• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Yes, Virginia: Hitler really was a socialist

snakestretcher said:
Answer me this, because none of your revisionist buddies seem to be able to. If Hitler the 'socialist' (apparently a huge admirer of Benito), was deporting and executing all the socialists he could find, why would he do that to his supporting base? It isn't a trick question. Let's have your answer; because Mein Kampf is riddled with condemnation of socialists, whom he considered no more favourably than the millions of Jews he murdered, and whom he also saw as his political opposition.
Click to expand...

Still waiting...
 
KAG2020 said:
Who said he was deporting and executing socialists?

Dumb post but thanks for bumping my tread
Click to expand...

"First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."
 
snakestretcher said:
Political views of Adolf Hitler - Wikipedia

In Mein Kampf Hitler advocated for, "the destruction of Marxism [socialism] in all its shapes and forms". So, yeah, Hitler was a socialist:roll:
Click to expand...

The Nazis were originally called the German Workers Party, and the name change to incorporate the word "socialist" was partly designed to pull in working class voters by making the party seem more caring and respectable than it actually was, because "socialism" was a good word to many idealistic people in the 1930s on both sides of the Atlantic.
(In much of the world it still is, and they understand that Nazism was on the other side of the spectrum entirely).
But in any case, merely because a party calls itself by a name doesn't mean that this is what it stands for, and that is especially so given the low standards of honesty practiced by totalitarians.

Vladimir Zhirinovsky's Russian fascist group of the 1990s was ludicrously called the Liberal Democratic party although it was virulently anti-liberal and anti-democratic.
The junior party in Britain's current coalition government are also called Liberal Democrats - perhaps on Tea Party logic we should repudiate David Cameron for forming an alliance with Russian fascists?
And whilst we're on the topic, any political theorist can tell you that the current Republican Party is about as far away from having anything to do with classical republicanism as it's possible to get.

Not only did Hitler detest socialism, liberalism and communism, but he was appeased in Europe partly because some of the European right saw him and Mussolini as valuable strong men against Stalin. This foolish admiration was a major factor in appeasement and extended almost to the eve of war.

Here's George Orwell, reviewing an English translation of Hitler's "Mein Kampf" in March 1940, as German bombs are falling on Britain:
"It is a sign of the speed at which events are moving that Hurst and Blackett's unexpurgated edition of ‘Mein Kampf’, published only a year ago, is edited from a pro-Hitler angle. The obvious intention of the translator's preface and notes is to tone down the book’s ferocity and present Hitler in as kindly a light as possible. For at that date Hitler was still respectable. He had crushed the German labour movement, and for that the property-owning classes were willing to forgive him almost anything. Both Left and Right concurred in the very shallow notion that National Socialism was merely a version of Conservatism. Then suddenly it turned out that Hitler was not respectable after all".
---George Orwell, Review of Hitler’s “Mein Kampf”, in “New English Weekly”, 21 March 1940.

CONTINUED BELOW
 
And next, here's the verdict of an eminent expert researcher and one of the greatest experts on the Nazi phenomenon, the historian Alan Bullock:
"While Hitler's attitude towards liberalism was one of contempt, towards Marxism he showed an implacable hostility… Ignoring the profound differences between Communism and Social Democracy in practice and the bitter hostility between the rival working class parties, he saw in their common ideology the embodiment of all that he detested -- mass democracy and a leveling egalitarianism as opposed to the authoritarian state and the rule of an elite; equality and friendship among peoples as opposed to racial inequality and the domination of the strong; class solidarity versus national unity; internationalism versus nationalism".
---Alan Bullock, "Hitler: A Study in Tyranny", abridged edition, (New York: HarperCollins, 1971).

Hitler’s values – radical inequality, the fostering of a tiny elite, belief in ancestral notions of nationhood and racial purity – were values of the far right, not the egalitarian values of socialism or liberalism. Before attaining dictatorial power he allied himself with political conservatives, he had a fan club of conservatives outside Germany, he was largely funded by union-hating big business that saw him as the man to smash the socialists, and he was appeased internationally in part because of misguided conservatives who thought him a worthwhile ally, though foolish left-wing pacifists were also part of the problem. It is simply absurd to place Hitler anywhere other than on the authoritarian far right of the political spectrum, just as on similar evidence it would be absurd to call Stalin a capitalist, for Stalin belongs on the authoritarian far left.

Himmler, well before the Wannsee Conference, and after the "Night of the Long Knives", which eventuated the disposal of any and all left-sympathizing party members, including Ernst Roehm, about 1938, enunciated to a mass meeting of the SchutzStaffel (S.S.): "We are of the right and of order. We shall sweep away Jews, Bolsheviks, and liberal democracies as one sweeps away flies."

Prescott Bush and many other rightists on the international stage admired Hitler precisely because they saw him as the man to smash socialism and the left. And that he most certainly did in Germany: his first action after the Enabling Act, giving dictatorial powers, was passed in 1933 was to ban trade unions.

Over the course of his regime, it's estimated that around 2 million socialists, trade unionists, communists and other left-wingers were murdered by Hitler's regime, most of them in the death camps. Many of the victims had warned of the evils of fascism and been ignored by appeasement in Europe and North America, with much of the appeasement orchestrated by the political right.

If the Nazis were socialist because they described themselves as such, then North Korea is a democratic republic.
 
Glitch said:
I'm well aware of Mussolini's history with the socialist party and that is why he founded his own National Fascist Party, which was no less socialist than the socialist party he was once a member, just much more totalitarian. It still doesn't change the fact that Mussolini is the one who defined fascism, not Wikipedia. Mussolini's definition of fascism is extremely left-wing, and embraces socialism.
Click to expand...

You cannot just make up new meanings to words, sorry.
You're entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts.

Hitler was not a socialist, Nazis aren't socialists and fascism is a right wing ideology, period, end of story.
These are facts.
And Mussolini wasn't a lefty either, anymore than the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is "democratic".
 
Glitch said:
So your claim is that anyone who labels there organization based upon what they claim is their ideological belief is deliberately lying, right? So when are you going to expose the Democratic Party as being totalitarians and not democratic at all? ROFL!
Click to expand...

Now you're whining about American Democrats when we've been talking about Hitler?
Your "scary" bear avatar is looking weaker by the second. Tick tock, tick tock.
 
KAG2020 said:
Yes, Virginia: Hitler really was a socialist

Yes, Virginia: Hitler really was a socialist - Glenn Beck

QUOTE: ".... Yes, Hitler and the Nazis were socialists, for the simple reasons that they were staunchly anti-capitalist and believed that the means of production in their society should be controlled by a centralized state power. That is very clear from their writings, their words and their actions. Done and done....."

ME: I found this great post in another forum; moderators, I will provide a link if I am supposed to link to another forum:

. QUOTE:

NAZI = Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei
or, "National Socialist German Workers' Party"

Funny, I don't see a lot of Germans in the Republican Party but I see plenty of Socialists in the Democrat Party.

In fact, not only do I see plenty of Socialists in the Democrat Party, but I see plenty of Socialists in the Democrat Party who want to be able to murder an entire class of people (abortion) just like Hitler did, and who violently attack people in the streets who disagree with them, just like Hitler did. Plus, I see plenty of Socialists in the Democrat Party who want to teach junk science about the human race (transgenderism) just like Hitler did.

The next time you Democrats and Liberals yell "Nazi", just look in the mirror and you'll see the biggest Nazi of them all. Better yet, watch news video of the last couple of weeks regarding Kavanaugh. Democrat Party Fascism at its finest.
Click to expand...

Nazis practiced the purest form of socialism: They stole from non-Aryans to give to Aryans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom