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

[Jredbaron96]

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.

Because it wasn't the German government that controlled them. Germany's economy was dominated by privately owned industrial conglomerates, they controlled the government, not the other way around. Reichswerke Hermann Göring didn't answer to the German government, it answered to Herman Göring.

If it was Socialist, where was the collective ownership of the means of production? Where was democracy practiced in German factories?

 

[Rexedgar]

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.

SINOs.

That argument has been debunked for almost a century......

 

[Iron_Merc]

Because it wasn't the German government that controlled them. Germany's economy was dominated by privately owned industrial conglomerates, they controlled the government, not the other way around. Reichswerke Hermann Göring didn't answer to the German government, it answered to Herman Göring.

If it was Socialist, where was the collective ownership of the means of production? Where was democracy practiced in German factories?

Collective ownership and means of production belonged to the Nazi government.

The identification of Nazi Germany as a socialist state was one of the many great contributions of Ludwig von Mises.

What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.

You are trying to fit socialism into a cardboard box. Simply because it doesn't fit into your theory of socialism doesn't make the Nazis any less socialist. Lets look at the definitions here. And I'm sure you would agree, socialism is essentially collectivism, and we both know where that road leads.

Socialism: a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Collectivism: the practice or principle of giving a group priority over each individual in it. AND
the theory and practice of the ownership of land and the means of production by the people or the state.

You take away the rights of individual you take away individuals liberty and you are left with a system that inherently places the state as the main element of the economy and you will always go down the road of serfdom.

You turn to collectivism and you cannot avoid authoritarianism

The Nazi party was obviously in control of the state and in control of the people - the buck stopped with the Nazi government.

There was no mythical so called "deep state" in Nazi Germany. Because the deep state WAS the Nazi party before they came to power.

Hitler was the Manchurian candidate? Who controlled these "industrial conglomerates?" Are you telling me Hitler was a puppet? Who was pulling his strings?

You do realize Hilter has very negative views of capitalism, right?

 

[Jredbaron96]

Collective ownership and means of production belonged to the Nazi government.

It wasn't collective ownership. Individual owners dominated the German economy.

You are trying to fit socialism into a cardboard box. Simply because it doesn't fit into your theory of socialism doesn't make the Nazis any less socialist. Lets look at the definitions here. And I'm sure you would agree, socialism is essentially collectivism, and we both know where that road leads.

It's not my theory, its the general theory of socialism as is accepted by scholars around the world.

Socialism: a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Which wasn't the case in Nazi Germany.

The Nazi party was obviously in control of the state and in control of the people - the buck stopped with the Nazi government.

There was in fact a difference between the German government and the Nazi Party. It was part of the reason Germany was so inefficiently ran during WWII.

Are you telling me Hitler was a puppet? Who was pulling his strings?

No one. But Hitler himself rarely exercised the power he had, especially in realms he did not care for nor understand well, like economics.

You do realize Hilter has very negative views of capitalism, right?

The first people thrown into concentration camps were Socialists and Communists.

 

[Iron_Merc]

It wasn't collective ownership. Individual owners dominated the German economy.
It's not my theory, its the general theory of socialism as is accepted by scholars around the world.
Which wasn't the case in Nazi Germany
There was in fact a difference between the German government and the Nazi Party. It was part of the reason Germany was so inefficiently ran during WWII.
No one. But Hitler himself rarely exercised the power he had, especially in realms he did not care for nor understand well, like economics

The first people thrown into concentration camps were Socialists and Communists.

The first people thrown in concentration camps were political rivals, including other socialists and Communists. The camp was set up in some ways specifically for political dissidents. Hitler needed to secure his power and this was a step towards achieving that. Hitler did not systematically go around targeting everyday socialists and communists. Big difference.

It WAS collective ownership. Nazi privatization was a myth. German government was pulling all the strings for the whole of industry.
Again, you seem to be having a very difficult time keeping Nazis out of the socialist cardboard box. Lets take a look at another definition of socialism

Socialism can be defined as:
any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

1)Nazi government effectively owned Germany and Germans in every way imaginable. the people worked for the state
2)Nazi government controlled means of production and distribution of the entire economy (privatized economy in NAME ONLY)
4)Nazi government dictated the direction of the country, the economy, and worth of persons

You seem to be forgetting that the Nazi government WAS Adolf Hitler! Authoritarian rule my friend.

