How we know Hitler was right wing.

[emilynghiem]

Dear Saigon: How about this explanation

religiously Hitler was "anti-christ"
believed he was doing God's work but instead abused authority and law in the opposite spirit, by retributive justice (instead of restorative justice which is the spirit of Christ Jesus)

politically Hitler was "anti-socialist"
claiming to defend the workers and the interests of the people from oppression,
but doing so in the opposite way that violates the spirit of that movement also.

so in both cases, he claimed to be doing one thing, for which the labels apply historically,
but in spirit he defied the meaning of both, and did the opposite instead.

[this same problem still happens today, with people blamed for abusing Christianity to do conflicting things unfairly blamed on Christianity not the abuse of it. And people doing the same with politics, blaming parties by label, instead of correcting the abuses that contradict their true goals which are actually good and should be the focus of what they stand for.]

Prior coming to this board, I had never heard anyone suggest Hitler was anything but right wing. This may be something to do with living in Europe where the awareness of fascism is so very high because it occured here, or maybe it's something our education system focuses on. Or maybe coincidence.

Either way, recently I've noticed two posters recently insist Hitler was left wing....and even liberal.

Here is SSDD:

Hitler's government was called right wing by communists and socialists of the time, but his governemnt was still socialist. It consisted of a large and powerful central authority which is, by definition, not a conservative, or classically lberal government

Right wing and left wing are two wings of the same house and the house is socialism.

In cases like this, I am not sure facts have a great deal of impact, but maybe it is interesting to discuss some of the features of Fascism anyway.

Let's start with some quotes from Hitler:

"The main plank in the Nationalist Socialist program is to abolish the liberalistic concept of the individual and the Marxist concept of humanity and to substitute for them the folk community, rooted in the soil and bound together by the bond of its common blood."

"The German state is gravely attacked by Marxism."

"In the years 1913 and 1914, I… expressed the conviction that the question of the future of the German nation was the question of destroying Marxism."

"In the economic sphere Communism is analogous to democracy in the political sphere."

"The Marxists will march with democracy until they succeed in indirectly obtaining for their criminal aims the support of even the national intellectual world, destined by them for extinction."

"Marxism itself systematically plans to hand the world over to the Jews."

"The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight."

Myth: Hitler was a leftist

the irony I find is that for socialism or communism to be fulfilled, where all things are publicly owned collectively by the govt so there is no ownership of one class over any other, if the people ARE the government, then the people own and manage everything themselves which aligns with govt responsibility shared among the people. so if this is done right, then liberals who want inclusion and equal protection of minority interests, and conservatives who want to limit govt and localize sovereignty per state with more freedom by the people (defined as the private sector, not as the public sector through govt), would both be right.

the REAL issue is people don't want to be governed or controlled by an outside party/group.
they just have different ways of expressing the same thing, one using the public sector to represent the people and the other using hte private sector; but they both want consent of the governed and no taxation without representation. they don't want the other party in charge, so why not let people govern themselves by their own party leaders and programs.
wouldn't that solve the problems? and let them fund their own policies without interference?

 

[westwall]

He was only interested in expanding into areas that used to be part of Germany prior to World War one. So of course he was interested in expanding, but not to the level communists and American apologists suggest.

So, tell me...when did the Germans live in Archangel...or Astrakhan? or anywhere along that line? Hmmmm?

Who says they wished to conquer those territories. The war on the Eastern Front was essentially a defensive war against Soviet Aggression. Though Hitler preempted, the Soviets were in offensive positions to attack Germany and her Allies in Eastern Europe.

The A-A line is specifically named as the end point of German expansion into Russia for the desired Lebensraum. Why do you think they made the push to Stalingrad? They had to take it first to support the push to Astrakhan.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Wrong, at the time, the British Army numbered around 1.5 million, the BEF(British Expenditionary Force) numbering around 400,000. 340,000 of this Force along with 140,000 Polish, Belgian, and French troops were able to escape due to this indecision. Had Hitler listened to His generals, the entire British force on the continent(mostly the professional career soldiers), would have been eliminated, almost a Third of the British Army along with the entire Belgian, French and Polish "Armies in Exile". This would have dealt a severe blow to the allies and forced them to capitulate in the European Theater.

