Conservatives: What did Hitler get wrong?

Socialists murder socialists all the time. Socialism is about power, purging the party of threats to personal power occurs all the time. Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Castro, all purged the party.

If you don't like being shown to be ignorant of history, then go learn some history. Or don't post on subjects in which you have no knowledge.

 

Yes it’s nice and tidy to place leaders in convenient boxes i.e. Socialists, Conservative, Fascist, Communist and so on, but only those who have held strong political views consistently for years are the true Socialist’s, Conservative’s, Fascist’s and Communist’s.
Many today are career politicians and it’s hard to tell whether they hold true to any political ideology.
Hillary Clinton ran on the Democrat ticket but her track record
from way back shows that she is not even a Liberal and defiantly not a Socialist.

Tony Blair who served two terms as the British Prime Minister was a member of the Labour Party that held strong socialist views. Blair actually shied away from the word socialist and replaced it with ‘New Labour’ I never worked out what that was supposed to be.

No European would call the majority of American Democrat politicians, Socialists. To Europeans, their maybe a little less to the far right than the Republicans.

Personally I would never vote for anyone who takes money from private interests on the grounds their bought and sold.

 

That is pretty much true for most Socialist movements. But that does not mean it is genocidal. You keep taking a single example and tacking it onto all of them.

You are making the exact same mistake far to many make. And that is that you are equating Communism as Socialism. That is like what many do, confusing a Republic with a Democracy.

The Nazi Party was indeed Socialist, but it was not Communist. This is exactly the same kind of thing that separates the Communist Party of China from Kuomintang (Nationalist Party of China).

The Kuomintang is another National Socialist government, which predates both Italy and Germany. And both the Kuomintang and CPC were once the same organization (the CPC broke off after the Soviet Union started giving aid in 1923).

And do not forget, that after the founding of the Soviet Union, they went around destroying all other Socialist organizations.

Do not make the mistake that so many make in believing that Socialism and Communism are the same thing (no matter what the USSR wanted people to believe).

This is why I generally use the terms "National Socialist" and "International Socialist".

The Communists are generally Marxist-International Socialist. But contrary to what they would have you believe, Socialism was not created by Marx, and not all Socialist organizations paid homage to the USSR.

In the US, you can even see these differences. Marxism-International Socialism (CPUSA) never got traction, and has almost universally been frowned upon. That is because we have always been a pretty Nationalist nation. But many aspects of National Socialism have been accepted in the US.

 

Let me start my answer very simply...

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Pastor Martin Niemöller

The good Pastor spent 8 years in a Concentration Camp during WWII. He was put in there in 1936, 3 years after the camp was opened.

And the Nazi government rounded up all kinds, not just Jews and Commies. Jehova's Witness, Slavs, Romani (Gypsies), Catholics, the mentally ill and retarded, the list goes on and on.

And not really any different than what other Socialist Authoritarian governments did after taking power.

Do you really think that Che Guevara willingly left Cuba to go on a world tour? Do you think that Leon Trotsky was in Mexico planning a mountain climbing adventure when he tripped and fall on his ice axe?

 

WOW. Complete and total surrender on your part to Brewskier's arguments. I have followed your exchanges and I call it a KO in the 5th round.. LOL

 

So I point out a spread of examples and you say that even the one you mentioned first has nothing to do with fascism. This time you say I'm making one example.

From what I can tell all fascists take their pick of race or religion to define nationalism. Genocide on hitler's scale is one of the risks of fascism, because of these exclusionary principles and the authoritarian structure of government. Many other fascist movements had this component, too.

Hitler brought about the most violent fascist movement. I think his socialist goals made it worse. In response to the OP, my point was that exclusive nationalism and aspiration to a national buffet exacerbated the hatefulness of his experiment, especially since there was so much scarcity in the first place (Germany in the 30s).

 

NO THEY DO NOT!

That is why you keep failing. You keep picking a single organization, and screaming that is how they all operated.

Why do you simply fail to understand that what you are showing as "typical" is an aberration, unique to Nazi Germany, and not seen in any other National Socialist movements?

But please, list for us all of the other examples of this. All other examples except in Germany.

When you say that is what they were all like, then only list precedents in Germany, you are failing your own point.

 

No. Hitler was a right wing, authoritarian fascist. So was Mussolini. Stalin, on the other hand, was a left wing, authoritarian communist.