Adolf Hitler’s own economic views are best described as eclectic. While proclaiming that “we are socialists” and that “we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system,” Hitler stressed on other occasions that the destruction of private property was a mistake. What is clear, however, is that he believed that the economy, like everything else, was subordinate to the demands of a totalitarian state. By 1944, almost 25 percent of Germany’s workforce consisted of slave labor, primarily concentration camp inmates and forced laborers from conquered territories.

National Socialist German Workers' Party is to be taken literally, not twisted

As for the Nazis, they generally did not have to kill in order to seize the property of Germans other than Jews. This was because, as we have seen, they established socialism by stealth, through price controls, which served to maintain the outward guise and appearance of private ownership. The private owners were thus deprived of their property without knowing it and thus felt no need to defend it by force.

There’s nothing mysterious about the way in which socialism and social democracy creates economic chaos and destruction. It’s a natural consequence of denying freedom. This lesson is one that many today in the West seem determined to ignore. The cost, alas, will be borne by everyone.

Sources:
The forgotten story of the German economic ‘miracle’ | Acton Institute
Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian | Mises Institute

 

[wellwisher]

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 (at that time). Back up your suppositions with facts if at all possible.

Looking forward to a great debate!

View attachment 67263995

The term NAZI was an acronym for National Socialist Party. Need I say more than Socialism? Hitler did not believe in freedom and free enterprise. He preferred everyone walk lockstep, like cogs in the machine, like the American Democrat party. This required big government control over all aspects of life. They commandeered businesses.

The inflated National superego; superior race, was based on Social Darwinism; superior race and natural selection. This inflated super ego was driven by the original fake news propaganda machine. The Nazi learned how to use media to manipulate the masses. This machine would target anyone who opposed the machine. They made scapegoats. Instead of Trump and MAGA supporters, they targeted the Jews as their scapegoat. This allow the mob to project and justify evil.

The Nazi learned how to use legal tactics, to create second class citizens, from the America Democrats. The American Democrats of the 1920's and beyond used shady legal tricks to target the blacks in America; segregation. These legal tactics made it easier to legally relocate the Jews, with anyone speaking out, violating the law.

If you watch fake news, presuming Trump guilt until the evidence can slowing prove him innocent, the Nazi did that too. This made everyone afraid to speak up, less they be railroaded by the hate machine.

 

[Evilroddy]

You are correct. I was corrected soon after I posted that claim...

Fledermaus:

Don't discount your analysis so quickly. One of the key components of the Operation Barbarossa strategy was to trigger regime collapse in Stalin's USSR before the start of 1942. The Battles of Smolensk and Moscow cost the Germans time and bought Stalin and Stavka time to shore up the regime in order to consolidate Stalin's grip on on power. Stalin's regime did not collapse as the Germans had gambled it would, resulting not in a short and decisive victory for the Germans but a four-year long battle of attrition and total war which destroyed the German military and economy. Yes, by December of 1941 the Red Army was in tatters and millions were either dead or captured, but Stalin was still in power and he was determined to destroy the German invaders. Yes, the Red Army was incapable of launching a sustainable overall counter offensive by December of 1941 but the German Army was also a mess, immobilised and about to suffer the predations of poor supply, the agony of Rusdian winters and the meat grinder of the R'zhev Pocket.

So the Battle of Moscow was the end of Operation Barbarossa's plan for a quick victory through regime collapse and the end of the hopes of OKW for avoiding a protracted multi-front war. Germany lost WWII in the period of August-November, 1941. The rest of the War in the East was just the follow-on death throes of Germany's defeat before the Gates of Moscow.

So stick to your guns Marine as in my opinion, you were right.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

 

[Jredbaron96]

snip

It's hilarious to watch you throw a fit and whine that Hitler had to be a socialist because he met certain criteria, yet complain that I'm the one trying to force a definition of socialism.

Socialism does not mean big government, nor is subverting corporate interests to national interests make someone a socialist. Right wing conservative monarchs did the same thing throughout European history, but no one in their right mind would call Bismark or the Kaiser a socialist, because it's demonstrably not true.

