• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The political, religious and ideological views that drove Hilter and the Nazi regime

snakestretcher

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 25, 2019
Messages
18,400
Reaction score
5,710
Location
Devonshire, England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Yeah, those Russian winters are a bitch.
It wasn't just the winter. By the time of Stalingrad Hitler had over-extended supply lines to the front to such an extent that his armies, specifically the 6th under Gen. Paulus, were running out of ammunition and other vital supplies. After Paulus' surrender and the capture of over 250,000 German troops it was pretty much over for Nazi Germany from that point onwards. After Barbarossa Germany was on the defensive for the rest of the war.
 

Evilroddy

Pragmatic, pugalistic, prancing, porcine politico.
DP Veteran
Joined
May 30, 2017
Messages
5,426
Reaction score
2,954
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
In contemplation of modern thought and theory, Hitler is often seen as a very evil character. From the attempted extermination of the entire Jewish race to the rise of eugenics and a pure Aryan race, Hitler was a driven man who inspired an entire nation - a nation that could have easily dominated the entire world had the United States not stepped in at the 11th hour.

My question is very simple. What was Hitler and the Nazi regime all about? What drove Hitler to commit such in-human acts? Such acts of barbarity? Can we even classify them using the modern spectrum of left right politics? Or for that matter, the modern interpretation of conserverative vs liberal?

So, to keep this simple lets just get some information on the table before we drill down with specifics. Please present your own personal theory as to the politics, theology and ideology of Hitler, and then your theory as to the ideology and philosophy and economy of the nation state of Germany...

View attachment 67263995
Edited for word count.

Iron_Merc:

Hitler was an evil individual at the head of an evil party which ruled over a compliant people who then did great evil. Hitler's Germany was indeed instrumental in attempting to liquidate all of Jewry within its reach in a ruthless, state-organised, industrial-scale, genocide. However much of Europe was complicit in this profoundly evil project and either enthusiaticly or compliantly helped in the genocides of about 10 million people of whom over 6 million were Jewish. Eugenics was popular in many places like Europe, the British Empire and America and was made very popular by the British. This was a much wider problem than just in Germany. The USA did not defeat the Third Reich. That task fell mainly to the Soviet Union. The British Empire and the United States played very important roles but it was the Soviets who destroyed most of the German war machine of WWII. The US and the British Empire did provide lend lease support to the USSR but the fighting and dying was done disproportionately by the Soviets. The US was the world leader in fighting the War in the Pacific however.

The acts of Nazi Germany and its sympathisers across Europe were not in-human as humans organised and executed these evil deeds. They were inhumane and profoundly evil but alas very human. The human condition has caused these kind of slaughters all over the world and over time immemorial so humans are definitly the guilty party here, and foisting it onto the Germans alone is dangerous delusion.

What was behind the Nazi movement? One, a lust for power, both domestic German power and a neo-imperial international power. Second, a notion of manifest destiny, that Germans had a destiny to be overlords over Europe and western Eurasia. Third, racial supremacy and the notion of ubermenchen and untermenchen (superior humans and sub-humans) which while common throughout Europe found extreme expression in the Germany of the 1920's - 1940's. Fourth, militarism spurred on by German economic and political elites wanting an empire once again and by the humiliation of the defeat in WWI plus the very onerous Versailles Peace Treaty. Fifth, an odd mixture of Catholic and Germanic Paganism laminated with a veneer of truly odd occultism which turned the manifest destiny of German into a virtual holy crusade to rid the east of Orthodox Slavs, Roma and of course the Jews. Sixth, a secular crusade to rid the east of communism and to replace it with fascistic National Socialism (which was ironically not socialism at all since Hitler replaced Anton Drexler as the leader of the movement). Seventh, a quest for greater economic resources and the colonisation of the east by Germans up to the Ural Mountains.

Now what was behind the Third Reich's genocides? Racial and religious hate and scape-goating. Organised religion either supporting or failing to oppose the national projects of the Third Reich. The arrogance and hubris of notions of racial superiority and racial inferiority, the brutal economics of imperialism and slavery coupled with militarism as the sole tool to manifest those economic goals. The human condition of turning against minorities when societies become stressed. Greed, avarice, jealousy, xenophobia, religious zealotry, rampant racially based nationalism, fear, intimidation and first and foremost collective national self-delusion all spiced up with a pernicious cult of personality.

