Posted on 04/03/2009 8:47:49 AM PDT by Michael Eden
Just one thing. I would not say Hitler seized power. His party had the most seats in the Reichstag when the German President Paul von Hindenberg appointed Hitler chancellor. It was all legally done.
I think I’ll watch it again this weekend! Thx for the suggestion.
No problem.
Gotta run some errands...thx for the discussion. This topic (Hitler and the Nazi’s) is one of my favorites.
That young secretary was Traudl Junge. A great companion film to Der Untergang is a documentary called Im Toten Winkel: Hitlers Sekretärin (Blind Spot: Hitler's Secretary), in which we meet the 81-year-old Traudl, who tells her story anew.
I think that ‘Nazi’ was derived from the Italian word for nationalize: Nazionalizarre.
After the January appointment as Chancellor came the seizure of power, in the form of the banning of certain political parties and passage of the Enabling Act, which in turn was further cemented by the combination of the offices of President and Chancellor in one man after Hindenberg’s death and the military’s blood oath to the Führer.
It’s never a bad suggestion to ask someone to read anything. But a point of clarification:
Authors like Jonah Goldberg and Gene Edward Veith, Jr. routinely point out that the doctrinaire study of Nazism essentially becomes a redefinition of it into something coming out of the political right, rather than from the left. Nazism was hijacked by scholars coming from the “mainstream” (which means from the left) and transformed into a bogeyman from the “other side” (i.e. the right). This was a process began by Stalin, continued by the Soviet communists, and picked up by Marxist and post-Marxist scholars in the West (as well as those influenced by them).
In any event, regardless of what Shirer or any other scholar might say, when I read the Nazi Party Platform, I most certainly don’t see a guy or a party out to win the hearts and minds of capitalists, industrialists, or the right wing in any way, shape, or form.
And all the scholars in the world can tell me that a 2 of clubs is really an ace of spades, and I will still continue to believe my lying eyes (as the song goes).
Agree with me that Hitler - and the Nazis - were leftist, and then much of any “argument” we might have would largely be semantic, or over minor details.
I thought Nazi was simply an abbreviation or acroynm for the Nationalist Socialist Party.
Toland claims the word was German slang for ‘nationalize’ and I was surprised to see that the Italian translation; nazionalizarre, begins with the letters NAZI.
NSDAP. Where is the letter Z in that acronym?
Just one thing. I would not say Hitler seized power. His party had the most seats in the Reichstag when the German President Paul von Hindenberg appointed Hitler chancellor. It was all legally done.
- - - - - - -
I wouldn’t go to far in my argument that he did. I would submit 1) that Hitler used organizations such as the SA and events such as the Reichstag fire to manipulate his way to power such that the word “seize” isn’t far off target; and 2) whether right or wrong, I view Obama who legally won a vote after a) not being able to establish that he’s even a damn citizen; b) benefitting from ACORN; c) receiving all kinds of illegal campaign contributions which he didn’t report; and d) benefitting from the most biased media SINCE Nazi Germany to “seize” power.
In both cases, I may not be quite right in using the term “seize,” but I don’t think I’m quite wrong, either.
But I can’t disagree with you that, at the point you mention, it was all technically nice and legal for Hitler.
Gotta run some errands...thx for the discussion. This topic (Hitler and the Nazi’s) is one of my favorites.
- - - - - - -
My fear is that you might be able to study it first hand as Hitler and the Nazis come boomeranging back to America.
Good discussing and chewing history with you.
I certainly don’t want to split hairs over this, but my understanding is as follows: In 1932 the Nazi Party won the most seats (but not a majority) in the Reichstag elections. In 1933 President Paul von Hindenberg appointed Hitler to be the Chancellor which was within his rights. Hindenberg died in 1934 and Hitler combined the offices of Chancellor and President into one—The Fuehrer. So after Hitler legally obtained power, he crushed all opposition, eliminated Roehm and disbanded the SA, won control over the military who were forced to swear allegiance to Hitler personally, plus he gained the backing of powerful industrial establishment. He proceeded to outlaw all other political parties and passed laws against the Jews encouraging them to leave Germany.
No hair-splitting there - and I didn’t see anything that I would say, “NOT SO!” to. But...
Keep in mind, seizing power was certainly not out of Hitler’s realm (he had tried to do so in 1923 in the so-called “beer-hall Putsch” of 1923). The Illustrated World War Encyclopedia says, “The failure of the Putsch had made Hitler realize that, despite his rabid hatred of democracy, he would have to use it to come to the position of power from which he could then destroy it.”
Hitler used every possible strategem to get to power - including legal means.
During the period you describe, it appears that Hitler kept himself on the up-and-up, and any nasty-business that took place would have been undertaken by his allies and subordinates.
internationalist order in which we unpeg ourselves from our Constitution
___________
I hope they realize if they do this, it is grounds for a revolution and the military is obligated to save the country from tyranny. They are sworn to defend the CONSTITUTON Not a Communist president and senate.
I found this in
http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/NAZI
NAZI Nationalsozialist (member of NSDAP).
Which probably makes it an ACRONYM of the first word in the NAtionalsoZIalist Deutsche Arbeiterpartie.
Congratulations: you found someone else who got it wrong.
I’m glad your apathy is clearing up.
That is too simplistic a conclusion considering several points.
The Nazi party changed over time to conform to Hitler's demands. Its founders clearly intended for it to be a socialist party, but Hitler changed it has he progressed until it was eventually just a reflection of him.
Next, Hitler himself was a liar and moving target (like most politicians). When it was convenient to show sympathy with workers he did so. When he no longer needed the workers, he gave them the boot.
At the time and for some time thereafter, Hitler was, for the most part, classified as being a member of the "right wing" of the political spectrum as it was defined in Hitler's Germany. This was most likely due to his allegiances with the Military and with heavy industry and his espoused hatred for the communists and socialists in Germany which were control by party bosses in Moscow.
Personally, I think it is futile to try to define a contemporary political spectrum and then try to take a historical figure and place him somewhere on that spectrum. There is a huge amount of discussion and difference of opinion as to what a political spectrum might look like in our present world and there is equal confusion as to what the hell Adolph Hitler was. Even in his day, no one really knew what he was to become or many might have tried to stop him.
In the final analysis, I can understand why folks on the left and right would want to put some distance between their politics and Hitler...but I think it is a waste of good intellect to try to prove a negative (i.e. Hitler is not a member of my party).
This argument (Hitler was a right winger...or for that matter a leftie) has been around for quite a while and is not a subject of debate by serious students of that period.
Agreed!
That is why I felt compelled to reread Rise and Fall. During the election last fall, I was curiously drawn to a reread of Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.
Nice to have a President that inspires such optimism!
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.