For the record, this is what Hitler did to an actual socialist in his ranks:

"By the early 1930s Strasser was head of the Nazi political organization and second only to Hitler in power and popularity. As leader of the party’s left wing, however, he opposed Hitler’s courting of big business as well as his anti-Semitism and instead favoured radical social reforms along socialist lines. He finally resigned his party offices in 1932. Hitler was able to avert large-scale losses in membership after Strasser’s defection, and, after Hitler’s accession to the chancellorship, Strasser lost almost all of his influence. He was murdered on Hitler’s orders during the [Ernst] Röhm purge of 1934."

And as for Nazi ideology, this sums it up clearly"


"The ‘National Socialists’ wanted to unite the two political camps of left and right into which, they argued, the Jews had manipulated the German nation. The basis for this was to be the idea of race. This was light years removed from the class-based ideology of socialism. By presenting itself as a ‘movement’, National Socialism, like the labour movement, advertised its opposition to conventional politics and its intention to subvert and ultimately overthrow the system within which it was initially forced to work. By replacing class with race, and the dictatorship of the proletariat with the dictatorship of the leader, Nazism reversed the usual terms of socialist ideology."

-The Coming of the Third Reich by Richard Evans


Again, Nazi ideology was inspired by Bismark and Spengler, two very right wing figures. Until you can refute that you have nothing.

Trying to argue that since the government guided economic policy it therefore had to be a socialist country just showcases how little you understand of European political history and how limited your grasp of the socialist ideology is.

And no, the Nazis did not establish socialism by stealth. Their economic policies, which were always subverted to military expansionism, were very clearly laid out.

If you want to know the actual socialists in Germany, look at the Social Democratic Party; you know, the ones that ran against Hitler.

Lastly, you fundamentally don't understand the power structure of Nazi Germany. Hitler wielded supreme power, but he very rarely ever exercised it, mostly because he did not care to or didn't understand it. The Nazi economy was ran by a small group of elitists and industrialists who openly cooperated with each other.

 

[Iron_Merc]

No, the Nazis were socialists through and through. The only excuse you can give me for them not being socialists is that they privatized their economy. Which we have been through and that is in NAME ONLY. You do realize Hitler called it National Socialism, right??? I don't know why I have to beat this dead horse with you. You are following the liberal revisionists history which is not based on truth.

Socialism is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists. Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic. We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one.

Since we are socialists, we must necessarily also be antisemites because we want to fight against the very opposite: materialism and mammonism… How can you not be an antisemite, being a socialist!
"Why We Are Anti-Semites," August 15, 1920 speech in Munich at the Hofbräuhaus. Translated from Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte, 16. Jahrg., 4. H. (Oct., 1968), pp. 390-420. Edited by Carolyn Yeager. [2]

Socialism as the final concept of duty, the ethical duty of work, not just for oneself but also for one’s fellow man’s sake, and above all the principle: Common good before own good, a struggle against all parasitism and especially against easy and unearned income. And we were aware that in this fight we can rely on no one but our own people. We are convinced that socialism in the right sense will only be possible in nations and races that are Aryan, and there in the first place we hope for our own people and are convinced that socialism is inseparable from nationalism.
"Why We Are Anti-Semites," August 15, 1920 speech in Munich at the Hofbräuhaus. Speech also known as "Why Are We Anti-Semites?" Translated from Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte, 16. Jahrg., 4. H. (Oct., 1968), pp. 390-420. Edited by Carolyn Yeager. [1]

At the founding of this Movement we formed the decision that we would give expression to this idea of ours of the identity of the two conceptions: despite all warnings, on the basis of what we had come to believe, on the basis of the sincerity of our will, we christened it "National Socialist.' We said to ourselves that to be 'national' means above everything to act with a boundless and all-embracing love for the people and, if necessary, even to die for it. And similarly to be 'social' means so to build up the state and the community of the people that every individual acts in the interest of the community of the people and must be to such an extent convinced of the goodness, of the honorable straightforwardness of this community of the people as to be ready to die for it.

 

[Iron_Merc]

Continued from previous page...