Since the human condition is the way it is, it's happening all again in Russia, China, India, the Middle East including Israel, the Philippines, Egypt, and even in America. We are not finished with enthno-religious inspired fascism, militarism and notions of manifest national destiny, and to think we are is the same kind of self-delusion that led to the rise of the Hitler and National Socialism in the 1930's.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Last edited:

Jredbaron96

Finite and Precious
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
16,399
Reaction score
9,451
Location
With you.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
So it seems to me Hitler is effectively merging Marxism with Nationalism.
Not really, no. In fact the Nazis explicitly rejected so called "Marxian socialism" on the basis that it ignored the differences between races and nationalities. The basis for "Prussian Socialism" was on the work of a conservative Prussian Monarchist, Otto Von Bismark, rather than Marx or Lenin.

To Germany, Socialism in the early 20th Century was welfare. The first person to introduce wide spread social programs in Europe was Bismark, a militarist nationalist German, not a left wing radical. He did so in order to keep the working class loyal to the Kaiser and prevent them from going over to Socialism.

Hence Bismark touted his programs as "Socialist" because in late 19th Century Germany that was a very popular phrase, as it meant protection and services for common factory workers, miners, and farmers. It was basically just clever marketing without really appealing to Marxist principles.
 

Iron_Merc

Banned
Joined
Sep 14, 2019
Messages
1,506
Reaction score
194
Location
Upstate NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Thank you, especially Evilroddy and Jredbaron96, I very much appreciate the insights you have shared with the class.
 

Moot

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
37,438
Reaction score
13,273
Location
Utah
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It wasn't just the winter. By the time of Stalingrad Hitler had over-extended supply lines to the front to such an extent that his armies, specifically the 6th under Gen. Paulus, were running out of ammunition and other vital supplies. After Paulus' surrender and the capture of over 250,000 German troops it was pretty much over for Nazi Germany from that point onwards. After Barbarossa Germany was on the defensive for the rest of the war.
Indeed, but the Russians did use their severe winters as part of their planned attack against the German invaders at Stalingrad...just like did in 1812 against the French. The similarities between the two wars is uncanny. Both the French and German armies planned for a spring summer campaign to invade Russia. Both under estimated the Russians. Both times the Russians brilliantly planned, attacked and routed the foreign invaders in the dead of winter and both times it changed the tide of a major world war.

The Russians are just as brutal as they are brilliant. I really don't want to fight them...but they are the foreign invaders, now.
 

Oozlefinch

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2009
Messages
13,590
Reaction score
10,423
Location
State of Jefferson
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Few Americans know or understand that Russia had begun to turn back Hitlers armies before Pearl Harbor....
No, not really. By that time all they had been able to accomplish was to block the Germans from entering Moscow. Leningrad had already been destroyed, and their advances on all other fronts into the Soviet Union continued. They were continuing to advance deep into the Central and Southern areas, and did not even reach Stalingrad until August 1942.

Turning back the Germans in a single small area is hardly "turning back Hitler's armies". That would not actually come until early 1943.
 

Fledermaus

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2014
Messages
70,779
Reaction score
12,975
Location
Peoples Republic of California AKA Taxifornia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
No, not really. By that time all they had been able to accomplish was to block the Germans from entering Moscow. Leningrad had already been destroyed, and their advances on all other fronts into the Soviet Union continued. They were continuing to advance deep into the Central and Southern areas, and did not even reach Stalingrad until August 1942.

Turning back the Germans in a single small area is hardly "turning back Hitler's armies". That would not actually come until early 1943.
You are correct. I was corrected soon after I posted that claim...
 

Oozlefinch

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2009
Messages
13,590
Reaction score
10,423
Location
State of Jefferson
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
National _________ German Workers' Party

Sounds a little like he opposes capitalism, wouldn't you say?
This is not exactly true. And to understand this, you need to look at Socialism in the early to mid 20th century.

Now to modern Socialists-Communists, it is pretty much Religious Canon that when Marx descended from the Heavens he handed the books of Socialism-Communism off to Lenin, who then made a true Worker's Paradise on Earth with them in the form of the CCCP-USSR. But the problem with this is that it is entirely taken from the beliefs of Communists. They like to believe that all Socialism came from Communism, and leads to Communism. And that there is no Socialism without Communism.

