Posted on 02/22/2003 2:51:46 AM PST by Republican_Strategist
Hitler was a Leftist!!! Spread the word! Tell your friends! Send email! Call Rush! Fax Coulter! Give Hannity the scoop!
Letting big business run wild and idolizing the captains of industry isn't exactly "leftist." Nazis idolized a small governing elite, communists didn't do this in theory (in practice, they had their own elite, but they were not boastful about it). The Nazi economic program was not socialist, it was not communist, it was not libertarian, it was not conservative--it was fascist. It certainly wasn't left-wing, it was closer to being right-wing. This is one of the most important distinctions between Naziism and leftism.
Another distinction is Naziism's glamorization of warfare. Leftists glamorized revolutionary violence (whether it was terrorism or conventional warfare), but not the same kind of violence fascists idolized. Fascists idolized the war machine, with its hierarchical structure, and glamorized violence between states.
What was the most important distinction between Naziism and leftism? You never quite say. And how were the Nazis or fascists of any kind, even remotely like what we call the right today? The only significant difference I can see between Naziism and communism is the communist wanted to take over the world so they could run everyone's life while the Nazis wanted to take over the world so Germans could run everyone's life.
I did so:
Letting big business run wild and idolizing the captains of industry isn't exactly "leftist." Nazis idolized a small governing elite, communists didn't do thisThe Nazi economy was very different than the economy in Soviet Russia (and economics are at the heart of the difference between Naziism and Marxist-Leninist philosophy). On balance, the Nazis were more "left" than "right," but only if you are an anti-collectivist right-winger. Conservatives advocating order and big business are closer to Nazis than leftists advocating social welfare programs and vegetarianism.
Thanks. The Nazi's loved big business so much that they took control of them. Hardly, a right wing idea. The only difference between a fascist economy and a communist economy is the way the government controlled the economy. In communist countries, there were still large corporations, they were just owned and controlled by the central government. In fascist Germany and Italy, there were some privately held corporations, but many were nationalized. The privately owned corporations did exactly what the Nazi's ordered, although their owners were allowed to keep some of the profits. Hardly a great difference. Someone who see the Nazi's as to the right, must be viewing them from far to the left.
Q: How did the pre-Hitler elites/euro-diplomats and The Establishment contribute to the ascension of Adolph Hitler?? Were pre-Vichy-type French spooks involved?
A: Rewind to 1932. Weimar Germany is in depression and unstable. Strikes everywhere. Bread lines. Austerity measures to prevent a return of hyper-inflation. Businesses failing every day. American diplomats offer to revise the Versailles Treaty to revive Germany. Hitler and big business interests (a clique represented by Hugenburg, the National Party leader) lobbied against the new terms in the fractured Reichstag as a way to thwart the creaky minority government of Chancellor Bruening, a moderate. The Reichstag voted on the new Treaty provisions and it went the government's way; 224 to 206. In April, Chancellor Bruening, leader of the Catholic Centre Party (and Veteran Army Officer), the minority leader of the Reichstag, went to the American backed League Of Nations Disarmament Conference in Geneva as both Chancellor and Foreign Minister of Germany, desperately wanting to gain electoral prestige and statesman-like status both to cement his personal position and to halt the economic slide that was suiting the pressures and threats from demogogue Herr Hitler's Nationalist-Socialists, the trade union's Socialists, and the rebelious Communists, in that order.
The French Premier, Tardieu, was urged by the Americans to agree to "equality of armaments" and to a delaying of the crushing "Reparation Payments", and to the release of the Reichsbank and the Railways back to German ownership.
The appearance of this revised Treaty a year or two earlier would have strengthened the Weimar Republic against the more extremist rabel rousing and instability that was now being orchestrated against the centrists.
The Treaty revision Crisis:
In April 1932 it was almost too late for the Weimar Republic; the inflation of the 1920's and the continuing 'dominoe effect' of business collapses had ruined the middle class; the resultant tide of unemployment had fuelled riots and discontent; the Head of the Reichsbank had resigned at the most indelicate moment (later revealed as a pro-Nazi conspirator and appointed Minister for the Economy in the Nazi government 1934-37); and the Establishment support (through Hugenburg) of Nazism meant the revision of the Treaty was receiving indifferent press and little public comment, let alone enthusiasm or anticipation of better times.