To put it quite clearly: we have an economic programme. Point No. 13 in that programme demands the nationalisation of all public companies, in other words socialisation, or what is known here as socialism. … the basic principle of my Party’s economic programme should be made perfectly clear and that is the principle of authority… the good of the community takes priority over that of the individual. But the State should retain control; every owner should feel himself to be an agent of the State; it is his duty not to misuse his possessions to the detriment of the State or the interests of his fellow countrymen. That is the overriding point. The Third Reich will always retain the right to control property owners. If you say that the bourgeoisie is tearing its hair over the question of private property, that does not affect me in the least. Does the bourgeoisie expect some consideration from me?… Today’s bourgeoisie is rotten to the core; it has no ideals any more; all it wants to do is earn money and so it does me what damage it can. The bourgeois press does me damage too and would like to consign me and my movement to the devil.
Hitler's interview with Richard Breiting, 1931, published in Edouard Calic, ed., “First Interview with Hitler, 4 May 1931,” Secret Conversations with Hitler: The Two Newly-Discovered 1931 Interviews, New York: John Day Co., 1971, pp. 31-33. Also published under the title Unmasked: Two Confidential Interviews with Hitler in 1931, published by Chatto & Windus in 1971

What matters is to emphasize the fundamental idea in my party's economic program clearly; the idea of authority. I want the authority; I want everyone to keep the property he has acquired for himself according to the principle: *'*Benefit to the community precedes benefit to the individual.*'* But the state should retain supervision and each property owner should consider himself appointed by the state. It is his duty not to use his property against the interests of others among his own people. This is the crucial matter. The Third Reich will always retain its right to control the owners of property.
In 1931, as quoted in Nazi Economics: Ideology, Theory, and Policy (1990), by Avraham Barkai, pp. 26–27

National Socialism derives from each of the two camps the pure idea that characterizes it, national resolution from bourgeois tradition; vital, creative socialism from the teaching of Marxism.
Interview by Hanns Johst in Frankforter Volksblatt (January 27, 1934), quoted in David Schoenbaum, Hitler's Social Revolution: Class and Status in Nazi Germany, 1933–1939 (New York: NY, W. W. Norton & Company, 1997), p. 57

And numerous people whose families belong to the peasantry and working classes are now filling prominent positions in this National Socialist State. Some of them actually hold the highest offices in the leadership of the nation, as Cabinet Ministers, Reichsstatthalter and Gauleiter. But National Socialism always bears in mind the interests of the people as a whole and not the interests of one class or another. The National Socialist Revolution has not aimed at turning a privileged class into a class which will have no rights in the future. Its aim has been to grant equal rights to those social strata that hitherto were denied such rights.
Speech by Adolf Hitler, On National Socialism and World Relations, delivered in the German Reichstag (January 30, 1937). German translation published by H. Müller & Sohn in Berlin.

 

[Jredbaron96]

No, the Nazis were socialists through and through. The only excuse you can give me for them not being socialists is that they privatized their economy.

Actually my argument rests on the fact that Nazi Germany's economy was dominated by industrial conglomerates own by single individuals within the Nazi Party. That's neither Socialism or Capitalism.

You are following the liberal revisionists history which is not based on truth.

I have stated directly for you where the Nazis took their inspiration from by calling it socialism.

Tell me, was Otto Von Bismark a socialist?

 

[Iron_Merc]

Actually my argument rests on the fact that Nazi Germany's economy was dominated by industrial conglomerates own by single individuals within the Nazi Party. That's neither Socialism or Capitalism.

I have stated directly for you where the Nazis took their inspiration from by calling it socialism.

Tell me, was Otto Von Bismark a socialist?

Where the Nazis took their inspiration from?
There was no "trick" to the Nazi government. They stated very plainly who the enemy was.

He believed that Drexler was right: on the one side there were the innocent German worker, farmer, and soldier; on the other there was the common enemy... the capitalistic Jews. From this germ came the essence of Hitler's Nazism."

From this we can surmise the essence of a true Nazi. Hitlers enemy was the Capitalistic Jew. Effectively targeting both their method of obtaining wealth (capitalism) and the systems of government which promoted a capitalist economy (of which the Jews were at the top, pulling the strings). Bearing this in mind, Hitler became the quintessential socialist of his day - ANTI Capitalist and ANTI Jew. In a capitalist system, the government does not prohibit private property or prevent individuals from working where they please, promoting the individuals WORTH over that of the state. If we look at the Nazi economy, we can see that it was diametrically opposed to capitalism in all respects. Promoting the States WORTH over that of the individual. The driving force of Hitlers government and his economy was collectivism. The driving force of capitalism is individualism. The two are diametrically opposed. There is no doubt about it, Hitler was a socialist. As I said, the defining socialist of his time.