And like any canonical religion, they are quick to label others as heretics, and scream that they are not "True Communism" or "True Socialism".

They do not like being told that Socialism existed before Marx was even born, and his is not the only definition of the word. During the Early and Mid-1900's, there were a great many variants of Socialism. In fact, the first such National Socialist nation was probably the Kuomintang under Dr. Sun Yat-sen. Dr. Sun was very much a Socialist, in the vein of the Second International and other organizations that followed classical Socialism, but largely ignored the additions added to it by Marx.

This is where you get the real split, and one that most Socialists will deny to their dying breath ever exists. Myself, I call it "National Socialism" and "International Socialism". The International part is obvious, those are the Marxists. The vast majority of the others tend to follow a form of Socialism that avoids any attempts to link them all together, to create a "One World Government", an "International Soviet", or whatever other kind of buzz words they like to throw into it.

Republic of China, Italy, India, Burma, Iraq, Egypt, not all Socialist countries are or were Marxist. But the Marxists pretend like they do not exist. Kind of like the family of a Catholic Priest who leaves the clergy and converts to Presbyterian. Or members of a Baptist congregation that see each other in a bar.

NSDAP Germany very much was a Socialist nation. However, it was not a Marxist-Communist nation. Reading the platform of the party both before and after der Paper Hangar entered the picture show that this was the case. Anton Drexler (the founder) was an anti-Semite, a Nationalist, and a Socialist. He was also an anti-Marxist. And anybody who has ever actually read the "25 Point Program" can not deny that it is fundamentally a Socialist agenda.
 

Oozlefinch

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2009
Messages
13,590
Reaction score
10,423
Location
State of Jefferson
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Here are just a few of those points:

We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens.

All citizens must have equal rights and obligations.

The first obligation of every citizen must be to productively work mentally or physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all. Consequently, we demand:
Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of debt (interest)-slavery.
In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).
We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.
We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.

We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.

We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, profiteers and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race.

The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. The plans of instruction of all educational institutions are to conform with the experiences of practical life. The comprehension of the concept of the state must be striven for by the school [Staatsbürgerkunde] as early as the beginning of understanding. We demand the education at the expense of the state of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.

The state is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.

Notice, that is 12 of the 25 points. In other words, damned near half of the official party platform is clearly Socialist in nature. But because it was of a Nationalist flavor, it was diametrically opposed to the views of the Communists. Which was the other Socialist group trying to gain converts.

So in reality, it is little more than 2 differing religions starting a holy war in a region to gain new converts to their own form of the Faith.

In fact, the very idea of Marxism and Nationalism are diametrically opposed to each other. This is why in most cases of a Non-Marxist nation, the largest threats tended to come form the Marxists. Think of it like the 2 sides of the US Libertarian movement. You have the Far-Right Libertarians (Tea Party), which are vastly different from the Far-Left Libertarians (Anarchists). Yet they both claim to the "Libertarians".

But "Mainstream Socialists" refuse to recognize this, they in fact will deny it to their dying breaths. Just as a Fundamentalist Christian will generally refuse to recognize that Christianity is a Jewish sect.

But remember, Socialism has nothing against Capitalism. In fact, it recognizes that it can not exist without it. It is the Marxists that insist that everything be brought in under the control of the Government (sorry, "The People") and that private ownership of anything should not be allowed.
 

Oozlefinch

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2009
Messages
13,590
Reaction score
10,423
Location
State of Jefferson
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
So it seems to me Hitler is effectively merging Marxism with Nationalism.
Not at all. He was in fact strongly opposed to Marxism, while believing in both Socialism and Nationalism.

Think of it in some ways as what is seen in the United States today. You have a single country, that at this time is largely dividing itself between "Republicans" and "Democrats". Now here I am not talking about the political parties, but the way that each party tries to achieve what they think is the "Public Voice" for the direction of the country.

Both believe in the will of the people, and that such things are to be achieved by voting. But one party wants "Democracy", where it is the nose counting of everybody being the final say in all matters, and whoever gets the most noses to count wins. The other believes in a "Republic", where that nose counting is a key part, but taken in the framework of a government where representatives are elected by the vote of the people, and they are the ones who then enact laws under guidance of those people.

