Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Apparently, Hitler was a "Leftist" Response and rebuttal

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 2
 [ 31 posts ] 
Apparently, Hitler was a "Leftist" Response and rebuttal
Author Message
theyounghistorian77ContributorUser avatarPosts: 726Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:43 amLocation: United Kingdom Gender: Male

Post Apparently, Hitler was a "Leftist" Response and rebuttal

This is a response to This Thread and a critique of This

Now, i have already created what i call a "skeleton critique" here, But this is going to go into much more deatil than that. Though you may notice a few points that run through both and the Critique of Glenn Beck's "The revolutionary Holocaust. Live free...Or Die

The context of Nazism.

Quote mine of Engels wrote:"True, it is a fixed idea with the French that the Rhine is their property, but to this arrogant demand the only reply worthy of the German nation is Arndt's: "Give back Alsace and Lorraine". For I am of the opinion, perhaps in contrast to many whose standpoint I share in other respects, that the reconquest of the German-speaking left bank of the Rhine is a matter of national honour, and that the Germanisation of a disloyal Holland and of Belgium is a political necessity for us. Shall we let the German nationality be completely suppressed in these countries, while the Slavs are rising ever more powerfully in the East?"

Have a look at the quote immediately above and say who wrote it. It is a typical Hitler rant, is it not? Give it to 100 people who know Hitler's speeches and 100 would identify it as something said by Adolf. The fierce German nationalism and territorial ambition is unmistakeable.

erm no. His misinterpretation is not nearly in reality as nationalistic as Ray's quote mining and inability to understand the philosophical language and type of argument used make it seem. First of all remember that at the time he is writing there was no German nation. In order for the people to be emancipated first a unified nation needs to be formed from the fractured and foreign controlled principalities and native self interested aristocracies. Wanting the formation of a nation, is not akin to Nazi nationalism. The Nazis put their nation above and beyond all others, clearly Engels doesn't do this. And in the Next sentence from the one he quotes Engels states:

"On the other hand, however, we are not worthy of the Alsatians so long as we cannot give them what they now have: a free public life in a great state. Without doubt, there will be another war between us and France, and then we shall see who is worthy of the left bank of the Rhine. Until then we can well leave the question to the development of our nationhood and of the world spirit, until then let us work for a clear, mutual understanding among the European nations and strive for the inner unity which is our prime need and the basis of our future freedom. So long as our Fatherland remains split we shall be politically null, and public life, developed constitutionalism, freedom of the press, and all else that we demand will be mere pious wishes always only half-fulfilled; so let us strive for this and not for the extirpation of the French!"

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/wo ... /arndt.htm

This is clearly not akin to Nazi expansionism or extreme nationalism, and actually argues against the sentence quoted by Ray. Again he is just quote mining and twisting what is a complicated philosophical style argumentation.

And if there is any doubt, have a look at another quote from the same author:

Quote Mine of Engels wrote:"This is our calling, that we shall become the templars of this Grail, gird the sword round our loins for its sake and stake our lives joyfully in the last, holy war which will be followed by the thousand-year reign of freedom."
That settles it, doesn't it? Who does not know of Hitler's glorification of military sacrifice and his aim to establish a "thousand-year Reich"?

It is concerning the Schelling view of god versus the Hegelian and the freedom and power of philosophical ideas. Let's take, some time and put it in context and again, Ray's idiotic quote mining should become obvious to you all.

"If we once more review this doctrine in its entirety, in addition to what has already been said we obtain also the following results for the definition of the neo-Schellingian manner of thinking. The confusion of freedom and arbitrariness is in full flower. God is always conceived as acting in a humanly arbitrary fashion. This is indeed necessary so long as God is conceived as single, but it is not philosophical. Only that freedom is genuine which contains necessity, nay, which is only the truth, the reasonableness of necessity. Therefore Hegel's God cannot now or ever be a single person, since everything arbitrary has been removed from Him. Therefore when he speaks of God, Schelling has to employ "free" thinking, for the necessary thinking of logical inference excludes any kind of divine person. The Hegelian dialectic, this mighty, never resting driving force of thought, is nothing but the consciousness of mankind in pure thinking, the consciousness of the universal, Hegel's consciousness of God. Where, as with Hegel, everything produces itself, a divine personality is superfluous.

Furthermore, another contradiction is revealed in the division of philosophy. If the negative philosophy is without all reference to existence, "there is no logical necessity" that it should not also contain things which do not occur in the real world. Schelling admits this when he says of it that it is not concerned with the world, and that if the world agrees with its constructions, this is accidental. In this way, however, negative philosophy becomes quite empty and hollow, wandering around in the most arbitrary possibility and flinging its doors wide open to fantasy. On the other hand, however, if it contains only what is real in nature and spirit, it, of course, includes reality and the positive philosophy is superfluous. This is to be seen also from the other side. Nature and spirit are for Schelling all that is rational. God is not rational.. So here also it is shown that the infinite can only rationally exist in reality when it appears as finite, as nature and spirit, and that any other-worldly, extra-mundane existence of the infinite must be relegated to the realm of abstractions. That particular positive philosophy depends entirely on faith, as we have seen, and exists only for faith. If now a Jew or Mohammedan accepts Schelling's premises in the negative science, he will necessarily also have to fashion for himself a Jewish or Mohammedan positive philosophy. Indeed, it will differ even for Catholicism and for the Anglican Church. All are equally justified, for "it is not dogma that matters, but fact". And the so beloved "free" thinking allows everything to be construed as absolute. Particularly in Mohammedanism, the facts are far better construed than in Christianity.

So we have come to the end of Schelling's philosophy and can only regret that such a man should have become so caught in the snares of faith and unfreedom. He was different when he was still young. Then there arose from the ferment of his brain forms as radiant as Pallas, of which many a one forged to the front also in later struggles; then freely and boldly he sailed into the open sea of thought to discover Atlantis, the absolute, whose image he had so often seen rising from the distant horizon of the sea like a dreamily shimmering fata morgana; then all the fire of youth broke from him in flames of enthusiasm; a prophet drunk with God, he foretold a new era; carried away by the spirit which came over him, he often did not know himself the meaning of his words. He tore wide open the doors to philosophising so that the breath of nature wafted freshly through the chambers of abstract thought and the warm rays of spring fell on the seed of the categories and awakened all slumbering forces. But the fire burnt itself out, the courage vanished, the fermenting new wine turned into sour vinegar before it could become clear wine. The old ship dancing joyfully through the waves turned back and entered the shallow haven of faith, ran it& keel so fast into the sand that it is still stuck there. There it lies, and nobody recognises in the old, frail wreck the old ship which went out with all sails spread and flags flying. The sails have long since rotted, the masts are broken, the waves pour in through the gaping planks, and every day the tides pile up more sand around the keel.

Let us turn away from this waste of time. There are finer things for us to contemplate. No one will want to show us this wreck and claim that it alone is a seaworthy vessel while in another port an entire fleet of proud frigates lies at anchor, ready to put out to the high seas. Our salvation, our future, lies elsewhere. Hegel is the man who opened up a new era of consciousness by completing the old. It is curious that just now he is being attacked from two sides, by his predecessor Schelling and by his youngest follower Feuerbach. When the latter charges Hegel with being stuck deeply in the old, he should consider that consciousness of the old is already precisely the new, that the old is relegated to history precisely when it has been brought completely into consciousness. So Hegel is indeed the new as old, the old as new. And so Feuerbach's critique of Christianity is a necessary complement to the speculative teaching on religion founded by Hegel. This has reached its peak in Strauss, through its own history the dogma dissolves objectively in philosophical thought. At the same time Feuerbach reduces the religious categories to subjective human relations, and thereby does not by any means annul the results achieved by Strauss, but on the contrary puts them to the real test and in fact both come to the same result, that the secret of theology is anthropology.

A fresh morning has dawned, a world-historic morning, like the one in which the bright, free, Hellenic consciousness broke out of the dusk of the Orient. The sun has risen greeted with smiles by sacrificial fires on all the mountain peaks, the sun, whose coming was announced in ringing fanfares from every watch-tower, whose light mankind was anxiously awaiting. We are awakened from long slumber, the nightmare which oppressed us has fled, we rub our eyes and look around us in amazement. Everything has changed. The world that was so alien to us, nature whose hidden forces frightened us like ghosts, how familiar, how homely they now are! The world which appeared to us like a prison now shows itself in its true form, as a magnificent royal palace in which we all go in and out, poor and rich, high and low. Nature opens up before us and calls to us.. Do not flee from me, I am not depraved, I have not fallen away from the truth; come and see, it is your own inmost and truest essence which gives also to me the fullness of life and the beauty of youth! Heaven has come down to earth, its treasures lie scattered like stones on the road-side, whoever desires them has but to pick them up. All confusion, all fear, all division has vanished. The world is again a whole, independent and free; it has burst open the doors of its dank cloister, has thrown off its sackcloth and chosen the free, pure ether to dwell in. No longer does it have to justify itself to unreason, which could not. grasp it; its splendour and glory, its fullness and strength, its life is its justification. He was surely right who eighteen hundred years ago divined that the world, the cosmos, would one day push him aside, and bade his disciples renounce the world.

And man, the dearest child of nature, a free man after the long battles of youth, returning to his mother after the long estrangement, protecting her against all the phantoms of enemies slain in battle, has overcome also the separation from himself, the division in his own breast. After an inconceivably long age of wrestling and striving, the bright day of self-consciousness has risen for him. Free and strong he stands there, confident in himself and proud, for he has fought the battle of battles, he has overcome himself and pressed the crown of freedom on his head. Everything has become revealed to him and nothing had the strength to shut itself up against him. Only now does true life open to him. What formerly he strove towards in obscure presentiment, he now

attains with complete, free will. What seemed to lie outside him, in the hazy distance, he now finds in himself as his own flesh and blood. He does not care that he has bought it dearly, with his heart's best blood, for the crown was worth the blood; the long time of wooing is not lost to him, for the noble, splendid bride whom he leads into the chamber has only become the clearer to him for it; the jewel, the holy thing he has found after long searching was worth many a fruitless quest. And this crown, this bride, this holy thing is the self-consciousness of mankind, the new Grail round whose throne the nations gather in exultation and which makes kings of all who submit to it, so that all splendour and might, all dominion and power, all the beauty and fullness of this world lie at their feet and must yield themselves up for their glorification. This is our calling ... "

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/wo ... g/ch05.htm

So the poor quote mining propaganda falls totally flat, the quote isn't about establishing a thousand year Reich but about the power and beauty of philosophical thought and it uses, highly metaphorical language to do so. But I guess Plato and Aristotle were also trying have a 1000yr Reich then too huh?. But I wouldn't expect Ray to understand a philosophical text even if he did happen to read one.

Where did Hitler get the 1000 years idea from? Nobeliefs.com has an interesting (and much more likely than Ray's) take on it

Nobeliefs.com wrote:Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years. -Revelation 20:6

Many of Hitler's followers thought that his "Third Reich" would last a thousand years, and in the autumn of 1941, at Wolfsschanze, Hitler said:

"I am Fuhrer of a Reich that will last for a thousand years to come. No power can shake the German Reich now. Divine Providence has willed it that I carry the fulfillment of a Germanic task."

In an interview with Richard Breiting, Hitler said:

"We judge by the spiritual energy which a people is capable of putting forth, which will enable it in ten years to recapture what it has lost in a thousand years of warfare. I intend to set up a thousand-year Reich and anyone who supports me in this battle is a fellow-fighter for a unique spiritual-- I would almost say divine-- creation."

Adolf Hilter, June 1931

The idea that he got it from the Bible or from a religious source, seems more credibile to me than Ray's idea.

But neither quote is in fact from Hitler. Both quotes were written by Friedrich Engels, Karl Marx's co-author

Okay, Now lets play His Game, Who wrote that "Communism was the brainchild of German-Jewish intellectuals."?

Sounds Like Hitler doesn't it? And if you're not sure, Look at another quote from the same author.

"It is interesting, that termites don't build things, and the great builders of our nation almost to a man have been Christians, because Christians have the desire to build something. He is motivated by love of man and God, so he builds. The people who have come into [our] institutions [today] are primarily termites. They are into destroying institutions that have been built by Christians, whether it is universities, governments, our own traditions, that we have.... The termites are in charge now,
And that is not the way it ought to be, and the time has arrived for a godly fumigation"

It really sounds like a Hitler rant doesn't it? But no. Both quotes come from Pat Robertson. The 1st quote is from The New World Order, (1991), p.17 and The 2nd quote is from the New York Magazine, August 18, 1986. Both quotes can be found here.

Is Pat Robertson Left or Right Wing? He is Very much a Right Winger; he has openly endorsed a number of Conservative Republican candidates in the Past. Let this be a lesson to you, Hitler's fanatical Christianity, Patriotism/nationalism and big military Pro-war Policies as well as his Hawkish foreign policy and Hatred for Communism/Marxism would most likely go Unchecked by the GOP.

So let that be an introduction to the idea that Hitler not only called himself a socialist but that he WAS in fact a socialist by the standards of his day.

Anyone who argues that the name the Nazis chose, indicates that they were socialists, knows as much about history; as someone who claims a groundhog is, part of the porcine family knows about biology. By this logic, the democratic people's republic of korea ends up being a democracy. Surely we know better?

My point here being is that it doesn't matter what you call yourself, What you did, Matters, and as we will see later. Hitler does not end up being a socialist.

"on 21 may [1930], Hitler invited otto strasser to his hotel for lengthy discussions. .... the key points were leadership and socialism. ... strasser accused Hitler of trying to destroy the kampfverlag because he wanted to "strangle" the "social revolution" through a strategy of legality and the borgeois right. Hitler angrily denounced strasser's, socialism as "nothing but marxism". The mass of the working class", he went on, wanted only bread and circuses, and would never understand the meaning of an ideal. "there was only one possible kind of revolution, and it is not economic or political or social, but racial,", he avowed. Pushed on his attitude towards Big buisness, Hitler made plain that there could be NO QUESTION for him of socialization or worker control. The only priority was for a strong state to ensure that production was carried out in the, national interest" - kershaw. Hitler (abridged) p201

"on the socialist question, Hitler declared himself to be a socialist who had real compassion for the indivudial worker, but who refused to subscribe to any dogmatic definition of the idea. For him Socialism did not necessarily imply the nationalization of private property or the distribution of wealth - These socialist tenents should be considered tactical weapons to be used only when necessary. He declared that he saw no need to change the existing system of economic organization so long as it served the national interest." - Charisma and Factionalism in the Nazi Party By Joseph Nyomarkay. p99

"The socialism of the northerners was basicly the socialism of the small bourgeoisie" - (Kuhnl 1966. p322) Ibid. Joseph Nyomarkay.

Indeed, the meaning of socialism in the national socialism was very different to what we call socialism today.

"Whoever is prepared to make the national cause his own to such an extent that he knows no higher ideal than the welfare of his nation; whoever has understood our great national anthem, Deutschland, Deutschland, à¼ber Alles, to mean that nothing in the wide world surpasses in his eyes this Germany, people and land, land and people , that man is a Socialist" - Hitler, Quoted from Alan Bullock, Hitler. p76.

"Hitler had never been a socialist:, he was indifferent to economic questions" Bullock: ibid p281.

He was not a socialist by the standards of his day and he was not a socialist. Period

Ideas that are now condemned as Rightist were in Hitler's day perfectly normal ideas among Leftists.

And Rightists too as you shall see later. Ray is guilty of deception by omission. But for now, Here's a british context of the times

"The rise of the Nazis, and the rise of other anti-jewish right-wing parties in france and other continential countries, has put inter-war britain in a benign light. .... but the picture is too simple., For Britain had some ferociously anti-semitic groups too. ... They emerged out of the Great war alongside anti-communist orginizations. The middle Classes Union, for instance and the British empire Union and angry groups such as the Silver Badge Party of ex-servicemen, run by the eccentric avaitior Pemberton Billings, who during the Great War had caused a sensation by claiming, the germans had a "Black Book" containing the names of 47'000 highly placed perverts, and that the Kaiser's men were undermining Britain by luring her men into homosexual acts ... Such people tended to see Lloyd George's govt as a corrupt sell out and possibly under the influence of German Jews,, much as the extreme right had seen things before the war of 1914." - Andrew Marr. The Making of Modern Britian. p290

"Henry Hamilton Beamish, ... had set up an anti-semitic group called the Britons and had campaigned for jews to be resettled in Madagascar. By the late 30's he was publicly prophesying that Germany would have to invade Russia and, place half the population in the Lethal Chamber: all jews must be sterilized, Killed or segregated" ibid p291

"Then there were secret groups like the Nordics, and the "Right Club" run by a well known Conservative MP, Archibald Maule Ramsay; there was even a Nazi British version of the KKK, called the White Knights of Britain or the Hooded men." ibid p291

yes im not joking, they actualy called themselves, "the Right Club" Funny isn't it?

"These groups were quickly penetrated by British intellegence and their extreme language kept them far from mainstream politics, but they should not be entirely dismissed. The Brownshirts and other fascist groups in Weimar Germany had also been small, apparantly ridiculous, and fought vigorously amongst themselves. Had Britain been beaten in 1940, in the conditions of national collapse and a search for scapegoats, she had her Proto-Hitlers waiting in the wings, ready to, call on an underground tradition of Anti-semitism that ran from Aristocrats to dockers" ibid p291

"The Mitfords were not typical, but their interest in Far-Right Politics was not at all unusial for the upper classes of the 30's. ... When war with Nazi Germany eventualy came, almost all of the British, followers of fascism would drop their previous attachments and serve their country. Only a tiny number became traitors... But most of the wealthier British who fell out, of love with the national government were lookng further to the right. Communism was their enemy, Not fascism" - ibid p324

And if Friedrich Engels was not a Leftist, I do not know who would be.

Genetic fallacy, Just because the X comes before the Y, does not mean X caused Y. Ray has done nothing to demonstrate that Hitler got his ideas off Engels and Marx, only to make false connections by quote mining. As has already been demonstrated.

But the most spectacular aspect of Nazism was surely its antisemitism. And that had a grounding in Marx himself. The following passage is from Marx but it could just as well have been from Hitler:

Quote mine of Marx wrote:"Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew -- not the Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew. Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew. What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Jewry, would be the self-emancipation of our time.... We recognize in Jewry, therefore, a general present-time-oriented anti-social element, an element which through historical development -- to which in this harmful respect the Jews have zealously contributed -- has been brought to its present high level, at which it must necessarily dissolve itself. In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Jewry".

just by looking at how Marx's work on the Jewish question was quote mined and then misinterpreted it will take some work to untwist it. But Here's what Stanford has to say

"In this text Marx begins to make clear the distance between himself and his radical liberal colleagues among the Young Hegelians; in particular Bruno Bauer. Bauer had recently written against Jewish emancipation, from an atheist perspective, arguing that the religion of both Jews and Christians was a barrier to emancipation. In responding to Bauer, Marx makes one of the most enduring arguments from his early writings, by means of introducing a distinction between political emancipation , essentially the grant of liberal rights and liberties , and human emancipation. Marx's reply to Bauer is that political emancipation is perfectly compatible with the continued existence of religion, as the contemporary example of the United States demonstrates. However, pushing matters deeper, in an argument reinvented by innumerable critics of liberalism, Marx argues that not only is political emancipation insufficient to bring about human emancipation, it is in some sense also a barrier. Liberal rights and ideas of justice are premised on the idea that each of us needs protection from other human beings. Therefore liberal rights are rights of separation, designed to protect us from such perceived threats. Freedom on such a view, is freedom from interference. What this view overlooks is the possibility , for Marx, the fact , that real freedom is to be found positively in our relations with other people. It is to be found in human community, not in isolation. So insisting on a regime of rights encourages us to view each other in ways which undermine the possibility of the real freedom we may find in human emancipation. Now we should be clear that Marx does not oppose political emancipation, for he sees that liberalism is a great improvement on the systems of prejudice and discrimination which existed in the Germany of his day. Nevertheless, such politically emancipated liberalism must be transcended on the route to genuine human emancipation. Unfortunately, Marx never tells us what human emancipation is, although it is clear that it is closely related to the idea of non-alienated labour, which we will explore below"


So the language Marx is using is a metaphor and his intent was not to put those qualities upon particularly Judaism. But rather to say that the special privileges and restrictions put upon Jews [and remember that at the time the Jews were living in Ghettos and were restricted in economic activity to lending, (Christianity forbade usury), and other economic activities that were well known at the time and he only needed to describe as hucksterism] being released will not in itself free the Jews because they will still be a separate entity within Christian society. His intent is to impugn all religion as destructive not just Judaism. It goes toward his later notion of the base and superstructure. As long as there is a base of separation, in this case though religion, it will be reflected somehow in the superstructure and hence no true emancipation can result.

"Those critics, who see this as a foretaste of 'Mein Kampf', overlook one, essential point: in spite of the clumsy phraseology and crude stereotyping, the essay was actually written as a defense of the Jews. It was a retort to Bruno Bauer, who had argued that Jews should not be granted full civic rights and freedoms unless they were baptised as Christians". Francis Wheen. Karl Marx, p. 56.

Jonathan Sacks, Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom, regards application of the term "anti-Semitism" to Marx as an anachronism,because when Marx wrote On the Jewish Question, virtually all major philosophers expressed anti-Semitic tendencies, but the word "anti-Semitism" had not yet been coined, let alone developed a racial component, and little awareness existed of the depths of European prejudice against Jews. "Marx thus simply expressed the commonplace thinking of his era." See his book The Politics of Hope. pp. 98-108.

perhaps for context, you should read the words of Moses Hess, Marx's onetime friend and collaborator and a would-be proto-Zionist thinker.

"The Jews had the world-historic mission in the natural history of the social animal world of developing the beast of prey out of man; they have finally fulfilled their mission. The mystery of Judaism and Christianity has been made public in the modern Jewish-Christian world of shopkeepers. The mystery of the blood of Christ, like the mystery of the old Jewish blood cult, appears here finally completely unveiled as the mystery of the beast of prey. In ancient Judaism the cult of blood was only prototypic; in the Christian Middle Ages it was realised theoretically, ideally, logically, i.e., the externalised, split blood of mankind was consumed really but only in the imagination, as the blood of the man-God. In the modern Jewish-Christian world of shopkeepers this bent and drive of the social animal world no longer comes out either symbolic or mystic but as wholly prosaic. In the religion of the social beasts of prey there was still some poetry. It was not at all the poetry of Olympus, but indeed that of Blocksberg. The social animal world first became common and prosaic when nature again enforced its rights and the isolated man, this pitiful slave of Antiquity and serf of the Middle Ages, no longer wanted to be satisfied with heavenly nourishment; when he began to struggle for material instead of for spiritual treasures and when he wanted to play out his externalised life, his split blood in a visible purse rather than in an invisible stomach. So the holy juggling tricks became profane, heavenly trickery became earthly, the poetic fight of God and the Devil became a prosaic animal fight and the mystical theophagy became a public anthrophagy. The church of God, the heavenly vault where the priest, the hyena of the social animal world, celebrated an imaginary funeral meal changed itself into the money State, into this earthly battlefield where beasts of prey with equal rights suck each other's blood. In the money State, the State of free competition, all privilege and all distinctions of rank come to an end. There reigns, as has been said, a poetry-less freedom of beasts of prey based on the equality of death. In face of money kings are no longer entitled to conquer as the lions of the animal-men, just as little as the gloomy priests still have the right to refresh themselves with the smell of corpses because they are their hyenas. Rather have they only the right, like the other animal-men, arising from common natural right, from their common quality of beasts of prey, bloodsuckers, Jews, money-wolves."

http://www.marxists.org/archive/hess/18 ... -money.htm

Note that Marx wanted to "emancipate" (free) mankind from Jewry ("Judentum" in Marx's original German), just as Hitler did and that the title of Marx's essay in German was "Zur Judenfrage", which -- while not necessarily derogatory in itself -- is nonetheless exactly the same expression ("Jewish question") that Hitler used in his famous phrase "Endloesung der Judenfrage" ("Final solution of the Jewish question"). And when Marx speaks of the end of Jewry by saying that Jewish identity must necessarily "dissolve" itself, the word he uses in German is "aufloesen", which is a close relative of Hitler's word "Endloesung" ("final solution").

