How we know Hitler was right wing.

[Saigon]

Europeans view it the same as Americans, except for a portion of American right wingers who find it inconvenient to be of the same persuasion as Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, and Pinochet.

This seems to be what this thread has shown - although I am actually surprised by that finding.

As I said earlier, I have never heard any left wing person suggest that Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot or Nkrumah were not left wing - it's simply historical fact.

But on this thread a few very extreme right-wing posters seem very nervous about admitting that Pinochet, Franco or the Argentine Dirty Generals were right wing.

This also seems to be made more complicated by the fact that posters like Rottweiler or BriPat seem not to have ever heard of most right-wing dictators - such as Antonescu, Stroessner, Cristiani or Rios Montte - all of whom used policies broadly similar to Hitler.

 

[Jroc]

Jroc -

Much of the problem on this thread has come from the fact that many posters assume that what the Tea Party might claim is right wing today is what the world has always known to be right wing. In actual fact, the idea of small government and a free market are very American points of view and very recent ideas - particularly small government.

Of the 20 or so conservative governments in the developed world right now, perhaps 2 campaigned on small government. In countries like Germany, France, Australia or Scandinavia it is very rarely referred to.

Likewise, as I explained earlier, some left wing governments have campaigned on the basis of small government and asset sales as well.

This is not to say that the Tea Party is not right wing, simply that they do not represent the entire spectrum of right-wing thinking. They are just one point along the line.

The definition of right wing needs to be so broad, because it extends from someone like Sakorzy or Angela Merkel in the centre, to Antonescu and Pinochet at the extreme edge.

Like I said you guys have a different view of what is conservative ideology, to say Hitler was a” right winger” by our standards is not true, he's be much closer to a left winger here, except for the fascism part, in that fascism based on race wouldn’t fit either ideology here, fascism based on a political ideology, Maybe, but a true American conservative and Hitler not even remotely close

 

[Saigon]

Like I said you guys have a different view of what is conservative ideology, to say Hitler was a” right winger” by our standards is not true, he's be much closer to a left winger here, except for the fascism part, in that fascism based on race wouldn’t fit either ideology here, fascism based on a political ideology, Maybe, but a true American conservative and Hitler not even remotely close

No dictator would fit into any modern American political party, because no modern American political party is dictatorial.

Can you imaine Pol Pot joining the Democrats, and suggesting the entire urban population be herded out of the cities into rural work camps and worked to death? That anyone with a college education should be shot as a suspect?

Today's Democrats would call that fascism and not be far wrong - except that Pol Pot's influence are primarily left wing, and extended right out of the Paris Sorbonne riots of 1968.

We can't choose any historical figure and define their politics by seeing if they are left or right of a Sarah Palin or a Bill Clinton, because we are just comparing almost random points on a very long continuum. We have to look at the policies and the historical context they operated in.

 

[Jroc]

Like I said you guys have a different view of what is conservative ideology, to say Hitler was a” right winger” by our standards is not true, he's be much closer to a left winger here, except for the fascism part, in that fascism based on race wouldn’t fit either ideology here, fascism based on a political ideology, Maybe, but a true American conservative and Hitler not even remotely close

No dictator would fit into any modern American political party, because no modern American political party is dictatorial.

Can you imaine Pol Pot joining the Democrats, and suggesting the entire urban population be herded out of the cities into rural work camps and worked to death? That anyone with a college education should be shot as a suspect?

Today's Democrats would call that fascism and not be far wrong - except that Pol Pot's influence are primarily left wing, and extended right out of the Paris Sorbonne riots of 1968.

We can't choose any historical figure and define their politics by seeing if they are left or right of a Sarah Palin or a Bill Clinton, because we are just comparing almost random points on a very long continuum. We have to look at the policies and the historical context they operated in.

You're comparing lunatics to sane people. I don't see the point of it

 

[Saigon]

You're comparing lunatics to sane people. I don't see the point of it

Yes, that's true - but in the case of dictators, the lunatics have political ideas as well!