This may seem like a small difference, but it really is a vast one. One of the key reasons that the Founders of the US created a Republic is that they had a deep distrust of Democracy. Quite literally it is little more than "Mob Rule", and it is also very fickle. Under a Democracy, if you got 50.1% of the population to vote to throw out the Constitution, then such would be done. Since the US is a Republic, it is also possible to do such, but it requires a lot more than a tiny majority in order to accomplish that.

Think of it this way. Der Paper Hangar was both a Socialist, and a Nationalist. Marx and Stalin were Socialists and Internationalists. Half of their platform is almost the same, but it is those differences that makes them worlds apart and opposed to each other. Der Paper Hangar believed in Socialism for each nation, but each nation being responsible to it's own people first, and not to some kind of phantom "International Body" that tried to combine all nations together. British National Socialism, Finish National Socialism, Italian National Socialism, German National Socialism, etc. Each responsible to their own people first and foremost, while spreading this idea to other nations to adopt or not adopt as they wished.

As opposed to the USSR. Which each nation was to kowtow to them as being the "Leader of International Communism", and largely do what the Supreme Soviet said, because of course they knew best. And that eventually the entire world could be one vast Soviet State, because they were told scientifically that it was the future.
 

Jredbaron96

Finite and Precious
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
16,399
Reaction score
9,451
Location
With you.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Tahoma,Calibri,Geneva,sans-serif]
Few Americans know or understand that Russia had begun to turn back Hitlers armies before Pearl Harbor....
[/FONT]

No, not really. By that time all they had been able to accomplish was to block the Germans from entering Moscow. Leningrad had already been destroyed, and their advances on all other fronts into the Soviet Union continued. They were continuing to advance deep into the Central and Southern areas, and did not even reach Stalingrad until August 1942.

Turning back the Germans in a single small area is hardly "turning back Hitler's armies". That would not actually come until early 1943.
True and not true, sort of.

The OstHeer was still operating deep within Soviet territory by the time of Pearl Harbor, and a year later all the fighting was still taking place on Soviet soil. In fact it wouldn't be until 1944 that the Germans were expelled completely from Russian soil.

But the failure of Barbarossa was a catastrophic defeat for the Germans. They had suffered more casualties than they had reserves, and when they advanced on Stalingrad and the Caucuses more than 6 months later they were desperately short of manpower, relying on combat engineers to lead the drive and fudging their flanks with Italians, Hungarians, and Romanians. When Stalingrad kicked off the Romanians nervously pointed out they were facing tank heavy formations of the Red Army and lacked anti-tank weaponry, but German commanders weren't willing to give up their weapons to Romanian divisions (and German industry couldn't provide both).

So the Germans didn't get pushed back until some time later; but the foundation of their defeat in the East lay in their failures in the summer of 1941.
 

Jredbaron96

Finite and Precious
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
16,399
Reaction score
9,451
Location
With you.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
You're not very accurate either.

The ideology of the Nazi Party was born out of almost no relation to the teachings of Marx that would be attempted by the Bavarian Soviet Republic or the USSR. Nazi Party thinking lay in the works of German conservatives like Oswald Spengler, who himself coined the term "Prussian Socialism". But "Prussian Socialism" wasn't born out of Marxist teachings either; it was the product of Otto Von Bismark's welfare policies.

You're trying to apply very wide brush talking points to political ideologies that were very much the product of their own nations history, not ideological coherence. Just like the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was very much influenced by Russian history and culture, and the Chinese Communist Party was heavily influenced by Chinese history.

Ironically, it was because of Socialists that the Nazis got their name "National Socialism". Bismark instituted welfare programs precisely as a means to keep the German working class loyal to the Monarchy and prevent the rise of socialism within Germany; his ideas were in turn influenced by Lutheran and Protestant charitable virtues that were common within Prussia. Bismark's State Socialism (Staatssozialismus) was designed as a counter to actual Socialists (which were anti-monarchy) while appealing to Germans by using the "socialist" moniker.

Which is what the Nazi Party referred to when talking about Socialism, and why they made such a huge deal about distancing themselves from so called "Marxist Socialism".
 

Oozlefinch

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2009
Messages
13,590
Reaction score
10,423
Location
State of Jefferson
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
You're not very accurate either.