Understanding the stakes and knowing moderate politics was under attack, Chancellor Bruening went to Geneva and awaited the French ratification of the Versailles Treaty revisions. Bruening was fighting for his political life and Germany's prospects seemingly brightened by the day. The Geneva talks eventually also offered French approval for the return of the Rhineland. Presumably, and justifiably, Bruening must have relaxed a little and thought his fortunes had finally turned for the better after 25 months of effort. Bruening literally needed this treaty ratified as soon as possible, and he needed the German media to publicise it.
But the French Premier did not rush to meet Bruening at Geneva. He dithered all through April and then declined to go there at all. The Treaty talks had been sabotaged by Bruening's enemies in Berlin. The French Premier's Ambassador in Berlin had been warned by General Kurt von Schleicher that France should not ratify the Treaty because Bruening's position was under threat and the fall of his government imminent.
Meanwhile, the Geneva Conference continued and the prospects for Germany became even brighter; the Americans even mentioned the cancellation of the War Reparations altogether, in an all out attempt to drag Europe out of depression. This move by the Americans indicated that the stakes were high all around the Treaty table. President Hoover (who had been the U.S. government official in charge of their $100,000,000 relief and reconstruction of post-war Europe through the 1920's) faced re-election in coming year against Roosevelt and was looking for international (and national) economic revival. Presumably, the French motive would be the restoration of stability of their German neighbours. And The League of Nations needed the credibility forthcoming from all this as well (the League was to fail all through the 1930's against Hilter -and in Ethiopia, Spain, and Manchuria as well).
On the last day of April, the 30th, Bruening had run out of time and he returned to Germany, presumably ignorant of the Berlin sabotage. He flew into Berlin and the arms of the German media who knew he had nothing in his hands to show for his month in Geneva. They had been lying in wait with the cameras, ready to make the most of the "statesman returning empty-handed from Geneva" story. On the night of April 30, anticipating the morning headlines, Bruening's enemies began planning for a vote of no confidence in the Reichstag. Remember that the critical parliamentary vote on the new Treaty provisions had been a knife-edge 224 to 206. Back in Geneva, also on the night of April 30th, the American diplomats worked with the French and successfully undid the damage done to the Geneva Conference by General Schleicher.
On the morning of May 1st, in Berlin, the newspapers duly had their headlines humiliating Bruening. Cruelly, just hours later that morning of May 1st, Bruening finally got news of the ratification from the Americans by telephone. But by the end of business that day, May 1st, President Hindenburg was legally able to dismiss Bruening and call an election, prompted by the Reichswehr vote.
German politics became very unstable in the nine months between that point in May and the following January. In those months the socialist Herr Papen and the nationalist General Schleicher himself were elected Chancellor. Their minority leaderships were both impotent and brief. The whole year of 1932 was therefore one of crisis for democracy in the Weimar republic. And then, after yet another election, Hitler became Chancellor on January 30, 1933.
Costly political intrigues:
What had convinced Tardieu, the French Premier, to stay in Paris during that critical month of April against the wishes of the Americans and the League Of Nations? Should the French have signed, Hitler would have lost momentum and European revival may have begun. The French Premier had put a lot of currency in the Berlin whisper from Schleicher that Bruening was going to be dismissed by Hindenburg. Was there a letter or memo I wonder, signed by Hindenburg, to substantiate Schleicher's whisper to the French diplomats in Berlin? Was Schleicher the only high placed Berlin conspirator who convinced the French diplomats that Bruening was about to fall and that a new Treaty with a fallen German Chancellor would be an embarassment to the French government? The French Premier chose against German centrist stability, probably hoping Germany would continue wobbling around and deteriorate more and more. Or was his reason even more sinister? Was there some shadowy pro-Nazi conspiracy amongst the French nationalists?