Is he arguing that similar words that are in totally different contexts prove similar ideologies?, What a joke and a fine example of Superficial logic. But lets use it anyways shall we? Let's see, Glenn Beck likes to attribute things to "divine providence", Hitler likes to attribute things to "divine providence". OMG It's the very same phrase, I guess That must mean they have similar ideologies and/or the same attitude towards God, Right?

i like to demonstrate just how absurd these things are ;)

So where does Hitler get his Anti-semitism from? Nobeliefs.com makes a case for Luther, and/or Christianity. As partly does Lucy Dawidowicz in her Book, the War against the Jews. According to her, "The line of "anti-Semitic descent" from Luther to Hitler is "easy to draw." (p23.) Further writing that Luther and Hitler were obsessed by the "demonologized universe" inhabited by Jews. and that the similarities between Luther's anti-Jewish writings and Hitler's Anti-Semitism are no coincidence, because they derived from a common history of Judenhass, which can be traced to Haman's advice to Ahasuerus, although modern German anti-Semitism also has its roots in German nationalism.

One Christian apolegetics website describes the contents of Luther's most famous Book, on the jews and their lives, Like this

Christian apolegetics website wrote:"Thus, Luther now proposed seven measures of "sharp mercy" that German princes could take against Jews: (1) burn their schools and synagogues; (2) transfer Jews to community settlements; (3) confiscate all Jewish literature, which was blasphemous; (4) prohibit rabbis to teach, on pain of death; (5) deny Jews safe-conduct, so as to prevent the spread of Judaism; (6) appropriate their wealth and use it to support converts and to prevent the lewd practice of usury; (7) assign Jews to manual labor as a form of penance."

He even said

"We are at fault in not slaying them. Rather we allow them to live freely in our midst despite an their murdering, cursing, blaspheming, lying, and defaming; we protect and shield their synagogues, houses, life, and property In this way we make them lazy and secure and encourage them to fleece us boldly of our money and goods, as well as to mock and deride us, with a view to finally overcoming us, killing us all for such a great sin, and robbing us of all our property (as they daily pray and hope). Now tell me whether they do not have every reason to be the enemies of us accursed Goyim, to curse us and to strive for our final, complete, and eternal ruin!"

http://www.humanitas-international.org/ ... r-jews.htm

Again, as with the "1000 years reich" thing, It seems more likely that Hitler obtained his views through christianity. Not Marx.

Another quick idea, courtesy of alan Bullock

"From Schà¶nerer", of the rightist Pan-German nationalists, "Hitler took his extreme German nationalism, his ANTI-SOCIALISM, his anti-Semitism, his hatred of the Hapsburgs and his programme of reunion with Germany" Bullock, Hitler p44.

So all the most condemned features of Nazism can be traced back to Marx and Engels, right down to the language used.

er no, A statement without proof or any substance. Actually none of Marx's ideas can be found in any of Hitler's thinking, and there is no racist nationalism in Marx that Ray has provided here. It is just common trash that some take Marx totally out of context and quote mine him. They forget the issues that he was writing about and make false connections. Hitler hated Marx, The Marxists and the communists and he proved it by putting them in the concentration camps even before the Jews.

as the famous poem/sermon by Martin Niemà¶ller says

First the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
as I was not a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
as I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
as I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

You need only to look at mein Kampf to see what his views on marxism are, and his hatred of Marxism is obvious.

Marxism, Social Democracy and Socialism are a "pestilential whore, cloaking herself as social virtue and brotherly love, from which I hope humanity will rid this earth with the greatest dispatch, since otherwise the earth might well become rid of humanity."

Just a few Paragraphs later, we find out that Socialist/Marxist groups are "mortal enemies of our nationality"

Vol1- Chapter 2.

"The Western democracy of today is the forerunner of Marxism which without it would not be thinkable. It provides this world plague with the culture in which its germs can spread. In its most extreme form, parliamentarianism created a 'monstrosity of excrement and fire,' in which, however, sad to say, the 'fire' seems to me at the moment to be burned out."

Vol1- Chapter 3

"In the years 1913 and 1914, I, for the first time in various circles which today in part faithfully support the National Socialist movement, expressed the conviction that the question of the future of the German nation was the question of destroying Marxism."

Vol1- Chapter 4

Here we find out that Marxists are Scoundrels without honor.

"Kaiser William II was the first German Emperor to hold out a conciliatory hand to the leaders of Marxism, without suspecting that scoundrels have no honor. While they still held the imperial hand in theirs, their other hand was reaching for the dagger."

Vol1, Chapter 7

Here, we find out that Marxism, Social democracy and Finance capital are related, and Hitler hates them all because of it.

"The internationalization of the German economic life had been begun even before the War through the medium of stock issues To be sure, a part of German industry still attempted with resolution to ward off this fate. At length, however, it, too, fell a victim to the united attack of greedy finance capital which carried on this fight, with the special help of its most faithful comrade, the Marxist movement.

The lasting war against German 'heavy industry' was the visible beginning of the internationalization of German economy toward which Marxism was striving, though this could not be carried to its ultimate end until the victory of Marxism and the revolution. While I am writing these words, the general attack against the German state railways has finally succeeded, and they are now being handed over to international finance capitals 'International' Social Democracy has thus realized one of its highest goals."

In the Same Chapter, we find out about the "Liberal Press" which is apparently involved in a deliberate Marxist Jewish internationalist conspiracy.

"The so-called liberal press was actively engaged in digging the grave of the German people and the German Reich. We can pass by the lying Marxist sheets in silence; to them lying is just as vitally necessary as catching mice for a cat; their function is only to break the people's national and patriotic backbone and make them ripe for the slave's yoke of international capital and its masters, the Jews."

Both quotes from vol1, Chapter 10.

Social Justice = Marxism. Many Neo-cons believe it to be true, and Hate social Justice for it. Hitler believes it to be true and hates Social Justice for it. It's a Jewish Conspiracy. According to Hitler.

"Here the Jew's procedure is as follows:

"He approaches the worker, simulates pity with his fate, or even indignation at his lot of misery and poverty, thus gaining his confidence. He takes pains to study all the various real or imaginary hardships of his life-and to arouse his longing for a change in such an existence. With infinite shrewdness he fans the need for social justice, somehow slumbering in every Aryan man, into hatred against those who have been better favored by fortune, and thus gives the struggle for the elimination of social evils a very definite philosophical stamp. He establishes the Marxist doctrine."

Vol1, Chapter 11.

And the hatred just continues on and on and on. Read what Hitler wrote below that quote.

Because so Many Neo-Cons think that Social Justice is such a Communist Leftist Progressive Plot. Lets see what their Hero Ronald Reagan had to say about it.

"India today is poised for greater growth. We have taken up plans and policies to generate new employment in our rural areas and to harness the productive energies of our young. We want the nation to benefit from the enterprise latent in our people. Growth has to be carefully calibrated so that in enlarging national production, it redresses regional imbalances and ensures social justice. This is indeed the basis of planning within our democratic system."

http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/s ... 61285d.htm

"Well, as we move ahead, we're determined to leave no one behind. Under this administration more funds go to needy Americans, even after adjusting for inflation, than ever before. And total spending on social programs has increased by $71 billion during these last 3 years.

And while I'm on this subject, I wonder if you who are intensely committed to social justice and Jewish charity would join us in questioning the relationship between greater Federal spending and a healthy, prosperous, and growing country. During the sixties and seventies, the Great Society and other Federal programs led to massive increases in social spending. Why, then, at the same time, did the number of Americans below the poverty line stop shrinking? Why did we see a drop in the number of males in the work force and a huge increase in births out of wedlock?

I believe the answer lies in the firm difference between the New Deal and the Great Society. The New Deal gave cash to the poor, but the Great Society failed to target assistance to the truly needy and made government the instrument of vast transfer payments, erecting huge bureaucracies to manage hundreds of social programs. The Great Society failed in two crucial aspects: It fostered dependence on government subsidies, and it made the transfer of money from Washington bureaucrats to those in need seem like a mission impossible.

I was a New Deal Democrat. And I still believe, today, that there is only one compassionate, sensible, and effective policy for Federal assistance: We must focus domestic spending on the poor and bypass the bureaucracies by giving assistance directly to those who need it. We must end dependency, eliminate quotas, and foster a vital, innovative economy that rewards all Americans according to their talent and hard work. If we do, we can enhance our democratic ideals and can make America a genuine opportunity society."

http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/s ... 31384a.htm

To be fair to Reagan. This is how he plans to achieve "Social Justice"

"Free market policies can promote economic growth based on social justice, self-reliance, and the skills of the people."

http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/s ... 91886d.htm

To be fair, Hitler wasn't in favor of a complete Free Market, even though the role of Capital was strengthened rather than weakened as (we shall see) under his totalitarian Anti-Marxist regime. Nevertheless. Just the very idea that the Neo-con Demigod preached "Social Justice" and the fact that Hitler thinks Social Justice is a Marxist/Jewish Leftist Plot is plenty to mull over. Does that mean Ronald Reagan was Too Marxist/Leftist for Hitler's Taste? Probably yes. And that's why so many people think Hitler is even more Right Wing than Ronald Reagan.

Like i just said, Hitler wasn't a free marketer. Richard Overy, (who i suppose much to Ray's dissapointment never calls the Nazis socialist.) refers to Germany as having a dirigisme economy which is a form of capitalism, and Hitler a "reluctant dirigiste" at that because he only, wanted to control the parts of the economy that were related to war. See his book "War and Economy in the Third Reich" p2

Mein Kampf consists of Two volumes with 27 Chapters in total. All i've done here is quoted from the First volume. The second one is just as bad. All this absolute Hatred for Marxism is obvious.

The thinking of Hitler, Marx and Engels differed mainly in emphasis rather than in content.

except it Did differ in Content, Here's a Great example.

"First of all, of course, sympathy for a subjugated people which, with its incessant and heroic struggle against its oppressors, has proven its historic right to national autonomy and self-determination. It is not in the least a contradiction that the international workers' party strives for the creation of the Polish nation. On the contrary; only after Poland has won its independence again, only after it is able to govern itself again as a free people, only then can its inner development begin again and can it cooperate as an independent force in the social transformation of Europe. As long as the independent life of a nation is suppressed by a foreign conqueror it inevitably directs all its strength, all its efforts and all its energy against the external enemy; during this time, therefore, its inner life remains paralysed; it is incapable of working for social emancipation. Ireland, and Russia under Mongol rule, provide striking proof of this. 'Another reason for the sympathy felt by the workers' party for the Polish uprising is its particular geographic, military and historical position. The partition of Poland is the cement which holds together the three great military despots: Russia, Prussia and Austria. Only the rebirth of Poland can tear these bonds apart and thereby remove the greatest obstacle in the way to the social emancipation of the European peoples. 'The main reason for the sympathy felt by the working class for Poland is, however, this: Poland is not only the only Slav race which has fought and is fighting as a cosmopolitan soldier of the revolution. Poland spilt its blood in the American War of Independence; its legions fought under the banner of the first French republic; with its revolution of 1830 it prevented the invasion of France, which had been decided upon by the partitioners of Poland; in 1846 in Cracow it was the first to plant the banner of revolution in Europe, in 1848 it had a glorious share in the revolutionary struggles in Hungary, Germany and Italy; finally, in 1871 it provided the Paris Commune with the best generals and the most heroic soldiers."

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/wo ... /03/24.htm

see also

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/wo ... /index.htm

Marx and Engels were "For Poland". Hitler was "Against Poland" How obvious does that need to be?

All three were second-rate German intellectuals of their times.

Marx for one spoke many languages and did his doctorate work on the works of the ancient Greeks by reading them in the original Greek, although, i would say Marx in terms of economics has been debunked and discredited. Hitler only absorbed some, of what interested him. This comparison of intelect is ridiculous.

Anybody who doubts that practically all Hitler's ideas were also to be found in Marx & Engels should spend a little time reading the quotations from Marx & Engels archived here

More quotemines. And anyway even if we grant him these quotes (which i will not), His words still count as a Genetic fallacy as he does not demonstrate how Hitler and Marx are linked.

"Politics is weird, and creepy, and now I know lacks even the loosest attachment to anything like reality." - Shep Smith
Last edited by theyounghistorian77 on Tue Jan 11, 2011 4:37 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Tue Aug 31, 2010 6:22 pm
ImprobableJoeUser avatarPosts: 6195Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 3:24 pm

Post Re: Apparently, Hiteler was a "Leftist" Response and rebutti

Or, shorter version: right-wingers are lying assholes. ;)
Come visit my blog! There will be punch and pie!
Tue Aug 31, 2010 6:39 pm
theyounghistorian77ContributorUser avatarPosts: 726Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:43 amLocation: United Kingdom Gender: Male

Post Re: Apparently, Hiteler was a "Leftist" Response and rebutti

"Everything must be different!" or "Alles muss anders sein!" was a slogan of the Nazi Party.It is also the heart's desire of every Leftist since Karl Marx. Nazism was a deeply revolutionary creed, a fact that is always denied by the Left; but it's true. Hitler and his criminal gang hated the rich, the capitalists, the Jews, the Christian Churches, and "the System".

Some twisting going on here, First of all, let us grant for the sake of convenience that "everything must be different" really is what every leftist wants since Karl Marx, because that really doesn't matter, What matters is WHY the nazis used the slogan. We know why their posters are red. Hitler admitted that "We chose red for our posters after particular and careful deliberation, our intention being to irritate the Left, so as to arouse their attention and tempt them to come to our meetings, if only in order to break them up - so that in this way we got a chance of talking to the people." - Mein Kampf, Vol 2- ch 7

I think with the slogan, it's the same story here. It's Propaganda to draw the left away from the left and break them up. I say that Repeating Propaganda, Proves nothing.

Now onto the rest of that point, On nazism being revolutionary???

"Fascist revolutions sought to change the nature of relationships between the individual and the collectivity WITHOUT destroying the impetus of economic activity - The profit motive or its foundation - private property or its necessary framework - the market economy. this was one aspect of the novelty of, fascism; the fascist revolution was supported by an economy determined by the laws of the market." - Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p7

Indeed, and as we have already seen with a Kershaw quote given earlier, "there was only one possible kind of revolution, and it is not economic or political or social, but racial," Hitler avowed. So yes it was a revolutionary movement, but not the same kind of revolutionary movement that the communists were. But anyways, being a revolutionary movement is not evidence of leftism, if we were to call the american revolutionists "left wing", Im sure that would make the conservatives go crazy, or what about the modern tea party revolution?


Perhaps the differences between the Nazi attitudes to revolution and the revolutionary idea of communism may explain this newspaper article. note, There's one special phrase which I'll highlight in red

Spokane Daily Chronicle, 8 Jun. 1933, p. 14 wrote:Hitler Says He Stamped Out World Revolution of Communists by Stern Action

By William J. Margrave
BERLIN, June 8. (NANA)

--Adolf Hitler's personality was revealed in a recent interview given Bernard H. Ridder, president of the Staats-Herold corporation, New York. Present at this interview were two men high in the German government, Drs. Thomsen and Hanfstaengel, and myself.

Hitler received us standing before his desk. He was in street clothes. Without excessive formality he greeted us separately, giving each a penetrating glance, then a friendly handshake.

"It is a long time since I saw you," he said to me, remembering an interview I had with him in 1923. Much has changed since then, gentlemen" the chancellor observed.

From a bookcase a massive bust of President Von Hindenburg looked down, as if listening.

Halt Bolshevik Wave.

"The war psychosis and atrocity propaganda," said the chancellor, "are as understandable to us as Germany's rebirth seems to the outside world. America, France and England have decried the militarism' of the storm troops and of the stahlhelm, but it is exactly these countries which should be thankful to those organizations for damming the Bolshevik wave which sought to engulf the entire world the night the Reichstag building was burned.

"If America has as many communists in proportion to the population as we, what would she have done if the White House had gone up in flames? Would not America have acted even more energetically than I, when to nip the bud and annihilate the secret organization of conspirators. I ordered the storm troops and the stahlhelm to arrest the Bolshevist leaders?

"The night of the burning of the Reichstag building we received from all over Germany, by telephone, telegraph and wireless, appeals for help against the imminent Bolshevik revolutionary plot. I determined at once to move pitilessly with all the forces at my command. Bend or break was my watchword.

"Discoveries made two hours later justified my action. In Berlin alone, fuses, benzine-soaked wool and explosives were found in the public buildings, including the university, the library, and numerous district council halls. In the decisive hour, had I not acted firmly against the Bolshevik attempt to set Germany ablaze, not only the Reichstag and the palace but all Germany's public buildings and, who knows if not also the entire occident, would today be in ruins. The court trials will open the world's eyes to the sensational events of that night. The evidence now gathered can not yet be revealed for fear of jeopardizing the investigation.

Proves World Plot.

"The evidence guarantees proof of a world plot by the bolsheviks. Everything was in readiness to strike. In Germany in the last months 300,000 pounds of explosives were piled up by the communists. More arms were found daily in communist raids.

"We have struck down Jewish communism and will never let Bolshevism come back. As for freedom for the Jewish-Marxist press, we are determined to root this out from Germany. I ask: Must the American press always get the truth? If so then then let them print the German truth, also.

"Why this whimpering, these crocodile tears, these cries and moans, when the majority of the Germany people voted for a national democratic leadership which now leads and rules upon the principles of unveiled truth and incorruptible justice?

"Shall a nation of 60,000,000 be condemned to certain annihilation because 6,000,000 have been mislead by the Marxist-Jewish-communistic poisoners of a people and refuse to recognize the new democratic government elected by a majority of the reawakened German people?

"Why does the world bemoan the hundred-fold deserved criminal's fate of a small minority? Where was the world's conscience when millions in Germany suffered hunger, were destitute, bled in want, when more than 200,000 German men were driven to desperation and suicide?

Pay for Riddance.

"I ask President Roosevelt, I ask the American people, who, as a result of the atrocity propaganda, feel obliged to bring aid and sympathy to the Jewish-Bolshevik poisoners of souls: Are you ready to welcome into your midst these well-poisoners of the German and Christian world's soul? We would give everyone of them a free ticket and 1000 marks pocket money if we could get rid of them.

"As long as no nation, no state, feels obliged to give help and sympathy to these Bolshevist parasites who corrupt and destroy everything, we shall idolater them in work camps.

"France locks up undesirable elements and sends them to penal colonies. England used to send them to Australia, Russia--even today--sends them to Siberia. America protects herself through Ellis Island. And shall Germany not have the right to lock up these parasites and render them harmless?

"We don't want war; we want peace, and internal peace as well.

"Yesterday a 16 year-old German boy was murdered by a terrorist group. A few days ago a Germany father was snatched from his wife and children in a terrorist murder. Who weeps for them? Whose blood is worth more?

"In Germany's national revolution, the greatest revolution in world history, which led to the renewal and rebirth of Germany, not even 20 men were killed. Compare this with the French revolution. Compare it with Russia, where 11,000,000 were slaughtered by Jewish communism"

Hitler turned to Mr. Ridder. "Show me a destroyed house or shattered windows! How was it in Dublin? How was it in every strike in America? We have a democratic regime.

"I would not wish for America what we have endured for the last 10 years, with millions of unemployed. America investigates every immigrant. Each must show a certificate. Opponents of the government are excluded. We, on the other hand, were fools. The post-war government allows everyone access to Germany to make revolutions.

"Now we must act. As long as we have no Ellis Island we must get work camps.

"What does the world know about the misery of Germany's intellectual youth in the last 15 years? After having completed their studies they lived the lives of Beggars. And in the unemployed army of the last years there was no Jew, while 100,000 Germany college students died miserably on the streets and formed the chief part of the contingent of desperate suicides.

"Shall I allow thousands of men of the German race to be destroyed that all Jews and only Jews shall be able to work, to live, and to gluttonize while a nation of millions starves and, in desperation, falls a victim to Bolshevism? Shall Germany youth which, purged by need, death, peril, hunger and want, pressed through to a new manhood and prepared the German rebirth, be destroyed that undesirable alien immigrants may be taken care of? Never!

"Am I responsible for the toothless children of undernourished German men and mothers?

"Why is the world's conscience silent about these facts, about these sufferings and about the truth of the rebirth movement?"

Why did i highlight that phrase? Because ray talks about it later and that's when i will also.

re, did Hitler hate the capitalists?

Again, that kershaw quote tells us that "Hitler made plain that there could be NO QUESTION for him of socialization or worker control." of Big buisness, The quote by Zeev Sternhell tells us that the revolution does not mean the destruction of the impetus of economic activity (which is through private property)

"Yet the equality of status so loudly and insistently proclaimed by the Nazis did not, imply equality of social position, income or wealth. The Nazis did not radically revise the taxation system so as to even up people's net incomes, for example, or control the economy in the manner that was done in the Soviet Union, or later on in the German Democratic republic, so as to minimize the differences between rich and poor. Rich and poor remained in the Third Reich, as much as they ever had. In the end, the aristocracy's power over the land remained undisturbed, and younger nobles even found a new leadership role in the SS, Germany's future political elite., Peasant families that had run their village community for decades or even centuries managed for the most part to retain their position by reaching a limited accommodation, with the new regime. Businessmen, big and small, continued to run their business for the usual capitalist profit motive." - Evans, "The Third Reich in Power" p500

Even though they hated Jewish capitalists, They certainly didn't mind Aryian capitalists, and companies like I.G Farben remained in private hands, and had Private Profits. Sorry Ray, but the Nazis had a capitalist economy, period. A dirigisme capitalist economy that was, geared toward war if you want to be specific.

See nobeliefs.com for Hitler's attitude to christianity.
"Politics is weird, and creepy, and now I know lacks even the loosest attachment to anything like reality." - Shep Smith
Thu Sep 02, 2010 11:34 am
theyounghistorian77ContributorUser avatarPosts: 726Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:43 amLocation: United Kingdom Gender: Male

Post Re: Apparently, Hiteler was a "Leftist" Response and rebutti

Brown Bolsheviks

not really, The Nazis were not as Cohesive in their ideology as Ray would like to assume. The Nazis did indeed have a left wing of their Party, Comprised of indivudials like Goebbels, Along with the Likes of Ernst Rohm (Both were influenced by Gregor Strasser). Unfortunately for Ray, Hitler himself did not belong to this aspect of the Party, He actively tried to suppress it.

First, he called a conference in the City of Bamberg on 14th feb 1926 to instill the Fà¼hrerprinzip onto aspects of the party he felt were dissenting, And that included, guess who? That's Right, Goebbels, Rohm and strasser, Goebbels submitted To Hitler, although he felt dissapointed in the process, He wrote in his diaries that after the meeting "I feel devastated," "What sort of Hitler? A reactionary?" "I no longer fully believe in Hitler. That's the terrible thing: my inner support has been taken away."

He's not quoting Hitler. And sorry but you cannot use Goebbels to prove Hitler personally was Left Wing. Hitler belongs on the opposite side of the Party.

Though one part was revealing.

"He (Goebbels) recalled how we had clobbered the Berlin Communists and the Socialists into submission, to the tune of the "Horst Wessel" marching song, on their old home ground."

Marxism was class-based and Nazism was nationally based but otherwise they were very similar. That's what people said and thought at the time and that explains what they did and how they did it.

Nope, Nazism as a fascist system, empowered the capitalist elite. It was against the idea of liberal democracy, of egalitarianism and wished for the, rule of the elite and those traditional elites remained where they were doing business for profit

"While Hitler's attitude towards liberalism was one of contempt, towards Marxism he showed an implacable hostility Ignoring the profound differences between Communism and Social Democracy in practice and the bitter hostility between, the rival working class parties, he saw in their common ideology the embodiment of all that he detested. mass democracy and a leveling egalitarianism as opposed to the authoritarian state and the rule of an elite; equality and friendship among peoples as, opposed to racial inequality and the domination of the strong; class solidarity versus national unity; internationalism versus nationalism." - Bullock, Hitler.


And now for something that is very rarely mentioned indeed: Have a guess about where the iconography below comes from:


As you may be able to guess from the Cyrillic writing accompanying it, it was a Soviet Swastika -- used by the Red Army in its early days. It was worn as a shoulder patch by some Soviet troops.