Hitlers economy may have been very well dominated by industrial conglomerates but they took their orders from Hitler, and this was enforced using the barrel of a gun, if needed. There was minimal to no dissent, they obeyed Nazi commands or they were shot to death in the streets. The German economy answered to Hitler, and nobody else. Once you realize that Hitler's target was capitalism, the rest of the puzzle falls into place.

It would have been a total contradiction and a betrayal of his very essence to set up the very type of economic system that he went to war against.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Where the Nazis took their inspiration from?

Otto Von Bismark and Oswald Spengler. Two right wing Germans.

There was no "trick" to the Nazi government. They stated very plainly who the enemy was.

Which they cleared stated were communists and socialists.

Hitlers economy may have been very well dominated by industrial conglomerates but they took their orders from Hitler, and this was enforced using the barrel of a gun, if needed.

Not really. Hitler never cared for economics, he didn't understand it and thought of it as secondary to military affairs, and thus inefficiency and corruption within the Nazi economy flourished.

It would have been a total contradiction and a betrayal of his very essence to set up the very type of economic system that he went to war against.

Lol, you mean like how he went to war with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics?

 

[Iron_Merc]

Otto Von Bismark and Oswald Spengler. Two right wing Germans.

Which they cleared stated were communists and socialists.

Not really. Hitler never cared for economics, he didn't understand it and thought of it as secondary to military affairs, and thus inefficiency and corruption within the Nazi economy flourished.

Lol, you mean like how he went to war with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics?

I'm finding it very difficult to keep you on track.

What about Otto Von Bismark? Hitler had no connection to him and in fact was only 9 years old or so when Bismark died. Bismark was well known and Hitler acknowledged him, but there was no further connection whatsoever.

Clearly stated enemy was the Capitalistic system of the Jews and the Jews themselves. The final solution didn't include socialists and communists, now did it? Nope, it was clearly aimed at JEWS and only JEWS.

Hitler never cared for economics? Are you kidding me? Definitely liberal revisionist BS. And would you call slave labor capitalistic? LOL
Nazi Germany maintained a supply of slave labour, composed of prisoners and concentration camp inmates, which was greatly expanded after the beginning of World War II. In Poland alone, some 5 million citizens (including Polish Jews) were used as slave labour throughout the war. Among the slave labourers in the occupied territories, hundreds of thousands were used by leading German corporations including Thyssen, Krupp, IG Farben, Bosch, Blaupunkt, Daimler-Benz, Demag, Henschel, Junkers, Messerschmitt, Siemens, and Volkswagen, as well as Dutch corporation Philips.[14] By 1944, slave labour made up one quarter of Germany's entire work force, and the majority of German factories had a contingent of prisoners.

As for invading Russia, well, that was not Hitlers direct aim, and you know that.
Operation Barbarossa (German: Unternehmen Barbarossa) was the code name for the Axis invasion of the Soviet Union, which started on Sunday, 22 June 1941, during World War II. The operation stemmed from Nazi Germany's ideological aim of conquering the western Soviet Union so that it could be repopulated by Germans (Lebensraum), and to also use some Slavs as a slave labour force for the Axis war effort and to annihilate the rest according to Generalplan Ost, and to acquire the oil reserves of the Caucasus and the agricultural resources of Soviet territories.

You need to refocus your thoughts on the direct aim of Hitler and I think the truth will eventually get through.

 

[Jredbaron96]

I'm finding it very difficult to keep you on track.

What about Otto Von Bismark? Hitler had no connection to him and in fact was only 9 years old or so when Bismark died. Bismark was well known and Hitler acknowledged him, but there was no further connection whatsoever.

Dude, if you really don't think the Nazis took cues from Bismark's politics and iron fisted rule, then I suggest you really need to read up on the history of the Nazi Party.

Frankel in Bismarck's Shadow (2005) shows the Bismarck cult fostered and legitimized a new style of right-wing politics. It made possible the post-Bismarckian crisis of leadership, both real and perceived, that had Germans seeking the strongest possible leader and asking, "What Would Bismarck Do?"

The final solution didn't include socialists and communists, now did it? Nope, it was clearly aimed at JEWS and only JEWS.[/B]

Seriously?