General Schleicher, in a play for the top position in the Reichswehr, was certainly a political and military opportunist. But did he act alone in preventing the American attempts to pull Germany out of crisis? Is it possible that only the ambition of a single man turned away expensive American "gifts" to the German nation such as the release of the Reichsbank and railways back to German ownership - and the restoration of armament equity with the French - and the return of the Rhineland province - and (most conspicuous of all), the cancellation of the War Reparations altogether? The idea that Schleicher acted alone is not tenable. But adding further background to his motives in this conspiracy to remove Bruening and end the power of the centrist-moderates, Schleicher was surely also trying to gain favors with Roehm, the leader of the Nazi brownshirts. The 2,000,000 strong brownshirts were a veiled threat to the position of the Reichswehr (established in 1919 by Versailles) which only numbered 100,000 after all. Roehm planned that with Hitler as Chancellor, the S.A. leaders would command the Reichswehr. Of course Schleicher planned that with Hitler as Chancellor, the Reichswehr leaders would command the Brownshirts. Schleicher and Roehms were at once collaborators and enemies.
Notes after Winston Churchill - The Gathering Storm -
"History Of The Second World War", Vol.1, chapter 1V.
First you call me a "retard", then I am a "condescending jerk". If you weren't such an obvious buffoon I might respond. Go home, I think your mom is calling you. And stop trashing up this thread.
Thousands of vegetarians have proven that, in this country at least, you needn't be an omnivore. With such a grand opportunity to follow your morals, why wouldn't you jump at the chance?
If only fetuses were granted the same rights as animals in our society.
So abortion would be okay if fetuses were "killed with the minimal of suffering as possible"?
If it is morally allowable to take the life of a fetus, because it has not yet acquired these higher qualities, then it should also be morally allowable to kill infants and children, since they have not yet developed those traits.
Apparently you haven't met any children. My position on infanticide is that it is immoral. That is my position on elective abortion as well. This doesn't change the fact that for all the reasons I have in other posts, the killing of an adult is worse than the killing of a fetus. The suffering of an adult holocaust victim is infinitely greater than the suffering of an aborted fetus.
Once again, even if you are correct, defending the practise of abortion by saying, "Well it isn't the Holocaust", is not much of an argument.
You have the order all wrong. Someone in this thread initiated the comparision between elective abortions and the holocaust. I was responding to them, and surely by now you realize that my argument was not "Well it isn't the Holocaust".
What does the direction of the arrow of time have to do with the intrinsic value of a human being? A fetus if allowed to be born, will surely in the future have a will to live. Why does a will to live have to proceed any right to live? Seems artificial to me.
Seems artificial to me to. You should take it up with whoever made such an argument. MY argument on the other hand had to do with why we value other people, the human capacity for suffering, and most of all valuing those UNIQUELY human qualities over those that are shared by all vertebrates.
As our medical technology increases it will be possible to push this back to the 2nd and 1st trimester.
Even if so, it will still pale in comparison to the spontaneously aborted early (embryonic) products of conception. You are right about fertility research, but a woman trying to get pregnant is likely to have multiple, even unnoticed, spontaneous abortions. They wouldn't consider themselves to have fertility problem, and wouldn't qualify for therapy, until many consecutive attempts had failed. There has been a small amount of research done just to come to the conclusion that fertile women frequently abort spontaneously. There hasn't been any research to stop this from happening. I suppose no one cares about all these human deaths as long as women get pregnant within a reasonable time frame.
all abortions except when the life of the mother is at stake
What does the life of the mother have to do with it? We are talking about an innocent baby. Mom had her chance at life.
To you it seems perverse that I would argue such a relatively unimportant point. To me it is vitally important because it gets to the heart of dehumanization. The good people on this thread that I have argued with have stated their value for "human" life but have attributed it to the animal qualities of consciousness and pain response. None have cared to describe just what qualities makes humans unique and special. Surely those qualities are what would make a human more valuable than an animal. It scares me that people are afraid to recognize those qualities because in so doing they think that somehow they must also accept abortion or infanticide. They effectively deny the existence of humanness. That is a universal dehumanization at the conceptual level. That is dangerous.
Good points all. Thanks.
My love of meat, and my value for life in general complells me not to consume animal fetuses. I prefer meat from fully grown adult animals. My position on this matter is logically consistent. Do you kill or torture animals for sport or fun and leave their carcasses to rot? Do you condemn those who do such a thing? If you do condemn them, on what grounds do you condemn them, since animals are no different than fetuses in your mind and you can't quite come to the point where you condemn the killing of fetuses?
So abortion would be okay if fetuses were "killed with the minimal of suffering as possible"?