Looks very convincing doesn't it? Only to the foolish it does. Read what it says around the Swastika. The Red Army was formed Feb. 23, 1918. The text in Russian details the description of the patch and who it is designed for: Red Army soldiers and commanding officers of the Kalmyk troops. Kalmyks (or Kalmucks) are a small pastoral ethnic group in southern Russia, with their own autonomous region west of the Caspian Sea. They are of Mongolian origin and they are Buddhists. I believe that paticular swastika, which is a common Buddhist symbol is just that, It's Buddhist, and has nothing to do with socialism per-se. In the text, the swastika is called "LYUNGTN" or some such native Kalmyk word in Cyrillic (the text is blurry and those may be characters specific to the Kalmyk language).

Translation and context from this website wrote:To be exact this swastika is not "Russian" but "Kalmuck". On this page you can see the facsimile of the order to the Kalmuck units of Red Army concerning the swastika on a uniform. The Kalmuck live in the south-east of the European Russia. This nation is of Mongol ancestry, their religion was lamaism. Very likely Bolsheviks thought that the sacral symbol would get Kalmucks to take part in Red Army as well as prevent their desertion from it. That is a rather usual practice for an ideology and religion of any kind... Anyway there are both a swastika and a five-pointed star on the arm-badge. View the translation of the facsimile into English below.

to the troops of the South-Eastern Front

No. 213

The city of Saratov, November 3, 1919

There be approved a distinctive arm-badge for the Kalmuck units, in accord with the draft and the description enclosed.
It is ordered to give the right of bearing the arm-badge to all the officers and Red Army men of the present and being organized Kalmuck units, in accord with the instructions of the order No. 116 given by the Republic Revolutionary Council of War this year.

Front Commander Shorin

Revolutionary War Councillor Trifonov

Acting Commander of the General Staff Pugachev

(For the Front Staff)

A rhombus measuring 15 by 11 centimeters is made of red cloth. There are a five-pointed star in its upper corner and a garland in the center. There is a "LUNGTN"* with the legend "R. S. F. S. R."** in the center of the garland. The diameter of the star is 15 mm, that of the garland is 6 cm, the dimensions of "LUNGTN" are 27 mm, those of a letter are 6 mm.

The arm-badge for the officers and administrators is embroidered in gold and silver, while for Red Army men it is stencilled.
The star, "LUNGTN" and the ribbon of the garland are embroidered in gold (yellow paint for Red Army men), the garland itself and the legend are embroidered in silver (white paint for Red Army men).

Draft: (follows below)

* Without any doubts this "LUNGTN" means a swastika, a fylfot, you see, but we don't know the etymology of this word. On the other hand it is written in capital letters, so the word looks like a kind of an abbreviation.

** R. S. F. S. R. means Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic.

The information was taken from the journal Kommersant VLAST # 30 (381), August 1, 2000, p. 54. The original of the order is being kept in the Russian State War Archive.

i speculate that this "LUNGTN" (the kalmyk swastika) is somehow related to "Lungta" ie "the Wind Horse" (an allegory for the human soul in the shamanistic tradition of Central Asia. In Tibetan Buddhism. note the swastikas around the outside)


though i will need someone who knows the kalmyks better than i do to confirm this, But even so, all indications still point to it being buddhist and having nothing to do with socialism per-se.

So with that in mind, Here's another Buddhist Swastika

It's not in some "Socialist dystopia", But rather in the cheerfully Capitalist South Korea. NE Seoul, to be precise. From the "Treasure Shining Temple" Website here



http://www.flickr.com/photos/spirosk/28 ... otostream/

The usual reveresed-Swastika Buddhist sign. (with a dragon statuette and clouds)
Around Xindian and Beitan (Taiwan)

The Swastika too was a socialist symbol long before Hitler became influential. Prewar socialists (including some American socialists) used it on the grounds that it has two arms representing two entwined letters "S" (for "Socialist"). So even Hitler's symbolism was Leftist.

Maybe those american socialists really did do that. But it doesn't matter as the Swastika was also used by the Right too and that's where hitler most likely picked it up. Like those who supported the Kapp/Là¼ttwitz Putsch 12-19 March 1920.

"Those who fought for Kapp and Là¼ttwitz were obvious future supporters of the fledgling Nazi Party. Ironically, the Erhardt Brigade, one of Là¼ttwitz's main fighting force, put a sign on their helmets to identify who they were: the swastika." - WW1-propaganda-cards.com

Armoured car with swastika in the Potsdamer Straße

In German, not only the word "Socialism" (Sozialismus) but also the word "Victory" (Sieg) begins with an "S". So he said that the two letters "S" in the hooked-cross (swastika) also stood for the victory of Aryan man and the victory of the idea that the "worker" was a creative force: Nationalism plus socialism again, in other words.

Ray throws this out there without any evidence whatsoever, so in the fine tradition of christopher Hitchens

"What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."

The only SS i can find stood for Schutzstaffel, Not "sieg sozialismus" or whatever, But even if it did stand for what Ray tries to proport, Hitler had a different conception of socialism that wasn't really socialism at all. (lest we forget the capitalism)

"The Swastika - origanally a Sanskrit word meaning "all is all" - long the symbol of the Teutonic Knights, had been used by Lanz von Liebenfels, the Thule Society and a number of FreeKorps units." Toland "Adolf Hitler" p105

And by Hitler's time, antisemitism in particular, as well as racism in general, already had a long history on the Left. August Bebel was the founder of Germany's Social Democratic party (mainstream Leftists) and his best-known saying is that antisemitism is der Sozialismus des bloeden Mannes (usually translated as "the socialism of fools") -- which implicitly recognized the antisemitism then prevalent on the Left. And Lenin himself alluded to the same phenomenon in saying that "it is not the Jews who are the enemies of the working people" but "the capitalists of all countries."

So Ray's evidence is someone calling antisemitism "socialism of the fools"? It is not a complement or an endorsement. Here let's just make a fool of Ray by showing the Lenin quote in context.

"It is not the Jews who are the enemies, of the working people. The enemies of the workers are the capitalists of all countries. Among the Jews there are working people, and they form the majority. They are our brothers, who, like us, are oppressed by capital; they are our comrades in the struggle for socialism." - Lenin

and here's what the International socialist review has to say about the other quote. (whether this is reliable, I'll let you decide.)

"Unlike Herzl, socialists defended Jews who faced persecution. Socialists also combated anti-Jewish racism as a poison to the workers movement. In this period, Auguste Bebel, a leader of the German Social Democratic Party (SPD), denounced anti-Semitism, as "the socialism of fools" [notice the real use of the phrase here] for diverting workers from their true enemy, the ruling class, onto Jewish scapegoats. Karl Kautsky, another German SPD leader, argued that the differentiation of the Jewish population into classes meant that the condition of, the Jews would be bound up inextricably with the overall working-class movement. Connecting the fight against anti-Semitism to the fight for workers' power became the Marxist approach to fighting anti-Semitism. Because socialists stressed the need to fight anti-Semitism in the countries where most Jews lived, the socialist movement recruited Jews in large numbers.

Many Jews played active roles as founders, leaders and activists in the socialist parties in Europe. Count Witte, the Tsar's finance minister, once, complained to Herzl that Jews "comprise about 50 percent of the membership of the revolutionary parties," while constituting only 5 percent of the Russian Empire's population. One such party that earned Witte's hatred was the General Jewish Workers League, known as the Jewish Bund., The Bund, launched in 1897--the same year as Herzl's Zionist Congress--became Russia's first mass socialist organization. It bitterly opposed, the Zionists' calls for a Jewish state. Over the course of the next decade, the Bund grew among Jewish workers, swelling to 40,000 members in Russia during the 1905 Russian Revolution. In the revolutionary period, Jewish socialists--both in the Bund and in the other socialist parties--assumed leadership of the working-class and communal organizations in Jewish communities" - Lance Selfa, "ISR Issue 4, Spring 1998"

Of course many leftists were viciously Anti-semitic, as is the case of the Rightists too, The pogroms, the protocols of the learned elders of Zion, Henry Ford etc.

It should be borne in mind, however, that antisemitism was pervasive in Europe of the 19th and early 20th century. Many conservatives were antisemitic too. Leftists were merely the most enthusistic practitioners of it.

sorry, Rightists were merely the most enthusistic practitioners of it. The Non Marxist, aristocratic, reactionary and very conservative White Army for example, Used the protocols of the learned elders of Zion as justification to murder 150'000 Jews in 2 years Leaving Millions more Starving in and around Kiev between 1918-1920. Sadly It was only later on in the 20th century that leftists would pick up more heavily the mantle of antisemitism.

We have seen how virulent it was in Marx.

he was expressing the commonplace thinking of his time. see above

Antisemitism among conservatives, by contrast, was usually not seen by them as a major concern. British Conservatives made the outspokenly Jewish Benjamin Disraeli their Prime Minister in the 19th century and the man who actually declared war on Hitler -- Neville Chamberlain -- himself had antisemitic views.

Jews who converted to the Church of England, such as Benjamin Disraeli, were not subject to disabilities, but there was often some prejudice against them. But that was the Victorian era, not the much more politicaly divided 1930's, For that era, see Andrew Marr Above.

And Leftism is notoriously prone to "splits" so there were no doubt some Leftists who disavowed antisemitism on principled grounds. Lenin clearly criticized antisemitism on strategic grounds: It distracted from his class-war objectives. So were there also disinterested objections from Leftists? Such objectors are rather hard to find. The opposition to the persecution of the unfortunate Captain Alfred Dreyfus (who was Jewish) by Emile Zola in France is sometimes quoted but Zola was primarily an advocate of French naturalism, which was a form of physical determinism -- rather at odds with the usual Leftist view of man as a "blank slate". And the man who published Zola's famous challenge to the persecution of Dreyfus was Georges Clemenceau, who is these days most famous for his remark: "If a man is not a socialist in his youth, he has no heart. If he is not a conservative by the time he is 30 he has no head"

Yes some of the socialists took an neutral attitude as they saw it as a fight between "Bourgeoisie factions", but other socialists (and Zola is one of them whether Ray likes it or not), also supported Dreyfus., And lest we forget, that it was the Rightists that falsely put him on trial in the first place and used the anti-Semitic angle. Ray doesn't tell you that. Also, Leftists are not split on the end goal, But the means to get there.

But, however you cut it, Hitler's antisemitism was of a piece with his Leftism, not a sign of "Rightism".

Wrong, I've already provided a better explaination than Ray as to where Hitler got his anti-semitism from, It was Luther, Not the Left.

One more bit of iconography that may serve to reinforce that point:


Of course these posters look similar, But im going to throw a spanner in the works

Image Image

Lets see, Both the russian and american posters have a slogan on the Bottom, Both have army advancing above the slogan, Above the Smoke/fog of war? We see the Leader, Pointing the way, Both are draped in Flags, and Both have Planes in the Background. Graphicly, Both are the same. Does that prove anything? No. And Stalin is not performing a Roman salute, The thumb is definitely away from the fingers and the Fingers appear to be seperate from each other (Although with the fingers, it's hard to tell). Stalin is just striking a pose in a poster. Again it's just superficial crap like; "Stalin had a blue painted bathroom and so did Hirohito... OMG Stalin was Japanese", and just as silly.

Translation of the russian poster? "We will defeat german agressors and drive them out of our Motherland." - J. Stalin. Ray conveniently omitted that slogan out as it argues Against what he's saying

Of course we can find many Nazi posters that look like soviet ones, But we can also Find many american and allied posters that look like Nazi and Soviet ones, Does this prove the americans and allies had similar ideologies to either the nazis or soviets? NO. Anyone who doubts that this was the art style of the time can spend a while looking at the posters i have archived here

Labor unions

Who said this? A representative of the 21st century U.S. Democratic party, maybe?

"As things stand today, the trade unions in my opinion cannot be dispensed with. On the contrary, they are among the most important institutions of the nation's economic life. Their significance lies not only in the social and political field, but even more in the general field of national politics. A people whose broad masses, through a sound trade-union movement, obtain the satisfaction of their living requirements and at the same time an education, will be tremendously strengthened in its power of resistance in the struggle for existence".

could well be any Leftist speaker of the present time but it is in fact a small excerpt from chapter 12 of Mein Kampf, wherein Hitler goes to great lengths to stress the importance of unions. The association between unions and Leftism is of course historic and, as a Leftist, Hitler made great efforts to enlist unions as supporters of his party.

And in the same chapter, he makes clear that his concept of the Union is not to really represent the, Workers but: "The National Socialist Trades Union is not an instrument for class warfare, but a representative organ of the various occupations and callings." in other words, to represent the capitalist interests, and by doing that, the state too. To Hitler the unions were only useful if they served their purpose in his racist nationalism.

"It must do this for a further reason, namely because a real National Socialist education for the employer as well as for the employee, in the spirit of a mutual co-operation within the common framework of the national community, cannot be secured by theoretical instruction, appeals and exhortations, but through the struggles of daily life." - Vol 2- Ch 12

Surely Republicans today favour the "struggles of daily life" over the left?

Of course, taking Ray's quote on face value, appealing to the Unions is also something David Cameron did too

Daily Telegraph Article wrote:David Cameron has launched a secret mission to win over Britain's trade unions in the run-up to the next general election.

By Christopher Hope, Home Affairs Editor
Published: 6:55PM BST 15 Aug 2008.

The Conservative leader has held privately talks with the head of the TUC while party officials have met with the unions more than sixty times since the spring.

The trade unions have also been asked to help draw up opposition policy, the Daily Telegraph can disclose.

The initiative mirrors Tony Blair's so-called "prawn cocktail" offensive to win more support among business leaders in the early 1990s.

However, it stands in stark contrast to Margaret Thatcher's pledge in 1979 that "there will be no more beer and sandwiches at Number 10" under a Conservative administration.

Although the trade unions will always support Labour their apparent willingness to discuss policies with Mr Cameron is likely to anger Gordon Brown who relies on their patronage.

The strategy is seen as important to the Conservatives who are trying to appeal to voters across the social spectrum.

The Daily Telegraph has learnt that Mr Cameron held a "ground-breaking" meeting with TUC general secretary Brendan Barber last month - the first by a Conservative leader in more than a decade.

Mr Barber is also understood to have met with other senior party figures including policy chief Oliver Letwin. A meeting with Iain Duncan Smith, the former party leader who now advises on the poverty agenda, is understood to be planned for the coming weeks.

Mr Cameron appointed a "union envoy" - former Labour MEP Richard Balfe - earlier this year to spearhead the secret negotiations. Mr Balfe has met with union officials 60 times since he was appointed on March 19.

Mr Balfe, who will attend next month's TUC conference, said last night: "I am saying 'talk to us'. I can get your views straight into the centre in ways that you can't. I can get you meetings with shadow ministers. You can have influence.

"What David is doing is positioning the Conservatives of 'this age'. I can see very clearly what he is doing."

He added that the Conservatives had probably neglected their relationship with the unions in the past. "We probably have not paid them enough attention," he said. "We are saying [to the unions] that in this modern world you have to talk to all political parties.

"They realise you have to have a small wager on the other horse. Just as other traditional loyalties are weakening so is this one."

Union officials have been covertly offering advice and ideas for some policies, such as being asked to comment on David Willett's recent policy paper on skills - 'Building Skills, Transforming Lives'.

Union sources said few in the TUC had been told about the Cameron meeting because of the sensitivity among some leaders about the significance of meeting with a Conservative leader.

Senior Tories believe that as many as one in three trade union members are likely to vote Conservative at the next election, and they are keen to open a dialogue.

One Tory source said: "Some general secretaries will 'talk the talk' but behind the scenes they will do deals. They are negotiators."

When Mr Balfe was appointed in March, Mr Cameron said the former Labour MEP, who quit the party in 2001 - would "help develop our relations with the trade union and co-operative movement.

"I have always said that free enterprise and the co-operative principle are partners, not adversaries, and co-operatives have an important role to play in public service reform by bringing dynamism without the loss of public ethos."

Mr Balfe said he was keen for Mr Cameron to be invited to address the TUC conference, although there is no invitation to the event in two weeks time. No Tory leader has ever addressed the conference in its 144-year history.

He said: "David has not been to the TUC conference yet. The brothers are not yet up for that, but they should be."

A major stumbling block remains mention of Baroness Thatcher, who as prime minister is still not forgiven in some parts of the union movement for her reforms of union law in the 1980s.

He said: "The 'word' [Thatcher] often comes up. But our line is quite simple. Thatcher passed some legislation, she left office almost 20 years ago.

"The legislation now constitutes the national consensus. It is not Thatcher's legislation any more. Times have moved on.

"Any similarity between David Cameron and Margaret Thatcher has been eroded by the passage of time."

in ths sense, you could say David Cameron is doing pretty much the Same Thing as Hitler did, But even so, Appealing to the Unions Doesn't prove Cameron or Hitler are left wing. Does it?

Hitler made great efforts to enlist unions as supporters of his party.

Yes, But Ray doesn't want to tell you why. http://www.shoaheducation.com on the otherhand, Does

"Labor was courted, although they did not know that one of Hitler's first acts would be to take over the Labor Unions, whom he knew to be one of the few groups who could organize active support against the Nazi agenda." - Shoaheducation.com
"Politics is weird, and creepy, and now I know lacks even the loosest attachment to anything like reality." - Shep Smith
Last edited by theyounghistorian77 on Thu Sep 16, 2010 12:44 am, edited 4 times in total.
Thu Sep 02, 2010 4:48 pm
theyounghistorian77ContributorUser avatarPosts: 726Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:43 amLocation: United Kingdom Gender: Male

Post Re: Apparently, Hiteler was a "Leftist" Response and rebutti

A modern Leftist


The place, that one takes on the political spectrum is in most political compasses determined by the position that one takes on the ownership of the means of production and the distribution of property and wealth in general. It is a political economy position. That is the general academic position, and it has nothing to do with government interference or control and has not changed. There is no such concept as there being a 'modern left' that is different in conception to a 'non-modern or past Left.

There is in this sense only one Left and Right, and it is determined by the political economy position I stated, and that determiner has not changed, which is why it is a useful measure in history and political economy. It is separate from 'Liberal' and 'Conservative' and as long as it is used correctly in the academic manner it is always consistent. Then you have the problem in that you are mixing the economic and social sphere in your categorization of conservative and liberal. Taken as its most basic; a conservative is one who wishes to retain the existing social and economic structure and the power of the existing elites. ("Conservativism is - In general terms, is a political philosophy which aspires to the preservation of what is thought to be the best in established society." - oxford concise dictionary of politics.) Throughout history the strategies to do this can take various forms in different places and times. In the past, it has sometimes taken the form more gov't involvement in the private sector to secure the position of those elites either through and aristocracy or the fascist parties.

The modern inception of maintaining the elites (i.e., conservative) is to push the idea of the 'free-market' and total laissez faire which shifts money and power upward and gives more power to the large trusts. So modern conservatives are acting in a consistently conservative manner. A liberal or, to liberalize is one who wishes to remove restrains, but it, like 'conservative' it must be delineated as to whether this involves the social or economic sphere. This is because one can be fiscally conservative but socially liberal,, as is the case for what are called conservative Democrats, and to varying degrees the present day Libertarians. (Although many Libertarians are so far to the Right economically they are beyond being fiscally conservative, they are reactionary ultra-right. Neoliberals on steroids) In the modern usage, a fiscal liberal is, not one who wishes to, remove restrains on the economy, but one who wishes to remove economic restraints put upon the lower classes by the economy using social programs and regulation to do so.
So in this way, while the particular ideas and policies pushed by those called Liberal or Conservative may shift, the exact concept behind those terms do not.

When it is said that modern conservatives are the "classical liberals" this is, not really the case either. First of all, in the social sphere, it is the present day liberals that carry on the mantle of the Classical Liberals in political freedoms with positive policies on civil rights, anti-discrimination legislation and fostering free speech through organizations such as the ACLU for example. Additionally, the Classic Liberal economists were not "free-market' as is it is interpreted by the modern libertarian crowd or even most Republicans. Not even Adam, Smith himself preached the type of fanatical type of 'free-market' that is put forth by the modern liberation crowd.

"Adam Smith was not a dogmatic proponent of laissez-faire capitalism. A careful exposition of his work will demonstrate that there were many functions which the government could fulfil in capitalist-organized society. In many (although not quite all) ways, Smith's position on the role of the state in a capitalist society was, close to that of a modern twentieth century US liberal democrat" Spencer Pack "Capitalism as a Moral System, Adam Smith's critique of the Free Market Economy" p1

The Classical Liberals in the economic sphere refers really to the ones who wished to dismantle the mercantilist trading system and the privilege of the aristocracy, issues which; neither is relevant to contemporary society. That was the extent of their idea of "free-market" not the modern usage, of lowering the taxes on the wealthy and totally unregulated markets and trade.

Admittedly the contemporary conservatives do try to claim that they acting from the same concepts, but more properly the modern conservatives are Neoliberal, or, if they include a social aspect Neoconservative, but both push Neoliberal economic policies like 'free-trade' and 'privatization' which is the way to keep the existing social structure and elite status quo; in other words, a conservative policy.

It is not decided by a some 'checklist' of organizations and ideas supported by that person. The person's position on the political compass may be blurred by their stances on things like personal freedom, social policy, et cetera and the connections between them. That's where the complexities lie. Even then, it is a poor way to attempt to understand one's full political ideology, as even people on the same side of the Left/right scale can hold ideologies that are almost completely incompatible with each other. Consider two left-wing ideologies, say, communism and social democracy, for example: Communism is anti-capitalist and calls for a complete overthrow of the capitalist system, thus making it far left. social democracy on the other hand calls for the capitalist system to be reformed via a mixed economy and progressive policies. Thus making it centre left. Communist economic policies are incompatible with social democracy, as communists want to change the entire system and not just make it more tolerable or equal within the confines of the current system.

if the economy is mixed with a heavier emphasis towards the private sector, than it is centre right, if the economy is completely privatised, than it is far-right. That is the best way i have at looking at politics. Older models, ie the "1789 model" as i call it, i find are flawed. This describes the flaws best.

"There's abundant evidence for the need of it. The old one-dimensional categories of 'right' and 'left', established for the seating arrangement of the French National Assembly of 1789, are overly simplistic for today's complex political landscape. For example, who are the 'conservatives' in today's Russia? Are they the unreconstructed Stalinists, or the reformers who have adopted the right-wing views of conservatives like Margaret Thatcher ? On the standard left-right scale, how do you distinguish leftists like Stalin and Gandhi? It's not sufficient to say that Stalin was simply more left than Gandhi. There are fundamental political differences between them that the old categories on their own can't explain. Similarly, we generally describe social reactionaries as 'right-wingers', yet that leaves left-wing reactionaries like Robert Mugabe and Pol Pot off the hook" - Political compass.org.

Which is why i use economics (ie where you stand on who owns the means of production) as a determiner for left and right. Capitalism on one side, Communist economics (not necessarily the system seen in the soviet union) on the other. So how do i solve the problem of Stalin vs Ghandi? Through another axis, the Libertarian/authoritarian scale. You can be a far-left libertarian (eg anarchists), a far-left authoritarian (eg The stalinists). I would like to point out also that, the definition of Conservativism given earlier does not necessarily say that one has to be libertarian, Vladimir Putin is an authoritarian conservative, as are the islamic conservatives in the middle east. so any assertion that conservativism is automaticly about liberty, can be rubbished. It depends on what you are conserving to begin with, in reality. If you need any convincing that Conservatives in the USA too, can also be authoritarian. I Suggest you read Bob Altemeyer's - The Authoritarians

Hitler himself may not have been a conservative in the strictest sense but the Nazis certainly had conservative backing. as their interests certainly overlapped. But that doesn't matter, because im not arguing that Hitler was conservative. While there are other factors involved such as overt militarism, extreme nationalism, and the subservience of the social structure to an economic and social elite, the political economy question is the main determiner. And, this alone puts the Nazis squarely on the Right, for they, despite their early talk which was only propaganda, had a capitalist economy that was geared to support and give more power to the wealthy.

But anyways, Lets have a look at a few points at Rays Bizarre source

He counted a number of homosexuals as friends and collaborators

Really? Who? Oh he doesn't tell us, Its a statement without evidence. But According to studies, (according to Penn and Teller's Bullshit). Between 20-50% of Catholic priests, May be Gay. This of course, says nothing about the Pope's political stance does it?

and took the view that a man's personal morals were none of his business

Adolf Hitler was a Libertarian??? What a Joke. He also said he had no further territorial ambitions after Munich, and said: "I don't want to force National Socialism on anybody" - Table Talk, p22. Yes, Hitler said a lot of BS. Trying to use Hitler's words like this is meaningless as he is just a propagandist who said many different things to different people. It is only when his words match his deeds like his racist words that are backed by his corresponding deeds that we can put any weight on them whatsoever. Therfore, i would say This source Ray uses is Highly suspect.

some scholars of his life believe that he himself may have been homosexual or bisexual.

