• 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!

The political, religious and ideological views that drove Hilter and the Nazi regime

I discuss historical things highly dispassionately. And without letting my own personal beliefs color or influence things.

Oh please. Oozlefinch, you are not a dumb person, but you are so incredibly ignorant of your own biases it makes genuine conversation and debate with you impossible.
 
I do not have a great understanding of German history prior to Hitler, that is correct. But, other than a heavy battleship named in honor of the prior by the latter, I see almost no similarities between the men. I was hoping you could draw some parallels between them for me. In terms of policy. So far I'm from what I'm seeing a case could be made that they were both nationalistic? That's about it as far as I can tell. Both were from completely different walks of life.

What made a Nazi a Nazi? It was the common enemy, the capitalist Jew who pulled the strings. Hitler truly believed that the threat to the common German was the jew, the wealthy jew who manipulated the capitalistic system for his gain. And to keep all others oppressed. I think its safe to say we agree on this point?

If the economy was privatized in name only, how could we define Nazi Germany as anything but socialistic? Just do me a favor I want to go through this one more time.
 
I see almost no similarities between the men. I was hoping you could draw some parallels between them for me. In terms of policy.

The Nazis drew interpretation of how a state should run based on the lessons of Bismark and Spengler. What you're looking for, parallels between the two people, is not what I'm arguing. They don't need to be exactly the same in personal terms for one to inspire the other. The Nazi ideology drew heavily from what Bismark did and what Spengler wrote, just like every American President draws inspiration and guidance from their predecessor even if they don't agree with one another.

What made a Nazi a Nazi? It was the common enemy, the capitalist Jew who pulled the strings.

You're forgetting Jewish-Bolshevism. The Nazis didn't believe Jews were behind capitalism itself, they also saw Jews as behind communism as well.


If the economy was privatized in name only, how could we define Nazi Germany as anything but socialistic? Just do me a favor I want to go through this one more time.

Well it wasn't just in name only. You're conflating the idea of German government = Hitler. Hitler did in theory hold all the power but he rarely actually exercised it, as in he rarely made clear economic policy or put forward directives guiding economic policy. Because again, as I quoted him saying, he thought economic matters were a secondary concern to military and racial might.

So in practice the Nazi economy drew very little actual input from Hitler.

As to the matter of defining the Nazi economy, you really need to stop seeing it in such black and white terms. The difference between socialism and capitalism is not a light switch that you simply flip on and off. The United States has state owned industries, that does not make us a socialist country. The Soviet Union had a very distinct class divide, that did not mean it wasn't a communist country.

The Nazis did not embrace either socialism or capitalism because they were ideologically opposed to both. They made no efforts to transfer control of capital to the working class, a hallmark of socialism, nor did they allow free enterprise to guide the economy, a mainstay of capitalism. They were neither.

When the Nazis spoke of socialism, they were invoking the "socialism" of Bismark, not Marx or Lenin. To the Nazis socialism was the government taking care to protect the average worker or citizen; the most common form being welfare. That's it. Welfare isn't a socialist concept in of itself; the Romans had pensions for military veterans, and some of the most right wing ultraconservative states have had welfare programs. Hell, when Bismark instituted his "state socialism", he first framed it in religious terms, saying it was the Christian thing to do. Does that sound very leftist to you? He ended up calling it "state socialism" because that sounded attractive to German workers, whom Bismark wanted to keep away from anti-Monarchist socialist parties.

You can't just say "Oh they were socialist because X" and ignore the background of the political history of the country.
 
I do not have a great understanding of German history prior to Hitler, that is correct. But, other than a heavy battleship named in honor of the prior by the latter, I see almost no similarities between the men. I was hoping you could draw some parallels between them for me. In terms of policy. So far I'm from what I'm seeing a case could be made that they were both nationalistic? That's about it as far as I can tell. Both were from completely different walks of life.