The ideology of the Nazi Party was born out of almost no relation to the teachings of Marx that would be attempted by the Bavarian Soviet Republic or the USSR.
This is a perfect example of what I had stated. To far to many (especially on the Left), "Socialist", "Marxist", and "Communist" are all the same thing. They are completely unable to grasp the concept that Socialism existed before Marx did his scribblings, and he is the one that changed the definition of what it was. Now they all slobberishly follow that as "True Socialism", and utterly reject any other forms it might take.

How old? Well, in Germany the Social Democratic Party dates all the way back to 1863. In fact, in 1912 it held the majority position in the German Reichstag. However, in the wake of WWI it fractured, with both the Far-Right and Far-Left segments breaking away to form their own splinter groups, and the main organization becoming increasingly Marxist.

Of course the beliefs of Hitler had nothing to do with Marx, they were simply Socialist, with complete rejection of Marx's "Internationalist" beliefs. "Classic" Socialism does not mandate a revolution to improve the situation for the workers. It also does not demand that corporations dissolve, nor that monarchies be overthrown and that rule be taken up by the workers. That is the mistake that people keep making over and over again, and their inability to recognize anything other than Marxism as Socialism is why they always fail to understand this basic fact.

And it is really not unlike what we are seeing in the US, with the current demands for "Revolution", the dissolving of corporations and the anti-Semitic "1%" groups, the rise of ANTIFA and other anarchist movements, and the rest. Like what we saw in Germany, they are really mostly Marxists, trying to disguise themselves as something else. But peal back the shawl covering them, and the majority would fit in well sitting at the feet of Lenin, Stalin, and Trotsky.
 

Jredbaron96

Finite and Precious
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
16,399
Reaction score
9,451
Location
With you.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
This is a perfect example of what I had stated. To far to many (especially on the Left), "Socialist", "Marxist", and "Communist" are all the same thing. They are completely unable to grasp the concept that Socialism existed before Marx did his scribblings, and he is the one that changed the definition of what it was. Now they all slobberishly follow that as "True Socialism", and utterly reject any other forms it might take.

How old? Well, in Germany the Social Democratic Party dates all the way back to 1863.
...Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto in 1848, 15 years before the "Allgemeiner Deutscher Arbeiterverein", the predecessor to the Social Democratic Party of Germany, was formed.

See, this is why I can never take you seriously on anything. You just flat out don't actually know what you are talking about.


In fact, in 1912 it held the majority position in the German Reichstag. However, in the wake of WWI it fractured, with both the Far-Right and Far-Left segments breaking away to form their own splinter groups, and the main organization becoming increasingly Marxist.
Actually the Social Democrats were largely moderates. Again, you need to read up on these things before you post about them. I mean, just look at this poster.



Of course the beliefs of Hitler had nothing to do with Marx, they were simply Socialist, with complete rejection of Marx's "Internationalist" beliefs. "Classic" Socialism does not mandate a revolution to improve the situation for the workers. It also does not demand that corporations dissolve, nor that monarchies be overthrown and that rule be taken up by the workers. That is the mistake that people keep making over and over again, and their inability to recognize anything other than Marxism as Socialism is why they always fail to understand this basic fact.
This is just flat out wrong. Hitler derived his views of what he called "socialism" from Oswald Spengler, who wrote "Prussian Socialism" (Preußentum und Sozialismus) in 1919, who in turn said that Socialism in Germany hadn't come until they were formed by the outbreak of WWI in 1914...

...66 years after Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto.

So your claim that Hitler got his views on Socialism from teachings before Marx is just flat out wrong.
 

Iron_Merc

Banned
Joined
Sep 14, 2019
Messages
1,506
Reaction score
194
Location
Upstate NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Excellent posting guys! I've been stuck in the abortion forum all day and didn't have time to check on this. Needless to say, it looks like I've got some homework to do.
 

Oozlefinch

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2009
Messages
13,590
Reaction score
10,423
Location
State of Jefferson
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
...Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto in 1848, 15 years before the "Allgemeiner Deutscher Arbeiterverein", the predecessor to the Social Democratic Party of Germany, was formed.
But it was not originally based on Marxism. This is why you keep failing.

I notice that every time I bring something up, you reflexively drag it right back to Marxism. It is just like I said, you are one of those that is completely unable to separate the two, and therefore what you say is largely meaningless.