Really? Well, if i google Hitler was Gay, This is The First result.

Despite what the article says, the Historian has discredited himself with this book.

"But the biggest problem with Machtan's book (which has been translated by John Brownjohn) isn't the reliability of his sources but his mode of argumentation. He accepts what fits his thesis and rejects what doesn't. One feels, at times, that one is reading an internal F.B.I. report from the J. Edgar Hoover era rather than an evenhanded work of scholarship in which the author is ready to be led by the facts. To interpret evidence his way, Machtan employs innuendo and insinuation" - New York Times Book Review (12/16/01)

In other words, Poor scholarship leads you to bad conclusions

he enacted tough gun control laws

I'll deal with this later.

He championed the rights of workers, regarded capitalist society as brutal and unjust, and sought a third way between communism and the free market.

I'll repeat myself, Hitler himself may not have been a conservative in the strictest sense but the Nazis certainly had conservative backing. as their interests certainly overlapped. But that doesn't matter, because im not arguing that Hitler was conservative. While there are other factors involved such as overt militarism, extreme nationalism, and the subservience of the social structure to an economic and social elite, the political economy question is the main determiner. And, this alone puts the Nazis squarely on the Right, for they, despite their early talk which was only propaganda, had a capitalist economy that was geared to support and give more power to the wealthy. Also Hitler said a lot of BS.

As for that "Third Way".

"More recently others have tried to define fascism as the "Third Way", in the sense that it borrowed ideas from both capitalism and, socialism. The basic philosophy behind the "Third Way" incorrectly labels any regulations or government controls over businesses as "socialism"; essentially it's just a restatement of syndicalism. Such nonsense should be rejected whole heartily. It again represents an attempt to distance the right from, their support of Hitler in the 1930s and ignores that the basis of the German economy under Hitler was a capitalist system where the means of production remained in private hands. Further, following the logic of the "Third Way," one would have to label all capitalistic systems as "Third Way," for throughout history there has never been a, pure capitalistic system. A pure capitalist economy is so inherently and fatally flawed that it's never even been tried. But that is to be expected for any system that awards the winner with all the eggs." - John Hawkins and Glen Yeadon.

"And even if they did steer the 'Third Way' they claimed to, they were certainly not immunized from the normal [capitalist] economic cycle... Perhaps the last word should be left to Gramsci, who said that fascist economic policy aimed to, nationalize losses, but not profits..." Routledge companion to fascism and the Far Right. p147

This is capitalism. using the state for PRIVATE profit.

So even if one were to accept the so called "third way", all it represents is dirigiste capitalism, something that is quite common in the capitalist world. Nazi Germany was actually, more capitalist than some of the modern states that are held out as examples of capitalist success. Such as Hong Kong, where all the land is owned by the gov't!! or South Korea that was built on a planned economy (much like nazi germany).

BBC News. South Korea country profile wrote:The following four decades were marked by authoritarian rule. Government-sponsored schemes encouraged the growth of family-owned industrial conglomerates, known as "chaebol". Foremost among them were the Hyundai and Samsung groups.

They helped transform South Korea into one of the world's major economies and a leading exporter of cars and electronic goods.

Im not even going to bother with the FDR reference, save for the fact that Wolfgang Schivelbusch in his Book Three new deals, focused on their architecture and public works projects. None of that has anything to do with the economics. The connections he makes can be made between just about any nations if one, tries hard enough.

The reference to Christ notwithstanding, he was not personally a Christian, regarding the Catholicism he was baptized into as an irrational superstition. In fact he admired Islam more than Christianity, and he and his policies were highly respected by many of the Muslims of his day. He and his associates had a special distaste for the Catholic Church and, given a choice, preferred modern liberalized Protestantism, taking the view that the best form of Christianity would be one that forsook the traditional other-worldly focus on personal salvation and accommodated itself to the requirements of a program for social justice to be implemented by the state. They also considered the possibility that Christianity might eventually have to be abandoned altogether in favor of a return to paganism, a worldview many of them saw as more humane and truer to the heritage of their people.

I've already dealt with Hitler's thoughts on "social Justice" earlier. And have already recommended Nobeliefs.com, so I'll leave this quote for your amusment..

There is surely no doubt that the man Feser describes sounds very much like a mainstream Leftist by current standards. But who is the man concerned? It is a historically accurate description of Adolf Hitler. Hitler was not only a socialist in his own day but he would even be a mainstream socialist in MOST ways today. Feser does not mention Hitler's antisemitism above, of course, but that too seems once again to have become mainstream among the Western-world Left in the early years of the 21st century.

There we have it, Ray's idiocy, for all to see, It is NOT an accurate description of Adolf Hitler, which is why he appears so "leftist" in the piece. But for real reliable sources and scholarship, Contemplate the following.

'Whatever level of state intervention, it could be argued quite forcefully that belief in private property was central to fascist ideology, as [Roger] Eatwell states: the sympathetic reference to socialism did not mean that fascists accepted the abolition of private property. This was seen as a law of nature. "The Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far Right" p141

"Although modern economic literature usually fails to notice it, the Nazi government in 1930s Germany undertook a wide scale privatization policy. The government sold public ownership in several state-owned firms in different sectors. In addition to this, delivery of some public services previously produced by the public sector was transferred to the private sector, mainly to organizations within the Nazi Party." - "Nazi Privatization in the 1930s" Economists View 9/06

"Both Mussolini and Hitler showed their gratitude to their big business patrons by privatizing many perfectly solvent state-owned steel mills, power plants, banks and steamship companies. Both regimes dipped heavily into the public treasury to re-float or subsidize (private) heavy industry. Agribusiness farming was expanded and heavily subsidized. Both states guaranteed a return on the capital invested by giant corporations while assuming most of the risks and losses on investments. As is often the case with reactionary regimes, public capital was raided by private capital." - Parenti "Blackshirts and Reds" p7

"The combination of domestic demand, an end to foreign competition, rising prices and relatively static wages created a context in which it was not hard to make healthy profits. Indeed, be 1934 the bonuses being paid to the boards of some firms were so spectacular that they were causing acute embarrassment to Hitler's government." "The Wages of Destruction" Adam Tooze p108.

"What, Hitler's regime positively enabled German business to do was to recover from the disastrous recession, TO ACCUMULATE CAPITAL and to engage in high-pressure development of certain key technologies: the technologies necessary to achieve the regimes twin objectives of increased self-sufficiency and rearmament." Tooze Ibid, p114

"Though it is important to justice to the shift in power relations between the state and business that undoubtedly occurred in the early 1930s, we must be careful to avoid falling into the trap of viewing German business as a passive object in the regimes new system of regulation. As we have seen profits were rising rapidly after 1933 and this opened attractive future prospects for German corporate management." Tooze, Ibid, p114

to the extent that

"Big business was an active partner in many key facets of Hitler's National Revolution. Certainly in relation to Germany's managerial elite,, one of the more important segments of that population, the regime found willing partners." Ibid, p134

It is a fact that the government of the Nazi Party sold off public ownership in several State owned firms in the mid-1930s. These firms belonged to a wide range of sectors: steel, mining, banking, local public utilities, shipyards, ship-lines, railways, etc
In an article published in the Der Deutsche Volkswirt in February 1934, Heinz Marschner proposed 'The reprivatization' of urban transportation, which after the period of inflation came under public control, especially in the hands of local governments. This proposal was related to the Nazi governments support for returning the ownership of urban transportation back to the private sector
several months later, in an article discussing banking policy in Germany; Hans Baumgarten analyzed the conditions required for the reprivatization in the German banking sector. Discussion of privatization was increasingly common soon after the Nazi government took office early in 1933, and privatizations soon followed.

In the 1930s The Deutsche Reichsbahn (German Railways) was the largest single public enterprise in the world, bringing together most of the railways services operating within Germany. The German Budget for fiscal year 1934/35, the last one published established that Railway preference shares worth Reichsmark 224 million were to be sold.

The Commerz-Bank was reprivatized through several share sales in 1936-37. These shares amounted to Rm. 57 million, and the largest single transaction was a sale of Rm. 22 million in October 1936. Deutsche Bank was reprivatized in several operations effectively implemented in 1935-37. I suggest anyone out there to go read Nazi privatization in 1930s Germany, By Germà  Bel

The list of Nazi privatizations covers every other sector as well, Mining Steel, Shipbuilding etc.. even areas within the social sector were privatized. This is also demonstrable in fascist Italy

"He (Mussolini) was relieved no doubt to find the commanding heights of Italian capitalism joining the great majority of the liberal order and certainly most landowners in applauding the march on Rome." (don't misread here, the word 'liberal' is being used in its actual form and not the politicized form that exists in the US. One could substitute 'upper middle-class' or 'Petty Bourgeoisie' here) Thereafter he and de' Stefani were careful to present the new government as fiscally orthodox, preoccupied with cutting wasteful expenditure but willing to assist capital by the denationalization of the telephone network and the cancellation of Giolitti's investigation into excessive war profits, and determined to balance the budget." "Mussolini's Italy" RJB Bosworth p224

(and wasn't that McCains platform too? A Right Wing Republican, Oh yes it was.)

And the actions of the Italian fascists showed their capitalist intentions.

"Once in power the fascists issued the so called "Carta del Lavoro" or Labor Charter which encouraged private entrepreneurship and specifically stated, "State intervention in economic production will only happen when private initiative is lacking or insufficient and when the political interests of the state are directly involved." ibid p227, Bosworth.

"Nazi planning left business intact, from the great firms like IG Farben all the way down to small retailers and backstreet artisanal workshops" Richard Evans, "The Third Reich in Power" p371

"The Darwinian principles that animated the regime dictated that competition between companies and individuals would remain the guiding principle of the economy, just as competition between different agencies of state and party were the guiding principles of politics and administration." Richard Evans, Ibid p410

"The government...eased the capital position of private, business. Agriculture [and particularly the large land holders, the 'agrobusiness'] was given a tax relief and a reduction of the burden of debt, while industry gained subsidies and tax relief for new investment and employment." RJ Overy "War and Economy in the Third Reich" p55

And in the mean time raised the, cost of living for the average worker by taxing consumer items more. "Hitler personally authorized increases on cinemas, travel, and theater-going...and the range of products covered by the sales tax expanded", Overy Ibid p270

"Soon the lowest earners saw, their tax payments increase 20-55%," Overy, Ibid, P271

"wages were reduced a little despite a 25 per cent rise in the cost of living." The rise and fall of the third Reich" Shirer . p263

"wages in Germany had always been low. Under the Nazis they were slightly lower than before. Although millions had more jobs, the share of all German workers in the national income fell from 56.9 per cent in the depression year of 1932 to 53.6 per cent in the boom year of 1938." The rise and fall of the third Reich" Shirer P264

"In the winter of 1935-36 was not easy. Wages were at the 1932 level, food prices had gone up by 50, even 150, percent. The Berlin police reported a hostile mood in the city" - "Seduced by Hitler" by Adam leBor and Roger Boyes.

"The point could be made that private capitalism and bureaucratization of the economy are essentially incompatible. If this is true, then Hitler's regime should have begun the process of destroying, capitalism in Germany. But this did not happen,despite, the fact that a radical element in the Nazi Party wanted to do exactly that. But that radical element, led by Otto Strasser, was already effectively eliminated before Hitler's seizure of power. What actually developed After 1933 Was an interesting demonstration of how well Capitalism And Bureaucratization Complement Each Other." - The Political System of the Third Reich - Professor Gerhard Rempel.

And this little quote surely tops it all off.

"Those who believed that the Nazis would seal them from 'wucherkapital', wild exploitative capitalism, were to be quickly disappointed. The role of capital was strengthened rather than sapped by the Nazis." "Seduced by Hitler" Adam leBor and Roger Boyes, p61

I'll repeat this here, But Perhaps Ray would like to consider acedemics like Richard Overy, who never calls the Nazis socialist. He refers to Germany as having a dirigisme economy which is a form of capitalism, and Hitler a "reluctant dirigiste" at that because he only wanted to control the parts of the economy that were related to, war. Overy "War and Economy in the Third Reich" p2

And of course, Ian Kershaw has this to say

"Hitler's Style, as the industrialists expected ... was entirely different from that of his predecessors in the Chancellor's office. His views on the economy were also unconventional. He was wholly ignorant of any formal understanding of economics . For Him, as he stated to the industrialists, economics was of secondary importance, entirely subordinated to politics. His Crude Social Darwinism dictated his approach to the economy, as it did his entire political ''world-view''. Since struggle among nations would be decisive for future survival, Germany's economy had to be subordinated to the preparation, then carrying out of this struggle. That meant that liberal ideas of economic competition had to be replaced by the subjection of the economy to the dictates of the national interest. Similarly, any "socialist" ideas in the nazi programme had to follow the same dictates. Hitler was never a socialist .But although he upheld private property, indivudial entrepeneurship, and economic competition, and dissaproved of trade unions and workers' inteference in the freedom of owners and managers to run their concerns, The State, not the market would determine the shape of economic development. Capitalism was therfore Left in place. But in operation it was turned into an adjunct of the state." -Kershaw. Hitler (abridged) P269-270.

Which offers us a much more fair and balanced view of the economy than Ludwig Von Mises ever does, You know These quotes are taken into consideration when modern Historians write their Books. Mises like the other 'free-market' types such as Hayek only work from the a priori position that markets can do no bad and are always right. Mises is as much a propagandist hack as Glenn Beck is. Nobody takes him, seriously, apart from Beck's 'free-market' Libertarians.

Simply put, the Nazis didn't use 'Bolshevik' tactics as whatever that vague statement is meant to mean, Hitler campaigned in the state elections and sought out and got the help of the large capitalists and other Right Wing types (See Adam Tooze). One could draw the same comparisons between many societies he makes, from Bismarck's Right-Wing with, its privileges of its ruling elite through the skewed weighing of the vote to the secret police in the Right-Wing and vehemently anti communist Japan. He just lists thing that were common of many states at the time and says this is proof that Germany and socialism were uniquely similar. But none of those things are uniquely similar or exclusive. It is again its nothing more than trying to say: Hitler's bathroom was painted blue... Churchill's bathroom was painted blue... OMG Churchill, was a Nazi! And Mises fails to mention that the real Nazi usage is 'Volksgenosse' which is Racial comrade. So again the Nazis never meant 'comrade' in the socialist sense but only in the racial sense. Their usage of the word had absolutely nothing to do with socialism. Historians like Kershaw, Overy, Tooze et al offer much more fair and balanced looks at the economy than Mises ever did.

And let us look at the words of someone who was actually in Germany in the 1930s and who thus saw Nazism close up. He said:
Quote Mine of Eric Hobsbawm wrote:"If I'd been German and not a Jew, I could see I might have become a Nazi, a German nationalist. I could see how they'd become passionate about saving the nation. It was a time when you didn't believe there was a future unless the world was fundamentally transformed."
So who said that? It was the famous historian, Eric Hobsbawm (original surname: Obstbaum), who became a Communist instead and who later became known as perhaps Britain's most resolute Communist. Hobsbawn clearly saw only slight differences between Communism and Nazism at that time.

No, Hobsbawn is merely commenting on the power of nationalism. it's Just really meaningless and just as a creationist would do, ie take something entirely out of context and just poor quote mines. The left recognized the Nazis as Right wing straight off, which is why they had the least support from the workers.

And as this summary of a book (by Richard Overy) comparing Hitler and Stalin says:
But the resemblances are inescapable. Both tyrannies relied on a desperate ideology of do-or-die confrontation. Both were obsessed by battle imagery: 'The dictatorships were military metaphors, founded to fight political war.' And despite the rhetoric about a fate-struggle between socialism and capitalism, the two economic systems converged strongly. Stalin's Russia permitted a substantial private sector, while Nazi Germany became rapidly dominated by state direction and state-owned industries.

In a brilliant passage, Overy compares the experience of two economic defectors. Steel magnate Fritz Thyssen fled to Switzerland because he believed that Nazi planning was 'Bolshevising' Germany. Factory manager Victor Kravchenko defected in 1943 because he found that class privilege and the exploitation of labour in Stalinist society were no better than the worst excesses of capitalism.

As Overy says, much that the two men did was pointless. Why camps? Prisons would have held all their dangerous opponents Who really needed slave labour, until the war? What did that colossal surplus of cruelty and terror achieve for the regimes? 'Violence was... regarded as redemptive, saving society from imaginary enemies.'"

The book is a comparison of totalitarianism, which can exist on either the Right or the Left. One point, despite This paper saying "PRIVATE enterprise in the Soviet Union is as old as the socialist regime itself." Private property and private profits has no ideological basis in Communism, It most certainly does in Nazism. That's the key difference between the two systems economicaly. Althouh getting Ray to Name the private companies in the soviet union would be fun. Some small Kiosks were allowed from time to time, But that wasn't the means of production and therefore not part of the socialist order, and neither are backyard gardens, small private plots etc. Nazism by ideology is still right wing, Soviet union by ideology is still left wing.

And let us listen to Hitler himself on the matter:

Rauschning Forgery #1 wrote:"There is more that binds us to Bolshevism than separates us from it. There is, above all, genuine, revolutionary feeling, which is alive everywhere in Russia except where there are Jewish Marxists. I have always made allowance for this circumstance, and given orders that former Communists are to be admitted to the party at once. The petit bourgeois Social-Democrat and the trade-union boss will never make a National Socialist, but the Communists always will."

Another quote

Rauschning Forgery #2 wrote:"Of what importance is all that, if I range men firmly within a discipline they cannot escape? Let them own land or factories as much as they please. The decisive factor is that the State, through the Party, is supreme over them regardless of whether they are owners or workers. All that is unessential; our socialism goes far deeper. It establishes a relationship of the individual to the State, the national community. Why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings."

(Both quotes above are from Hermann Rauschning in Hitler Speaks, London, T. Butterworth, 1940, also called The Voice of Destruction.

Because what he records is so inconvenient, many contemporary historians dismiss Rauschning's 1940 book as inaccurate, even though it is perfectly in accord with everything else we now know about Hitler. But no-one disputes that Rauschning was a prominent Nazi for a time. He was however basically a conservative so eventually became disillusioned with the brutalities of Nazism and went into opposition to it. Rauschning's book was in fact prophetic, which certainly tends to indicate that he knew what he was talking about.)

And now, why you shouldn't be using Rauschning, and why i called the quotes a forgery.

"Now, after more than forty years, a Swiss historian has thoroughly exposed this supposed document [Rauschning's book ] of Hitler's madness as completely fraudulent. Wolfgang Haenel presented the results of his research to the annual conference in May 1983 of the Ingolstadt Contemporary History Research Center in West Germany." The Journal of Historical Review, Fall 1983 (Vol. 4, No. 3)

the part about "Because what he records is so inconvenient..." is a strawman.

"I have on no single occasion cited Hermann Rauschning's Hitler Speaks, a work now regarded to have so little authenticity that it is best to disregard it altogether." - Ian Kershaw, speaking about his biography of Hitler.

yes, we dismiss it because the quotes are forgeries, Not because what the quotes say are "inconvenient"
"Politics is weird, and creepy, and now I know lacks even the loosest attachment to anything like reality." - Shep Smith
Last edited by theyounghistorian77 on Sun Sep 05, 2010 2:39 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Fri Sep 03, 2010 12:04 am
theyounghistorian77ContributorUser avatarPosts: 726Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:43 amLocation: United Kingdom Gender: Male

Post Re: Apparently, Hiteler was a "Leftist" Response and rebutti

Party programmes.

Let us start by considering political party programmes or "platforms" of Hitler's day:

Take this description of a political programme:

A declaration of war against the order of things which exist, against the state of things which exist, in a word, against the structure of the world which presently exists".

And this description of a political movement as having a 'revolutionary creative will' which had 'no fixed aim, no permanency, only eternal change'

And this policy manifesto:

Excerpt from the 25 points wrote:9. All citizens of the State shall be equal as regards rights and duties.

10. The first duty of every citizen must be to work mentally or physically. The activities of the individual may not clash with the interests of the whole, but must proceed within the frame of the community and be for the general good.

Therefore we demand:

11. That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.

12. Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in life and property, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as a crime against the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits whether in assets or material.

13. We demand the nationalization of businesses which have been organized into cartels.

14. We demand that all the profits from wholesale trade shall be shared out.

15. We demand extensive development of provision for old age.

16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle-class, the immediate communalization of department stores which will be rented cheaply to small businessmen, and that preference shall be given to small businessmen for provision of supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.

17. We demand a land reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to confiscate from the owners without compensation any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.

So who put that manifesto forward and who was responsible for the summary quotes given before that? Was it the US Democrats, the British Labour Party, the Canadian Liberals, some European Social Democratic party? No. The manifesto is an extract from the (February 25th., 1920) 25 point plan of the National Socialist German Workers Party and was written by the leader of that party: Adolf Hitler. And the preceding summary quotes were also from him (See Vol. 2 Chap. 5 of Mein Kampf and O'Sullivan, 1983. p. 138).

It is good to remember that On April 13, 1928, Adolf Hitler made the following elucidation to the program: "Because of the mendacious interpretations on the part of our opponents of Point 17 of the program of the NSDAP, the following explanation is necessary.: Since the NSDAP is fundamentally based on the principle of private property, it is obvious that the expression "confiscation without compensation" refers merely to the creation of possible legal means of confiscating when necessary, land illegally acquired, or not administered in accordance with the national welfare. It is therefore directed in the first instance against the Jewish companies which speculate in land." And point 16 calls for a middle class (hardly socialistic anyways.)

NONE of the economic principles were even talked about being put into action after they were written. "A pseudo-socialist note was sounded by the demand for abolition, of unearned incomes, the confiscation of war profits... It was a typical far-right document, of its time. In practice it did not mean very much," Richard J Evans, "The Coming of the Third Reich". p179

"the 25 points of this programme - which would in the course of time be declared "unalterable" and be in practice largely ignored - Had been worked out and drafted over the previous weeks by Drexler and Hitler. It's points.... contained little or nothing that was original or novel on the và¶lkisch right. Religious neutrality was included in the attempt to avoid alienating a large church-going population in Bavaria. "Common Good before indivudial Good" was an unobjectionable banality." - Kershaw, Hitler (abridged) p85-86

Prior to the War, Hitler and the Nazi Party demanded that large industries share profits to more equally distribute income - This demand, however, was never formally carried out by the Party.

Also In an attempt to obtain financial contributions from industrialists, Hitler wrote a pamphlet in 1927 entitled The Road to Resurgence which refuted the more socialistic elements. Only a small number of these pamphlets were printed and they were only meant for the eyes of the top industrialists in Germany. The reason that the pamphlet was kept secret was that it contained information that would have upset Hitler's working-class supporters. In the pamphlet Hitler implied that the anti-capitalist measures included in the original twenty-five points of the NSDAP programme would not be implemented if he gained power.

Hitler began to argue that "capitalists had worked their way to the top through their capacity, and on the basis of this selection they have the right to lead." Hitler claimed that national socialism meant all people doing their best for society and posed no threat to the wealth of the rich. Some prosperous industrialists were actualy convinced by these arguments and gave donations to the Nazi Party, however, the vast majority continued to support other parties, especially the right-wing German Nationalist Peoples Party (DNVP).

"Do you think I'd be so crazy as to destroy German heavy industry? Those producers worked their way to the top by their own merits, and, because of this process of selection, which proves that they are an elite, they have a right to lead!" Adolf Hitler to Otto Straesser, October 1930. Quoted in Helmut Heiber, Adolf Hitler, (Berlin, 1960) p68.

Also remember that

"in 1920, the German working class and the lower middle classes were saturated in a radical anti-capitalism; such phrases were essential for any politician who wanted to attract their support." - Alan bullock. Hitler p75

In short, what this page is doing is repeating Nazi propaganda without question. The 25 points are very effective propaganda, and really only something only brought out by the ameteur Crowd in these discussions. And here's Another example of that.