The two men despised each other. Hindenburg generally referred to Hitler as "that Austrian Corporal", and Hitler referred to him as "that old reactionary". About the only ways that they were similar is that they detested Marxists, and they were both Nationalists. A moderate, he was able to assemble 2 coalition governments, the last primarily fighting to keep the NSDAP (specifically Hitler) out of power. And once forced to share power, he not only refused to ever meet with Hitler privately, he shuffled off all NSDAP members into insignificant posts with little to no power. Hitler was designated as Chancellor (which Hindenburg had the power to fire at will without cause), Wilhelm Frick as Interior Minister (which had no power), and Hermann Goering as "Minister without portfolio", also powerless.

And the main reason that Hitler was able to stay in his good graces is that he pledged he would fight to restore the monarchy. And when he was on the verge of sacking his Chancellor, Hitler responded with the Night of the Long Knives. This lulled Hindenburg into believing that he had eliminated the most violent factions within his party, and allowed him to remain in office.

But the men never liked each other, and Hindenburg never trusted him. It was purely a coalition government (think Northern Democrats working with President Lincoln during the Civil War), with the NSDAP followers given as little power as possible. And the day before Hindenburg died Hitler had the cabinet pass a law combining the two offices upon Hindenburg's death. This is what gave him the ultimate power.

Hindenburg was a Conservative, a member of the aristocratic class, and a Monarchist. Hitler was essentially a peasant, a thug, and a Socialist. Hitler also often claimed to be a Monarchist, but in reality he never had any intention of allowing the Kaiser back. He despised him, and blamed him for Germany loosing WWI.

And interestingly, this did not stop him from using the Kaiser's family. Prince August Wilhelm became a member of the party, and a member of the SA. With the belief that he might rise to take the throne, he often gave speeches in support of them. This caused an estrangement with his father and the rest of his family. And at the time of Hindenburg's death, the Prince was denied all contact with Hitler, and was essentially cast out by the party. By 1942 he was even forbidden from speaking publicly.

But Paul von Hindenburg a Socialist? That is an absolute fantasy. He detested them, especially the Marxists. He only tolerated the non-Marxist Socialists, because he had no choice. He only agreed to run for President in 1925 to oppose the Marxists, and he won primarily from the support of the Bavarian People's Party (a Pro-monarchist, Catholic based Conservative party).

But I have never heard a single reference to Hindenburg being a Socialist. He was primarily an autocratic Monarchist, and other than working with more moderate Socialist groups as a way to "spoil" the NSDAP, he had little to do with them. In fact, in 1932 he even got the support of the quasi-Marxist Social Democratic Party of Germany. Because he was seen as the only hope to keep Hitler out of power.

If Hindenburg was a Socialist, I would absolutely love to see something to support that claim. It seems more like a fantasy to me.
 
If Hindenburg was a Socialist, I would absolutely love to see something to support that claim. It seems more like a fantasy to me.

Dear god man, how do you suck so bad at reading comprehension?

We were talking about Bismark, not Hindenburg. And no, before you rush to pump out another long winded oratory, my argument is not that Bismark was a socialist.

I mean for God's sake Iron_Merc even says "But, other than a heavy battleship named in honor of the prior by the latter"

The only naval vessels Germany named after Hindenburg were an icebreaker, a 1917 battlecruiser, and a renamed liner.
 
Last edited:
Dear god man, how do you suck so bad at reading comprehension?

We were talking about Bismark, not Hindenburg. And no, before you rush to pump out another long winded oratory, my argument is not that Bismark was a socialist.

I mean for God's sake Iron_Merc even says "But, other than a heavy battleship named in honor of the prior by the latter"

The only naval vessels Germany named after Hindenburg were an icebreaker, a 1917 battlecruiser, and a renamed liner.

What do you think of Hitler being a "teary eyed" sentimentalist to Benito Mussolini? Would Hitler favor Bismark policy over Mussolini in your book? Because it sure doesn't seem that way.
 