In the case of Hitler and Mussolini, private enterprise and capital remained in private hands - remember Schindler's List? They still copped the liabilities and reaped the profits, but the Nazis dictated what they were to produce. Since the entire German economy was given over to the war effort, for better or worse, this didn't effect profit margins much. In fact, German capitalists made good money out of the war until Germany lost, the Russians turned up and Germany's economy collapsed. Many got their money out before the crash came.

In Stalin's USSR, on the other hand, their was no so such thing as private enterprise or capital. All means of production and all profit was owned by the state.

 

Great post, Mushroom.

I think the key word is " authoritarian", not "socialist". I think many people, especially Americans who were taught to fear it, get stuck on the word "socialist", mainly because the Nazis had in their party's title, but also because singing yourself to sleep with the lullaby that Hitler was from the left wing, rather than accepting that he was a right wing, nationalistic, capitalistic, authoritarian fascist allows you the comfortable belief that such things could never happen in a capitalist democracy like the United States.

And of course, it could happen in the US. Or my country, Australia. Or the UK. We're seeing a resurgence of authoritarian politics all around the world.

If the people have known enough humiliation in the past, enough hardship, suffering, fear and rage, and a charismatic, powerful leader with a gift for stirring oratory promises them a bright, happy, safe and prosperous future and pride in a revitalised, once again great nation, the people will follow.

We saw the effect of gifted oratory on the people with Obama. We saw the effect of promises of a bright future with Trump. We saw the effect of charisma with both. Both could reach and fully engage their target audiences.

If the leader promises to give an embittered people back their pride, self esteem and purpose in life, they will follow. That's why economic hardship and inequality spawn authoritarianism, both left and right wing. It always has.

 

Republicans love Jews and will support Israel before any other country.
Truman-democrat-put Japanese in camps. Lincoln-republican-accomplished the emancipation of black slaves.
America has the most and abundant racially diverse success stories.
Liberal American democrats don't even use Hitler in political discourse. Europeans do frequently though and still have a wealth of anti-Semites. The US will pick Israel first. ALWAYS.

 

What ever it was, Hillary didnt know what it was.

 

Wiemar Germany (which technically existed until 1945) was a socialist state; the NSDAP platform was replete with socialist tenets.
What socialist policies/programs did Hitler get rid of?

 

Hitler was a fascist dictator.
He was opposed to state ownership of capital.
Please note that state ownership of capital, whether total as in communism or partial as in most modern social democracies, is a defining feature of socialism.
Equality was not one of Hitler's goals.
Please note that equality is the goal of socialism.

Hitler had complete power over the country. He forcibly suppressed opposition and criticism, regimented all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasized an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
Hitler justified both Nazi anti-Semitism and dictatorship largely on the basis of his working to fight-off communism.

He combated the whole complex system of democratic ideology, and repudiated it, whether in its theoretical premises or in its practical application. He denied that the majority, by the simple fact that it was a majority, could direct human society; he denied that numbers alone can govern by means of a periodical consultation, and affirmed the immutable, beneficial, and fruitful inequality of mankind, which can never be permanently leveled through the mere operation of a mechanical process such as universal suffrage.

He also denied that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society. The belief in the lower classes to wage class and transform society is a socialist tenet.

He believed in holiness and heroism and the Nazis worked closely with the Catholic church.

I really can't make it any plainer. Hitler rejected socialism just as he rejected democracy, but it was socialism he expressed his hatred of. Hitler was a fascist dictator, not a socialist.

I must say I don't understand why conservative democrats seem to have this need to shunt Hitler to the left side of politics. Hitler was no kind of democrat at all. He was a fascist dictator. That he came from the right side of politics is demonstrated by his contempt for and rejection of state ownership of capital, socialism and communism.

I'm a social democrat, but I don't feel any need to shunt Stalin to the right. He was a communist dictator. That he came from the left side of politics is demonstrated by the USSR's state ownership of capital.

 

This is an exercise in absolute futility. It is just another dim-witted way to say that Conservatives are evil and you Libs are holier-than-thou which we all know is a joke. Stop the innuendos and namecalling. At the end of the day, your side lost because of antics just like THIS. It suits no purpose except to make Republicans STRONGER. I will put it to you in words that all Lib geniuses can understand: " I'm rubber. you're glue. Whatever names you call, bounce off me and stick to you." Capische?

