Skip to comments.Nazis were NOT socialists!
Posted on 01/18/2008 11:23:43 AM PST by Postal Dude
First of all, I am a German conservative who gives the CDU [Christian Democratic Union] his vote. I like my chancellor Angela Merkel, and I like my country. I DO like EUROPEAN diversity. This excludes Muslims! I consider myself a right-winger and I am pro-Israel. But I also do admit, that the Nazis were, after all, right-wing.
Fact is: The Nazis were ULTRA-right-wing extremistic, white supremacistic facists! Yes, their political party was called the "National Socialist German Workers Party", but it was neither a socialist nor a workers party! This name was purely propaganda to gain the people's votes to win the elections!
You can't judge a party by it's name anyway! For example: The "State Peace and Development Council" is the name of the ruling party of Burma [Myanmar]! The country is in fact ruled by a military dictatorship! They slaughtered thousands of innocent monks not long ago [you all heard about this disgusting story]! Burma ISN'T peaceful, and for sure it ISN'T developing, no matter what name their ruling party has!
What does THE LEFT stand for: Diversity by all means, Internationality, Multiculturalism, Pacifism, Racial Equality, Equal Rights for Homosexuals, Abortion, and so on! So that's, what ADOLF HITLER and his NAZI PARTY standed for?! HELL NO! THE OPPOSITE WAS TRUE!
Yes, there ARE a few points, where the socialist and the nazi politics meet! One point is "the Jews"! Well, do they really meet? The socialists, the leftists, do hate Israel, yes, but the Nazis DO HATE THE JEWS! The majority of the American Jews vote Democrat! So does that mean they all hate themselves? No! They dislike the American and Israeli intervention doctrine [I don't know why, really], but for sure they don't want to get rid of themselves! That's BS! Of course there are some idiotic self-hating Jews [Naturei Karta], but they are a MINORITY!
In WWII Hitler did pact with Stalin, but solely for strategic reasons. In the end, Hitler wanted to exterminate over 100 million Soviet citizens, of all ethnic groups, he deemed SUBHUMAN [see "Generalplan Ost"]. Do socialists deem other races, DOES Hillary Clinton deem Mexicans or African-Americans SUBHUMAN?! Do socialists want to get rid [BY MASSMURDER] of the diverse nation? NO! Their views are diametral opposed to that of the nazis! These idiots LOVE the diverse nation! They promote it! They live the diversity! But NAZIS deem human beings "unworthy of life"! Only NAZIS talk about "lesser races" and the "master race"! The Soviet Union was the most diverse nation on earth back then, whereas Nazi Germany was one of the most UNdiverse nations on earth! The Nazis literally KILLED the diversity!
Fact is: the Nazis did were right-wing. But that DOESN'T mean, all right-wing people are the same. That's MSN BS! Even an idiot has to recognice the difference between us GOOD christian, pro-Israel right-wingers and the "Stormfront, white supremacist, anti-semitic right-wingers"!
Nazi for short.
- Bill Vance
I would add Islamo-ism to the above group.
Did the Nazi’s take control of the means of production within the state? Case closed.
I think you're wrong. Many of those Jews who vote with the Dims reject almost everything about Judaism. Some of those many may attend synagogue two or three times a year out of a sense of guilt, but the rest of the year they certainly live their lives as if Judaism is irrelevant. Coincidentally I began a thread yesterday which illustrates this.
Related to your thread, also, is Jonah Goldberg's new book Liberal Fascism. Check out the reviews and comments.
Yes, they were.
(In before Nazi Zot)
Step away from the exclamation points!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The amount of upper case letters you use does not reverse the unpleasant truth. By EVERY definition, the Nazis were socialists and so is the current German government.
Is this really so difficult to understand? Lenin and Stalin preached class-based socialism, and directed their followers to harass, then imprison, then massacre the sub-human “enemies of the people” — kulaks/the bourgeoisie — for the greater glory of their god, The State; Hitler preached race-based socialism and directed his followers to harass, then imprison, then massacre the sub-human “enemies of the people” — Jews, Slavs, etc. — for the greater glory of his god, The State. Were there differences between the two systems? Of course, but from the perspective of anyone who believes in personal, economic or political liberty, constitutional government, the rule of law, etc., they were unquestionably two sides of the same coin.
See, this is where you go off track. The left may use those items in their rhetoric, but what the left stands for is:
Government control over every aspect of life.
That, my friend, is socialism. And that is exactly what the NAZI's were after. Control, not freedom.
Please read my post, before posting!