What do you think of Hitler being a "teary eyed" sentimentalist to Benito Mussolini? Would Hitler favor Bismark policy over Mussolini in your book? Because it sure doesn't seem that way.

Would Hitler favor a historically popular and immensely well regarded German figure over an Italian? Yes, obviously.
 
Would Hitler favor a historically popular and immensely well regarded German figure over an Italian? Yes, obviously.

You have failed to prove any meaningful connection between Hitler and Bismarck.

Mussolini was a socialist, right? He did get along pretty well with Hitler, wouldn't you say?
 
You have failed to prove any meaningful connection between Hitler and Bismarck.

Mussolini was a socialist, right? He did get along pretty well with Hitler, wouldn't you say?

I'll make it as easy as I can for you....

NAZI =/= SOCIALIST

I can repeat it as many times as you ask the question....

One or more socialist programs or concepts does not make a regime Socialist.
 
I'll make it as easy as I can for you....

NAZI =/= SOCIALIST

I can repeat it as many times as you ask the question....

One or more socialist programs or concepts does not make a regime Socialist.

In your opinion, what attributes does a nation need to have in order to be considered socialist? You do understand Hitler had a very negative view of capitalism, right?
 
I'll make it as easy as I can for you....

NAZI =/= SOCIALIST

I can repeat it as many times as you ask the question....

One or more socialist programs or concepts does not make a regime Socialist.

They were Socialists. What they were not is Marxists.

This seems to be the largest sticking point, because most Socialists seem to be unable to separate Marxism from their beliefs.

Hitler had negative view of Socialists. That's why he jailed them early on.

And no. This is a commonly stated claim, but it is not true.

What he hated were Marxists. And all of the Marxist groups were banned in Germany. But he quite often worked with other Non-Marxist Socialist groups.

Why is it that over and over, people continue to confuse Socialism with Marxism? I always find it fascinating when people automatically combine the two, and insist that both are the same thing.
 
Last edited:
In your opinion, what attributes does a nation need to have in order to be considered socialist? You do understand Hitler had a very negative view of capitalism, right?

Actually, it is more like he had a negative view of the excesses of capitalism.

He recognized that individual ownership was more efficient than government ownership. He also understood that government control meant that they produced what they thought was needed, and not what they thought they could make the most money selling.

However, like any shepherd, he understood that if you only fleeced the sheep as much as was needed, you could fleece them again and again and again. As opposed to more traditional Marxism. Where you kill the sheep, shear the wool, then try to resurrect the sheep again with untrained dogs as protectors.

Hitler's (and the Party) detested what they considered "excessive profits", and their 25 Points talked extensively about that. Corporations were allowed to make profits, but not excessive ones. To them that was profiting off of the backs of the people, and not to be tolerated. But they also understood that profit was a requirement for growth.

I often wondered how much of Abraham Lincoln's writings he had studied. Because in many ways, their own beliefs on Socialism were remarkably similar.

And yes, in many ways Lincoln was a Socialist.
 
And yes, in many ways Lincoln was a Socialist.

Oozle - we are going to have to talk about this in detail. I have it on good authority that Lincoln was in fact diametrically opposed to socialism. Shall we talk about his faith in God and how that influenced his views on politics? Or we can do that later.

Its very important to understand Lincoln as the definitive conservative of his day. Without this critical understanding an accurate perception of American politics to follow is not possible. You don't think the act of "freeing the slaves" was a move made by socialist, do you?
 
@ thread OP....Hitler stated in his autobiography 'Mein Kempf' he 'Was a Roman Catholic who was doing the Lord's work" by committing his atrocities during the Holocaust.
 
You have failed to prove any meaningful connection between Hitler and Bismarck.

I literally posted two pages ago how Bismark's politics influenced the Nazi Party. Why do you insist on ignoring it?
 