Hitler's ideology was insane, but it was still quite carefully thought through. Particularly in his dealings with the aristocracy - he knew what motivated wealthy people, and knew that by offering strong dividend earnings and a return to a strong proud patriotic vision of Germany, he would gain their support. He also knew they distrusted Marxism and its threat of a workers' paradise.

 

[barry1960]

You folks sure do love semantic debates.


What a waste of your precious time debating the meaning of a word.

You really just summed up the entire problem with libtards. Words mean nothing to them. That's why the pervert the Constitution. That's why everything is "semantics". And that's why this conversation is more important than ever.

Are you really this stupid? Whether Hitler was right or left wing has little to do with America's present day right or left wing. However if one were to generalize conservatives based upon your posts in this thread, one could say conservatives do not read, have little historical knowlege, are little sheep who believe whatever wingnut radio tells them, and are incapable of rationale arguement.

Stop posting, read a book on Nazi Germany. For starters, perhaps Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shirer. There are more detailed books on this subject, but the writing in this one keep you engaged and it is a classic.

BTW, "words mean nothing to them" and "that's why everything is semantics" are contradictory statements.

 

[Pogo]

Jroc -

Much of the problem on this thread has come from the fact that many posters assume that what the Tea Party might claim is right wing today is what the world has always known to be right wing. In actual fact, the idea of small government and a free market are very American points of view and very recent ideas - particularly small government.

Of the 20 or so conservative governments in the developed world right now, perhaps 2 campaigned on small government. In countries like Germany, France, Australia or Scandinavia it is very rarely referred to.

Likewise, as I explained earlier, some left wing governments have campaigned on the basis of small government and asset sales as well.

This is not to say that the Tea Party is not right wing, simply that they do not represent the entire spectrum of right-wing thinking. They are just one point along the line.

The definition of right wing needs to be so broad, because it extends from someone like Sakorzy or Angela Merkel in the centre, to Antonescu and Pinochet at the extreme edge.

Like I said you guys have a different view of what is conservative ideology, to say Hitler was a” right winger” by our standards is not true, he's be much closer to a left winger here, except for the fascism part, in that fascism based on race wouldn’t fit either ideology here, fascism based on a political ideology, Maybe, but a true American conservative and Hitler not even remotely close

Quite the scattergun post there...

One point at a time:
>> to say Hitler was a&#8221; right winger&#8221; by our standards is not true, he's be much closer to a left winger here<<

Of course it is. Depending on what you mean by "our". You certainly don't speak for the country. As we keep saying, this Newspeak revisionism to move Hitler to the left, whether one subscribes to it or not, is a very new idea. It certainly didn't exist for at least sixty years after World War II ended. And outside of this country, it still doesn't exist. That should tell you a lot right there. We went over why that is earlier in the thread.

There's been a lot of rhetorical flailing around trying to define a historical figure from 1930s-40s Germany using benchmarks of 2013 USA, which is nonsense, especially newer ideas like "conservativism means smaller government" which idea didn't even exist here in that time period, let alone in Germany.

>> ...except for the fascism part <<

- much like saying "fire is not dangerous, except for the burning part".

>> a true American conservative and Hitler not even remotely close <<

No, of course not, no more than are Hitler and a true American liberal. So why all the bending over backward to retool the history books? Again, to describe Hitler's placement on the political spectrum as on the right does not impugn everybody on that side of the center line, and through twelve hundred posts I don't believe anyone has even suggested that.

Hitler is off the freaking scale. But he left that scale from the right side. All that tells us is his point of departure, but we all acknowledge that there is a departure.

 

[buckeye45_73]

You folks sure do love semantic debates.


What a waste of your precious time debating the meaning of a word.

You really just summed up the entire problem with libtards. Words mean nothing to them. That's why the pervert the Constitution. That's why everything is "semantics". And that's why this conversation is more important than ever.