Commissar Order - Wikipedia

Hitler never cared for economics? Are you kidding me?

Take it from the man himself.

"The nation does not live for the economy, for economic leaders, or for economic or financial theories; on the contrary, it is finance and the economy, economic leaders and theories, which all owe unqualified service in this struggle for the self-assertion of our nation... We are overpopulated and cannot feed ourselves from our own resources. ...There is . . . no point in endless repetition of the fact that we lack foodstuffs and raw materials; what matters is the taking of those measures that can bring about a final solution for the future and a temporary easing of conditions during the transition period. The final solution lies in extending our living space . . ."

-Adolf Hitler

As for invading Russia, well, that was not Hitlers direct aim, and you know that.

If you're arguing that Hitler would have invaded Russia even if it wasn't communist, you are right.

But you are completely wrong if you think that Hitler didn't hate communists.

 

[Iron_Merc]

Dude, if you really don't think the Nazis took cues from Bismark's politics and iron fisted rule, then I suggest you really need to read up on the history of the Nazi Party.

Frankel in Bismarck's Shadow (2005) shows the Bismarck cult fostered and legitimized a new style of right-wing politics. It made possible the post-Bismarckian crisis of leadership, both real and perceived, that had Germans seeking the strongest possible leader and asking, "What Would Bismarck Do?"

Seriously?

Commissar Order - Wikipedia

Take it from the man himself.

"The nation does not live for the economy, for economic leaders, or for economic or financial theories; on the contrary, it is finance and the economy, economic leaders and theories, which all owe unqualified service in this struggle for the self-assertion of our nation... We are overpopulated and cannot feed ourselves from our own resources. ...There is . . . no point in endless repetition of the fact that we lack foodstuffs and raw materials; what matters is the taking of those measures that can bring about a final solution for the future and a temporary easing of conditions during the transition period. The final solution lies in extending our living space . . ."
-Adolf Hitler
If you're arguing that Hitler would have invaded Russia even if it wasn't communist, you are right.
But you are completely wrong if you think that Hitler didn't hate communists.

There is absolutely no connection between Hilter and Bismark. You are obsessed with a liberal revisionists history of ww2. Its false.

Yeah, and if you read a little further down the order was cancelled one year later. Its irrelevant in the larger discussion.

When the Commissar Order became known among the Red Army it provoked stronger resistance to German forces.[16] This unwanted effect was cited in German appeals to Hitler (e.g. by Claus von Stauffenberg), who finally cancelled the Commissar Order after one year, on 6 May 1942.[17] The order was used as evidence at the Nuremberg Trials and as part of the broader issue of whether the German generals were obligated to follow orders from Hitler even when they knew those orders were illegal.

I will get your other points later tonight.

 

[Jredbaron96]

There is absolutely no connection between Hilter and Bismark. You are obsessed with a liberal revisionists history of ww2. Its false.

You have an incredibly naive view of German history to think the Nazis took no inspiration from Bismark.

Yeah, and if you read a little further down the order was cancelled one year later. Its irrelevant in the larger discussion.

The idea that the Nazis didn't target communists and socialists is laughable in of itself.

 

[Iron_Merc]

You have an incredibly naive view of German history to think the Nazis took no inspiration from Bismark.

The idea that the Nazis didn't target communists and socialists is laughable in of itself.

Show me evidence of Hitlers Connection to Bismark, then.

And read up on the final solution.
Final Solution - Wikipedia

 

[Oozlefinch]

The term NAZI was an acronym for National Socialist Party.

Hmmm, not quite. The acronym for that is actually NSDAP. Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei in German, National Socialist German Worker's Party in English. The term "Nazi" is actually a slur that the party detested. The term they actually used for themselves is Nationalsozialisten (National Socialist).

Nazi is a pun-insult started by their opponents. It is a pun of the word "Sozi", the word their opponent Sozialdemokrat (Socialist Democratic party of Germany) used for themselves. It is also a pun of the German (commonly Bavarian) word Ignaz, which is a derogatory slur roughly translating as "Backwards peasant". So in English, Nazi would generally mean "Backwards Socialist".