The Nazi election poster below is headed: "We workers are awoken" ("Wir Arbeiter sind erwacht")


There is a fuller decipherment and translation of the poster above here

Do you still Remember what i said about repeating Propaganda? And remember why Hitler chose red for the posters? See above.
"Politics is weird, and creepy, and now I know lacks even the loosest attachment to anything like reality." - Shep Smith
Fri Sep 03, 2010 1:09 pm
theyounghistorian77ContributorUser avatarPosts: 726Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:43 amLocation: United Kingdom Gender: Male

Post Re: Apparently, Hiteler was a "Leftist" Response and rebutti

Other examples of Hitler's Leftism

Yes, Because apparantly i have already gone through his main arguments and am now dealing with secondary ones

Further, as a good socialist does, Hitler justified everything he did in the name of "the people" (Das Volk).

The word, 'Volk' in German also means 'race'. It can have racial connotations, so when Hitler is saying 'Volk', his meaning, as agreed to by historians, is in reference to race. You should read it as "my race" as in "Volkgemeinshaft" which is the "racial community", Not "the people" This has Nothing to do with socialism. It's another little lie by Ray.

The Nazi State was, like the Soviet State, all-powerful.

totalitarianism can occur at any end of the political spectrum.

and the Nazi party, in good socialist fashion, instituted pervasive supervision of German industry.

see above, Hitler had a dirigisme capitalist economy.

And of course Hitler and Stalin were initially allies. It was only the Nazi-Soviet pact that enabled Hitler's conquest of Western Europe. The fuel in the tanks of Hitler's Panzern as they stormed through France was Soviet fuel.

In August 1939. With The details for Case White already settled upon and the Timing set for 1st September.(Yes, the Invasion of Poland was planned long before any suggestion of any military alliance with Stalin.) It was imperative that Hitler had to have some assurance from The Soviet Union regarding Non-Interference with regards to their involvement with Poland and with their foreign Policy aims in general. It was with this in mind that Ribbentrop (The German Foreign Minister.) Contacted the Russians on 15th August, Stating that He was prepared to settle by negotiation the Outstanding Problems of Soviet-German Relations; He furthermore stressed that the Urgency of such an agreement for future Prosperity. Molotov replied that he was interested in a non-aggression Pact and in joint agreement with regards to the Baltic States. However he stalled the Germans by insisting that preliminary discussions must be held upon all matters concerning the current foreign Policy of The Soviet Union, before concrete decisions could be made in future meetings.

The German Ambassador to Moscow, Friedrich-Werner Graf von der Schulenburg, Was Instructed to stress Both the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany had a need for the signing of a treaty, Using an Excuse that The Polish Situation was "Ever Worsening.". Molotov, in response insisted that a trade and credit agreement could be concluded as a precedent for signing the Pact, (That was to become the German-Soviet Credit Agreement, Signed on August 19th 1939.) Molotov would also require the famous Secret Protocol With regards to Mutual Interests in various questions with regard to foreign Policy.

Frustrated with Lack of real progress from his ambassadors, Hitler personally intervened, sending a telegram to Stalin on the 20th, welcoming the Credit agreement and stressed that because of tension between Germany and Poland, An imminent Conclusion to all negotiations was essential. Stalin, in a telegram to Hitler on the 21st Accepted. Ribbentrop was sent to Moscow to Work on the Pact itself on the 23rd to quick agreement.

It dont think it was a real friendship .On the outside at least, it looked like a real and genuine de-facto friendship unto one-another and the world. Indeed, they collaborated over the invasion with Poland and the Nazi invasion of Norway as well. But Internal politics, especialy with the Nazis however suggests a diferent kind of friendship, more like a Machiavellian type of friendship. They were only "real friends" with the Soviets only because it suited their intermediate needs. ie securing Russian raw materials and a secure border whilst fighting in the West. The end goal was still the Invasion of the Soviet Union, as part of Hitler's Lebensraum policies. In Mein Kampf, as part of his Lebensraum Policy. He openly states Russia as a target.

"And so we National Socialists consciously draw a line beneath the foreign policy tendency of our pre-War period. We take up where we broke off six hundred years ago. We stop the endless German movement to the south and west, and turn our gaze toward the land in the east. At long last we break of the colonial and commercial policy of the pre-War period and shift to the soil policy of the future.

If we speak of soil in Europe today, we can primarily have in mind only Russia and her vassal border states."


But even so, because of outside relations between the Nazis and the Soviets seemed extremely positive, It led Stalin to place a great deal of Trust within Hitler, Indeed the Nazi Invasion of the Soviet Union was dubbed as the "verolomstvo". "The Breach of Faith", However, Operation Barbarossa was very much planned over a long period of Time. To keep this brief. On December 5th 1940, Hitler had Called for a conference of His Generals, Within the 4 hours that followed, He spoke of some detail of the up and coming Attack, "The Bolshevik Breeding Grounds" of Leningrad and Stalingrad, were main Targets. "Hegemony over Europe ... Will be decided in Battle against the Russians." Friendly Words? I think not. General Hadler added his contributions by saying "The Red Army is leaderless ... The Russian Soldier was Mindless" The Red Army was regarded as being as inferior in terms of weaponry, The Russian field batteries, It was argued, Gave the panzers a free hand in Russia. Hadler had talked about "Strangling" the Red Army by encirclement.

"Leaderless", "Mindless", "Strangling the Russians", definitely not the Hallmark of an ally or true friend is it?

And of Course, we have to discuss Operation Otto which came before it. In short, It was designed to build efficient road and rail networks To bring the Nazi Soldiers to the Soviet German borders, Wonder why? It was enacted in the fall of 1940; Plans for invasion of the Soviet Union were discussed as early as August, According to James Taylor and Warren Shaw. Penguin dictionary of the Third Reich. p323. See also Second World War by Martin Gilbert. (Rev edition.) P129, 144-5, and p181.

In short, the Nazis were plotting to invade the Soviet Union whilst reaping the economic and military "rewards" from Nazi-Soviet collaboration. It clearly shows just how Machiavellian the Nazis were. Much of those Raw materials the Nazis got would go on to build the Tanks, Planes and Guns that would be used against guess who? That's right. The Soviet Union. (Ray likes to forget that.) especialy the Raw materials delievered after the Polish and french campaigns. It is said that The former cost the Nazis over 25% of it's air strength, as well as a number of tanks and Guns. The french campaign made this materials crisis worse.

Onto the soviet side now, Lets begin with the words of a Conservative MP shall we? In a Parliamentary debate on the 20th september 1939 ( 3 days after the Soviet Union had invaded Poland.) Robert Boothby, MP for for East Aberdeenshire said the following

"Obviously, there are many implications underlying this action of the Soviet Government; but one thing must be perfectly clear, and that is that the German success in Poland, which was spectacular and in some measure unexpected, due entirely, I think, to the overwhelming preponderance of their mechanised forces, came to the Russians with as great a shock and as great a surprise as it did to us. But the impact of that shock upon Russia was much more immediate and forceful than it was upon us; and it is understandable. I think it is legitimate to suppose that this action on the part of the Soviet Government was taken in sheer self-interest, and from the point of view of self-preservation and self-defence. After all, what effect has the action taken by the Russian troops during the last three days had? It has pushed the German frontier with Russia considerably westward of where it would have been had the Russians taken no action at all.

Therefore, I think we, at any rate, ought not to take too tragic a view of this action, and above all not to take too moral a view of it. There is nothing this country likes better than to take a high moral attitude, prematurely, before it realises the full implications of a situation; and I must say that I was rather disappointed when I heard the Prime Minister refer to the "cynical" invasion of Poland by Russia, and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition go into some panegyrics about the immorality of the Russian action. In my view the Russians are now face to face with one of the most formidable military machines that the world has ever seen; and for my part, although I do not condone the Russo-German pact itself, I am thankful that Russian troops are now along the Polish-Rumanian frontier. I would rather have Russian troops there than German troops" - Parliamentary Debates, 5th Series, Volume 351; House of Commons; London; 1939; Col. 996.

It was, for him about self preservation and self defense and he is thankful of it.

Military Historian Prof Ian Beckett comments that.

"Clearly neither side expected it [the Pact] to last for it's full 10 years, but it gave Stalin a chance to prepare for War. Although the Soviet Union was far from ready when Germany attacked on 22 June 1941, certain measures had been taken."

He goes on to describe the various measures including increased conscription to 5 years signed on 1 Sept 1939, the same day Hitler invaded Poland and the expansion of his army. He also makes the point that The increased land annexed which the soviets thought provided a buffer zone, "Leningrad was thought to be more secure", See Communist Military machine, by Ian Beckett. P20.

"Stalin was aware from June 1939 onwards of Hitler's intention to invade Poland in late August or early September. More than anything else, he needed to ensure that the invasion went no father. He needed time to regroup and rebuild the Red Army... and get ready for the assault he was sure would follow some time after the conquest of Poland." - Evans "The Third Reich in Power" p692

In the Popular and well researched TV series, The World at War. The narrator. (Laurence Olivier: No less) 4:25 onwards. Says " The Nazi-Soviet Pact had served it's purpose for Hitler. He had not been Hindered while he dealt with Poland and France. Stalin for his part, Gained a breathing space while he put his army in order after the blood-letting purges of the 1930's. He had Gambled too, upon a lengthy struggle between Germany and the Allies"

The First two and a half parts cover this time period well. I recommend you watch it.


A theme that may be justified by this old Newspaper article. The headline is "Stalin not fooled by Hitler Pact, merely sought time to arm." (page 2)

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1 ... 56,1989033 .

One point raised in the TV series is Soviet Appeasment as a way of buying time. Things like prisioner exchanges and the Raw materials trades certainly are compatiable with that idea.

To keep this point short, i think that both sides were not truly friendly unto each-other, and each had an agenda in exploiting the peace that they had with each other for militaristic ends, against the other side. Despite having the outward appearance of a true friend. Internal politics suggests that they were not true friends. Now, I do not think that all this what i've described would be activities a true ally would do. Would it?

And a book that was very fashionable worldwide in the '60s was the 1958 book "The Affluent Society" by influential "liberal" Canadian economist J.K. Galbraith -- in which he fulminated about what he saw as our "Private affluence and public squalor". But Hitler preceded him. Hitler shared with the German Left of his day the slogan: "Gemeinnutz vor Eigennutz" (Common use before private use). And who preceded Hitler in that? Friedrich Engels at one stage ran a publication called Gemeinnuetziges Wochenblatt ("Common-use Weekly").

Alright, More Genetic fallacies at play here. Firstly, J.K. Galbraith Did Not get his ideas off Hitler. Ray provides no evidence that he does. Secondly, Hitler did not get his ideas of engels, We've dealt with this earlier. He is once again, repeating propaganda which proves nothing.

And we all know how evil Nazi eugenics were, don't we? How crazy were their efforts to build up the "master race" through selective breeding of SS men with the best of German women -- the "Lebensborn" project? Good Leftists today recoil in horror from all that of course. But who were the great supporters of eugenics in Hitler's day? They were in fact American Leftists -- and eugenics was only one of the ideas that Hitler got from that source.

There were many adherents to eugenics that were Right Wing, Such as Prescott Bush, Ford, and the republican congressman Albert Johnson who was the head of 'The Eugenics Research Association', a group which opposed interracial marriage and supported forced sterilization of the, mentally disabled. In the UK. Churchill was in favour of eugenics, Arthur Balfour was also in favour of eugenics, and even Neville Chamberlain had some pro-eugenic thoughts, both of the last two were members of the Eugenics education society. In 1926 it became the British eugenics society. One of the major differences is though that those on the left were of the 'positive' type that looked to breeding and excluded race, while the Right usually made it a 'negative' issue and more drastic measures and used it as a racial tool. One of the first benefactors of eugenics in the United States was the Carnegie Institute. [which can hardly be considered leftist] Following an infusion of bonds and other assets totaling $14 million from the founder, in 1901, the Institute was re-chartered by a special act of congress in 1904. The institute soon added a new science to their principal areas of investigations, "negative eugenics". Is was what it was, a wrong turn in science that was unfortunately picked up by, many before it was found to be false and discarded.

What later came to be known as Fascism was in fact essentially the same as what was known in the USA of the late 19th and early 20th century as "Progressivism", so Fascism is in fact as much an American invention as a European one.

Using Goldberg's shit huh? Here's a series of articles from History news network that deals with him and this statement.


Nope sorry, Nazism was a thing of the right, not of the left, no matter how much twisting of History Ray pulls off.

And as groups like the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada show, A degree of right wing politics/Conservativism is possible with progressivism, so even if we were to call Hitler a "Progressive", It would still mean absolutely nothing to his argument.

The Europeans carried out fully the ideas that American Leftists invented but could only partially implement. America itself resisted the worst of the Fascist virus but much of Europe did not. The American Left have a lot to answer for.

perhaps this letter may help explain it.

"A clique of U.S. industrialists is hell-bent to bring a fascist state to supplant our democratic government and is working closely with the fascist regime in Germany and Italy., I have had plenty of opportunity in my post in Berlin to witness how close some of our American ruling families are to the Nazi regime. A prominent executive of one of the largest corporations, told me point blank that he would be ready to take definite action to, bring fascism into America if President Roosevelt continued his progressive policies. Certain American industrialists had a great deal to do with bringing fascist regimes into being in both Germany and Italy. They extended aid to help Fascism occupy the seat of power, and they are helping to keep it there. Propagandists for fascist groups try to dismiss the fascist scare. We should be aware of the symptoms. When industrialists ignore, laws designed for social and economic progress they will seek recourse to a fascist state when the institutions of our government compel them to comply with the provisions." - U.S. Ambassador to Germany. William Dodd.

So not only does Dodd recognize the, fascists as Rightists and captialists backed by the capitalist industrialists, he also points out that it is in direct opposition to progressive politics. The american right have some explaining to do.

So even Hitler's eugenics were yet another part of Hitler's LEFTISM! He got his eugenic theories from the Leftists of his day. He was simply being a good Leftist intellectual in subscribing to such theories.

see above

Hitler the Greenie

And Hitler also of course foreshadowed the Red/Green alliance of today. The Nazis were in fact probably the first major political party in the Western world to have a thoroughgoing "Green" agenda. I take the following brief summary from Andrew Bolt:

Andrew Bolt? The well known Climate change denier? Hardly a reliable source.

Here's a more fair and balanced look at it.

h-net.org Book Review wrote:Franz-Josef Brà¼ggemeier, Mark Cioc, Thomas Zeller. How Green Were the Nazis?: Nature, Environment, and Nation in the Third Reich. Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press, 2006. 283 S. $49.95 (cloth), ISBN 978-0-8214-1646-4; $22.95 (paper), ISBN 978-0-8214-1647-1.

Marc Cioc Franz-Josef Brueggemeier, and Thomas Zeller, eds. How Green Were the Nazis?: Nature, Environment, and Nation in the Third Reich. Athens: Ohio University Press, 2005. viii + 283 pp.

Reviewed by Wilko Graf von Hardenberg (Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa, Italy)
Published on H-Environment (October, 2006)

Hitler's Nature: Environmental Policies in Nazi Germany

The topic of the alleged "greenness" of the German Nazi regime has been widely debated over the last twenty years.[1] This book, edited jointly by Franz-Josef Brueggemeier, Marc Cioc, and Thomas Zeller, attempts to give an overview of the most recent research in the area, from environmental policymaking, to the life and deeds of some outstanding personalities in so-called Nazi environmentalism, to philosophical and ideological issues. How Green Were the Nazis? is a must for those who want to be introduced to the controversial relationship of Hitler's regime with the natural world.

The editors claim in the introduction that actually no linear relationship may be traced between "today's Greens" and "yesterday's environmentalists" (p. 2) within or outside the Nazi party. They stress how, in opposition to the current Green slogan, "think globally," before World War II the dimension of the nation-state represented the psychological limit of environmentalism. With the most powerful conservationist movement of the early twentieth century, the German case offers particularly fertile ground for exploring the links between modernity, its aberrations, and its links to the natural world. The editors rightfully call for a value-free analysis of Nazi environmental policies that considers both positive and negative aspects: "to miss the positive features of National Socialism is to miss why it appealed so many people" (p. 4). A most important aspect in understanding the links between the Nazi regime and the conservation movement is the history of German conservationism, briefly but effectively sketched by the editors in the introduction, as it may show us whether Nazism represented continuity or discontinuity with the history of German environmental policies. As the editors suggest, it is possible that even without Hitler's rise to power similar policies would have been drafted and the landscape subjected to similar changes. In my view this is a central point in the actual understanding of Nazism's tangential relationship with the environment.

Moreover, what is stressed well in this book is the tangled web of warring bureaucracies and rival personalities that characterized the Nazi regime, that is, its inherently polycratic nature. Diverse essays deal with this issue and approach the analysis of some important personalities, and of the most important political bodies within the Nazi system. Furthermore the authors stress the sometimes uneasy relationship between Nazi ideology and policy, and "green" ideas. In fact, while in many cases there were opportunities for cooperation, in others, such as the Nazi rearmament policy, there were unbearable frictions. "For some green-leaning Nazis, however, that was acceptable. For them the war and destruction were necessary evils since they would bring about a new order that would finally allow the establishment of a better and greener Germany" (p. 14). This book promises to be one of the most important reference books for understanding the links between violence and green thought and the need to look at environmentalism as a value-laden enterprise.[2]

The book may, for the purpose of analysis, be tentatively split into three parts, addressing different aspects of the links between "nature, environment, and nation in the Third Reich." The first four chapters focus on issues related to Nazi environmental law-making and the actual impact of the implemented policies, while the two central chapters are dedicated to the analysis of the life and deeds of two very important, if debated, personalities in Nazi environmentalism. Finally, the last three chapters concentrate on the effects of philosophical, academic, and ideological debates on the construction of the Nazi concept of nature.

Charles Closmann in chapter 1 and Thomas Lekan in chapter 3 analyze the real impact of the much-praised Reichsnaturschutzgesetz (RNG, Reich Nature Protection Law) on the German environment. Closmann contests both the view that the RNG was the symptom of an actual interest of the Nazi regime in the preservation of the natural world [3] and the widespread idea that the RNG was not a Nazi law at all, but rather the nonideological expression of previous ideas.[4] What Closmann attempts to demonstrate in his essay, indeed rather successfully, is that the RNG reflected instead key elements of both progressive preservationism of the 1930s, such as the concepts of natural monuments and nature protection areas, and of Nazism, such as racialism and nationalism. Moreover, he rightfully notes how the RNG was the logical offspring of the polycratic nature of the Nazi regime, and as such it was subject to the effects of confrontation between diverse competing power centers. In chapter 3, Lekan looks instead at the RNG from a case study perspective and gives a detailed account of the law's impact, limits, and acceptance at the regional level in Westphalia, concluding that, after their initial enthusiasm for Nazism, most conservationists were disappointed and disillusioned by the regime's actual policies in the field of nature preservation.

In chapter 2, Michael Imort gives an intriguing account of the ideological contradictions of Nazi forestry policies, in particular with respect to the implementation of the Dauerwald concept and the ambiguous role of Goering as both Reichsforstmeister (Reich Master of Forestry) and plenipotentiary for the Four-Year Plan. However, what I deem to be probably the most interesting part of the whole book is the discussion by Frank Uekoetter in chapter 4 of the evolution of air pollution control in Nazi Germany and of the effects of polycracy on environmental policy-making. In this chapter, through an analysis of the debate between diverse bodies of the regime on how to approach air pollution, Uekoetter gives us insight into the ways Nazi polycracy actually worked and shows us how, at the end of the line and notwithstanding the claims of propaganda, pragmatism and continuity with the Weimar period characterized Nazi environmental policy-making.

Chapters 5 and 6 by Gesine Gerhard and Thomas Zeller are dedicated to two outstanding personages in the fields of agrarian policies, and of landscape planning and Autobahn construction, respectively: Richard Walther Darre and Alwin Seifert. Gerhard, in particular, is very effective in producing a valuable critique of Bramwell's hagiographic account of Darre as a "green Nazi" [5] and in explaining how his agrarian policies and ideas were tightly bound to a racist vision of the world. Zeller's account of Seifert's political biography tackles another scholarly myth regarding the relationship of the Nazis with the natural world: that the Autobahn had been planned on the ground of some sort of "ecological consciousness." Actually, Zeller highlights how the impact of Seifert's ideas on the planning process was less pronounced and his position within the regime less important than previously supposed. Seifert's role as the Reich's gardener and the up and downs of his career depended principally on his ability to use the polycratic structures of the regime to his benefit, rather than from an actual Nazi interest in nature conservation.

In chapter 7 Thomas Rohkraemer tackles Martin Heidegger's conflicted relationship with both National Socialism and environmentalism, giving an insightful view into the intellectual biography of the philosopher. In particular, Rohkraemer stresses that "Heidegger's serious environmental thought was not positively connected with his political involvement in the Third Reich" (p. 194). In fact, it is not possible to state, as has often been done, that Heidegger's peculiar environmentalism, fully developed only after the end of World War II, represented an integral part of Nazi ideology. As Rohkraemer affirms, in fact, it was precisely Heidegger's disillusionment with National Socialism, to which he had initially been attracted in the hope that it would set in place a pseudo-romantic national and voelkisch awakening, that pushed him towards an interest in environmental issues. In chapter 8 Mark Bassin discusses the influence of so-called Geopolitik on voelkisch and Nazi interpretations of the natural world and of foreign politics, explaining, however, that Geopolitik was a scientific theory only partially incorporated within the political ideology of Blut und Boden. In the conclusive chapter 9 Joachim Wolschke-Bulmahn faces the role of violence in the ideological construction of landscape planning under National Socialist rule, with particular respect to the physical "Germanization" of annexed western Poland. German landscape architects enthusiastically participated in the transformation of the Eastern Areas, ideologically considered a void and empty area, into a new homeland for Germans. They were thrilled by the opportunity to use their professional abilities and impose their ideals of landscape with total freedom of action: "By obliterating the visual structures of Polish culture, they participated in their own unique way in the implementation of the 'final solution'" (p. 245).

Despite the different styles and attitudes of the contributors, this edited book has the capacity to summarize effectively the patent contradictions of the relationship of the Nazi regime with the natural world and with early environmentalism.


[1]. Some of the most significant contributions to the debate are Anna Bramwell, Blood and Soil: Richard Walther Darre and Hitler's "Green Party" (Bourne End: Kensal, 1985); Anna Bramwell, Ecology in the 20th century: A History (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989); Karl Ditt, "Nature Conservation in England and Germany: Forerunner of Environmental Protection," Contemporary European History 5, no. 1 (1996): 1-28; Karl Ditt, "The Perception and Conservation of Nature in the Third Reich," Planning Perspectives 15 (2000): 161-187; Raymond Dominick, "The Nazis and the Nature Conservationists," Historian 49 (1987): 508-538; Jost Hermand, Gruene Utopien in Deutschland. Zur Geschichte des Oekologischen Bewusstseins (Frankfurt am Main: Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag, 1991); Paul Josephson and Thomas Zeller, "The Transformation of Nature under Hitler and Stalin," Science and Ideology: A Comparative History, ed. Mark Walker (London: Routledge, 2003); Joachim Radkau and Frank Uekoetter, eds., Naturschutz und Nationalsozialismus (Frankfurt and New York: Campus, 2003); Simon Schama, Landscape and Memory (New York: Alfred Knopf, 1995). More titles are given in the book's exhaustive selected bibliography, which is a very useful introduction to secondary literature on the topic.

[2]. Douglas Weiner, "Demythologizing Environmentalism," Journal of the History of Biology 25, no. 3 (1992): 385-411.

[3]. Bramwell, Blood and Soil; and Schama, Landscape and Memory.

[4]. See, for example, Raymond Dominick, The Environmental Movement in Germany: Prophets and Pioneers, 1871-1971 (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1992); and Edeltraud Klueting, "Die gesetzlichen Regelungen der nationalsozialistischen Reichsregierung fuer den Tierschutz, den Naturschutz und den Umweltschutz;" and Karl Ditt, "Die Anfaenge der Naturschutzbewegung in Deutschland und England," both in Naturschutz und Nationalsozialismus, ed. Joachim Radkau and Frank Uekoetter (Frankfurt: Campus 2003).

