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"!
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.
Source: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200407u/stalin
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."
IBTZ(idiot)
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.
Nazis were called right-wing because the European continuum at the time looked like this:
International collectivists (Communists) ------------ National collectivists (Socialists/Fascists)
The American one looks like this:
Communists ------------ Socialist/Fascist -----Democrats---------- Republicans ------Libertarians
So you see, to a European, Fascism is right wing because all you have to choose from are collectivists. The only question is are they going to be national or international.
To an American, all economic collectivism is to the left of us, with the Democrats being the closest to it.
That's my take, anyway. I should add that, as far as I can tell, the only difference between Socialism and Fascism is a dictator. You take a socialist country and put a dictator in charge and voila. Instant Fascism.
And in contrast to Hillary - who is firmly attached to socialist economic principles but changes her public rhetoric as she feels necessary to try to achieve power.
The real Hillary seeps out now again, as in her earlier attempt to introduce sweeping government control over the health care industry and, for example, her latest plan to have the government impose an interest-rate freeze for five years on home mortgages.
(Hillary’s modest proposal (to wreck the housing market):
http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/16/commentary/birger_clinton.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008011617)
Actually, even though I don’t agree with the original poster, this is an interesting post. Your comment about NAZIS taking over the means of production needs to be elaborated on. From whhat I have read, the NAZIS unlike the Marxists (Stalinists by then), allowed private ownership, but basically manipulated those owners of corporations to do its bidding. It seems that a person was allowed to have personal capital and own private property unlike in collectivist Russia. In regard to race/ethnicity the NAZIS saw the Aryan/Nordic race as being superior. Communism in its essence is not racist, it’s a one world mindset. I think that what ever racism there was in the Soviet Union stemmed from pre-existing Russian biases. Same with every other communist regime that went after particular ethnic groups for eradication. The subject of homosexuality is an interesting from both the NAZI perspective and the Communist perspective. It was commonly known that the upper echclons of Hitler’s posse had many homo-erotic inclinations. There is stuff written on this. Even though they sent gays to the extermination camps they had this other stuff going on in private-—think of the type of super macho gay variant. Communists also have never been fond of homosexuals. It doesn’t stem so much from a moral perspective (obviously, but possibly from a psycho-social one. Maybe it was because they saw homosexuals as too self indulgent, individualistic, not going to procreate new workers to enhance the well being of the state-—whatever, commies weren’t all hot for homosexuality. I guess there is stuff written about this too.
Propaganda or not, in terms of government control, centralized party control, elimination of individual freedoms, Nazi Germany was a socialist economic system. Your definitions of left vs right are completely wrong, which is why you perceive various aspects of Nazism with right-wing when in fact they have nothing to do with left vs right.
The definition of a conservative -- less government. The definition of a socialist -- more government control.
Now ask yourself, what exactly were the Nazis? Controlling or hands-off? Hmm?
Why in the world would you think the Nazis were conservatives?
Do rightists, as far as you know?
Can you name ANY other group that you consider "right-wing" with a policy of ethnic genocide?
Communists ------------ Socialist/Fascist/Democrats---------- Republicans ------Libertarians :-)
It doesn't matter what their name said, it matters what they did. They seized control of economic factors of production and suppressed capitalism. Take an economics course sometime and you will learn that makes them socialists.
Actually, I think the Nazis took over the war production from the private sector. The Italians didn't and that is why their military was so ill equipped.
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.