Utter nonsense.

Dunkirk evacuation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
British Army during the Second World War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Battle of Dunkirk - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/quote]

Your own link refutes you.

{Meanwhile, the Luftwaffe dropped bombs and leaflets on the Allied armies. The leaflets showed a map of the situation. They read, in English and French: "British soldiers! Look at the map: it gives your true situation! Your troops are entirely surrounded – stop fighting! Put down your arms!"[16] The Allied soldiers mostly used these as toilet paper.[17] To the land- and air-minded Nazis, the sea seemed an impassable barrier,[18] so they really did think the Allies were surrounded; but the British saw the sea as a route to safety.}

{Few historians now accept the view that Hitler's behaviour was influenced by the desire to let the British off lightly in hope that they would then accept a compromise peace. True, in his political testament dated 26 February 1945 Hitler lamented that Churchill was "quite unable to appreciate the sporting spirit" in which he had refrained from annihilating the BEF at Dunkirk, but this hardly squares with the contemporary record. Directive No. 13, issued by the Supreme Headquarters on 24 May called specifically for the annihilation of the French, English and Belgian forces in the pocket, while the Luftwaffe was ordered to prevent the escape of the English forces across the channel.[11]}

What you are suggesting simply doesn't add up with the numbers. You simply can't fight a war as usual with a third of your best troops gone.

Again, the Nazis had no ability to inflict the damage that you believe.

I think the Allies were far more abominable. They declared War on the German Reich, handicapping Hitler's fight against Communism in the East and leaving untold tens of millions to die in Eastern Europe as a result of Soviet Control.

I believe the alliance with Stalin was a mistake. However, there is nothing that can convince me that any regime was worse than the Reich.

 

[Jroc]

Jroc -

NO truly socialist society allows either private ownership of businesses, private investment in businesses, a share market nor entrepreneurialism.

Nazi Germany - like the other four or five examples if right wing dictatorship mentioned - all did allow it, but with an obvious layer of threat if businesses did not trade as the state demanded.

Hitler said that "I absolutely insist on protecting private property... we must encourage private initiative."

As mentioned above in #1283, right-wing dictatorships often trade with western countries too, whereas most left-wing dictatorships have avoided such trade.

It is important to note that fascism is far more extreme than conservatism, so bears little resemblance to it, just as communism bears little resemblance to the policies of Social Democrats. That a totalitarian government would use elements of force to compel private businesses to operate as the state wished strikes me as being quite typical of right-wing extremism. Pinochet, Sese and Daniel arap Moi all used elements of force against private companies.

Hitler said what? He confiscated people's property. Your comment was Germany's economy was an "Extreme form of Capitalism" which is total bullshit. Extreme capitalism would be little to no government intervention in the free market. Hitler was the exact opposite of that

 

[buckeye45_73]

Jroc -

NO truly socialist society allows either private ownership of businesses, private investment in businesses, a share market nor entrepreneurialism.

Nazi Germany - like the other four or five examples if right wing dictatorship mentioned - all did allow it, but with an obvious layer of threat if businesses did not trade as the state demanded.

Hitler said that "I absolutely insist on protecting private property... we must encourage private initiative."

As mentioned above in #1283, right-wing dictatorships often trade with western countries too, whereas most left-wing dictatorships have avoided such trade.

It is important to note that fascism is far more extreme than conservatism, so bears little resemblance to it, just as communism bears little resemblance to the policies of Social Democrats. That a totalitarian government would use elements of force to compel private businesses to operate as the state wished strikes me as being quite typical of right-wing extremism. Pinochet, Sese and Daniel arap Moi all used elements of force against private companies.

Hitler said what? He confiscated people's property. Your comment was Germany's economy was an "Extreme form of Capitalism" which is total bullshit. Extreme capitalism would be little to no government intervention in the free market. Hitler was the exact opposite of that

It's amazing what they dont get.....Hitler was a capitalist.....LOLOLOL They keep trying, but the truth is the truth.....