[5]. Bramwell, Blood and Soil.

even if we were to give him this one, just for argument's sake. it would still be important to remember that a quick check up of the green movement reveals that Greens today have a different mindset to the one Hitler had. And to label Modern Green's as Nazis is invoking Godwins Law. And does nothing to affect the science of Global Warming, Just as hitler's psuedo-darwinist views do not discredit Darwin and Evolution by means of natural selection. The only question is whether the science behind the theory is valid. Even if Hitler had been the first to present evolution or Global warming or environmentalism, we would have to accept it on the basis of evidence and reason. It's Only the brainwashed right wingers that try to discredit evolution and such ideas by bringing up any dirt they can on Darwin, and environmentalists.
"Politics is weird, and creepy, and now I know lacks even the loosest attachment to anything like reality." - Shep Smith
Last edited by theyounghistorian77 on Sun Jan 02, 2011 3:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
Sat Sep 04, 2010 7:12 pm
theyounghistorian77ContributorUser avatarPosts: 726Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:43 amLocation: United Kingdom Gender: Male

Post Re: Apparently, Hiteler was a "Leftist" Response and rebutti

Lebensraum and the population "problem"

Reading Mein Kampf can be a perverse sort of fun. You can open almost any page of it at random and hear echoes of the modern-day Left and Greens.


The points I mention in this present article are just a sampling. I could fill a book with examples showing that Hitler was not only a Leftist in his day but that he was also a pretty good Leftist by modern standards. His antisemitism would certainly pass unremarked by much of the Left today.

However Antisemitic the modern day left may be, it doesn't matter. because Hitler got his antisemitism from the right and from Luther, Not left-wingers. (see above) Hasn't Luther been disowned over his antisemitism yet?

Among students of the Nazi period it is well-known that Hitler's most central concern after getting rid of the Jews was Lebensraum for Germany -- i.e. taking over the lands of Eastern Europe for Germans. But WHY did Hitler want Lebensraum (literally, "life-space") for Germans? It was because, like the Greenies of today, he was concerned about overpopulation and scarcity of natural resources.

"To understand later German history one must pay special attention to a consequence of the Eastern situation in the autumn of 1918 that has often been overlooked: the widely shared and strangely irrational misconceptions concerning the end of the war that found such currency in the Weimar period. These ideas were not informed, as they should have been, by an appreciation of the enemy's superiority in the West and the inevitable step-by-step retreat of the German Western Front before the massive influx of the Americans. Nor did they indicate any understanding of the catastrophic consequences for the Central Powers following the collapse of the Balkan front after Bulgaria's withdrawal from the war. They were instead largely determined by the fact that German troops, as "victors" held vast strategically and economically important areas of Russia.

At the moment of the November 1918 ceasefire in the West, newspaper maps of the military situation showed German troops in Finland, holding a line from the Finnish fjords near Narva, down through Pskov-Orsha-Mogilev and the area south of Kursk, to the Don east of Rostov. Germany had thus secured the Ukraine. The Russian recognition of the Ukraine's separation exacted at Brest-Litovsk repesented the key element in German efforts to keep Russia perpetually subservient. In addition, German troops held the Crimea and were stationed in smaller numbers in Transcaucasia. Even the unoccupied "rump" Russia appeared,with the conclusion of the German-Soviet Supplementary Treaty on August 28, 1918,to be in firm though indirect dependency on the Reich. Thus, Hitler's long-range aim, fixed in the 1920s, of erecting a German Eastern Imperium on the ruins of the Soviet Union was not simply a vision emanating from an abstract wish. In the Eastern sphere established in 1918, this goal had a concrete point of departure. The German Eastern Imperium had already been,if only for a short time,a reality." - Andreas Hillgruber. "Germany and the Two World Wars" pages 46-47

"It is equally obvious that Lebensraum always appeared as one element in these blueprints. This was not an original idea of Hitler's. It was commonplace at the time. Volk ohne Raum (People Without Space) for instance, by Hans Grimm sold much better than Mein Kampf when it was published in 1928. For that matter, plans for acquiring new territory were much aired in Germany during the First World War. It used to be thought that these were the plans of a few crack-pot theorisers or of extremist organisations. Now we know better. In 1961 a German professor [Fritz Fischer] reported the results of his investigations into German war aims. These were indeed a "blueprint for aggression" or as the professor called them "a grasp at world power": Belgium under German control, the French iron fields annexed to Germany, and, what is more, Poland and the Ukraine to be cleared of their inhabitants and resettled with Germans. These plans were not merely the work of the German General Staff. They were endorsed by the German Foreign Office and by the "good German", Bethmann Hollweg." - A.J.P. Taylor, "The Origins of the Second World War". p23

Greenie Paul Ehrlich wrote in his 1968 book The population bomb:

"The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate..."

Hitler shared Ehrlich's pessimism:

Quoting of Hitler wrote:"Germany has an annual increase in population of nearly nine hundred thousand souls. The difficulty of feeding this army of new citizens must grow greater from year to year and ultimately end in catastrophe, unless ways and means are found to forestall the danger of starvation and misery in time... Without doubt the productivity of the soil can be increased up to a certain limit. But only up to a certain limit, and not continuously without end..... But even with the greatest limitation on the one hand and the utmost industry on other, here again a limit will one day be reached, created by the soil itself. With the utmost toil it will not be possible to obtain any more from it, and then, though postponed for a certain time, catastrophe again manifests itself". (Mein Kampf pp. 121 & 122).

And Hitler's only concern here is the nation, not overpopulation in general. He wanted a self-sufficient nation that wouldn't suffer the same food shortages that it did in WWI so he could carry on his wars. And the concern for over population in general is not a Left issue, or a Right issue for that matter, it is a real issue in science and sociology., Again, Hitler, was NOT concerned with the over population of the world, he only cared for Germans and this quote proves that. His so called concern for overpopulation in Germany is nothing more than an excuse for his wars. and anyways Lebensraum was not an exclusively leftist thing.

"from the early 1920's Radical conservatives assembled popular support by demanding an expansion of Germany's Lebensraum" - German Studies Review, Vol. 3, no. 1. Feb 1980. This paper is highly recommended reading, if you wish to study the origins of lebensraum.

If you wish to see the full mein Kampf quote. Go here. Vol.1- ch.4

It may be noted that Greenie theories (such as "global warming") have strong support in academic circles these days. And so it was in Hitler's day. While he was in Landsberg prison after the "Beer-hall Putsch", Hitler received weekly tutorials from Karl Haushofer, a University of Munich professor of politics and a proponent of Lebensraum. Interesting to see where academic fears of resources "running out" can lead!

Typical half history by Ray, What he doesn't mention is that the professors, and really alot of the university students too, were Right-wingers, ardent nationalists and capitalist in nature. Karl Haushofer, the acedemic he cites, is actualy one example of that.

"By 1914 many teachers were nationalist, conservative and monarchist in outlook, while textbooks pursued very much the same political line." Evans - "The Coming of the third Reich" p130

All he is doing is trying to transfer by innuendo the situation of today onto the past. e.g. "the teachers today are 'liberal' so therefore the teachers in the past in Germany were liberals so therefore the Nazi were liberals." But reality doesn't work like that, and nor does the honest study of history. While there were of course some liberal teachers in Germany those weren't the ones backing Hitler, it was the conservative majority of them that did.

"By the beginning of the academic year 1933-34, 313 full professors had been dismissed, part of a total of 1,145 out of 7,758 established university teachers, or 15 percent of the whole. In Berlin and Frankfurt the proportion reached nearly a third. By 1934, some 1,600 out of 5,000 university teachers were dismissed lost their posts for political reasons; about a third were sacked because they were classified as Jewish. A mass exodus of academics took place; 15.5 percent of university physics teachers emigrated, and at Gottingen University so many physicists and mathematicians left or were expelled that teaching was seriously disrupted." Ibid, p423


But surely Hitler was at least like US conservatives in being a "gun nut"? Far from it. Weimar (pre-Hitler) Germany already had strict limits on private ownership of firearms (limits enacted by a Left-leaning government) and the Nazis continued these for the first five years of their rule. It was not until March 18, 1938 that the Reichstag ("State Assembly" -- i.e. the German Federal Parliament) passed a new Weapons Law (or Waffengesetz). The new law contained a lessening of some restrictions but an increase in others. Essentially, from that point on, only politically reliable people would be issued with permits to own guns. For some details of the very large number of controls in the new law, see here

"The Nazi Party did not ride to power confiscating guns. They rode to power on the inability of the Weimar Republic to confiscate their guns. They did not consolidate their power confiscating guns either. There is no historical evidence that Nazis ever went door to door in Germany confiscating guns. The Germans had a fetish about paperwork and documented everything. These searches and confiscations would have been carefully recorded. If the documents are there, let them be presented as evidence." - Firearms Policy Journal (January 1997)

A little known fact, In 1945 Eisenhower ordered all privately owned firearms in the American occupation zone of Germany confiscated, and, Germans were required to hand in their guns. At the end of the WWII, American GIs were shocked to find how many German civilians owned private firearms. Tens of thousands of pistols looted from German homes by GIs were brought back to the United States after the war.

But even so, I do not see how this affects Hitler's position on the political compass either way.

Wal-Mart hatred

One of the more notable insanities of the U.S. Left in the early 21st centrury was Wal-Mart hatred. Anyone who took Leftist advocacy of "the poor" at face-value might have expected that anything which raises the living standards of the poor (which Wal-Mart undoubtedly did) would be warmly welcomed by the Left. But the converse was the case: Seething hate was what Wal-Mart got from the Left. In the run-up to the 2006 mid-term Federal election, one sometimes got the impression that the Democrats were campaigning against Wal-mart rather than against the Republicans.

Okay's, we can actualy accept this in general.

Why such extreme fuming? Because Leftists hate anything big and successfuil and Wal-Mart was very big and very successful. And British supermarket chains such as Tesco were also despised by British Leftists -- albeit in a somewhat more restrained way. Confronted with either Wal-Mart or Tesco, Leftists suddenly discovered a love of small business -- the quintessential bourgeoisie whom Leftists had been loudly decrying ever since Marx!

im not even going to bother with this line, We can agree that Leftists hate Big buisness, but hitler was a Big fan of big buisness, and im not going to repeat that kershaw quote i gave at the beginning, nor the list that demonstrates his capitalism. see earlier

There was of course no Wal-Mart in Hitler's day. But there was something very similar -- large Department stores. And Hitler hated them. Item 16 of the (February 25th., 1920) 25 point plan of the National Socialist German Workers Party (written by Hitler) sought the abolition of big stores and their replacement by small businesses.

Oh he's using the 25 points again, See above for my analysis of that.

One of the British ex-Marxists at "Spiked" has a comprehensive article on the similarities between the Nazis and the British supermarket-haters of the modern era. A useful excerpt:

mindless butchering of Richard evans wrote:"As the Nazi Party attracted considerable numbers of the Mittelstand to its programme, physical attacks, boycotts and discrimination against department and chain stores started to increase. Such street-level chainstore-bashing initiatives "were quickly backed by a Law for the Protection of Individual Trade passed on 12 May 1933", writes Evans. In a similar way to the current recommendations put forward by the [U.K.] Competition Commission, in Nazi Germany "chain stores were forbidden to expand or open new branches". Towards the end of 1933, the Nazi Party introduced further moves along the lines currently outlined by the Competition Commission: "Department and chain stores were prohibited from offering a discount of more than three per cent on prices, a measure also extended to consumer co-operatives."

Ray truly is an idiot., Do you know WHY the department stores were attacked? They were owned by Jews, that's why! That was not really economic policy and was just part of the racial policy. And as a matter of fact once the stores changed ownership, the attacks on them stopped and they were left intact. And, the supposed Evans' quote is another lie and is false. But I will tell what Evans DID write. "The economic history of the Third Reich is indeed inseparable from the history of the Regime's expropriation of the Jews, a vast campaign of plunder with few parallels in modern history. In keeping with these ideological imperatives, one of the prime targets of Nazi propaganda before 1933 had been the department store." Evans, "the Third Reich in Power" p378

And i suppose Ray has no idea what the German concept of 'Mittelstrand' is. They are not working class.

"The peasantry were generally assigned in German political discourse in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century to that peculiar and amorphous group known by the untranslatable German appellation of 'Mittlestand'. This term expressed in the first place, the aspirations of RIGHT-WING propagandists that the people who were neither bourgeois or proletarian should have a recognized place in society. Roughly equivalent to the French 'petite bourgeoisie'...The Nazi Party programme of 1920 was indeed among other things a typical product of the FAR-RIGHT politics of the German 'Mittelstrand';" Evans Ibid, p435. So The Department stores were not dismantled and just changed to 'Ayran', owners and left in place. And they very term 'Mittelstarnd' has Rightist connotations and meanings.
"Politics is weird, and creepy, and now I know lacks even the loosest attachment to anything like reality." - Shep Smith
Last edited by theyounghistorian77 on Sat Sep 25, 2010 2:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
Tue Sep 07, 2010 4:13 pm
theyounghistorian77ContributorUser avatarPosts: 726Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:43 amLocation: United Kingdom Gender: Male

Post Re: Apparently, Hiteler was a "Leftist" Response and rebutti

More Leftist than racist?

we have already explained Hitler's rightism, so this makes no sense whatsoever.

Hitler was in fact even more clearly a Leftist than he was a nationalist or a racist. Although in his speeches he undoubtedly appealed to the nationalism of the German people, Locke (2001) makes a strong case that Hitler was not in fact a very good nationalist in that he always emphasized that his primary loyalty was to what he called the Aryan race -- and Germany was only one part of that race. Locke then goes on to point out that Hitler was not even a very consistent racist in that the Dutch, the Danes etc. were clearly Aryan even by Hitler's own eccentric definition yet he attacked them whilst at the same time allying himself with the very non-Aryan Japanese. And the Russians and the Poles (whom Hitler also attacked) are rather more frequently blonde and blue-eyed (Hitler's ideal) than the Germans themselves are! So what DID Hitler believe in?

If Ray knew anything, he would have known that Hitler had a bizarre reasoning that the Japanese were the "Aryans of the east."

Lets have a look at the Generalplan-Ost shall we? It laid down that persons belonging to those ethnic groups who lived in geographical areas that were identified for grman settlement (these included Ingermanland [the area around Leningrad], parts of Belorussia, parts of West Ukraine, Crimea, and the Dnepr bend) would be germanised if suitable, or else expelled from those areas. Approximately one-eighth of ethnic Poles were considered suitable for germanisation. The remainder were to be expelled, most likely to Siberia (although Wetzel of the Ostministerium suggested migration to Brazil). It should be noted that the criteria by which suitability for germanisation was to be judged were not solly anthropological, ie physical features, but also cultural, social and economic, eg for a Polish family to be considered suitable for germanisation, it had to exhibit a superior level of initiative, cleanliness, economic efficiency and various other qualities.

Since the Baltic States were scheduled for German settlement, the Lithuanians, Latvians and Estonians were also to be selected for germanisation. The German demographic experts estimated that about half of the Baltic peoples would be suitable for germanisation; those considered unsuitable would be resettled in European Russia where they would form a class of middle-level administrators assisting the German overlords, ie a role they had taken during the Tsarist period.

With regard to the South Slavic peoples, there were no plans for these, except for the Slovenes, who were to be germanised or deported to Serbia, since Slovenia was scheduled for German settlement. There were no plans for Croats, Serbs, Slovaks, Bulgars et, since the areas they inhabited wre not designated as areas of German settlement (indeed, the ethnic Germans who already lived there were to be repatriated to the German settlement areas. The future of those countries was to be as German satellites, providing raw materials to German industry.

as for the Great Russians, Belorussians and Ukrainians, they were merely to be decimated, displaced or turned into helots.

It is true that The people that were in the Slavic regions that met the Nazi criteria were attempted to be recruited to the Nazi side. Even babies in the conquered regions that the Nazis felt were of Aryan heritage and had Aryan characteristics were taken and given to German families.

of course, all the historical writers recognize the Nazi conception of 'race' as being somewhat inconsistent at times, almost all racists are. And the Nazis inconsistencies had much to do with their trying to make racism into a 'science' which it could never be, because it had no real scientific basis and they had to make it up as they went, along. Even having Blonde hair and blue eyes, and even being an aryan did not save you from the concentration camps.

"Tall and thin, with penetrating blue eyes, Jan Kazimierz Bokus, at 90, is the [Auschwitz-Birkenau survivors] association's oldest surviving founding member." - ynetnews.com article

"Her fair skin and bright blue eyes marked her out instantly as an Aryan, a non-Jew. She had been transported from a holding camp east of Budapest to Auschwitz where she was murdered in the gas chambers within a matter of weeks. The missionary Jane Haining died for helping Jewish children in her care survive the Nazi regime." - Auschwitz.dk article on Jane Haining.

"But I was 20, I had blond hair, blue eyes and spoke perfect German." - Tale of a survivor from auschwitz

And the reason why he attacked the Dutch, the Danes, the French and the British and Norway (Ray missed those out) etc was purely militaristic, not for racial reasons.

And finally, I'll requote some alan Bullock: "who ever is prepared to make the national cause his own to such an extent that he knows no higher ideal than the welfare of his nation; whoever has understood our great national, anthem, Deutschland, Deutschland Uber alles, to mean that nothing in the wide world surpasses in his eyes this Germany, people and land, land and people" Hitler quoted in Bullock p75-76

"While Hitler's attitude towards LIBERALISM was one of CONTEMPT, towards Marxism he showed an implacable hostility Ignoring the profound differences between Communism and Social Democracy in practice and the bitter hostility between the rival working class parties, he saw in their common ideology the embodiment of all that he detested. mass democracy and a leveling egalitarianism as opposed to the authoritarian state and the rule of an elite; equality and friendship among, peoples as opposed to racial inequality and the domination of the strong; class solidarity versus national unity; internationalism versus nationalism." - ibid

The Nazis not good nationalists? what a laugh.

In his book Der Fuehrer, prewar Leftist writer Konrad Heiden corrects the now almost universal assumption that Hitler's idea of race was biologically-based. The Nazi conception of race traces, as is well-known, to the work of Houston Stewart Chamberlain. But what did Chamberlain say about race? It should not by now be surprising that he said something that sounds thoroughly Leftist. Anthropologist Robert Gayre summarizes Chamberlain's ideas as follows:

"On the contrary he taught (like many "progressives" today) that racial mixture was desirable, for, according to him, it was only out of racial mixture that the gifted could be created. He considered that the evidence of this was provided by the Prussian, whom he saw as the superman, resulting from a cross between the German (or Anglo-Saxon "German") and the Slav. From this Chamberlain went on to argue that the sum of all these talented people would then form a "race," not of blood but of "affinity."

So the Nazi idea of race rejected biology just as thoroughly as modern Leftist ideas about race do! If that seems all too jarring to believe, Gayre goes on to discuss the matter at length.

Most anthropologists have come to the conclusion that "race" is not a useful term, not because of their Political leanings, But because of the Scientific method, which last time i checked, Science is not "leftist"

"Interpretation of the word 'race' as it applies to groups of persons is inconsistent, and the definition of this term depends on the motive of the person using it. The Oxford English Dictionary acknowledges the imprecision of delimiting race, and it lists five definitions that range from a group as small as a family to a group as large as a species.

Most anthropologists have come to the conclusion that 'race' is not a useful term:

The term race, as applied to human types, is vague. It can have a biological significance only when a race represents a uniform, closely inbred group, in which all family lines are alike,as in pure breeds of domesticated animals. These conditions are never realized in human types and impossible in large populations. As a folk concept, race is employed to attribute not only physical characteristics but also psychological and moral ones to members of given categories, thus justifying or naturalizing a discriminatory system.

Race is therefore an unscientific social construct; that is, the concept of race is created from prevailing social perceptions and is without scientific foundation. The last definition given alludes to the destructive idea of race, which has fueled racist and eugenic movements with allegedly scientific claims of racial superiority and inferiority.

Anywhere from 30 to several hundred human races, defined using anthropologic criteria, have been proposed. Although this complex classification system is not commonly used in the media or in medicine, many persons have intuitively adopted the anthropologic definition of race; in the 1990 U.S. Census, nearly 300 'races' were volunteered. Indeed, this broader interpretation of race conforms more to the definition of an ethnic group, which is a group 'of people within a cultural system who desire or are given special status based on traits such as religion, culture, language, or appearance'." - Ritchie Witzig, "The Medicalization of Race: Scientific Legitimization of a Flawed Social Construct", Annals of Internal Medicine (Vol. 125, 1996).

No, in actuality, the Nazi idea of race embraced pseudo-science, they didn't reject biology they perverted it like Ray perverts reality.

And anyways it is just Wrong to mix Chamberlain and the Left, we know Chamberlain was something of a Rightist himself who married the even more Right-wing daughter of Richard Wagner (That nationalist composer) And among his admirers numbered Churchill again, and senator Albert J. Beveridge, a republican, neither being left wing.

So although Hitler made powerful USE of German nationalism, we see from both the considerations put forward by Locke and the intellectual history discussed by Gayre, that Hitler was not in fact much motivated by racial loyalty as we would normally conceive it. So what was he motivated by?

we as in the present tense?

Locke suggests that Hitler's actions are best explained by saying that he simply had a love of war but offers no explanation of WHY Hitler would love war. Hitler's extreme Leftism does explain this however.

No, being on one side of the political spectrum, explained earlier, does not explain a love of War.

As the quotations already given show, Hitler shared with other Leftists a love of constant change and excitement --- and what could offer more of that than war (or, in the case of other Leftists, the civil war of "revolution")?

"Fascist revolution sought to change the nature of relationships between the, individual and the collectivity WITHOUT destroying the impetus of economic activity - The profit motive or its foundation - private property or its necessary framework - the market economy. this was one aspect of the novelty of fascism; the fascist revolution was supported by an economy determined by the laws of the market. ... If fascism wished to reap all the benefits of the modern age, to exploit all the achievements of capitalism, if it never questioned the idea of market forces and private property were the natural order of things, it had a horror of so called bourgeois, or as Nietzsche called them, modern values:, universalism, individualism, progress, natural rights and equality. thus fascism adopted the economic aspect of, liberalism but completely denied its philosophical principles and the intellectual and moral heritage of modernity. Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of Fascist Ideology", p7

In essence fascist thought was a rejection of the value known in the culture of the time as materialism... Thus anti-materialism [was] a direct assault on liberalism and Marxism. Prof Zeev Sternhell, "The Birth of, Fascist Ideology", Ibid, p7-8

and do i need to repeat that Kershaw Quote again?

The idea that Nazism was motivated primarily by a typically Leftist hunger for change and excitement and hatred of the status quo is reinforced by the now famous account of life in Nazi Germany given by a young "Aryan" who lived through it. Originally written before World War II, Haffner's (2002) account of why Hitler rose to power stresses the boring nature of ordinary German life and observes that the appeal of the Nazis lay in their offering of relief from that:

"The great danger of life in Germany has always been emptiness and boredom ... The menace of monotony hangs, as it has always hung, over the great plains of northern and eastern Germany, with their colorless towns and their all too industrious, efficient, and conscientious business and organizations. With it comes a horror vacui and the yearning for 'salvation': through alcohol, through superstition, or, best of all, through a vast, overpowering, cheap mass intoxication."

So he too saw the primary appeal of Nazism as its offering of change, novelty and excitement.

Image Image

Oh Never mind. More propaganda then?

And how about another direct quote from Hitler himself?

Rays most epic quote mine wrote:"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions"

(Speech of May 1, 1927. Quoted by Toland, 1976, p. 306)

I have no idea which edition of toland he quotes from, But mine can be found here and in my edition, the quote appears on p224, But the point is all the same.

Put into Google Hitler and socialist, and you're bound to come up with right wing websites with the above quote. Because of it's usage by the likes of Ray, i regard it as hitler's "There is no such thing as society" moment. What i mean is, A quote which is Always taken out of context to further a false point.

So what is the context you may ask? I provide the answer below.