Was the Welsh founder of the Owenites and Utopian Socialism also a "Marxist"? Even though it was developed in the 1820's? And yes, that term for them was actually "Communal Cooperative". Marx wrote about and dismissed them, because they did not believe in Revolution or class struggle. And much of the early years of Marxism was spent trying to dismiss or absorb many earlier Socialist organizations.

I will say it one last time. Not every Socialist organization was-is Marxist. The fact that the one I mentioned was a party formed after Marx scribbled his rantings onto paper really does not matter, because it was not a Marxist organization when it was founded. It later became one after internal factions and splinter groups turned it into one.

Heck, the main foundation for most of those kinds of groups during most of the last 500 years was Utopia, by Sir Thomas More, published in 1516. None of his writings is about class struggle, or revolution, or any of the stuff that Marx was to later throw in. And while Utopia is his most famous work, he wrote a great deal about Socialism, which shows that it existed long before the 6th Marx Brother wrote his own scribbles onto paper.
 

Jredbaron96

Finite and Precious
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
16,399
Reaction score
9,451
Location
With you.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Which has nothing to do with the Nazi Party. German National Socialism wasn't based on Owenites or Utopia, or any pre-Marx Socialist writing. It was based on the Spengler work "Prussian Socialism" and the "State Socialism" of Bismark, both of which were in fact responses to Socialist (Or Marxist if you want to call them that) ideations within Germany. Bismark instituted "State Socialism" to keep the working class away from actual socialists, and Spengler framed his "socialism" in the context of war. Both of them were in direct opposition to Marxism.

So wasting your time trying to talk about Socialism pre-Marx is irrelevant, because what Hitler, Bismark, and Spengler all were refuting was Marxism. You're completely missing the point by trying to argue that Socialism wasn't just Marxism; because that's precisely what it was to Hitler and the Nazis. Their "National Socialism" was nothing but co-opted buzz words intended to provide mass appeal.
 

Oozlefinch

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2009
Messages
13,590
Reaction score
10,423
Location
State of Jefferson
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Their "National Socialism" was nothing but co-opted buzz words intended to provide mass appeal.
Which is why their official Party platform reads like a Socialist tract.

Sorry, this is utterly pointless. "Oh, they were not Socialist. They were only pretending to be Socialist" is a boring, worn-out excuse that Leftists have been using for decades now. And you keep using the exact same words in repetition, basically repeating yourself. Making the claim it was all a lie, it was not Socialism, and it was to keep people away from "actual Socialists", by which you obviously mean Marxists.

You are so absorbed in the belief that only Marxists are Socialists, and your eyes are completely blinded by this. So there is no reason to continue this.
 

Jredbaron96

Finite and Precious
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
16,399
Reaction score
9,451
Location
With you.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Which is why their official Party platform reads like a Socialist tract.
It doesn't actually, nor did their actual policies resemble socialism very much at all. Despite your insistence that Marxism has nothing to do with Socialism Marx took most of his cues from the already existing Socialist ideals and just put a different spin on them.

In reality Nazi Germany bore little resemblance to a Socialist state. The economy was dominated by privately owned industrial conglomerates, and their society was run on a very strict hierarchy of racial order and classification, completely contrary to not just what Marx wrote, but nearly all major Socialist literature and ideology proclaims.

You're right, there is no reason to continue this, because as usual you are completely unwilling to entertain an idea that contradicts your worldview. It's why debating with you is a waste of time. You have utterly refused to actually debate my points and instead single out lines so you can regurgitate the same garbage over and over again.
 
Last edited:

Torus34

DP Veteran
Joined
May 5, 2019
Messages
3,188
Reaction score
1,103
Location
Staten Island, NY USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
An interesting alternative to the left/right brouhaha that usually erupts these days can be found in a book by Mrs. Madeleine Albright's book, Fascism. In it, she concentrates on the methodology of specific dictators to be. Special attention is given to Mr. Benito Mussolini, though a large number of others are discussed. The book's relatively current and so speaks of persons presently in power in Egypt, Hungary and Turkey.
 

Iron_Merc

Banned
Joined
Sep 14, 2019
Messages
1,506
Reaction score
194
Location
Upstate NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Which is why their official Party platform reads like a Socialist tract.