 

[westwall]

Who says they wished to conquer those territories. The war on the Eastern Front was essentially a defensive war against Soviet Aggression. Though Hitler preempted, the Soviets were in offensive positions to attack Germany and her Allies in Eastern Europe.

The A-A line is specifically named as the end point of German expansion into Russia for the desired Lebensraum. Why do you think they made the push to Stalingrad? They had to take it first to support the push to Astrakhan.

There is no such thing as an A-A line. Anyways, they wanted to take Astrakhan to eliminate the Soviets access to oil. Without this oil they would have lost the war, makes perfect sense to me.

Dude, you need to read a shitload more history. You are way out of your league here. And you just negated your point if you havn't figured it out yet.

 

[westwall]

Wrong, at the time, the British Army numbered around 1.5 million, the BEF(British Expenditionary Force) numbering around 400,000. 340,000 of this Force along with 140,000 Polish, Belgian, and French troops were able to escape due to this indecision. Had Hitler listened to His generals, the entire British force on the continent(mostly the professional career soldiers), would have been eliminated, almost a Third of the British Army along with the entire Belgian, French and Polish "Armies in Exile". This would have dealt a severe blow to the allies and forced them to capitulate in the European Theater.

Utter nonsense.

Dunkirk evacuation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
British Army during the Second World War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Battle of Dunkirk - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your own link refutes you.

{Meanwhile, the Luftwaffe dropped bombs and leaflets on the Allied armies. The leaflets showed a map of the situation. They read, in English and French: "British soldiers! Look at the map: it gives your true situation! Your troops are entirely surrounded – stop fighting! Put down your arms!"[16] The Allied soldiers mostly used these as toilet paper.[17] To the land- and air-minded Nazis, the sea seemed an impassable barrier,[18] so they really did think the Allies were surrounded; but the British saw the sea as a route to safety.}

{Few historians now accept the view that Hitler's behaviour was influenced by the desire to let the British off lightly in hope that they would then accept a compromise peace. True, in his political testament dated 26 February 1945 Hitler lamented that Churchill was "quite unable to appreciate the sporting spirit" in which he had refrained from annihilating the BEF at Dunkirk, but this hardly squares with the contemporary record. Directive No. 13, issued by the Supreme Headquarters on 24 May called specifically for the annihilation of the French, English and Belgian forces in the pocket, while the Luftwaffe was ordered to prevent the escape of the English forces across the channel.[11]}

What you are suggesting simply doesn't add up with the numbers. You simply can't fight a war as usual with a third of your best troops gone.

Again, the Nazis had no ability to inflict the damage that you believe.

I think the Allies were far more abominable. They declared War on the German Reich, handicapping Hitler's fight against Communism in the East and leaving untold tens of millions to die in Eastern Europe as a result of Soviet Control.

I believe the alliance with Stalin was a mistake. However, there is nothing that can convince me that any regime was worse than the Reich.[/QUOTE]






If you wish to go with just sheer numbers then Stalins USSR is significantly worse, having murdered at least 60 million of their own people. Roosevelt sided with the USSR because he admired Uncle Joe.

Why, I have no idea.

 

[westwall]

Jroc -

NO truly socialist society allows either private ownership of businesses, private investment in businesses, a share market nor entrepreneurialism.

Nazi Germany - like the other four or five examples if right wing dictatorship mentioned - all did allow it, but with an obvious layer of threat if businesses did not trade as the state demanded.

Hitler said that "I absolutely insist on protecting private property... we must encourage private initiative."

As mentioned above in #1283, right-wing dictatorships often trade with western countries too, whereas most left-wing dictatorships have avoided such trade.

It is important to note that fascism is far more extreme than conservatism, so bears little resemblance to it, just as communism bears little resemblance to the policies of Social Democrats. That a totalitarian government would use elements of force to compel private businesses to operate as the state wished strikes me as being quite typical of right-wing extremism. Pinochet, Sese and Daniel arap Moi all used elements of force against private companies.

Hitler said what? He confiscated people's property. Your comment was Germany's economy was an "Extreme form of Capitalism" which is total bullshit. Extreme capitalism would be little to no government intervention in the free market. Hitler was the exact opposite of that

The United States Constitution allows for the confiscation of private property(eminent domain). Were the founders not capitalists?