One thing that many people may realize if they actually read what I type, is that I rarely use Nazi. I generally use NSDAP, because it is more correct. And by the same token, I also rarely ever refer to the former Emperor of Japan by the name "Hirohito". I almost universally address him as "Emperor Showa", in reflection of Japanese traditions. Once an Emperor passes, they are no longer referred to by the name they had while reigning, but by the name given to their reign. And the same goes for Emperor Akihito when he passes. At that time I will reference him as Emperor Heisei.

However, it can often be noticed that I almost never use the actual names of the rulers of wartime Germany and Italy. For one, I tend to use the phrase "der Paper Hangar" - a slur against his failure as a painter and insinuating that he would have been much better if he had stuck to wallpaper instead of paint.

For the other, my preference is generally "Il Lamp Ornament", a mashup of "Il Duce", and the fact that after he was shot, his body was hung from a lamp post (actually it was from the roof of an Esso gas station - but a lamp is the common way it is remembered).

 

[Jredbaron96]

Show me evidence of Hitlers Connection to Bismark, then.

You are either deliberately misrepresenting the point or just flat ignorant of German political history.

The Nazis idolized Bismark as they did with strong historical German leaders, and it was from Bismark that they defined their social welfare programs.

And read up on the final solution.
Final Solution - Wikipedia

Oh wow look at this Holocaust victims - Wikipedia

 

[Iron_Merc]

You are either deliberately misrepresenting the point or just flat ignorant of German political history.

The Nazis idolized Bismark as they did with strong historical German leaders, and it was from Bismark that they defined their social welfare programs.

Show me evidence in Hitlers writings and speeches that he favored Bismark above any other German predecessor. If there was evidence it would clearly be out there for all to see. (Show me any evidence whatsoever)

 

[Iron_Merc]

The term NAZI was an acronym for National Socialist Party. Need I say more than Socialism? Hitler did not believe in freedom and free enterprise. He preferred everyone walk lockstep, like cogs in the machine, like the American Democrat party. This required big government control over all aspects of life. They commandeered businesses.

The inflated National superego; superior race, was based on Social Darwinism; superior race and natural selection. This inflated super ego was driven by the original fake news propaganda machine. The Nazi learned how to use media to manipulate the masses. This machine would target anyone who opposed the machine. They made scapegoats. Instead of Trump and MAGA supporters, they targeted the Jews as their scapegoat. This allow the mob to project and justify evil.

The Nazi learned how to use legal tactics, to create second class citizens, from the America Democrats. The American Democrats of the 1920's and beyond used shady legal tricks to target the blacks in America; segregation. These legal tactics made it easier to legally relocate the Jews, with anyone speaking out, violating the law.

If you watch fake news, presuming Trump guilt until the evidence can slowing prove him innocent, the Nazi did that too. This made everyone afraid to speak up, less they be railroaded by the hate machine.

You'd think our favorite lefty, the guy embracing the liberal revisionists history of Germany, would take a hint by the party name. National Socialist Party? NO...… they were anything but socialists! Or about the 200 quotes of Hitler saying that the Nazis were national socialists... lol it was all a trick! a trick I tell you!

 

[Oozlefinch]

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.

And actually, the reason for this is actually fairly simple.

I discuss historical things highly dispassionately. And without letting my own personal beliefs color or influence things.

This is what mostly trips people up in things like this when we have debates. I simply look at the facts, and argue from them. My own beliefs actually very rarely influence what I say. With a few exceptions (such as my nicknames for the European Axis leaders) I treat everything in this way. I deal only with facts, as they related to events at the time. Not putting a "modern" or "revisionist" spin on things, and if I do inject my own personal opinions, 98% of the time I state that it is an opinion of mine.

And yes, I do distinctly have my own opinions. And what I find most humorous is that people tend to confuse what I say as a personal belief, and I doubt very many in here actually have a grasp of what my own personal politics actually are. I will write something that tears down say Communism or Totalitarianism, and automatically assume that I am against it. Then I will turn around and say something favorable about say Japan or Italy, and they then think I am some kind of Fascist fanboi. When in reality I am neither, I am simply making points on something that happened.

I tend to think of myself first and foremost as an analyst, and an ombudsman for the facts. My own personal beliefs and opinions rarely matter in these cases. I can discuss things that were negative about the administrations of Presidents Obama and Trump, but also discuss things that are positive about both. Neither means that I like, or dislike one, the other or both.