Are you really this stupid? Whether Hitler was right or left wing has little to do with America's present day right or left wing. However if one were to generalize conservatives based upon your posts in this thread, one could say conservatives do not read, have little historical knowlege, are little sheep who believe whatever wingnut radio tells them, and are incapable of rationale arguement.

Stop posting, read a book on Nazi Germany. For starters, perhaps Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shirer. There are more detailed books on this subject, but the writing in this one keep you engaged and it is a classic.

BTW, "words mean nothing to them" and "that's why everything is semantics" are contradictory statements.

Oh please, libtards believe in the makebelieve history taught by liberals since the 60. Columbus was bad, dead white males, indians were just peaceful nice folk, ect ect..... you buy that shit, not us.

and no, if everything is semantics and euphamisms, then words do mean nothing.....liberals question the meaning of is and other words....stop being a dipshit....I'll bend you over more than your gay friends.

And again hitler was left wing, yeah scholars (aka liberals) say he was right, but the right in the US does not believe in eugenics (the left has and does), does not believe in authoritarian govt(we want it smaller not bigger, we want it less powerful, not more powerful)

so quit listening to MSNBC and Al Gore or Al Jazeera......

 

[Saigon]

Buckeye -

There is such a thing as factual, objective history. No one who has anyone serious interest in history is going to be at all interested in propaganda of any persuasion.

One of the very disturbing things on this thread is seeing posters flatout refuse to read history because it is biased. How do you know a book is biased if you refuse to read it?

The fact is, most great scholars came to be considered great because their work had balance and was not biased - thus was of value to anyone with a genuine interest in the topic.

By all means check out what REAL historians say - Ian Kershaw, Richard Overy, Michael Marris - and you can avoid getting bogged down in this endless childrens squabble over left vs right.

 

[Pogo]

You folks sure do love semantic debates.


What a waste of your precious time debating the meaning of a word.

You really just summed up the entire problem with libtards. Words mean nothing to them. That's why the pervert the Constitution. That's why everything is "semantics". And that's why this conversation is more important than ever.

Are you really this stupid? Whether Hitler was right or left wing has little to do with America's present day right or left wing. However if one were to generalize conservatives based upon your posts in this thread, one could say conservatives do not read, have little historical knowlege, are little sheep who believe whatever wingnut radio tells them, and are incapable of rationale arguement.

Stop posting, read a book on Nazi Germany. For starters, perhaps Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shirer. There are more detailed books on this subject, but the writing in this one keep you engaged and it is a classic.

BTW, "words mean nothing to them" and "that's why everything is semantics" are contradictory statements.

Hate to say it but yeah, he really is. I also noticed the impressions he's leaving. If I were an interested conservative I'd be messaging him behind the scenes to stop making us look ridiculous. Rottenwhiner is one of those "might makes right" creatures. He believes he can win an argument by shouting you down with boldface and big fonts.

 

[Saigon]

An overview of some of the leading scholars in this field:

Ian Kershaw:

Sir Ian Kershaw, FBA (born 29 April 1943) is a British historian of 20th-century Germany whose work has chiefly focused on the period of the Third Reich. He is regarded by many as one of the world's leading experts on Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany, and is particularly noted for his monumental biography of Hitler, which has been called "soberly objective."

He was the leading disciple of the late West German historian Martin Broszat, and (until his retirement) professor at the University of Sheffield. Kershaw has called Broszat an "inspirational mentor" who did much to shape his understanding of National Socialist Germany. Kershaw served as historical adviser on numerous BBC documentaries, notably The Nazis: A Warning From History and War of the Century. He taught a module entitled 'Germans against Hitler'.

Ian Kershaw - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Richard Overy:

Richard James Overy (born 23 December 1947) is a British historian who has published extensively on the history of World War II and the Third Reich. In 2007 as The Times editor of Complete History of the World he chose the 50 key dates of world history.