With proper compensation. Somehow you forgot that part..... And, as it has more recently been interpreted, is an abomination that the Founders would absolutely refute.

 

[Agit8r]

We know, because he said crazy shit like:

"Once the incited, insane masses — gone wild and supported by the asocial elements released from the prisons and penitentiaries — have exterminated the natural, indigenous intelligence of the peoples and brought them to the scaffolds to bleed to death, what will remain is the last bearer of — albeit miserable — intellectual knowledge is the Jew. For one thing should be made clear here: this race is neither spiritually nor morally superior, but in both cases inferior through and through. For unscrupulousness and irresponsibility can never be equated with a truly brilliant disposition. In terms of creativity, it is an untalented race through and through. For this reason, if it seeks to rule anywhere for any length of time, it is forced to undertake the extermination of the former intellectual upper classes of the other peoples. Otherwise it would naturally he defeated by their superior intelligence within a very short time. That is because, in everything that has to do with true accomplishment, they have always been bunglers, and bunglers they will remain. In the past year, we have shown in a series of alarming statistical proofs that, in the present Soviet Russia of the proletariat, more than eighty percent of the leading positions are held by Jews. This means that not the proletariat is the dictator, but that very race whose Star of David has finally also become the symbol of the so-called proletarian state."
-- Adolph Hitler; from speech at Zepplin Field (September 13, 1937)

 

[Saigon]

The United States Constitution allows for the confiscation of private property(eminent domain). Were the founders not capitalists?

I also noticed someone yesterday claimed that Hitler could not be a capitalist because he put his own people on the board of major corporations....because I guess that isn't something that would ever happen in the US, is it?!

 

[Saigon]

Emily -

Dear Saigon: How about this explanation

religiously Hitler was "anti-christ"
believed he was doing God's work but instead abused authority and law in the opposite spirit, by retributive justice (instead of restorative justice which is the spirit of Christ Jesus)

politically Hitler was "anti-socialist"
claiming to defend the workers and the interests of the people from oppression,
but doing so in the opposite way that violates the spirit of that movement also.

so in both cases, he claimed to be doing one thing, for which the labels apply historically,
but in spirit he defied the meaning of both, and did the opposite instead.

Those are very good points - thanks for them.

It is one of the issues with Hitler was that he was such a mass of contradictions - going through his quotes you can find almost anything you like in there! It does make him terribly difficult to define, because as you say - his words contradict his actions.

 

[Saigon]

. Your comment was Germany's economy was an "Extreme form of Capitalism" which is total bullshit. Extreme capitalism would be little to no government intervention in the free market. Hitler was the exact opposite of that

Really, Jroc, this is getting a bit silly. There is more than one variation of capitalism.

Yes, freemarket would be a relatively extreme form of capitalism.

However, placing people on the board of major corporations and bullying corporations into playing ball is another extreme form of capitalism.

You have to ask yourself - in how many communist states were there corporations to begin with?

How many communist economies use tax cuts to stimulate spending?!

ALL of the concepts we are discussing here - private investment, dividends, coporations, boards of directors - are present only in capitalist economies.

 

[Saigon]

No, I'm not kidding. By all means answer the question.

Obviously Hitler was more extreme and thus utilized a greater degree of force, but I think you'll find the policy differences are actually not vast - tax cuts, increased dividend earnings, focus on reducing unemployment, breaking up trade unions....no?

Okay. Pinochet had no death camps. While he held political prisoners, he did not arrest people on the basis of race, religion, or creed. Freedom to travel, both domestically and abroad was held by all. He had a market economy.

Ok, now we are making progress - you could actually think of only two differences, and neither of them are entirely correct.

Pinochet DID have detention camps, and used torture and murder against his enemies. Race is not a major factor given Chile is ethnically homogenous - religion was a factor.

Pinochet worked with major coporations just as Hitler did, though used less coercion than Hitler needed to, because corporations (ans more particularly, the finca owners and mine owners) already saw him as a saviour.