Sorry, this is utterly pointless. "Oh, they were not Socialist. They were only pretending to be Socialist" is a boring, worn-out excuse that Leftists have been using for decades now. And you keep using the exact same words in repetition, basically repeating yourself. Making the claim it was all a lie, it was not Socialism, and it was to keep people away from "actual Socialists", by which you obviously mean Marxists.

You are so absorbed in the belief that only Marxists are Socialists, and your eyes are completely blinded by this. So there is no reason to continue this.
If you guys have been following this debate, Oozlefinch is the clear winner. He has been able to successfully defend his position and easily point out the lies and deceit from the left: Hilter WAS a socialist (NOT merely "pretending" to be a socialist). If you think about it, The NAZI's ACTIONS speak louder than any words. Genocide, murder, thought control, control of the media, secret police, racial profiling, eugenics, family planning, abortion and forced sterilization, anti-god, anti religion, etc and its that moment you realize these attributes of the Nazis are all basic fundamentals of socialism 101.

Not to mention, Hilters' idol and dream team leader, Benito Mussolini was the ORIGINAL socialist turned fascist, all part of the same evolution on the same side of the political spectrum. Both are left wing ideologs. Get it?

Benito Mussolini regarded Adolf Hitler as a teary-eyed "sentimentalist".

Interesting article that draws distinctions and parallels between Mussolini and Hitler relative to the term "national" socialism

News - History of Left-wing Fascism | Heartland Institute

Teary eyed "sentimentalist"

Benito Mussolini regarded Adolf Hitler as a 'sentimentalist' - Telegraph

Hitler%20and%20Mussolini.jpg
 

Jredbaron96

Finite and Precious
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
16,399
Reaction score
9,451
Location
With you.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
If you think about it, The NAZI's ACTIONS speak louder than any words. Genocide, murder, thought control, control of the media, secret police, racial profiling, eugenics, family planning, abortion and forced sterilization, anti-god, anti religion, etc and its that moment you realize these attributes of the Nazis are all basic fundamentals of socialism 101.
I don't think you actually grasp Nazism at all.
 

Jredbaron96

Finite and Precious
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
16,399
Reaction score
9,451
Location
With you.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
So why don't you tell us what the Nazis where all about.
I mean I already did.

The Nazis were not inspired by any degree of socialism that most people would identify with. It was inspired by Prussian idealism and Bismarkian politics, all of which were in direct opposition to traditional socialist ideals.

The actual policies of the Nazi Party once in power were driven entirely by the desire to remarm and expand German borders through military conquest. Thus the Nazis were willing to embark on whatever means possible to achieve this, hence why they adopted both right wing (the term "privatization" comes from the description of Nazi economic policies) and left wing policies in order to achieve this goal. Ultimately Nazi Germany was not a socialist state; its economy remained dominated by privately owned industrial conglomerates, while it also sharply avoided capitalist excess which it saw as a sign of Jewish banker influence.
 

Iron_Merc

Banned
Joined
Sep 14, 2019
Messages
1,506
Reaction score
194
Location
Upstate NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I mean I already did.

The Nazis were not inspired by any degree of socialism that most people would identify with. It was inspired by Prussian idealism and Bismarkian politics, all of which were in direct opposition to traditional socialist ideals.

The actual policies of the Nazi Party once in power were driven entirely by the desire to remarm and expand German borders through military conquest. Thus the Nazis were willing to embark on whatever means possible to achieve this, hence why they adopted both right wing (the term "privatization" comes from the description of Nazi economic policies) and left wing policies in order to achieve this goal. Ultimately Nazi Germany was not a socialist state; its economy remained dominated by privately owned industrial conglomerates, while it also sharply avoided capitalist excess which it saw as a sign of Jewish banker influence.
It was privatization in name only. That's the problem with labeling things when the reality of the 1930s German economy was a shellgame. The government didn't have to bear the inefficiencies or losses if the firms were in "private" hands, but they could (and did) control those firms as if they were part of the government through the good old fashioned gun barrel if necessary, thus gaining their benefits. The industrialists generally went along because they knew what happened to dissenters, but I highly doubt they were too thrilled about being forced to produce things at what were de facto command prices. There's a reason many of the privatized firms went to Nazi insiders and cronies.

There is no doubt, Nazism embodied many core elements of socialism. People can tell you otherwise, but those opinions don't hold up to the weight of historical analysis.

The National Socialist German Workers' Party, were in fact, socialists.
 
Top Bottom