In your opinion, what attributes does a nation need to have in order to be considered socialist? You do understand Hitler had a very negative view of capitalism, right?

Having a negative view of capitalism doesn't make you a socialist.
 
@ thread OP....Hitler stated in his autobiography 'Mein Kempf' he 'Was a Roman Catholic who was doing the Lord's work" by committing his atrocities during the Holocaust.

Thx

I was under the impression that minorities including the religious, Christians, etc were chopped up by his war machine as well? I was under the impression that Hitler (in his later life) was an atheist, can anyone confirm this? Redbarron, Oozelfinch? We really do need to talk about his faith as I see this is a key component to driving Hitler's actions. Although not as key as his hate for the Jewish people.
 
No they were not.

Nazi 25 point program, you have to explain how these are not socialist ideals...

7. We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens. If it is impossible to sustain the total population of the State, then the members of foreign nations (non-citizens) are to be expelled from the Reich.

25. We demand freedom of religion for all religious denominations within the state so long as they do not endanger its existence or oppose the moral senses of the Germanic race. The Party as such advocates the standpoint of a positive Christianity without binding itself confessionally to any one denomination. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and around us and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our nation can only succeed from within on the framework: "The good of the community before the good of the individual".[13] ("GEMEINNUTZ GEHT VOR EIGENNUTZ"

By the way, the rest of this document reads like a socialist manifesto.
 
Nazi 25 point program, you have to explain how these are not socialist ideals...

7. We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens. If it is impossible to sustain the total population of the State, then the members of foreign nations (non-citizens) are to be expelled from the Reich.

Really? Socialism, an ideology based around the idea that class, not race, defines the divide between humans and insists that all people are members of the working class, and you're really trying to argue that's the Nazi demands of expelling foreigners is a socialist idea?

25. We demand freedom of religion for all religious denominations within the state so long as they do not endanger its existence or oppose the moral senses of the Germanic race. The Party as such advocates the standpoint of a positive Christianity without binding itself confessionally to any one denomination. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and around us and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our nation can only succeed from within on the framework: "The good of the community before the good of the individual".[13] ("GEMEINNUTZ GEHT VOR EIGENNUTZ"

This is not a socialist concept by any means.

You are demonstrating a laughably inaccurate understanding of what socialism actually stands for.
 
Thx

I was under the impression that minorities including the religious, Christians, etc were chopped up by his war machine as well? I was under the impression that Hitler (in his later life) was an atheist, can anyone confirm this? Redbarron, Oozelfinch? We really do need to talk about his faith as I see this is a key component to driving Hitler's actions. Although not as key as his hate for the Jewish people.

Hitler believed in the Christian god, but his faith was not as important to him as to serve as the primary justification for his beliefs. He didn't hate Jews, communists, or Slavs because he was a Christian.
 
Oozle - we are going to have to talk about this in detail. I have it on good authority that Lincoln was in fact diametrically opposed to socialism. Shall we talk about his faith in God and how that influenced his views on politics? Or we can do that later.

Lincoln and Marx wrote a great many letters back and forth. And do not forget, at the time the Republicans were the "Radical Revolutionary Liberal" party.

But here, let's play a little game. Which of the following quotes do you think was made by President Lincoln, and which by Karl Marx?

1. I affirm as my conviction that class laws, placing capital above labor, are more dangerous to the Republic at this hour then chattel slavery in the days of its haughtiest supremacy. Labor is prior to and above capital, and deserves much higher consideration.

2. Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights.

3. And inasmuch as most good things are produced by labour, it follows that all such things of right belong to those whose labour has produced them. But it has so happened in all ages of the world, that some have labored, and others have, without labour, enjoyed a large proportion of the fruits. This is wrong, and should not continue. To secure to each labourer the whole product of his labour, or as nearly as possible, is a most worthy object of any good government.

And do not forget, this was when Socialism had yet to be influences of the more radical Marx. As so many do, you are confusing Socialism (especially in the traditional sense) with Marxism.

