the KdF, or Kraft durch Freude - Strength through Joy. This organization, as a subset of the DAF, was tasked with providing activities such as trips, cruises, concerts, and cultural activities for the German workers. These events were specifically directed towards the working class and it was through the KdF that the NSDAP hoped to bring to the "common man" the pleasures once reserved only for the rich. Ahhhhhhhhh...leftist class warfare!!!!!!

Maybe you haven't heard, but Hitler was, among other things, dishonest. He double-crossed people that were a threat, as above. He was, in short and among other things, a liar.

I am most amused by your pathetic attempt at arrogant, pompous condescension, however it will not mask your dismal attempts to revise history. Yes, Hitler was dishonest and a liar. Real ground breaking info there.

Kind of what this charade is doing, trying to get the rest of the world into your ostrich hole. And yet y'all want to center on the word "socialist" in the party's name as if it was some sort of gospel.

Did I name Hitler a socialist? No, I did not. Maybe when you kick the bucket, you can bring the issue up with him since he declared himself a socialist and an enemy of capitalism.

I already tore that down in post 264 btw

The only thing you tore was the last handful of toilet paper you used to wipe your ass with from all the crap you have filled this thread with.

Go ******* learn something.

In all due respect, I will not particpate in your revisionist indoctrination.

 

[Saigon]

Locke -

I am sure you aware (from the OP if nowhere else) that Hitler devoted his life to destroying Marxism, but your post does not seem to reflect that reality.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Nothing could be more obvious or irrefutable than the fact that liberals want bigger government and conservatives want smaller government.

This simply is not true, and it has alrrady been explained several times on this thread why not.

Firstly, small government is very much an American concept - not a global one. Look around the world and you will see a dozen conservative governments that might look to trim spending, but which simply aren't obsessed with small government. It just isn't a big issue elsewhere.

Sceondly, there have been left wing governments that have backed small government. The Lange administration is the obvious example, but there are others.

Thirdly, the key differences between left wing and right wing are not small/large government, but capitalism vs socialism and class vs anti-class. This is what seperates left and right.

Conservatives in America have never provided small government. Those are code words for a lot less government for banksters, polluters and the plutocrats they worship. For those people conservatives provide all the socialism they request...subsidies, tax breaks and loopholes, deregulation... BUT, for the working man, the poor, minorities and women, conservatives provide a lot MORE government. For those people we get "fee" market capitalism, state ownership of a woman's uterus, capital punishment (the sooner the better) and piss in a cup and trust government to decide your fate.

Never? How about when JEfferson ran on a platform of abolishing the Alien and Sedition Acts if he was elected president, and then preceded to actually abolish them, unlike a modern president who ran on the platform of ending secrecy, and ended up expanding it.