RE: Hitler was a socialist?

RE: Hitler was a socialist? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

PeonForHer -> RE: Hitler was a socialist? (10/8/2008 6:16:29 PM)
If I may add my two penny worth here: Background: Every summer I mark A level exams in Government and Politics. (For those not familiar, these are the UK exams on the strength of which 18 year olds get into university - or not.) Obviously, all we examiners have guidelines as to what should be in a good or bad essay. Those guidelines are based on a consensus of opinions amongst academic political scientists. Anyway - it's as simple as this. If a question is asked that demands a response on the similarities of socialism and national socialism, the student will fail his/her essay if he/she tries to minimise the difference. Socialism has an overriding emphasis on equality while national socialism focuses instead on hierarchy - this alone makes makes them fundamentally contrasting ideologies, regardless of differences on e.g. race (re nazism) or antirationalism (re all species of fascism).

Marc2b -> RE: Hitler was a socialist? (10/8/2008 6:35:04 PM)
quote: You're right, he did seek radical change to German civilisation... etc. If you’re equating conservative with some sort of farmer’s paradise then I’m going to have to agree with lordandmaster (a rare occurrence on these boards – so where have been LAM?) that perhaps terms like socialist, conservative, liberal, fascist, left wing, right wing, etc are meaningless because they mean different things to different people. I can see how Hitler’s idea of the ideal German society and/or his hatred of left wing politics would make him rightwing. To me, conservatism is fundamentally democratic and respectful of human rights (particularly the right to be left alone). When taken to it’s extreme it becomes fascism (just as socialism taken to it’s extreme becomes communism – an equally murderous ideology). I think you hit the nail on the head when you said Hitler was a romantic. According to Bullock, Hitler saw himself as a "World Historical Figure," a man destined to change the course of world history. The irony is that Hitler was ultimately right about himself – he did change the course of world history – just not in the way he intended.

LadyEllen -> RE: Hitler was a socialist? (10/9/2008 3:06:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer If I may add my two penny worth here: Background: Every summer I mark A level exams in Government and Politics. (For those not familiar, these are the UK exams on the strength of which 18 year olds get into university - or not.) Obviously, all we examiners have guidelines as to what should be in a good or bad essay. Those guidelines are based on a consensus of opinions amongst academic political scientists. Anyway - it's as simple as this. If a question is asked that demands a response on the similarities of socialism and national socialism, the student will fail his/her essay if he/she tries to minimise the difference. Socialism has an overriding emphasis on equality while national socialism focuses instead on hierarchy - this alone makes makes them fundamentally contrasting ideologies, regardless of differences on e.g. race (re nazism) or antirationalism (re all species of fascism). I find this disturbing - so what you're saying is that even if some enterprising student had discovered compelling evidence and presented it well to the effect that the two were really quite similar - this will still be counted as an incorrect answer? I realise its not you making the policy, but this sounds very much like the sort of education one might get in some repressive state where the answer to any question is "because the glorious leader makes it so" - here the correct answer to any question is "whatever - the nazis were baaaaddd!". But the difference you point out - equality vs hierarchy is interesting and certainly true if (as here) we are discussing ideals. In practice though I would say in each case the difference is confined solely to ideals - in practice even the most socialist society still requires hierarchy in order to avoid anarchy. Meanwhile with national socialism my feeling is that despite strong hierarchy - perhaps even because of the perceived need for a well functioning hierarchy, there is opportunity to move up in that hierarchy subject to one's merits as defined by the ideology and overall a sense that each cog in the machine is as vital as the operator. Whilst the hierarchies of socialist regimes tend in my opinion to favour just about anyone who is "on message" and often do so solely on that criterium, the hierarchy of national socialism favours those who are "on message" who have ability to match - and this would be a natural difference between socialism which deems all to be equal and national socialism which recognises differences between individuals which render them unequal - yet equally valuable in their rightful places in the machine. E

seeksfemslave -> RE: Hitler was a socialist? (10/9/2008 3:30:44 AM)
I was also going to point out the "thought police" aspect of PeeOn4Her's response. Lefty trendies would react the same wrt to "correct" answers on the subject of multi culturalism no doubt. Adding: Hitler produced a messianic platform that clearly included elements of Socialism and extreme right wing authoritianism/Fascism.