 

I must have missed your answer. I'll ask again:
What socialist policies/programs of Wiemar Germany did Hitler get rid of?

 

Since the Weimar Republic was the first hands on experiment of a democratic government in the history of Germany, the short and sweet answer is Hitler had no socialist policies/programs to get rid of.

The experiment didn’t work too well. Germany. This experiment started however under very difficult circumstances: The public did not support it, and the executive branch of the government did not back it up either. Mass unemployment, damages to the infrastructure from WWI, and the demand for reparation payments put lots of pressure on the fledgling democracy. Not only in Germany, but all over Europe, radical and anti-democratic movements gained momentum.
Towards the end of the Weimar Republic the situation in Germany was quite acute: There was
-increasing economic distress;
-6 million unemployed;
-widespread poverty, hunger, and squalor.

Are there some particular policies/programs the democratic government of the Weimar Republic implemented that you see as socialist?

 

Oooh.... wrong...

For an overview, see: Social policy under Weimar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_Republic#Social_policy_under_Weimar

For additional information regarding the health care system in the Weimar era, see:
https://fee.org/articles/national-health-care-medicine-in-germany-1918-1945/

And so, I ask again:
What socialist policies/programs of Wiemar Germany did Hitler get rid of?

 

That is true. But it can not be ignored that by definition, "socialist" is generally equal to "authoritarian". This is especially seen in the "mother of Socialist governments", or what I call the home of International Socialism (as opposed to National Socialism), the Soviet Union.

By it's definition, Socialism demands wealth redistribution. And that is absolutely impossible to achieve without authoritarianism. The two are mutually inclusive.

Now the real fear in the US of Socialism is not Hitler and the Nazi Party (no more than it is Mussolini and the Fascist party), but any authoritarianism. And when it comes to Socialism it tends to look at the USSR. Not to Nazi Germany.

The problem is that people tend to throw around terms, and claim that they all automatically go together. "Socialist" and "Left Wing" are most often seen together, but this is not always the case. You can indeed have a Right Wing Socialist government. And since most people have no real concept of what various political terms mean ("Third World" is a perfect example of that), it only dumbs down any attempt at discourse.

The key difference is that unlike International Socialists, National Socialism generally does not seek to own industry, but to control it.

Hitler was a Socialist, as was his party. But it was a different form of Socialism that the USSR claimed to be the leader of. In the USSR, you lived in a stateless classless society where everybody owned nothing and the state owned everything.

In National Socialist governments (and there are a ton of them, not just Germany) the capitol and assets all belong to the individuals, but the state controls how and when it is used. And you do not have to look at just Germany. As I keep repeating over and over again Germany was not the only (nor was it the first) National Socialist government. Italy was the same, as was Nationalist China, and much of the Middle East even today.

The only single thing that sets Germany apart was that they took it in a racial-genocidal direction.

 

Huh.

Actually, "Germany" is a rather modern construct, created from the ruins of the Holy Roman Empire in the 19th century.

Originally the German Confederation, it was in essence a Republic form of multiple regions. That existed until 1871 with the Unification and German Empire under Wilhelm I.

But this was not some Czarist Russian Empire where the Emperor held complete authority. It borrowed a lot from England. It was a Constitutional Monarchy, with a 2 house legislative body (Bundesrat and Reichstag), a Reichskanzler (equivalent to Prime Minister), and a unified court system.

So why you are saying there was no "Democracy in Germany" before that, I have no idea. All members of the Reichstag were elected by voting of all males ages 25 or over.

 

Liberals are the ones who are constantly trying to, "protect," minorities. The unspoken rule of elitism.

 

The "Plantation Mentality". Protecting their perceived slaves. A lot of minorities have recently seen them for what they are. Lefties don't give two craps about them, they are their Leninist useful idiots. I believe they are waking up and smelling the coffee. Most people judge people on their merits alone. Not their skin color. The left wants a deep divide. They got their wish with Obama and his administration. Hopefully that era is done.

 

at least 4.5 million

 

4.5 million? That's a million and a half less dead people than the most commonly cited estimate.

 

He tried to conquer the world.
He tried to exterminate an entire religious/cultural/ethnic group of people.
He established Antifa-like enforcers to gain political power.
He made bad strategic decisions.
He didn't take good advice.