His work on World War II has been praised as "highly effective (in) the ruthless dispelling of myths" (A. J. P. Taylor), "original and important" (New York Review of Books) and "at the cutting edge".

1977 Fellow of the Royal Historical Society
2000 Fellow of the British Academy
2003 Fellow of King's College
2001 Samuel Elliot Morrison Prize of the Society for Military History
2004 Wolfson History Prize, The Dictators: Hitler's Germany; Stalin's Russia
2005 Hessell-Tiltman Prize, The Dictators: Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia

Richard Overy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

John Keegan

Sir John Desmond Patrick Keegan, OBE, FRSL (15 May 1934 &#8211; 2 August 2012) was a British military historian, lecturer, writer and journalist. He was the author of many published works on the nature of combat between the 14th and 21st centuries concerning land, air, maritime, and intelligence warfare, as well as the psychology of battle.

On 29 June 1991, as a war correspondent for The Daily Telegraph, Keegan was appointed Officer of the Order of the British Empire (OBE) "in recognition of service within the operations in the Gulf".[12] In the Millennium New Year Honours, he was knighted "for services to Military History".[13]

He was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature (FRSL) in 1986.[14] In 1993 he won the Duff Cooper Prize.He was awarded an Honorary Doctor of Letters (DLitt) by the University of Bath in 2002.

John Keegan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Pogo]

Buckeye -

There is such a thing as factual, objective history. No one who has anyone serious interest in history is going to be at all interested in propaganda of any persuasion.

One of the very disturbing things on this thread is seeing posters flatout refuse to read history because it is biased. How do you know a book is biased if you refuse to read it?

That's because they looked ahead to the conclusion, found out that it wasn't going where they wanted, and then went

 

[buckeye45_73]

Buckeye -

There is such a thing as factual, objective history. No one who has anyone serious interest in history is going to be at all interested in propaganda of any persuasion.

One of the very disturbing things on this thread is seeing posters flatout refuse to read history because it is biased. How do you know a book is biased if you refuse to read it?

The fact is, most great scholars came to be considered great because their work had balance and was not biased - thus was of value to anyone with a genuine interest in the topic.

By all means check out what REAL historians say - Ian Kershaw, Richard Overy, Michael Marris - and you can avoid getting bogged down in this endless childrens squabble over left vs right.

Saigon, first I believe noone is unbiased...second, why not toss in Gore Vidal....

Again we discussed it, you think left right is class, which is the theory for a marxist, I believe it's government power.....the more american way of thinking about it.....

as for history it has been hijacked.....by lots of folks....In school I was taught the pilgrims were giving thanks to the indians for Thanksgiving.....nope.....it was to God...a small ommission? Id say bigger than that and with a purpose....

Liberals have the term dead white males...usually used in womens studies classes alot, I have a friend who went to one to pick up chicks and I laughed in his face, and he was a liberal and that class showed him all the stuff I said about libtards were true...I dont lie, and make up shit, I dont have to.
Liberals teach europeans catched africans for slaves, but for the most part it was africans selling africans....it's not really taught in school though....why is that?????

 

[Jroc]

Buckeye -

There is such a thing as factual, objective history. No one who has anyone serious interest in history is going to be at all interested in propaganda of any persuasion.

One of the very disturbing things on this thread is seeing posters flatout refuse to read history because it is biased. How do you know a book is biased if you refuse to read it?

The fact is, most great scholars came to be considered great because their work had balance and was not biased - thus was of value to anyone with a genuine interest in the topic.

By all means check out what REAL historians say - Ian Kershaw, Richard Overy, Michael Marris - and you can avoid getting bogged down in this endless childrens squabble over left vs right.

You promoted the "squabble" With the title of your thread.

 

[Saigon]

Buckeye -

Saigon, first I believe noone is unbiased...second, why not toss in Gore Vidal....