meatcleaver -> RE: Hitler was a socialist? (10/9/2008 3:43:58 AM)
General point. Hitler exterminated socialists in the death camps. That other fascist dicatator Franco also exterminated socialists.. Hitler's biggest supporters were capitalist industrialists and bankers. As were the supporters of that other fascist, Franco. To everyone in the world except rightwing Americans (and apparently seeks) Hitler and Franco were rightwing extremists. Maybe rightwing Americans are always right, they still claim they are right over invading the wrong country, fighting the wrong war against the wrong enemy. Though my guess is that they insist Hitler and other fascists were leftwingers because they feel uncomfortable at how much they agree and have in common with Hitler and co.

slaveboyforyou -> RE: Hitler was a socialist? (10/9/2008 3:44:21 AM)
Fast Reply: Anyone ever noticed we don't have the term, "Hitlerism." We have Stalinish, Maoism, Leninism, Trotskyism, etc. But we don't do the same thing with Hitler. Socialist, National Socialism, Fascism, blah, blah, blah. Hitler was Hitler. Nazis were Nazis. We don't need to compare his ideas to other ideologies. We don't need to classify any totalitarian dictator under any political umbrella. Plain and simple, they were douchebags. Gangsters, scumbags, and murderers...that's who they were.

Aneirin -> RE: Hitler was a socialist? (10/9/2008 4:10:38 AM)
Because Hitler's name has been vilified by history and everyone told us he was bad and representative of all the bad things in the world, has there actually been a study on the man, I mean everyone is remembered for the bad things, but surely he must have done something right, else how did he hold power for so long. Maybe he was crackers, perhaps he came to be through power, just look at politicians who hold power for too long, look at Blair, he got flakey to the end.

Lynnxz -> RE: Hitler was a socialist? (10/9/2008 4:14:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aneirin Because Hitler's name has been vilified by history and everyone told us he was bad and representative of all the bad things in the world, has there actually been a study on the man, I mean everyone is remembered for the bad things, but surely he must have done something right, else how did he hold power for so long. Maybe he was crackers, perhaps he came to be through power, just look at politicians who hold power for too long, look at Blair, he got flakey to the end. Don't you think there might be a difference between being flakey, and killing 6 million of a particular group? Really, there's not much you can do to make up for that... I heard... he liked dogs though?

JustDarkness -> RE: Hitler was a socialist? (10/9/2008 4:18:24 AM)
quote: but surely he must have done something right, else how did he hold power for so long. succes (work, food, autobahn, volkswagen beetle), fear (ss/sa, social control) and disinterest (politics is boring and people had to survive war) (brainwash the youth in the hitlerjugend and make them think the cause is the only way) We shouldn't forget that Hitler was not seen as evil by the Germans for along time. Besides that German history is a lot different then the rest of Europe. While other countries already had a democracy for 100 of years. Germany was always a gathering of small kingdoms..fighting eachother...and others.. They were used to conquer and fight for what they wanted. quote: I heard... he liked dogs though? and females. Even bad people have friends... that is how they keep power

meatcleaver -> RE: Hitler was a socialist? (10/9/2008 4:22:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aneirin I mean everyone is remembered for the bad things, but surely he must have done something right, else how did he hold power for so long. The German establishment basically made Hitler Chancellor to keep the socialists out of power with the aim of replacing him later with one of their own. Many in the German aristocracy/establisment thought Hitler was an idiot but they under estimated him. As I said in a previous post, soon after Hitler came to power the Reichstag was burnt down, no one knows by who but who gained the most? You got it, Hitler and the NAZIs. Within the week Hitler got a security bill passed through parliament, a sort of German Patriot Act. Within 24 hours he had arrested all the leaders of the main opposition groups which were mainly social democrats, socialists and communists. Basically, anyone on the left. No one realised that the NAZIs were nationally so well organized that they could snuff out all opposition do quickly. To say Hitler was mad is to make excuses for him and to say this was a situation created solely by the Germans is disingenuous of the victors of WWI. The situation that allowed Hitler to come to power in Germany was a direct result of the economic sanctions and reparation demands by the victors (mainly France and Belgium) after WWI.