Cute, but hardly a honest debating point. Surely you understoodd my meaning. If you didn't then I have wasted my time debating you and if you did, then you are merely playing rhetorical games, uninterested in honest debate. Nonetheless, I will answer your question. No it would not be okay, but it would be better if they were killed without pain. Tell me which is worse, murdering a person with a gunshoot to the temple or by slowly torturing them? Both are evil, but the gunshoot to the head is less evil. Animals are treated far better in our society, than aborted fetuses, since animals are allowed to live and enjoy life, a joy that the aborted fetus is deprived of.
Apparently you haven't met any children. My position on infanticide is that it is immoral. That is my position on elective abortion as well. This doesn't change the fact that for all the reasons I have in other posts, the killing of an adult is worse than the killing of a fetus. The suffering of an adult holocaust victim is infinitely greater than the suffering of an aborted fetus.
I have raised two boys. My addition of children to the definition of infanticide, was for your benefit, since I wasn't sure you thought children were sufficiently developed to be of value, except maybe for their parents' enjoyment. I'm glad to hear you are against infanticide and elective abortion, but I have no idea why, since your arguments points in the opposite direction. Some explanation on your part is necessary to why you think infanticide and elective abortions are immoral.
What does the life of the mother have to do with it? We are talking about an innocent baby. Mom had her chance at life.
Wasn't it you that was arguing earlier, that your wife should be able to terminate a pregnancy if her life was at stake. I was just trying to find some common ground on which we could agree so we could work together to stop as many abortions as possible. But you would rather argue fine points than lift a finger to reduce the suffering caused by abortion.
To you it seems perverse that I would argue such a relatively unimportant point. To me it is vitally important because it gets to the heart of dehumanization. The good people on this thread that I have argued with have stated their value for "human" life but have attributed it to the animal qualities of consciousness and pain response. None have cared to describe just what qualities makes humans unique and special. Surely those qualities are what would make a human more valuable than an animal. It scares me that people are afraid to recognize those qualities because in so doing they think that somehow they must also accept abortion or infanticide. They effectively deny the existence of humanness. That is a universal dehumanization at the conceptual level. That is dangerous.
Yes I do find it perverse, because millions of babies are aborted every year and many of them are developed enough to feel pain. You assume that those on this thread who have argued against abortion do so simply from the pain and suffering of the fetus standpoint. Did it ever occur to you that they do so as a lowest common denominator argument? Yours is the dehumanizing philosophy. You demand that fetuses have fully developed personality traits, that they understand their mortality, that they have the potential to suffer as an adult, to be fully human, but that argument clearly fails with all the counterexamples, such as infants, mentally handicapped, the unconscious, those with Alzheimers. You refuse to acknowledge that a zygote contains the blueprint, not only for a physical body, but also for a mind and a personality. Check out Steven Pinker's (MIT psychologist) recent review of the nature vs nurture debate. He clearly states, that modern psychology has proven that much of what we call personality is hardwired by genetics. Ever wonder why children share personality traits with their grandparents, even though they may be raised thousands of miles from their grandparents? It's genetics. You are correct that humans are more valuable than animals, because we possess qualities that greatly exceed animals. Human fetuses do not exhibit those qualities, but they have the potential to. An animal fetus will never achieve these qualities that we all agree make humans more valuable than animals. What is the difference between animal fetuses and human fetuses? DNA and time. That's why human fetuses are valuable and should be protected.
Your value for life in general compels you advocate killing adult animals rather than animal fetuses? So the personal pleasure you get from eating animals trumps your value for life in general?
you can't quite come to the point where you condemn the killing of fetuses
Is it out of frustration that you now deliberately misconstrue my argument? How does that advance the debate?
uninterested in honest debate
Hmm. Yes a raw nerve. Perhaps we should not discuss this matter further.
No it would not be okay, but it would be better if they were killed without pain. Tell me which is worse, murdering a person with a gunshoot to the temple or by slowly torturing them?
In deciding one evil over another it is easy to cast the arguer as a demon by placing his argument in isolation. I did this to you here. You did it to me above with the "can't quite come to the point where you condemn the killing of fetuses" dig. It is hard to have a fair and rational argument with such emotionally charged issues.