This is what it comes down to: ALL extreme right-wing dictators (Cristiani, Rios Montte, Hitler, Pinochet, Franco, Antonescu, the Argentine Generals etc ) share the same basic charactertistics:

- working closely with large corporations and exporters, mines etc
- favouring the aristocracy and upper classes
- tax cuts
- investment in infrastructure (dams, highways etc)
- deficit spending
- allowing entrepreneurs to operate more or less freely
- arrest of journalists
- breaking up trade unions
- promotion of monarchy as a puppet (where applicable)
- murder, torture and imprisonment of enemies

The differences are largely of the extent of the extremism.

 

[bripat9643]

The United States Constitution allows for the confiscation of private property(eminent domain). Were the founders not capitalists?

I also noticed someone yesterday claimed that Hitler could not be a capitalist because he put his own people on the board of major corporations....because I guess that isn't something that would ever happen in the US, is it?!

Yes it does, and it's an example of fascism.

 

[bripat9643]

. Your comment was Germany's economy was an "Extreme form of Capitalism" which is total bullshit. Extreme capitalism would be little to no government intervention in the free market. Hitler was the exact opposite of that

Really, Jroc, this is getting a bit silly. There is more than one variation of capitalism.

Yes, freemarket would be a relatively extreme form of capitalism.

However, placing people on the board of major corporations and bullying corporations into playing ball is another extreme form of capitalism.

No it's not. That's a means for the government to control the means of production. It's socialism, in other words.

You have to ask yourself - in how many communist states were there corporations to begin with?

How many communist economies use tax cuts to stimulate spending?!

communism is just one form of socialism, not the only form.

ALL of the concepts we are discussing here - private investment, dividends, coporations, boards of directors - are present only in capitalist economies.

That's true if you are talking about the real thing and not some facsimile. Under fascism, none of these institutions perform the economic function that they perform under capitalism. They are charades.

 

[Political Junky]

No, I'm not kidding. By all means answer the question.

Obviously Hitler was more extreme and thus utilized a greater degree of force, but I think you'll find the policy differences are actually not vast - tax cuts, increased dividend earnings, focus on reducing unemployment, breaking up trade unions....no?

Okay. Pinochet had no death camps. While he held political prisoners, he did not arrest people on the basis of race, religion, or creed. Freedom to travel, both domestically and abroad was held by all. He had a market economy.

Ok, now we are making progress - you could actually think of only two differences, and neither of them are entirely correct.

Pinochet DID have detention camps, and used torture and murder against his enemies. Race is not a major factor given Chile is ethnically homogenous - religion was a factor.

Pinochet worked with major coporations just as Hitler did, though used less coercion than Hitler needed to, because corporations (ans more particularly, the finca owners and mine owners) already saw him as a saviour.

This is what it comes down to: ALL extreme right-wing dictators (Cristiani, Rios Montte, Hitler, Pinochet, Franco, Antonescu, the Argentine Generals etc ) share the same basic charactertistics:

- working closely with large corporations and exporters, mines etc
- favouring the aristocracy and upper classes
- tax cuts
- investment in infrastructure (dams, highways etc)
- deficit spending
- allowing entrepreneurs to operate more or less freely
- arrest of journalists
- breaking up trade unions
- promotion of monarchy as a puppet (where applicable)
- murder, torture and imprisonment of enemies

The differences are largely of the extent of the extremism.

Human rights violations

Main article: Chile under Pinochet#Human rights violations
Pinochet's regime was responsible for various human rights abuses during its reign including murder and torture of political opponents. According to a government commission report that included testimony from more than 30,000 people, Pinochet's government killed at least 3,197 people and tortured about 29,000. Two-thirds of the cases listed in the report happened in 1973.[97]
Professor Clive Foss, in The Tyrants: 2500 Years of Absolute Power and Corruption (Quercus Publishing 2006), estimates that 1,500–2,000 Chileans were killed or disappeared during the Pinochet regime. In October 1979, the New York Times reported that Amnesty International had documented the disappearance of approximately 1,500 Chileans since 1973.[98] Among the killed and disappeared during the military regime were at least 663 Marxist MIR guerrillas.[99] The Manuel Rodríguez Patriotic Front, however, has stated that only 49 FPMR guerrillas were killed but hundreds detained and tortured.[100] According to a study in Latin American Perspectives,[101] at least 200,000 Chileans (about 2% of Chile's 1973 population) were forced to go into exile. Additionally, hundreds of thousands left the country in the wake of the economic crises that followed the military coup during the 1970s and 1980s.[101] Some of the key individuals who fled because of political persecution were followed in their exile by the DINA secret police, in the framework of Operation Condor, which linked South American military dictatorships together against political opponents.
[edit]
Augusto Pinochet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Saigon]