 

[Oozlefinch]

[CONTINUED]

There is something that is severely lacking in "Political Debate" in the modern era. People take things so damned personally, that anything negative stated about their Politician of choice is seen as a personal attack against them. And anything said in favor of a Politician they oppose is seen as cause to become their enemy. And interestingly, this is something I actually addressed in here over 6 years ago. In a thread I created (now closed) called "Why I hate Civilians - A Military-member's Manifesto".

https://www.debatepolitics.com/mili...ry-members-manifesto.html?highlight=manifesto

However, it got closed after a few people jumped in and turned it into a flame war, completely failing to grasp what I had been trying to say in the first place. And ironically, most completely missed the opening and closing statements, and instead cherry picked selected items and turned them into attacks. Completely missing the fact that such things mean nothing to me.

This should not come as a surprise to many, but parts of this should be explained once again.

I largely have a pretty negative view of Civilians, and largely deal with them with contempt.

Now understand, this is largely aimed at those civilians that deal with people like me with contempt. Military, especially career military.

I see over and over some civilian (Right or Left Wing) pop in and give some really stupid comment, and all I can do is scratch my head and wonder at the stupidity that makes people actually think that way.

If you want to interject why "Mister XXXXXX YYYYYY said that blah blah blah blah", I really could not give a flying ****. Talk to me about Socialism or Fascism or Communism, or talk about the US President (ANY US President) in a less then respectful manner, and I will see you as nothing but a ****ing political hack and ignore 90% of what you say. Be it President Reagan, President Clinton, President Bush, or President Barack Hussin Obama. I may, or may not like any, none, or all of the Presidents I just listed. But they are all (or were) my Commander in Chief, and I give them all the proper respect their office demands.

Why?

If you do not get it by now, you are absolutely ****ing hopeless.

Because I could not care less about politics!

And because of this and many other threads, I have placed a lot of people in my "iggy list". Those that love making political slanders, misquote me or attack me (or others), or use racial, ethnic, or religious slurs. I ignore all of them, and generally only see them third hand when somebody quotes them. And about once a year I tend to clear out my ignore list, believing that "everybody deserves a second chance". And generally 80% of them shortly end up right back on that list for the same reasons.

Myself, I actually chuckle at the fact that most on the "Far-Right" see me as a complete RINO, only slightly to the Right of FDR. And those on the "Far-Left" generally see me as a born again Fascist, only slightly left of Senator McCarthy.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Show me evidence in Hitlers writings and speeches that he favored Bismark above any other German predecessor. If there was evidence it would clearly be out there for all to see. (Show me any evidence whatsoever)

It's pretty clear you haven't the faintest understanding of German political history.

"Bismarck's synthesis of nationalism, autocracy, and militarism also contributed to the milieu out of which the Nazi movement came. It contained none of the mitigating influences-such as pacifism and respect for the rights of the individual and the minority-which had tempered liberal nationalism in the early nineteenth century. Furthermore, the three elements of the syn thesis did not remain within the limits conceived by its creator. Under the impact of the First World War the flimsy obstacles which he erected against the growth of absolutism were swept away. By I917 Germany was ruled by a military dictatorship whose expansionist policy was incompatible with the re-establishment of the European balance of power. Bismarck's narrow conception of the nation, moreover, was not widely shared. In his own lifetime the nationalistic phrases which he employed meant something different to his hearers than to himself. Cultural and racial nationalism had a stronger emotional appeal than dynastic patriotism and the reason of state. With the substitution of these forms of the national idea Bismarck's synthesis be came a revolutionary instrument. Combined with the Prussian traditions of autocracy and militarism, German cultural and racial nationalism became the most potent threat to the stability of the European order which Western civilization had yet produced. If one line of German development runs from the Revolution of 1848 through Treitschke to Hitler, another certainly goes from Bismarck through Ludendorff to Hitler. In both cases many of the restraining influences were lost along the way. Ideas which had once been integral became dissociated and were never effectively recombined. On the one hand, liberalism was jettisoned in pursuit of the chimera of national unity. The German conservatives, on the other hand, became themselves the prisoners of the nationalistic sentiment with which they sought to broaden their popular support. From opposite directions these lines of development (and others which can not be analyzed here) converged upon the revolution of 1933. Out of this unfortunate chemistry of more than a century came the unstable compound of Nation"

Bismark and German Nationalism - Otto Pflanze