Animals are treated far better in our society, than aborted fetuses, since animals are allowed to live and enjoy life, a joy that the aborted fetus is deprived of.
Animal FETUSES are treated better than human fetuses, because no one is interested in aborting an animal fetus. Animals are not treated better than humans overall and not better than human fetuses specifically. Such a comparison is to me along the same lines as comparing elective abortion to the holocaust. It is a travesty. It cross-compares fetuses with adult creatures and in so doing suggests that corraling, prodding, and slaughtering humans would be a better way to treat them. The suffering of an aborted human fetus is less than the suffering imposed upon the doomed dreary life of livestock.
I wasn't sure you thought children were sufficiently developed to be of value
That is very curious. To make such a mistake, I suspect you really don't know how humans differ from other animals. With that statement you also impose an absolute 'value-no value' standard which I never advocated and which does not seem realistic. In your life, do you either value something or not value it at all? Those things you value do you value equally? Is this why you value all human adults and fetuses equally? It would also mean you don't value animals at all.
your arguments points in the opposite direction
How so?
I was just trying to find some common ground on which we could agree so we could work together to stop as many abortions as possible.
I was being facetious because it is your position that seems to be inconsistent with sacrificing a fetus for the life of the mother, since you are arguing against my valuation of an adult human over a fetus.
But you would rather argue fine points than lift a finger to reduce the suffering caused by abortion.
Your emotions have led you to very impolite and unwarrented attacks. I might say the same about you--here you sit arguing on a bulletin board rather than doing anything to help starving children overseas. You could "lift a finger" and use this time to volunteer at a local pediatric burn unit or nursing home.
Sadly, with this angry remark, you suggest that there is no time to understand why we act. Instead we must simply arise and act or be considered evil. It shows a disdain for rational thought--along with all those other uniquely human qualities you disdain.
Has the discussion degenerated enough for your satisfaction yet?
Did it ever occur to you that they do so as a lowest common denominator argument?
No. Will you explain this argument?
You demand that fetuses have fully developed personality traits, that they understand their mortality, that they have the potential to suffer as an adult, to be fully human
Close, and reasonably fair but I'm not making demands. I'm getting at what it is that leads to the values we have for people. My fingernail is fully human. I wouldn't argue from the primacy of the label "human" because there are things that are fully human but not relevent to rights or to how I value another person. Instead my arguments are from specific qualities, many of which you listed, that are unique to humans but are not always possess by things that are fully human.
that argument clearly fails with all the counterexamples, such as infants, mentally handicapped, the unconscious, those with Alzheimers.
You say "clearly fails". Can you explain how?
You refuse to acknowledge that a zygote contains the blueprint, not only for a physical body, but also for a mind and a personality.
How could I "refuse to acknowledge" these things, when you never even asked me? That genetics contribute to environmental factors in phenotypic expression is not a new revelation, even in the realm of behavior. However, nucleic acids do not have personality anymore than the nucleotides, or the pentoses and nucleosides that make them up. One cannot equate personality with DNA.
You are correct that humans are more valuable than animals, because we possess qualities that greatly exceed animals.
"Exceed" perhaps. I don't know, but without trying to rank them, there certainly are qualities that humans possess that other animals do not.
Human fetuses do not exhibit those qualities, but they have the potential to. An animal fetus will never achieve these qualities that we all agree make humans more valuable than animals.
Yes. At the fetal age, most humans have the potential to one day develop those qualities that give it a uniquely human perspective, as well as a uniquely human capacity to suffer. That is, one day in the future it may have the ability to suffer as much as those who suffered in the holocaust. This is my original point.
What is the difference between animal fetuses and human fetuses? DNA and time. That's why human fetuses are valuable and should be protected.
I agree. However, my point--my whole purpose on this thread--is not to compare human fetuses with nonhuman fetuses, but to compare human fetuses with human adults.
Lest we forget the focus--I began posting on this thread in response to someone who made the sick comparison of the holocaust with elective abortion.
Of course, the leftists, socialists, left-over commies, liberal democrats all over the world seem to be doing all they can to support Saddam over the leader of the Free World, President George W. Bush.
While Saddam has a way to go in order to reach the epic numbers of Hitler's murders, left unchecked I'm sure he will .
I've also read, that Saddam admires Hitler greatly.
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.