ALL of the concepts we are discussing here - private investment, dividends, coporations, boards of directors - are present only in capitalist economies.

That's true if you are talking about the real thing and not some facsimile. Under fascism, none of these institutions perform the economic function that they perform under capitalism. They are charades.

That's a very fair point, BriPat, and I don't disagree at all.

But how many examples of PURE democracy in the world, and amongst how many democracies?

How many capitalist countries are there, and how many with any pure capitalism?

For that matter, how many socialist countries ever really embodied the values of real socialism?

The fact is - probably most countries are guilty of being poor copies of the values they claim to espouse.

 

[bripat9643]

ALL of the concepts we are discussing here - private investment, dividends, coporations, boards of directors - are present only in capitalist economies.

That's true if you are talking about the real thing and not some facsimile. Under fascism, none of these institutions perform the economic function that they perform under capitalism. They are charades.

That's a very fair point, BriPat, and I don't disagree at all.

But how many examples of PURE democracy in the world, and amongst how many democracies?

How many capitalist countries are there, and how many with any pure capitalism?

For that matter, how many socialist countries ever really embodied the values of real socialism?

The fact is - probably most countries are guilty of being poor copies of the values they claim to espouse.

It's not a matter of whether a particular example of capitalism is "pure." Under fascism, there is so little left of the mechanisms of capitalism that it has ceased to exist. Under true capitalism, private firms and corporations make all the important business decisions, like what to produce, what price to charge, who to purchase the inputs from, how much to pay for labor, etc., etc., etc.. Under fascism the government makes all these decisions. Putting government flunkies on the boards of corporations is a means for getting this done.

 

[P@triot]

Jroc -

NO truly socialist society allows either private ownership of businesses, private investment in businesses, a share market nor entrepreneurialism.

Nazi Germany - like the other four or five examples if right wing dictatorship mentioned - all did allow it, but with an obvious layer of threat if businesses did not trade as the state demanded.

Hitler said that "I absolutely insist on protecting private property... we must encourage private initiative."

As mentioned above in #1283, right-wing dictatorships often trade with western countries too, whereas most left-wing dictatorships have avoided such trade.

It is important to note that fascism is far more extreme than conservatism, so bears little resemblance to it, just as communism bears little resemblance to the policies of Social Democrats. That a totalitarian government would use elements of force to compel private businesses to operate as the state wished strikes me as being quite typical of right-wing extremism. Pinochet, Sese and Daniel arap Moi all used elements of force against private companies.

Hitler said what? He confiscated people's property. Your comment was Germany's economy was an "Extreme form of Capitalism" which is total bullshit. Extreme capitalism would be little to no government intervention in the free market. Hitler was the exact opposite of that

It's amazing what they dont get.....Hitler was a capitalist.....LOLOLOL They keep trying, but the truth is the truth.....

Seriously - lying is so engrained in the modern day libtard - they now believe they can lie about the most obvious and indisputable issues.

 

[Saigon]

It's not a matter of whether a particular example of capitalism is "pure." Under fascism, there is so little left of the mechanisms of capitalism that it has ceased to exist. Under true capitalism, private firms and corporations make all the important business decisions, like what to produce, what price to charge, who to purchase the inputs from, how much to pay for labor, etc., etc., etc.. Under fascism the government makes all these decisions. Putting government flunkies on the boards of corporations is a means for getting this done.

I don't disagree with any of that BriPat, but as I am sure you can appreciate - the fact that there was private corporations, prive investment, a stock market, entrepreneurialism, and considerable private import/export in Germany, it most definitely is more capitalist than communist.