JustDarkness -> RE: Hitler was a socialist? (10/9/2008 4:25:45 AM)
http://www.schoolshistory.org.uk/hitlergainspower.htm was tolazy to type all...so a link people just voted for Hitler..... ps. I find it funny we still talk about the past, while the same stuff is happening around us. But propably for many leaders that means they have to act...so in speeches it is better to talk about WW2 then former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. Victories are better to talk about then telling people you accept genocide.

meatcleaver -> RE: Hitler was a socialist? (10/9/2008 4:32:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JustDarkness We shouldn't forget that Hitler was not seen as evil by the Germans for along time. Besides that German history is a lot different then the rest of Europe. While other countries already had a democracy for 100 of years. Germany was always a gathering of small kingdoms..fighting eachother...and others.. They were used to conquer and fight for what they wanted. The majority of Germans saw Hitler for wahat he was, the problem was, the German establishment thought they could control him and use him to fight the left. Germany hasn't had a democracy for hundreds of years because it hasn't been a country for hundreds of years. The German culture is not confined to one country and never has been. German culture has produced some of the greatest thinkers and artists in western culture and German principalities were some of the most liberal places in the world in their hayday. (Prussia excepted but their geography meant they had to have a standing army) The problem that German principalities had was that they were constantly caught between two empires and suffered greatly for it. Some 30% of the German population being killed or starved to death in the 30 years war. It was this suffering at the hands of their enemies that generated the sense of need to create one German state so it could defend themselves from their enemies. The problem that came from that was that the Kaisers became jealous of the power their British cousin had and wanted an empire too. Basically, the new Germany didn't want anything that the British and French already had, however, Germany gets the blame because they were the new kids on the block upsetting the traditional power structure in Europe and the world.

meatcleaver -> RE: Hitler was a socialist? (10/9/2008 4:37:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JustDarkness http://www.schoolshistory.org.uk/hitlergainspower.htm was tolazy to type all...so a link people just voted for Hitler..... ps. I find it funny we still talk about the past, while the same stuff is happening around us. But propably for many leaders that means they have to act...so in speeches it is better to talk about WW2 then former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. Victories are better to talk about then telling people you accept genocide. Hitler didn't win the presidential election, he got 36% of the vote to Hindenburg 59% of the vote. Hindenburg appointed Hitler as Chancelor for complex political reasons but he had planned to replace him with one of his own political allies later. However, Hitler proved to be politically smarter than Hindenburg.

slaveboyforyou -> RE: Hitler was a socialist? (10/9/2008 4:54:07 AM)
quote: Because Hitler's name has been vilified by history and everyone told us he was bad and representative of all the bad things in the world, has there actually been a study on the man, I mean everyone is remembered for the bad things, but surely he must have done something right, else how did he hold power for so long. Maybe he was crackers, perhaps he came to be through power, just look at politicians who hold power for too long, look at Blair, he got flakey to the end. Stalin's name hasn't been vilified by history? Yes a lot of studies have been done about Hitler the man. He was a sociopath. He was a ne're-do-well, mediocre man that found himself in the right place at the right time. He didn't do anything that wasn't thought of by better people. The Autobahn was not a new idea, national socialism was not a new idea, Aryan supremacy in terms of social Darwinism was not a new idea, and Jews as the root of all evil was not a new idea. Hitler was just a gangster that found himself in the right place. He was no different than a Mafia don. I don't consider his ideology to be important. The important things to learn from Nazism are the conditions that allowed it to flourish.