It was to only try and wean some of the working class support over to him that he made references like he did to socialism. And that never really worked, the Nazis always had the least support from, the working class. In that particular section of the book Toland is discussing Hitler's use of propaganda and his oratory style. He starts out by stating that the Berlin Nazi party (or Gau) was in disarray at this time and Goebbels was sent to straighten out the situation. He found that "The thousand party members under his jurisdiction were opposed on the streets by overwhelming numbers of Communists and Social Democrats." The course of action they decided on was to do everything they could to pick fights and to basically 'Red Bait' the Leftists in order to enflame violence, and to use propaganda to confuse the masses to try and weaken the real Left. "Goebbles decided, it was now time to broaden the base of membership and to do that he had to attract the attention of the jaded public, "Berlin needs its sensations as a fish needs water", he (Goebbels) wrote" (ibid p223) So the best way they decided to inflame the situation was for violent action "SA troops deliberately sought out physical combat with the Reds," (Ibid p224) and for Hitler to give a speech on May Day. And not only that, but to give, speeches in meeting halls that were taken over from the Communists. ""Making noise" he (Hitler) once said, "is an effective means of opposition"" (Ibid p224) And that is the true light that the quote must be taken as, making noise to provoke. False propaganda meant to inflame. Fights were started and the Newspapers proclaimed that there was this little known party, as it was not very large in Berlin at the time, fighting the Communists and Socialists. "The publicity was meant to be derogatory but in the next few, days 2600 applications for membership were received," (Ibid p224) So this all served their purpose. And Toland, immediately after using the quote, and in, the very next sentence of the same paragraph states, "This was followed by a long dissertation on Lebensraum, in Hitler's continuing effort to pound this concept into the membership. Sixty-two million Germans he said, were crowded into an area only 450,000 kilometers square. "This is a ridiculous figure when one considers the size of other nations in the world today." There were two solutions:, either decrease he population by "chasing our best human material out of Germany" or "bring the soil into consonance with the population, even if it must be done by war. This is the natural way which Providence has prescribed." (Ibid p225)

Notice a couple of things here, first that he only uses one line calling himself a socialist and this is meant to inflame the Socialists and the rest of the Left, just get publicity and to confuse those that may not know the reality behind their party. The latter, of which Hitler makes clear in his detailed policy of Lebensraum which has nothing to do with socialism. So not only does he merely state without any justification that he is a socialist, he makes it clear that his policy is not a socialist one but a racial and colonial one. So Hitler does not at all expound on the socialist statement, but he goes into detail on Lebensraum, which makes it clear that there is no real, socialism behind his 'socialist' statement but there is to his expansionary and racist policies. "Again and again he hammered at race and the fact that Germany's future lay in the conquest of eastern, territories. Over and over he preached his pseudo-Darwinist sermon of nature's way: conquest of the weak by the strong." (Ibid p226) As an honest reading of Toland would indicate; something that those that use this quote like Ray has obviously not done, but had probably only acquired it from a cheap Web search, probably from a Heritage institute or Glen Beck site; The mentioning of 'Socialist' was only propaganda. It is part of a larger section by Toland treating that subject and the attempt by, the Nazi to develop support while weakening the other parties. Except for the racial policy and expansion, Hitler, when the party was first building, its support, would say anything, no matter how disingenuous, to try and be attractive to every segment of the political society.

"The Nazis continued to be a catch-all party of social, protest, with particularly strong support from the middle classes, and the relatively weak support from in the traditional industrial working class" - Richard J Evans, "The Coming of the Third Reich" p295

At any rate.

"For him (Hitler) the Nazi socialist slogans had been merely propaganda, means of winning over the masses on his way to power. Now that he had the power, he was no longer interested in them." - Shirer. The Rise & Fall Of the Third Reich p. 205

So not only have we caught out Ray repeating propaganda without question Again. But i would go as far as to say that this little observation by Shirer, actualy wipes out most of his points itself. I think Ray is a poor fool who is a victim of early nazi propaganda, ie, He's fallen for it. Hook, line and Sinker.

Clearly, the idea that Hitler was a Rightist is probably the most successful BIG LIE of the 20th Century. He was to the Right of the Communists but that is all. Nazism was nothing more nor less than a racist form of Leftism (rather extreme Leftism at that) and to label it as "Rightist" or anything else is to deny reality.

"Americans both before and after the second world war casualy and deliberately articulated distorted similarities between nazi and communist ideologies, german and soviet foreiign policies, authoritarian controls and trade practices , and Hitler and Stalin. This popular analogy was a potent and pervasive notion that significantly shaped American of world events in the cold war. Once russia was designated the "enemy" by american leaders, americans transferred their hatred of Hitler's germany to Stalin's russia with considerable ease and persuasion." - les K. Adler and Thomas G. Paterson. "Red Fascism: The merger of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia in the american image of totalitarianism." from The American Historical review, vol 75, no4 (apr., 1970).

Sorry, Nope. to deny Hitler's rightism is to fall for american (esp, Cold war) propaganda. Or I suppose every qualified scholar i have at my disposial is wrong then.

The word "Nazi" is a German abbreviation of the name of Hitler's political party -- the nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiter Partei. In English this translates to "The National Socialist German Worker's Party". So Hitler was a socialist and a champion of the workers -- or at least he identified himself as such and campaigned as such.

Shall i repeat that shirer quote again?

"For him (Hitler) the Nazi socialist slogans had been merely propaganda, means of winning over the masses on his way to power. Now that he had the power, he was no longer interested in them." - Shirer. The Rise & Fall Of the Third Reich p. 205

Nevertheless, within certain conservative circles, the misconception remains the Nazis were socialists simply because of the "socialism" in their name. I wonder if those who insist on uncritically accepting the Nazis' cynical self-definition would be quite as eager to believe that the German Democratic Republic was democratic. After all, it's in the name isn't it?

And i woonder if Ray thinks that a Puffinus puffinus is not a Manx shearwater, but in fact a Puffin (contrary to what every biological textbook will tell you.) Because after all, it's in the name isn't it?

Reductio ad absurdum

There is a great deal of further reading available that extends the points made here about the nature of Nazism and Fascism. There is, for instance, an interesting review by Prof. Antony Flew here of The Lost Literature of Socialism by historian George Watson. Excerpt:

Many of his findings are astonishing. Perhaps for readers today the most astonishing of all is that "In the European century that began in the 1840s, from Engels' article of 1849 down to the death of Hitler, everyone who advocated genocide called himself a socialist and no conservative, liberal, anarchist or independent did anything of the kind." (The term "genocide" in Watson's usage is not confined to the extermination only of races or of ethnic groups, but embraces also the liquidation of such other complete human categories as "enemies of the people" and "the Kulaks as a class.")

The book seems well worth reading but is not of course available online. An excellent earlier essay by Prof. Watson covering some of the same ground is however available here. He shows in it that even such revered figures in the history of socialism as G.B. Shaw and Beatrice Webb were vocally in favour of genocide.

Antony Flew? He is not a historian but in fact a deist philosopher, (as far as im aware.) and this Prof Watson should be discredited. Here's a handful of quotations to ponder.

"I believe that the nation as such should be annihilated, or, if this was not possible by tactical measures, have to be expelled from the country...This will be possible if the water-holes from Grootfontein to Gobabis are occupied. The constant movement of our troops will enable us to find the small groups of nation who have moved backwards and destroy them gradually."

"I, the great general of the German soldiers, send this letter to the Hereros. The Hereros are German subjects no longer. They have killed, stolen, cut off the ears and other parts of the body of wounded soldiers, and now are too cowardly to want to fight any longer. I announce to the people that whoever hands me one of the chiefs shall receive 1,000 marks, and 5,000 marks for Samuel Maherero. The Herero nation must now leave the country. If it refuses, I shall compel it to do so with the 'long tube' (cannon). any Herero found inside the German frontier, with or without a gun or cattle, will be executed. I shall spare neither women nor children. I shall give the order to drive them away and fire on them. Such are my words to the Herero people."

"The waterless Omaheke was to complete the work of the German arms: the annihilation of the Herero people"

"I destroy the African tribes with streams of blood...Only following this cleansing can something new emerge, which will remain."

It's clear that the author is openly advocating a Genocide, but who is the author you may ask? He was Not a socialist but a conservative general by the name of Lothar von Trotha, and he didn't just merely advocate Genocide, But actualy carried one out (and isnt that more important?). More info on the Genocide of the Herero and Namaqua peoples here. He even gave Germany their first concentration Camps.

also see, The Kaiser's Holocaust. Germany's Forgotten Genocide and the Colonial Roots of Nazism by David Olusoga and Casper W Erichsen, for the links between This action and Hitler's own genocidal programmes.

We have already seen luther and his idea that "we are at fault in not slaying them [The Jews]" But here's Just a few items of the many we can find Calling for a genocide of the Native americans.

This website wrote:In 1851 the Governor of California officially called for the "extermination" of the Indians in his state.

On March 24, 1863, the Rocky Mountain News in Denver ran an editorial titled, "Exterminate Them."

On April 2, 1863, the Santa Fe New Mexican advocated "extermination of the, Indians." In 1867, General Sherman said:

"We must act with vindictive earnestness against the [Lakotas,] even to their extermination, men, women and children."

It's not just socialists that call for Genocide, and regardless of what G.B Shaw may have called for, Even he disagrees with Ray

G.B Shaw wrote:As to militant Dictatorship, it means no more than Gas and Gaiters. At present all the countries which are not, like England, merely sticking in the mud, are dominated by dictators: Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Kemal, Roosevelt, Pilsudski, and De Valera. But none of these dictatorships is like any of the others. The only feature they have in common is the abolition of party government and of Oppositions. The notion that the only alternative to the party system is a Tsardom masquerading as a Republican Dictatorship is only a symptom of political ignorance and thoughtlessness, which is unfortunately an almost universal disease at present.

We do however need to keep in mind that there is no such thing as PURE Leftism. Leftists are notoriously fractious, sectarian and multi-branched. And even the Fascist branch of Leftism was far from united.

There is no such thing as pure rightism either, For the same reasons.

The modern-day Left always talk as if Italy's Mussolini and Hitler were two peas in a pod but that is far from the truth. Mussolini got pretty unprintable about Hitler at times and did NOT support Hitler's genocide against the Jews (Steinberg, 1990; Herzer, 1989). As it says here:

"Just as none of the victorious powers went to war with Germany to save the Jews neither did Mussolini go to war with them to exterminate the Jews. Indeed, once the Holocaust was under way he and his fascists refused to deport Jews to the Nazi death camps thus saving thousands of Jewish lives - far more than Oskar Schindler."

"Far more than Oskar Schindler"!. And as late as 1938, Mussolini even asked the Pope to excommunicate Hitler!. Leftists are very good at "fraternal" rivalry.

let us put to Bed this "two peas in a pod" strawman with Marxists.org, and if they're not leftist, No-one is.

Marxists.org wrote:Fascism has many different forms: the Italian fascism of Mussolini was often against Hitler's Fascism, calling it "one hundred percent racism: Against everything and everyone: Yesterday against Christian civilization, today against Latin civilization, tomorrow, who knows, against the civilization of the whole world." When Hitler began achieving impressive military conquests, which Mussolini had started in Ethiopia in 1935, the two formed an axis of power in June of 1940. The birth of fascism in Germany was aided by Western governments, who for two decades viewed it as the ideology that would successfully crush the Soviet Union. Not until Germany's tanks were on the borders of England and France did those governments 'switch' sides: now it was their imperialist domination being threatened.

i would say the "two peas in a pod" is more a case of general ignorance than anything else, And general ignorance is not leftist or rightist, last time i checked

will edit this post later.
"Politics is weird, and creepy, and now I know lacks even the loosest attachment to anything like reality." - Shep Smith
Wed Sep 15, 2010 9:22 pm
theyounghistorian77ContributorUser avatarPosts: 726Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:43 amLocation: United Kingdom Gender: Male

Post Re: Apparently, Hiteler was a "Leftist" Response and rebutti

Tom Wolfe's biting essay on American intellectuals also summarizes the origins of Fascism and Nazism rather well. Here is one excerpt from it:

"Fascism" was, in fact, a Marxist coinage. Marxists borrowed the name of Mussolini's Italian party, the Fascisti, and applied it to Hitler's Nazis, adroitly papering over the fact that the Nazis, like Marxism's standard-bearers, the Soviet Communists, were revolutionary socialists. In fact, "Nazi" was (most annoyingly) shorthand for the National Socialist German Workers' Party. European Marxists successfully put over the idea that Nazism was the brutal, decadent last gasp of "capitalism."

{From the essay "In the Land of the Rococo Marxists" originally appearing in the June 2000 Harper's Monthly and reprinted in Wolfe's book Hooking Up}

Does anyone notice a trend here? Ray is Repeating the same debunked arguments over and over again

Other sources on the basic facts about Hitler that history tells us are Roberts (1938), Heiden (1939), Shirer (1964), Bullock (1964), Taylor (1963), Hagan (1966), Feuchtwanger (1995).

The above are however secondary sources and, as every historian will tell you, there is nothing like going back to the original -- which is why much original text is quoted above. For further reading in the original sources, the first stop is of course Mein Kampf. It seems customary to portray Mein Kampf as the ravings of a madman but it is far from that. It is the attempt of an intelligent mind to comprehend the world about it and makes its points in such a personal and passionate way that it might well persuade many people today but for a knowledge of where it led. The best collection of original Nazi documents on the web is however probably here. Perhaps deserving of particular mention among the documents available there is a widely circulated pamphlet by Goebbels here. One excerpt from it:

Propaganda wrote:The bourgeois is about to leave the historical stage. In its place will come the class of productive workers, the working class, that has been up until today oppressed. It is beginning to fulfill its political mission. It is involved in a hard and bitter struggle for political power as it seeks to become part of the national organism. The battle began in the economic realm; it will finish in the political. It is not merely a matter of pay, not only a matter of the number of hours worked in a day-though we may never forget that these are an essential, perhaps even the most significant part of the socialist platform-but it is much more a matter of incorporating a powerful and responsible class in the state, perhaps even to make it the dominant force in the future politics of the Fatherland.

Now lets have a look at what that website says shall we?

Ray's own source wrote:Background: This widely distributed Nazi pamphlet first appeared in 1929. I am working from a 1932 copy, and have not compared it with the first version, but it does not look as if significant changes were made as it was reissued. The title, loosely translated, is "Those Damned Nazis." Literally, it translates as something like "those cursed swastika lads," but that does not really work in English. At least several hundred thousand copies were printed. It is a good summary of the basic lines of Nazi propaganda just before Hitler's takeover in 1933. The booklet included five cartoons by Mjà¶lnir, Goebbels' cartoonist, three of which I include here. Mjà¶lnir also produced some of the most familiar Nazi posters.

The source: Joseph Goebbels and Mjà¶lnir, Die verfluchten Hakenkreuzler. Etwas zum Nachdenken (Munich: Verlag Frz. Eher, 1932).

Yes, Ray is so stupid, he failed to notice that he's repeating propaganda from a propagandist, Which of course, proves Nothing.

So Hitler was both a fairly typical pre-war Leftist in most respects and would also make a pretty good modern Leftist in most respects. Aside from his nationalism, it is amazing how much he sounds like modern Leftists in fact. And his nationalism was in fact one way in which he was smarter than modern Leftists.

So? Hitler was a good nationalist now was he? But i thought ray said he wasn't earlier? Does this qualify as a near contridiction?

Have a look at the 1939 Nazi propaganda placard below (a Wochenspruch for the Gau Weser/Ems). The placard promotes one of Hitler's sayings. The saying is, "Es gibt keinen Sozialismus, der nicht aufgeht im eigenen Volk" -- which I translate as "There is no socialism except what arises within its own people". Hitler spoke a very colloquial German so translating that one was not easy but I think that is about as close to it as you can get.


well, at least he has the good grace to admit that this is propaganda. :roll: moving on. A larger image can be obtained here and a collection of thse placards can be viewed here.

And the following is so Stupid and twisted, it's almost too comical for me. HITLER WAS NEVER A "PEACENIK"

Perhaps the most amazing parallel between Hitler and the postwar Left, however, is that for much of the 30s Hitler was actually something of a peacenik. I am putting up below a picture of a Nazi propaganda poster of the 1930s that you won't believe unless you are aware of how readily all Leftists preach one thing and do another. It reads ""Mit Hitler gegen den Ruestungswahnsinn der Welt".


And what does that mean? It means "With Hitler against the armaments madness of the world". "Ruestung" could more precisely be translated as "military preparations" but "armaments" is a bit more idiomatic in English.

And how about the poster below? It would be from the March 5, 1933 election when Hitler had become Chancellor but Marshall Hindenburg was still President:


Translated, the poster reads: "The Marshall and the corporal fight alongside us for peace and equal rights"

Can you get a more Leftist slogan than that? "Peace and equal rights"? Modern-day Leftists sometimes try to dismiss Hitler's socialism as something from his early days that he later outgrew. But when this poster was promulgated he was already Reichskanzler (Prime Minister) so it was far from early days. Once again we see what a barefaced lie it is when Leftists misrepresent Hitler as a Rightist. We can all have our own views about what Hitler actually believed but he campaigned and gained power as a democratic Leftist. The March 5, 1933 election was the last really democratic election prewar Germany had and, in it, Hitler's appeal was Leftist.

Prime minister? :lol: :lol: doesn't Ray mean Chancellor? and as for the link between the nazis and leftists over "peace", it's another case of " well the native americans had swastikas, Nazis too had Swastikas, OMG, Ray thinks the native americans are Nazis." anyways, nevermind the fact that all the above (the posters), is just propaganda and a failure to Judge Hitler on What he did, not on what he said.

Now onto that newspaper article i quoted above, and that line in red i promised i would talk about (remember that?) You can put weight behind the quotes about the "Marxist-Jewish-communistic poisoners of a people". Because that is consistent with his actions, the red line about peace isn't, as everyone except neo-nazis acknowledges. As i stated earlier, "He also said he had no further territorial ambitions after Munich, and said: "I don't want to force National Socialism on anybody" - Table Talk, p22. Yes, Hitler said a lot of BS. Trying to use Hitler's words like this is meaningless as he is just a propagandist who said many different things to different people. It is only when his words match his deeds like his racist words that are backed by his corresponding deeds that we can put any weight on them whatsoever." and even within the same source, one can find reliable and unreliable elements. Ray just quotes all the unreliable parts and presents them without thinking it over first.

There is here (or here) a collection of some of the "peace" talk that Hitler used even after war had begun. Hitler might even be regarded as the original "peacenik", so vocal was he about his wish for peace. So the preaching of both "peace" and "equality" by the bloodthirsty Soviet regime of the cold war period had its parallel with the Nazis too.

yea, more twisting of philosophy, "Peaceniks" before the 20th century include the historic peace churches. Also the "Bohemian" Bernard Bolzano (1781-1848), who taught about the social waste of militarism and the needlessness of war. He urged a total reform of the educational, social, and economic systems that would direct the nation's interests toward peace rather than toward armed conflict between nations. and Leo Tolstoy. 1828-1910, whose work "The Kingdom of God Is Within You" is a defence of pacifism.

Hitler the original "peacenik"? What a laugh.

It may be worth noting in passing what a clever piece of propaganda the above poster was. Allied spokesmen such as Winston Churchill seemed to deem it a great insult to refer to CORPORAL Hitler. They seemed to think it demeaned him. Yet Hitler himself obviously did not think so. He seems in fact to have used his lowly military status in the first war to identify himself as a man of the people. He used it to his advantage, not to his disadvantage. It was part of his claim to represent the ordinary working man rather than the German establishment.

But Hitler had his cake and ate it too. By drawing a great Prussian Junker like President Hindenburg into his campaign, he also showed that he had the establishment on his side. It helped to portray him as a SAFE choice. Hindenburg was no doubt disgusted by such use of his name but since he had appointed Hitler, he could hardly complain.

For more Nazi "Peace" and other revealing posters see here.

Not that his appeals to the working classes worked very well, "The Nazis continued to be a catch-all party of social, protest, with particularly strong support from the middle classes, and the relatively weak support from in the traditional industrial working class" - Richard J Evans, "The Coming of the Third Reich" p295

I'll leave this segment with this,

"Is there any criticism of the regime?" My Quaker friend laughed. "Plenty! Many of the younger men want less Nationalism and more Socialism. But there is no criticism of Hitler, whose sincerity and will for the well-being of the German people are unquestioned by them." - Ordeal in England by Philip Gibbs (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, Doran & Co., Inc., 1937)

This implies that the nazis are more nationalist than socialist (contridicting Ray.), and also describing the effect of propaganda, in a single swoop.
"Politics is weird, and creepy, and now I know lacks even the loosest attachment to anything like reality." - Shep Smith
Last edited by theyounghistorian77 on Sat Sep 25, 2010 2:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
Fri Sep 24, 2010 1:17 pm
TheFlyingBastardUser avatarPosts: 787Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2010 3:17 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Apparently, Hiteler was a "Leftist" Response and rebutti

Holy shit, TYH. You're quite passionate about this, aren't you?
Fri Sep 24, 2010 2:53 pm
theyounghistorian77ContributorUser avatarPosts: 726Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:43 amLocation: United Kingdom Gender: Male

Post Re: Apparently, Hiteler was a "Leftist" Response and rebutti

TheFlyingBastard wrote:Holy shit, TYH. You're quite passionate about this, aren't you?

:lol: :lol: i was asked to do this paticular website, so here it is. Right in front of your eyes. ;)

if you oh so desire, this will be my first and last critique of a website I'll think i'll go back to pwning glenn beck when i can ;)
"Politics is weird, and creepy, and now I know lacks even the loosest attachment to anything like reality." - Shep Smith
Sat Sep 25, 2010 1:47 am
theyounghistorian77ContributorUser avatarPosts: 726Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:43 amLocation: United Kingdom Gender: Male

Post Re: Apparently, Hiteler was a "Leftist" Response and rebutti


Or rather, his (feeble) responses to them.

At this stage I think I need to consider some objections to the account of Hitler that I have given so far:

Yes, Let's do this.

Objection 1 wrote:The Left/Right division is at fault.

Faced with the challenge to their preconceptions constituted by the material I have so far presented, some people take refuge in the well-known fact that political attitudes are complex and are seldom fully represented by a simple division of politics into Left and Right.

As i stated earlier, "The person's position on the political compass may be blurred by their stances on things like personal freedom, social policy, et cetera and the connections between them. That's where the complexities lie." This does not impact upon the political economy, which is the Real Main determiner for left and right.

They deny that Hitler was Leftist by denying that ANYBODY is simply Leftist.

I'll let cenk uygur, of TheYoungTurks put this strawman to bed.

Of course any reasonable person would call the likes of Stalin and mao and Che leftist.

I don't think this gets anybody very far, however. What I have shown (and will proceed to show at even greater length) is that Hitler fell squarely within that stream of political thought that is usually called Leftist. That is a fact. That is information.

Fascism is, and always will be, Right wing and it is properly recognized as such by academia and the proof of that is in the very, title of academic publications like: "The Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far Right"

And that is something that is not now generally known.

Because the arguments of Hitler's Leftism get debunked time and time again.

And no matter how you rejig your conception of politics generally, that affinity will not go away.

No, sorry, But it's ray that's twisting politics around. As stated earlier, but to add. Monarchists and, aristocrats are also conservative and have no qualms about using a larger gov't to achieve their goals. The contemporary American position of what they deem to be 'smaller gov't' is not the determiner of conservative. A conservative is just one who wishes to maintain the existing economic and/or social power structure; to maintain the elites that own that economy, this can be with or without the 'small gov't BS.

A fun Fact, Bill Clinton shrunk the size of govt, But under the conservative George W, Bush, The gov't grew again. But if you want the original small gov't ideology, look no further than to Bakunin's anarchist school who are socialists or to Engels for he envisioned a withering away of gov't in the final phase of communism. (Does this make him and/or the final phase of communism Right wing? No it doesn't.) To quote

"State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies out of itself; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The State is not "abolished". It dies out...Socialized production upon a predetermined plan becomes henceforth possible. The development of production makes the existence of different classes of society thenceforth an anachronism. In proportion as anarchy in social production vanishes, the political authority of the State dies out. Man, at last the master of his own form of social organization, becomes at the same time the lord over Nature, his own master , free." - Frederick Engels. "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific", "Historical Materialism"

And this element of communism is something even Lenin admitted to, (of course, not that it happened under him nor any other dictator of his Kind.)

"From the moment all members of society, or at least the vast majority, have learned to administer the state themselves, have taken this work into their own hands, have organized control over the insignificant capitalist minority, over the gentry who wish to, preserve their capitalist habits and over the workers who have been thoroughly corrupted by capitalism from this moment the need for government of any kind begins to disappear altogether. The more, complete the democracy, the nearer the moment when it becomes unnecessary. The more democratic the "state" which consists of the armed workers, and which is "no longer a state in the proper sense of the word", the more rapidly every form of state begins to wither away. ... Then the door will be thrown wide open for the transition from the first phase of communist society to its higher phase, and with it to the complete withering away of the state." - Vladimir Lenin: "The State and Revolution" Ch 5. "The higher phase of Communist Society".