“State Peace and Development Council”. That’s the name of the ruling party of Burma. For short: peace and development! Utter BS! Burma is a communist military dictatorship! Don’t judge a party BY IT’S PROPAGANDA NAME!
(2) An essential component of Anglo-American rightism is a limited government with strongly defined individual rights.
(3) It is hardly a denial of history to point out that the National Socialist system was diametrically opposed to the Anglo-American system.
The fundamental building block of American civil society is the church, not race or party.
The fundamental principles of American government are representative bodies and federalism, not a system under which the there is no representative body and all laws derive from a Fuehrer.
The fundamental principles of American law are individual rights, not subordination of individual rights to the state by means of secret police apparati.
(4) In all these particulars, the National Socialist model resembles the Soviet model: one leader appointed for life, all laws deriving from the will of the leader or the central committee of his party, the outlawing of any party besides the leader's party, the abolition of representative bodies, the elimination of federal powers, the abolition of guarantees of individual rights, the government cooptation or persecution of the church as an organizing principle of civil society.
The Soviet model is, in the Anglo-American view, the quintessential leftist model. The National Socialist model resembles it closesly in nearly every particular - therefore by Anglo-American standards, National Socialism was a "left wing" phenomenon, or a "socialist" phenomenon, or a "jacobin" phenomenon or whatever term one wants to use to designate the left.
Nazis believed in socialism for all good Germans and death for the rest of us—this particular strain of socialism is called ‘national socialism’ and is surely different from ‘international socialism’ which advocates socialism for all good sheeple and death for the rest of us.
Do Socialists deem other races [Mexicans, Afro-Americans] SUBHUMAN?
The Soviet Union “diverse”? I guess they had a bunch of gay composers and ballet dancers, but their blacks must have been really light-skinned.
The Nazis didn’t believe in Socialism at all. That was purely propaganda for the masses. All Nazi Party members who took the “Socialist” part too serious in “National Socialist German Workers Party” were KILLED!
Like Woodrow Wilson.
Who was a socialist.
Of course, unlike Hitler, Wilson didn't call himself one. He called himself a "Democrat".
The Soviet Union was in fact the most diverse nation by ethnicity. Look it up in the internet, doesn’t matter where. Russia today is still one of the most diverse nations of the world.
That dude is going postal.
Fascism is a step behind communism, which is the real name of the euphemism “socialism”.
In truth, anarchy is 1 side of the scale. Since we know we call commies “left”, that means total anarchy with no government is RIGHT. If left is opposite of right, that is.
Fascism is the allowance of personal property, but with no control of it. Alot like the US is becoming, easily demonstrated by all the “environmental” REGULATIONS put upon your property usage.
So, fascism really is closer to communism (no personal property) and cannot be logically called the opposite, and hence, not “right”. It is much more “left”.
We who believe in republican democracy with almost limitless freedom (except where it would interfere with others’) are most assuredly closer to “anarchy”, and thus, more “right”.
No way fascism is close to our views. Much closer to the so-called “left” style.
Hitler believed in government control of every aspect of life.
"We socialize human beings." Adolf Hitler.
Hitler was a socialist to the core.
Hitler didn’t call himself a Socialist. And the party’s name “National Socialist German Workers Party” was just as propaganda as the name of the ruling party of today Burma is: “State Peace and Development Council”.
“Fact is: the Nazis did were right-wing.”
Uhh, so you equate “right wing” with fascism, murder, race supremecy, genocide and a police state.
You should change your name to “I’manidiot Dude”.
Thanks for reinforcing 40 years of left wing media propaganda.
Call them whatever wing you want but their platform was that of liberals.... Anti-semites, gun grabbers, anti-church / pro-mysticism, pro slavery (think entitlements that have enslaved the poor in this country).
Russia is still a very diverse nation. There are something like 35 or 40 distinct ethnic groups composing Russia.
There may not be many 'blacks', or more properly negroids, but that doesn't mean they aren't diverse.
I think what causes this argument in the first place is that there are somewhat different definitions in the US and Europe for “leftist” and “rightist.”
While Hitler didn’t posess the (apparent) love for all races that US liberals claim to, he did take state control of almost everything. So there is a socialist element there although not the same as European socialism.
Yes. This is why the Russians and Chinese were very uneasy allies (if even that), regardless of both being communist countries.
Of course Hitler stole some ideas from others! He also stole the “Hitler Salute” from the Italian fascists! In fact, that’s the old Roman salute! And the phrase “Heil Hitler” was also stolen from the Romans! “Ave Caesar” means “Heil Cesar”!