LadyEllen -> RE: Hitler was a socialist? (10/9/2008 5:22:33 AM)
Hitler managed to fulfil his promise to bring Germany back into the world as a first rate nation - it made it more difficult for opponents to then criticise him. High ideals are one thing, but "bread and work" were the only ideals in Germany for a long time until he came along, and lots of people bought into the idea that the reasons for the problems of Germany were not so much the Jews particularly, but "anti-German" elements such as socialists and communists in the Weimar democracy. Whilst there's little doubt he was a dangerous and very likely mentally disturbed person (his childhood would have seen to most of this, let alone his youth and fighting a war in which incidentally he showed considerable courage), it is equally beyond doubt this was a man capable of great charm, charismatic and credible, a man whose strategic thinking was beyond surpass and who lets not forget, almost got away with it too. The situation reported by Germans of the time goes something like this - he promised to solve the problems and he did. No one thought that he was actually serious about his threats to the Jews and others and for a long time nothing really happened on all that - but looking back, it crept up bit by bit so gradually that no one really noticed, and when we did notice it was already too late; none of us could have done anything by then. E

kittinSol -> RE: Hitler was a socialist? (10/9/2008 5:39:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen Hitler managed to fulfil his promise to bring Germany back into the world as a first rate nation - it made it more difficult for opponents to then criticise him. Can I ask you, LadyE... what are the standards for a 'first rate nation'? Because from where I stand, Hitler made Germany into a pariah nation: certainly, his promises of an economic upturn didn't materialise. quote: it is equally beyond doubt this was a man capable of great charm, charismatic and credible, a man whose strategic thinking was beyond surpass and who lets not forget, almost got away with it too. I beg to disagree... He got away with it because of brutal violence, generalised worldwide antisemitism, and public apathy (and not just in Germany either). quote: No one thought that he was actually serious about his threats to the Jews and others and for a long time nothing really happened on all that - but looking back, it crept up bit by bit so gradually that no one really noticed, and when we did notice it was already too late; none of us could have done anything by then. Rather than not notice the persecution of the Jews, I'd say people had their head in the sand, or actually thought the Jews had it coming and so they didn't act accordingly. But people, and countries, noticed, way before it was too late [>:] .

seeksfemslave -> RE: Hitler was a socialist? (10/9/2008 5:57:48 AM)
Generally Socialism is promoted by wooly minded idealists. In this case Adolf took aspects of Socialism and used them to further his overall strategy. That doesnt make Socialism intrinisically wicked. Wrt Hitler the man, he could not possibly have been mediocre. He forged a fringe party with miniscule membership into a cohesive movement that achieved remarkable tho' not admirable results. He was not born to privilege. He did not latch on to an existing apparatus and climb the slippery pole. He created the movement. The above are facts even tho' we are discussing a murderous psychopath. Oddly enough I believe it is true that no document directly connecting him to the mass murder has ever been found. Does anybody know otherwise. ?

kittinSol -> RE: Hitler was a socialist? (10/9/2008 6:09:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Oddly enough I believe it is true that no document directly connecting him to the mass murder has ever been found. Does anybody know otherwise. ? How quickly you forget the Einsatzgruppen...

seeksfemslave -> RE: Hitler was a socialist? (10/9/2008 6:15:28 AM)
Its a distasteful subject but I thought they were formed under Himmler or Heydrich to implement mass murder as the Wehrmacht advanced. In the Baltic area many were not even German.

JustDarkness -> RE: Hitler was a socialist? (10/9/2008 6:33:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Hitler didn't win the presidential election, he got 36% of the vote to Hindenburg 59% of the vote. Hindenburg appointed Hitler as Chancelor for complex political reasons but he had planned to replace him with one of his own political allies later. However, Hitler proved to be politically smarter than Hindenburg. No true, but he won other lections..the nsdap became big so Hindenburg had to accept him. this is the best source I could find http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0403a.asp He advance in politics was a weird mix of luck, cheating and votes

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875