[Maelstrom]

Quaint,

...In an attempt to explain how Nazi-ism and Socialism are different you set upon the extremely weak argument that Nazi-ism wasn't socialism because it wasn't intended to operate world-wide.

Even as you admit that today "socialist" nations aren't operating worldwide nor do they have imperialistic intentions.

However, even the weak argument cannot be supported because it cannot be shown that Hitler did or did not seek to occupy the entire world, whether or not he intended to dominate it, nor can it be shown that there are any meaningful differences between the economic realities of socialism and Nazi-ism.

You did, however, throw a great many people off on a tangent that is meaningless even if it were proven one way or the other.

What is truely amazing, however, was that under YOUR definition of socialism, Nazi-ism WAS world-wide. Bringing the light to all the working people of the world. Simpley because you totally ignore the simple fact that in Hitler's view, ONLY the "Aryan race" counted as people.

[WhiskeyPapa]

In an attempt to explain how Nazi-ism and Socialism are different you set upon the extremely weak argument that Nazi-ism wasn't socialism because it wasn't intended to operate world-wide.

I never said anything like that. I said that in its purest form the brotherhood of workers would be worldwide. This was an idea popular 80-90 years ago in this country. The IWW was an agent of this; several of its leaders were lynched.

Nationalists want people to have loyalty to nations. That is incompatible with a brotherhood of all workers. That's all I ever said.

Hitler's calling the party national-socialist was clever, but it wasn't honest. Can we agree that Hitler was not honest?

Walt