Hitler did take state control of almost everything because he was a DICTATOR, not because he was a Socialist or whatever! Same fits for Stalin. He was a DICTATOR, so he naturally took control of almost everything! But their politics are DIAMETRAL OPPOSED!
But Hitler in his speeches railed constantly against Capitalism, and he talked about eliminating class distinctions in Nazi Germany. So it seems to me his problem with ‘Bolshevism’ came from the fact that the movement was created in the Soviet Union. Yes, there were differences in rhetoric. Nazis talked about the elimination of races, like the Bolsheviks talked about the elimination of classes. But in many ways they both desired to create classless societies with strong central authority, through the elimination of their enemies.
Liberal Fascism offers a startling new perspective on the theories and practices that define fascist politics. Replacing conveniently manufactured myths with surprising and enlightening research, Jonah Goldberg reminds us that the original fascists were really on the left, and that liberals from Woodrow Wilson to FDR to Hillary Clinton have advocated policies and principles remarkably similar to those of Hitler’s National Socialism and Mussolini’s Fascism.
Contrary to what most people think, the Nazis were ardent socialists (hence the term National socialism). They believed in free health care and guaranteed jobs. They confiscated inherited wealth and spent vast sums on public education. They purged the church from public policy, promoted a new form of pagan spirituality, and inserted the authority of the state into every nook and cranny of daily life. The Nazis declared war on smoking, supported abortion, euthanasia, and gun control. They loathed the free market, provided generous pensions for the elderly, and maintained a strict racial quota system in their universitieswhere campus speech codes were all the rage. The Nazis led the world in organic farming and alternative medicine. Hitler was a strict vegetarian, and Himmler was an animal rights activist.
Do these striking parallels mean that todays liberals are genocidal maniacs, intent on conquering the world and imposing a new racial order? Not at all. Yet it is hard to deny that modern progressivism and classical fascism shared the same intellectual roots. We often forget, for example, that Mussolini and Hitler had many admirers in the United States. W.E.B. Du Bois was inspired by Hitler’s Germany, and Irving Berlin praised Mussolini in song. Many fascist tenets were espoused by American progressives like John Dewey and Woodrow Wilson, and FDR incorporated fascist policies in the New Deal.
Fascism was an international movement that appeared in different forms in different countries, depending on the vagaries of national culture and temperament. In Germany, fascism appeared as genocidal racist nationalism. In America, it took a friendlier, more liberal form. The modern heirs of this friendly fascist tradition include the New York Times, the Democratic Party, the Ivy League professoriate, and the liberals of Hollywood. The quintessential Liberal Fascist isn’t an SS storm trooper; it is a female grade school teacher with an education degree from Brown or Swarthmore.
These assertions may sound strange to modern ears, but that is because we have forgotten what fascism is. In this angry, funny, smart, contentious book, Jonah Goldberg turns our preconceptions inside out and shows us the true meaning of Liberal Fascism.
He proudly wore the label "Nazi" which proudly includes the term "socialist".
And the partys name National Socialist German Workers Party was just as propaganda
How exactly was it propaganda? They didn't try to represent or care for German workers? They didn't cook up the Volkswagen? Cheap vacations and free health care. They didn't set wages and prohibit employers from making layoffs?
Now, non-German workers, maybe, didn't do so well, but the party wasn't calling itself the "National Socialist non-German Workers Party".
The Russians didn’t want the Chinese to become the ruling communist country in the “Comintern”. The same fits for the Chinese! They were rivals after all! But they never deemed each other subhuman, like the Nazis deemed every other race, then the “Aryan Master Race”!
The Nazis wanted to exterminate entire ethnic groups, because they deemed them “unworthy of life”! Do leftists want to do that too? Does Obama want to massmurder Afro-Americans?
LOL. Good one!!
(and he supported smoking bans)
Hitler banned guns, because he didn’t want the people to rise up against him! He was a DICTATOR! Nothing liberal about that. The true LIBERALS have other reasons for banning guns. They think guns are “evil” and “dangerous” to a society, or such BS. Hitler FOR SURE didn’t think that [his soldiers used guns in numerous wars].
Abortion-supporting? He wanted German women to BREED like animals! Of course, he wanted FORCED abortion to all SUBHUMANS! So, that’s liberal? Does Hillary wants forced abortion of all Mexican children, because she deems them SUBHUMAN, or UNWORTHY OF LIFE?