Socialism by itself does not demand revolution, or the rejection of religion. In fact, the earliest Socialist movements in most of Europe and the US were all based upon religion. The Shakers, the Quakers, the Amana Colony, and a great many more. All were Socialist Communes, and based on religion.

Its very important to understand Lincoln as the definitive conservative of his day. Without this critical understanding an accurate perception of American politics to follow is not possible. You don't think the act of "freeing the slaves" was a move made by socialist, do you?

Oh no, no, no, no, no! If you think that, then you are completely and utterly wrong.

In that era (and into the 1960's), the Republicans were always the wild, reactionary party. The ones not afraid of revolution, who fought a civil war to end slavery, who under Teddy Roosevelt fused the Sherman Anti-Trust Act to reign in the excesses of corporations, and also under TR enacted the Pure Food and Drug Act, which led to the creation of the FDA.

Lincoln and most of his supporters were the "Radical Liberals" of the era, and it was the Democrats that were the "Reactionary" ultra-Conservatives. The only reason that they appear to be Conservative now is that in the 1960's the Democrats largely imploded and made a hard shift to the Left.

The newspaper considered to be the "Mouthpiece of the Republicans" was the New York Tribune, edited by Horace Greeley. And Karl Marx was a frequent writer for that paper. And the letters between the President and Marx were often delivered by the US Ambassador to England, Charles Francis Adams (son and Grandson of 2 Presidents).

If you think Lincoln was a Conservative, you need to look into him a bit more. He was far from a Conservative.
 
Last edited:
I was under the impression that Hitler (in his later life) was an atheist, can anyone confirm this?

Hitler despised religion.

He only joined the Roman Catholic Church for his mother, and he had to be coaxed through the process. And once he left home he never attended any service again. And those of his inner circle who survived the war spoke at length about his disdain and even hatred of religion.

However, it also did not stop him from encouraging his followers (especially highly placed ones) from being members and attending services. He was a politician, and made frequent use of the Church to advance his own agenda. But he himself never believed.
 
Lincoln and Marx wrote a great many letters back and forth. And do not forget, at the time the Republicans were the "Radical Revolutionary Liberal" party.

If you think Lincoln was a Conservative, you need to look into him a bit more. He was far from a Conservative.

Ahh but that's where you are mistaken. Lincoln and his party were called radical and destructive, but he counted himself among the earliest defenders of conservative principles, which was in essence a defense of time-honored, traditional values. Lincoln said that out of the 39 framers of the Constitution, 23 of the 39 voted on whether to prevent the spread of slavery, and that 21 of the 23 voted in favor of doing so. Lincoln therefore said that it was the pro-slavery South that was radically breaking with the tradition begun by those that created the Constitution. As Lincoln said:

But you say you are conservative—eminently conservative—while we are revolutionary, destructive, or something of the sort. What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried? We stick to, contend for, the identical old policy on the point in controversy which was adopted by "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live"; while you with one accord reject, and scout, and spit upon that old policy, and insist upon substituting something new. True, you disagree among yourselves as to what that substitute shall be. You are divided on new propositions and plans, but you are unanimous in rejecting and denouncing the old policy of the fathers. Some of you are for reviving the foreign slave trade; some for a Congressional Slave-Code for the Territories; some for Congress forbidding the Territories to prohibit Slavery within their limits; some for maintaining Slavery in the Territories through the judiciary; some for the "gur-reat pur-rinciple" that "if one man would enslave another, no third man should object", fantastically called "Popular Sovereignty"; but never a man among you is in favor of federal prohibition of slavery in federal territories, according to the practice of "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live". Not one of all your various plans can show a precedent or an advocate in the century within which our Government originated. Consider, then, whether your claim of conservatism for yourselves, and your charge of destructiveness against us, are based on the most clear and stable foundations.

Also this:

Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
 
Back
Top Bottom