Well, maybe you are right about that, but I do think good historians - and I have met one or two - are largely inspired by wanting to understand history - less so by wanting to re-write it. Good historians just aren't as politically invested in left/right politics as we might like to imagine they are - and ditto journalists in many cases.

We have seen historians like David Irving simply ruin his career by trying to shift the facts of the Hoocaust to meet his own anti-Semitic views. As a result, no one takes his work seriously anymore.

If you read a half dozen books on any one topic, then slowly any bias starts to become clear anyway, so you can start to filter it out. I have no problem reading mildly biased material on WWII now, because I know the subject well enough to pick up any more obvious spin and interpret the rest of the work accordingly - but it takes time and a lot of reading to get to that point. Better to start with some classics, and then go on to the more controversial books if people feel like it.

 

[Saigon]

You promoted the "squabble" With the title of your thread.

That's true, I guess, but if I had started a thread called 'How we know Pol Pot was left wing' I doubt we'd see Rottweiler and BriPat claiming it was propaganda.

 

[buckeye45_73]

You promoted the "squabble" With the title of your thread.

That's true, I guess, but if I had started a thread called 'How we know Pol Pot was left wing' I doubt we'd see Rottweiler and BriPat claiming it was propaganda.

Because he was a big and powerful gubbmint commie...so yes, who debates that????

btw tell me how he was different that hitler in practicle terms? Again Pol Pot was much much closer to Hitler than Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, or Obama....much closer.......

 

[Pogo]

Buckeye -

There is such a thing as factual, objective history. No one who has anyone serious interest in history is going to be at all interested in propaganda of any persuasion.

One of the very disturbing things on this thread is seeing posters flatout refuse to read history because it is biased. How do you know a book is biased if you refuse to read it?

The fact is, most great scholars came to be considered great because their work had balance and was not biased - thus was of value to anyone with a genuine interest in the topic.

By all means check out what REAL historians say - Ian Kershaw, Richard Overy, Michael Marris - and you can avoid getting bogged down in this endless childrens squabble over left vs right.

Saigon, first I believe noone is unbiased...second, why not toss in Gore Vidal....

Again we discussed it, you think left right is class, which is the theory for a marxist, I believe it's government power.....the more american way of thinking about it.....

as for history it has been hijacked.....by lots of folks....In school I was taught the pilgrims were giving thanks to the indians for Thanksgiving.....nope.....it was to God...a small ommission? Id say bigger than that and with a purpose....
?

Perhaps it's creative memory that "has a purpose", because I was never taught that.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Buckeye -

There is such a thing as factual, objective history. No one who has anyone serious interest in history is going to be at all interested in propaganda of any persuasion.

One of the very disturbing things on this thread is seeing posters flatout refuse to read history because it is biased. How do you know a book is biased if you refuse to read it?

The fact is, most great scholars came to be considered great because their work had balance and was not biased - thus was of value to anyone with a genuine interest in the topic.

By all means check out what REAL historians say - Ian Kershaw, Richard Overy, Michael Marris - and you can avoid getting bogged down in this endless childrens squabble over left vs right.

Saigon, first I believe noone is unbiased...second, why not toss in Gore Vidal....

Again we discussed it, you think left right is class, which is the theory for a marxist, I believe it's government power.....the more american way of thinking about it.....

as for history it has been hijacked.....by lots of folks....In school I was taught the pilgrims were giving thanks to the indians for Thanksgiving.....nope.....it was to God...a small ommission? Id say bigger than that and with a purpose....
?

Perhaps it's creative memory that "has a purpose", because I was never taught that.

taught about the indians?

Thanksgiving: A Native American View | Alternet

That's the leftwing propaganda.....

 

[Pogo]

You promoted the "squabble" With the title of your thread.

No it's not true. The OP cited a very recent historical revision (with sample quotes) that had already been presented, and asked where this revision came from. And I've heard it too. The thread is in no way a new idea; it's a reaction to a new idea. So let's be clear whence comes the origin of the "squabble". If that's what it is.