Business-regulating. He was a dictator. He wanted the businesses to run for Germany, not for themselves. He NEEDED them, because he fought costly wars of extermination in the east. Is that liberal?
Hitler hated Christians, yes. Hitler thought about Christiainty as a “Jewish sect”. He even had the bible edited! He wanted the bible to get rid of all Jewish entries!
Fact is, his doctor ordered him to be a vegetarian, because of his health!
What's so great about diversity?
Look what it did to the American Indian.........
Actually, Hitler’s economic ideas were never that firm, and they changed with the times whenever he felt necessary to increase his chances to obtain power.
In his earliest views, which were probably his most authentic, he was clearly socialistic. Hitler was the one to convince the party to include the word “socialist” in the name, and at that time the party platform called for things like income redistribution, nationalization of major industries, free education, higher government-paid pensions, etc. In those days Hitler followed much of the economic thinking of his early advisor Gottfried Feder who railed against “international capitalism” and “interest slavery.”
Hitler hated American-style free enterprise and democratic institutions as much as he hated Marxism. His opposition to Marxism was founded in his opposition to its internationalism and Jewish roots more than anything else, as he was certainly not in principle opposed to dictatorship, totalitarianism or government control over industry.
But Hitler was never strongly attached to socialist economic philosophies, and once it became clear that some of the leading German industrialists from Bavaria and the Rurhgebiet (Fritz Thyssen, etc.) were attracted to his anti-Marxist message and would contribute large sums to the NSDAP and help him to power, Hitler discarded strong economic socialist proposals and the economic socialists in the party were pushed down. I think Hitler was simply not that interested in economic philosophies, and was of the view that once racially pure Germans were in charge of everything, whatever economic structure would make the most sense would be decided as things went on in top-down decisions by the Leader and his advisors.
The military dictator of Burma proudly wears the label “peacefully”, because his party’s name includes the term “peace”.
And Stalin did a pretty good job of trying to eliminate some of those ethnic groups -- Ukrainians, Fins, Koreans, AND Jews.
Thanks to the steady declassification of incriminating documents, however, it is now common knowledge that, through forced collectivization, show trials, ethnic purges, and costly diplomatic and military ineptitude, he was responsible for millions of deaths. We also know that at the time he died, Stalin was planning a new Terror, one that would have essentially picked up where Hitler left off in totalitarianism's campaign to destroy the Jews. Yet history has been slow to confront the reality of who Stalin was and the havoc he wrought on Russia. Over the years, a number of Atlantic contributors have commented on this slow but steady process of reevaluating Stalin and coming to terms with his legacy.
More on Soviet ethnic purges here: http://www.socialaffairsunit.org.uk/blog/archives/001190.php
Left-right is a useless measure it comes to completely totalitarian regimes such as Stalins Soviet Union or Hitler's Germany, they lose all meaning because those regimes were about imposing their will over all. Who they decide to kill is simply a tactical decision designed to solidify their power base. The philosophical foundation is rule through terror.
Same with Lenin's NEP (New Economic Policy), which put in place some market-based reforms in the Soviet Union.
And Arthur Jensen put it best in the movie "Network":
"What do you think the Russians talk about in their councils of state -- Karl Marx? They get out their linear programming charts, statistical decision theories, minimax solutions, and compute the price-cost probabilities of their transactions and investments, just like we do."
You missed the point. Propaganda implies making another think your motives are something other than what they are. In what way did the National Socialist German Worker's Party fail to fulfill any pledge to care for German workers? Maybe you could say it lost the war, but that wasn't for lack of trying.
Hitler was a socialist. He was a man of the left i.e. a believer in a new authoritarian world order in which traditional (Christian) values should be overturned, and economic decisions and social policy be set by a centralized group of experts.
He was not an international socialist or communist. He was a national socialist, or someone who believed his nation and race were superior to all others but would still be best run under socialist principles.
I think it’s idiotic to think the Nazis were socialists, because that’s what their party’s name says. Just as idiotic to think, the Burmese ruler is a man of peace.
What does THE LEFT stand for: Diversity by all means, Internationality, Multiculturalism, Pacifism, Racial Equality, Equal Rights for Homosexuals, Abortion, and so on!
In the immortal words of Indigo Montoya: "You keep using those words; I do not think they mean what you think they mean."
You start from an incorrect concept of what right-wing vs left-wing means, and then use false logic to go from there. The LEFT stands primarily for government control of economic resources. The Nazis seized control of economic resources. The RIGHT stands primarily for limited government, minimal regulations, and Free Enterprise. The Nazis represented the antithesis of these concepts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.