But in short, The size of gov't has nothing to do with, placement on the spectrum.

It is commonly said that Nazism and Communism were both "authoritarian" or "totalitarian" -- which is undoubtedly true -- but what I show here is that there were far greater affinities than that. Basic doctrines, ideas and preachments of Nazis and Communists were similar as well as their method of government.

This is not my opinion, but it makes a valid point anyways.

Andiferous wrote:Even if there were similarities between Stalin and Hitler, I don't see any grounds for labeling the Third Reich a socialist government.

Stalin's five-year plans were derived from the "dictatorship of the proletariat" model, which is characterised by a temporary tyranny and governmental control of the means of production. This is a transitory stage, and and such doesn't represent (in my opinion) true socialism or Marxism.

Marxist Communism: the people own the means of production. No tyranny.
The people do for the people.

This bears little similarity to:

Communism in practice (dictatorship of the proletariat)
the state ("representing" the people with totalitarian powers) controls the means of production. Tyranny.
the people do for the state

Fascism: the government controls corporations. (the means of production). Tyranny.
The people do for the corporation.

Again, I can't think of any real life examples of Communism beyond the tyrannical stage and before the juicy and rewarding socialist parts kick in. Also, socialism and communism are not interchangeable terms...

But, as it happens, the Left/Right division of politics is not just some silly scheme put out by people who are too simple to think of anything better. There is a long history of attempts to devise better schemes but they all founder on how people in general actually vote and think. Most people DO organize their views in a recognizably Left/Right way. For a brief introduction to the research and thinking on the dimensionality of political attitudes, see here.

Or rather, His take on the political spectrum, Here's something to bear in Mind, and it comes from Wiki, on right wing authoritarianism (so how reliable it is, I'll leave it to you.)

"Altemeyer's research on authoritarianism has been challenged by psychologist John J. Ray, who questions the sampling methods used and the ability of the RWA Scale to predict authoritarian behavior.[17][18] Ray's approach is, however, a minority position among researchers [19] and other psychologists have found that both the RWA Scale and the original F-Scale are good predictors of both attitudes and behavior.[20] Part of the controversy in this area may be due to Ray's unique conceptual interpretation of authoritarianism as "directiveness," a construct that is unrelated to other theoretical approaches." - Wiki

The Key source [19] is Stone, W. F., Lederer, G., & Christie, R. (1993). Strengths and weaknesses: The authoritarian personality today. New York: Springer-Verlag.

edit: This is what the source says, It's from the Conclusion of the relevant Chapter (written by Jos D. Meloen) regarding the F-Scale (pg 67-68) according to Reedstilt. It doesn't mention Ray by name, But this certainly implies that he is in a minority position over this issue. especialy if what wiki says about "Ray's unique conceptual interpretation of authoritarianism as "directiveness,"" is true.

"The general conclusion of this study is that the F scale is more strongly related to right-wing extremism than has hitherto been assumed. From the 1940s on into the 1980s, a number of groups consisting of activists as well as of supports of ideologies associated with Nazism, fascism, apartheid, racism, and extreme nationalism have been shown to score higher on the F scale or close F-scale derivatives. Their group scores are much higher than those of the general population, whereas clearly antifascist and antiauthoritarian groups tend to score lower than the general population. This adds considerably to the validity of the F scale as a potential fascism scale.

Whether the F scale is an authoritarianism scale as well may be a separate issue. This mainly depends on how authoritarianism is defined. The content of F scale clearly addresses a right-wing authoritarian, hierarchical mentality in Western Europe and North America. At the time of the work of the Berkeley group, fascist regimes openly advocated and endorsed authoritarian state systems, and the association between fascism and authoritarianism was almost self-evident. If it can be shown that authoritarianism scales also predict support for former or existing authoritarian communist systems (as dealt with in another chapter), this would add a strong argument for the F scale's being an authoritarianism scale, one that is also independent of socioeconomic (capitalist or communist) ideology. In that case, Adorno et al. (1950) may indeed have produced the blueprint of a general authoritarianism scale. However, more evidence may be necessary.

Conservatives seem to define authoritarianism as the dominating behavior of left wingers. Yet the operationalization of this definition in the directiveness scale is not empirically associated with extremely high scores on this scale of right-wing (or left-wing) extremist groups to my knowledge, whereas the F scale has been shown repeatedly to be associated with such groups. In this respect, the F scale has full advantage over alternatives for which no extreme scores have yet been reported for extremist groups. The only exception may be the Dogmatism scale, which has been shown to be associated with right-wing extremism (DiRenzo, 1967b; Knutson, 1974; Altemeyer, 1988a, p. 261), but not with left-wing extremism, as Rokeach (1960) hypothesized. The Dogmatism scale has been shown to be highly correlated with the F scale. This also seems to be the case with Altemeyer's RWA scale so that similar results in general can be expected from the RWA and F scale. [7]

Most of the research findings discussed here were known or could have been known to major mainstream reviewers, such as Wrightsman (1977), Byrne (1974), Cherry and Byrne (1977), Dillehay (1978), and Goldstein and Blackman (1978). But the discussion about authoritarianism has ignored key information that has been available for decades and has subsequently deteriorated in quantity and quality, especially in the 1980s. The Steiner and Fahrenberg (1970a, 1970b) investigation had not been quoted until it was rediscovered by this author, nor has any major reviewer ever attempted a systemic search such as has been performed here. One is tempted to conclude either that no fascism is present in North America or that American investigators could have done a much better job to prove its existence with the F scale. The student sample syndrome of much research would tend to suggest the latter, although it is clear that both classical fascism and neofascism may be more European social and political phenomena than North American.

One may wonder about the amount of support provided by the present analysis for the authoritarian personality theory. Strictly speaking, this report shows that only the F scale has greater validity for measuring potential and actual fascism than is often assumed. Whether the original theory is satisfactory is another question. If Altemeyer (1981, 1988a) is even partly correct, it may be possible that other theories will prove more effective in explaining the empirical phenomena and that the RWA scale may be more efficient. However, his reduction of the authoritarianism concept seems historically questionable and ignores much that was already predicted by the F scale he so thoroughly "discredited," almost throwing away the baby with the bath water.

In the light of the reappearance of ethnocentric and authoritarian attitudes in the 1980s (Meloen et al., 1988), this research is too important for petty quarrels about the kind of insignificant side issues that have dominated the debate on authoritarianism for too long. Psychologists have contributed most of the studies in this field, mainly because many sociologists had political scientists do not give much credit to personal motivation and reasoning that can enhance the understanding of political phenomena. The study of authoritarianism, however, cannot be limited to psychology. Further analyses on social, political, economic, and historical levels are beyond the scope of this report, but suggestions for a more comprehensive, dynamic and multidisciplinary approach have been made elsewhere (Meloen, 1983, 1984, 1991a, 1991c; Meloen & Middendorp, 1991).

The relevance of authoritarianism research has been assessed in this analysis. It indicates that the results of authoritarianism research have been strongly underestimated.

[7] In the sample of 131 Dutch psychology students the correlation between a 10-item original F scale and the 30-item RWA scale (no item overlap) was .62; the correlation of the F scale with the authoritarian half of the RWA scale (no item overlap) was even .71 (Meloen, 1991b). "
"Politics is weird, and creepy, and now I know lacks even the loosest attachment to anything like reality." - Shep Smith
Sat Sep 25, 2010 12:40 pm
theyounghistorian77ContributorUser avatarPosts: 726Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:43 amLocation: United Kingdom Gender: Male

Post Re: Apparently, Hiteler was a "Leftist" Response and rebutti

objection 2 wrote:Leftist denials of Hitler's Leftism: Kangas

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitler.htm - This is the essay he's talking about

Modern day Leftists of course hate it when you point out to them that Hitler was one of them. They deny it furiously -- even though in Hitler's own day both the orthodox Leftists who represented the German labor unions (the SPD) and the Communists (KPD) voted WITH the Nazis in the Reichstag (German Parliament) on various important occasions -- though not on all occasions.

NO! that's a lie and a twisting of the facts. The Communists voted not WITH, the but separately, for different reasons, in the Reichstag. The Nazi voted against from the Right, and the Communists voted against from the Left; two entirely different sides and reasons behind it. And additionally the Nazi marched lock, step with the other right-wing parties like the Nationalists and the Stahlhelm. And the Nazis went against the expropriation referendum of 25/26. So when they had a chance to act in a real socialist manner, They actualy failed to do so. Both the SPD and the KDP supported passage of that referendum, the Nazis did not. "Although the SPD and KDP both supported the referendum, the communists failed to create, United Front committees, and the two parties conducted entirely separate campaigns." - Bernhard Fulda "Press and politics in the Weimar Republic" p121-122.

They were after all political rivals. It was only at the last gasp -- the passage of the "Enabling Act" that gave Hitler absolute power -- that the SPD opposed the Nazis resolutely. They knew from introspection where that would lead, even if others were deceived.

"At this historic hour, we German Social Democrats pledge ourselves to the principles of humanity and justice, of freedom and Socialism. No Enabling Law can give you the power to destroy ideas which are eternal and indestructible ... From this new persecution too German Social Democracy can draw new strength. We send greetings to the persecuted and oppressed. We greet our friends in the Reich. Their steadfastness and loyalty deserve admiration. The courage with which they maintain their convictions and their unbroken confidence guarantee a brighter future. [...] You can take our lives and our freedom, but you cannot take our honour. We are defenseless but not honourless." - Otto Wels. (Chairman of the SPD.)

As part of that denial, an essay by the late Steve Kangas is much reproduced on the internet. Entering the search phrase "Hitler was a Leftist" will bring up multiple copies of it. Kangas however reveals where he is coming from in his very first sentence: "Many conservatives accuse Hitler of being a leftist, on the grounds that his party was named "National Socialist." But socialism requires worker ownership and control of the means of production". It does? Only to Marxists.

er. Sorry, Socialism at it's most basic is indeed an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources, How you achieve this is of course, another matter. But as shown earlier, the means of production in nazi Germany, ideologically consisted of Private property, Plus The Nazis never interfered with the profits made by such large German firms as Krupp, Siemens AG, and IG Farben. in short, Nazis were not socialist.

Before anyone brings up dictionaries, one does not use a dictionary to find the meaning of important concepts and ideas, it's really only for spelling. we look for answers to rather complex concepts, in real academic books.

But let's have a look at the Dictionary definition for socialism anyway shall we?

Oxford English Dictionary wrote:Socialism


[mass noun]

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

.policy or practice based on this theory

.(in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism

The term 'socialism' has been used to describe positions as far apart as anarchism, Soviet state Communism, and social democracy; however , it necessarily implies an opposition to the untrammelled workings of the economic market. The socialist parties that have arisen in most European countries from the late 19th century have generally tended towards social democracy.

The Nazi direction of the economy was only for its military ends and had nothing to do with socialism. Nazi Germany; private ownership, private profits. Not socialism.

So Kangas is saying only that Hitler was less Leftist than the Communists -- and that would not be hard. Surely a "democratic" Leftist should see that as faintly to Hitler's credit, in fact.

No, Kangas is not saying that at all

At any event, Leonard Peikoff makes clear the triviality of the difference:

Contrary to the Marxists, the Nazis did not advocate public ownership of the means of production. They did demand that the government oversee and run the nation's economy. The issue of legal ownership, they explained, is secondary; what counts is the issue of CONTROL. Private citizens, therefore, may continue to hold titles to property -- so long as the state reserves to itself the unqualified right to regulate the use of their property.

Which sounds just like the Leftists of today.

And the German owner was still the master of his property, the system of regulation did not take over total control as Peikoff suggests. It's Just more of the same superficial Bullshit. As stated before, business was a willing, partner in the Nazi regime and the control of respective areas of industries was left to them through the coordination of committees that were staffed by industrialists and capitalists of those industries.

As to Peikoff himself, You'd think it be hard to make Bill O'Reilly look sane and rational, but he actualy manages to achieve just that

"Under normal conditions men who behave as dubiously as Mr. Peikoff are soon regarded, when they are regarded at all, as cads. This appeared to be Mr. Peikoff's fate before the events of September 11 gave him the opportunity to show himself in a new light. This is not to imply that Peikoff has recanted. He is as self-absorbed and intolerant as ever. Only now, because of his uncompromising views regarding the war on terrorism, he has been given access to a wider public who knows nothing of the darker side of his persona. Nor does this public have any realization that Mr. Peikoff still remains the most intransigent apologist for Ayn Rand's worst excesses. Those who have seen Mr. Peikoff interviewed on Fox with Bill O'Reilly or have heard him on Michael Savage's nationally syndicated radio program hear only the patriotic firebrand. Little do they realize that behind the blazing rhetoric is nothing but a shrill ideologue whose basic ideas contradict all the wisdom accumulated by centuries of conservative scholarship and thought.

If we examine Mr. Peikoff's Philippic against "American appeasement" a little more closely, we will begin to notice some of the flies in the ointment. Peikoff commences his essay by accusing Truman and Eisenhower of surrendering "the West's property rights in oil, although that oil rightfully belonged to those in the West whose science, technology, and capital made its discovery and use possible." This surrender, Peikoff avers, occurred for "philosophical" reasons. The U.S. was "ashamed" of its selfishness and individualism. The Muslim countries, on the other hand, "embodied...every idea,selfless duty, anti-materialism, faith or feeling above science, the supremacy of the group,which our universities, our churches, and our own political Establishment had long been upholding as virtue. When two groups, our leadership and theirs, accept the same basic ideas, the most consistent side wins."

Peikoff's take on the conflict between the Arab world and the West may have an aura of plausibility. Deeper penetration into the facts will reveal a far more complicated picture, one which has very little to do with the "philosophical" reasons which Peikoff regards as paramount.

"Peikoff, deriving all his intellectual inspiration from the corrupted sources of Rand's quasi-leftist view of human nature, is not fit to give advice on any important question of social policy [or History for that matter. My addition.]. Lacking any knowledge of the fundamentals of realpolitik, his proposals can only serve to distract the individual from confronting the real problems at issue. Randian idealism about human nature and morality is incapable of providing guidance in a world that is far different than either Rand or Peikoff imagines it to be. By following it in their own lives, Rand and Peikoff have brought ignominy and ruin upon themselves and their cause. We should all be wary of taking advice from anyone inspired by such polluted intellectual currents" - from: http://www.jrnyquist.com/peikoff's_geno ... mpaign.htm

Some other points made by Kangas are highly misleading. He says for instance that Hitler favoured "competition over co-operation". Hitler in fact rejected Marxist notions of class struggle and had as his great slogan: "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuehrer" (One People, One State, one leader). He ultimately wanted Germans to be a single, unified, co-operating whole under him,

The nazi regime operated a Working Towards the Fà¼hrer concept, Nazi Germany was both a monocracy (rule of one) and polycracy (rule of many). Hitler held absolute power but did not choose to exercise it very much; the rival fiefdoms of the Nazi state fought each other and attempted to carry out Hitler's vaguely worded wishes and dimly defined orders by "Working Towards the Fà¼hrer". and if that's not competition over co-operation, then i do not know what is. for more details, see Ian kershaw.

"The Darwinian principles that animated the, regime dictated that competition between companies and individuals would remain the guiding principle of the economy, just as competition between different agencies of state and party were the guiding principles of politics and administration." - "The Third Reich in Power" Evans, p410, I've already quoted this earlier, But it's useful here too. ;)

Again, we shouldn't judge by slogans, but by deeds.

Other claims made by Kangas are simply laughable: He says that Hitler cannot have been a Leftist because he favoured: "politics and militarism over pacifism, dictatorship over democracy". Phew! So Stalin was not political, not a militarist and not a dictator? Enough said.

We can agree that Kangas poorly argued his case, But it doesn't undermine the case im putting forward, does it?

In summary, then, Kangas starts out by defining socialism in such a way that only Communists can be socialists and he then defines socialism in a way that would exclude Stalin from being one! So is ANYBODY a socialist according to Kangas? Only Mr Brain-dead Kangas himself, I guess.

we can agree that it was poorly argued, but pointing out his argument in this manner, does not refute it. This is what Kangas says.

Kangas wrote:Socialism has been proposed in many forms. The most common is social democracy, where workers vote for their supervisors, as well as their industry representatives to regional or national congresses. Another proposed form is anarcho-socialism, where workers own companies that would operate on a free market, without any central government at all. As you can see, a central planning committee is hardly a necessary feature of socialism. The primary feature is worker ownership of production.

The Soviet Union failed to qualify as socialist because it was a dictatorship over workers -- that is, a type of aristocracy, with a ruling elite in Moscow calling all the shots. Workers cannot own or control anything under a totalitarian government. In variants of socialism that call for a central government, that government is always a strong or even direct democracy"¦ never a dictatorship. It doesn't matter if the dictator claims to be carrying out the will of the people, or calls himself a "socialist" or a "democrat." If the people themselves are not in control, then the system is, by definition, non-democratic and non-socialist.

And Kangas fancied himself as an authority on Leftism! Perhaps he was. He certainly got the self-contradictory part down pat.

Unlike the self-contradiction over nazi nationalism? what a Hypocrite ray is.
"Politics is weird, and creepy, and now I know lacks even the loosest attachment to anything like reality." - Shep Smith
Last edited by theyounghistorian77 on Mon Oct 04, 2010 1:58 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Tue Sep 28, 2010 1:46 pm
theyounghistorian77ContributorUser avatarPosts: 726Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:43 amLocation: United Kingdom Gender: Male

Post Re: Apparently, Hiteler was a "Leftist" Response and rebutti

objection 3 wrote:Other denials of Nazism as Leftist

So the challenge by Kangas is really just too silly to take seriously. More serious is the strong reaction I get from many who know something of history who say that Hitler cannot have been a Leftist because of the great hatred that existed at the time between the Nazis and the "Reds". And it is true that Hitler's contempt for "Bolshevism" was probably exceeded only by his contempt for the Jews.

My reply is that there is no hatred like fraternal hatred and that hatreds between different Leftist groupings have existed from the French revolution onwards. That does not make any of the rival groups less Leftist however. And the ice-pick in the head that Trotsky got courtesy of Stalin shows vividly that even among the Russian revolutionaries themselves there were great rivalries and hatreds. Did that make any of them less Marxist, less Communist? No doubt the protagonists concerned would argue that it did but from anyone else's point of view they were all Leftists at least.

Nonetheless there still seems to persist in some minds the view that two groups as antagonistic as the Nazis and the Communists just cannot have been ideological blood-brothers. Let me therefore try this little quiz: Who was it who at one stage dismissed Hitler as a "barbarian, a criminal and a pederast"? Was it Stalin? Was it some other Communist? Was it Winston Churchill? Was it some other conservative? Was it one of the Social Democrats? No. It was none other than Benito Mussolini, the Fascist leader who later became Hitler's ally in World War II. And if any two leaders were ideological blood-brothers those two were. So I am afraid that antagonism between Hitler and others proves nothing. If anything, the antagonism between Hitler and other socialists is proof of what a typical socialist Hitler was.

And again, we've debunked the understanding of this "two peas in a pod" strawman with Marxists.org, and if they're not leftist, No-one is.

The other point to say is that Political rivalries are political rivalries and nothing more. Ray's silly superficial statement ignores so much of history and economics that it is just laughable. That the Nazis allied themselves with all the Right-wing parties and marched in the streets against the Left is ignored here. Another note, it was the Political incompetence and personal rivalry between Papen and Schleicher ultimately led to Hitler's being appointed chancellor of Germany by President Hindenburg on January 30, 1933, without ever having won a majority in a national election.

Another difficulty that those who know their history raise is the great and undoubted prominence of nationalist themes in Hitler's propaganda. It is rightly noted that in this Hitler diverged widely from the various Marxist movements of Europe. So can he therefore really have been a Leftist?

My reply is of course that Hitler was BOTH a nationalist AND a socialist -- as the full name of his political party (The National Socialist German Worker's Party) implies. And he was not alone in that:

Even the likes of Henry A. Turner argues that Hitler was something of a devout anti-socialist, and that the Nazis were merely nationalists using the adjective socialist out of convenience, ie propaganda. Hitler is also on record for saying, "Socialism! That is an unfortunate word altogether. [...] What does socialism really mean? If people have something to eat and their pleasures, then they have their socialism." - Turner, "German Big Business and the Rise of Hitler", p77.

therby demonstrating that hItler never knew or accepted what socialism is all about. but hang on a minuite? Doesn't ray have his pleasures and things to eat? Ray therfore must be something of a socialist. :lol:

anyone else see the problem with this idea of socialism?

And yes me calling ray a socialist was sarcasm, but i think it makes a point. ;)

The next part is going to take a while to deconstruct, so apologies for any delays
"Politics is weird, and creepy, and now I know lacks even the loosest attachment to anything like reality." - Shep Smith
Sun Oct 03, 2010 10:33 pm
televatorUser avatarPosts: 1252Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 12:02 amLocation: In hell, rocking out with Satan! Gender: Cake

Post Re: Apparently, Hiteler was a "Leftist" Response and rebutti

TheFlyingBastard wrote:Holy shit, TYH. You're quite passionate about this, aren't you?

I appreciate his dedication. Why let power hungry people twist history into a perverse picture of what it truly was? I just wish I had the time to read all this thoroughly.
a·the·ism: The absence of belief in god(s)

There are no additional, claims, laws, commandments, rules, doctrines, presuppositions, stand alone ideologies, dogmas, and/or faith based beliefs required by or inevitably derived from atheism.
Mon Oct 04, 2010 12:02 am
AndiferousUser avatarPosts: 2727Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 7:00 amLocation: Laputa Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: Apparently, Hiteler was a "Leftist" Response and rebutti

televator wrote:I appreciate his dedication. Why let power hungry people twist history into a perverse picture of what it truly was? I just wish I had the time to read all this thoroughly.

Pretty amazing, yes? :)
"As there seemed no measure between what Watt could understand, and what he could not, so there seemed none between what he deemed certain, and what he deemed doubtful."
~ Samuel Beckett, Watt
Mon Oct 04, 2010 5:37 am
theyounghistorian77ContributorUser avatarPosts: 726Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:43 amLocation: United Kingdom Gender: Male

Post Re: Apparently, Hiteler was a "Leftist" Response and rebutti

Andiferous wrote:
televator wrote:I appreciate his dedication. Why let power hungry people twist history into a perverse picture of what it truly was? I just wish I had the time to read all this thoroughly.

Pretty amazing, yes? :)

Thank you for the compliment :)
"Politics is weird, and creepy, and now I know lacks even the loosest attachment to anything like reality." - Shep Smith
Mon Oct 04, 2010 1:31 pm
TheFlyingBastardUser avatarPosts: 787Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2010 3:17 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Apparently, Hiteler was a "Leftist" Response and rebutti

theyounghistorian77 wrote:
TheFlyingBastard wrote:Holy shit, TYH. You're quite passionate about this, aren't you?

:lol: :lol: i was asked to do this paticular website, so here it is. Right in front of your eyes. ;)

if you oh so desire, this will be my first and last critique of a website I'll think i'll go back to pwning glenn beck when i can ;)

Oh no, please, do continue. It's interesting. It's just that it's so very thorough and complete, I love it.
It's not just "oh look at this picture of a guy who said x" and we're supposed to be impressed. It's actually well thought out and based on factual information.
Tue Oct 05, 2010 8:10 pm
televatorUser avatarPosts: 1252Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 12:02 amLocation: In hell, rocking out with Satan! Gender: Cake

Post Re: Apparently, Hiteler was a "Leftist" Response and rebutti

I'm sorry, but my OCD is overwhelming me. Could the name of this tread be edited? "Rebuttal" is misspelled -- there should be no "i" in the word.

Andiferous wrote:
televator wrote:I appreciate his dedication. Why let power hungry people twist history into a perverse picture of what it truly was? I just wish I had the time to read all this thoroughly.

Pretty amazing, yes? :)

Indeed, it is. :)
a·the·ism: The absence of belief in god(s)

There are no additional, claims, laws, commandments, rules, doctrines, presuppositions, stand alone ideologies, dogmas, and/or faith based beliefs required by or inevitably derived from atheism.
Tue Oct 05, 2010 8:43 pm
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 2
 [ 31 posts ] 
Return to Art, Culture & History

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests