Was Hitler A Socialist? Of Course, He Was

[Fuzzy1975]

That's how Harry S. Truman saw it. That isn't how Franklin D. Roosevelt and Henry A. Wallace saw it.

How about how Churchill or Mościcki or De Gualle saw it? You seem to think ww2 was just an american affair and America gets to write the history.

Good grief. Yes, Stalin did terrible crimes (mostly against the left, i.e. genuine Bolsheviks) because of his extreme paranoia, but Stalin was still never as bad as the Nazis.

Bullshit, he was as bad or even worse than Hitler, but really why try to compare the two evil human pieces of shit? Oh right you need to, to make some kind of a point. What the point is, I have no idea, but brownie points for trying.

Euromaidan Ukraine worships Stepan Bandera, who was fully behind Hitler in regards to the Holocaust against Jews, as a "hero of Ukraine".

Who cares that was decades ago. Most of those people are dead and burred and the ones alive were fucking children.

 

[RandyRebecca]

How about how Churchill or Mościcki or De Gualle saw it?

Churchill by then saw Nazi Germany as the biggest threat to the British Empire, but in 1938 he was still a minority among the British establishment, with the majority favoring Chamberlain's policy of appeasement of the Nazis and to direct German attentions to the east, i.e. towards the Soviet Union.

De Gaulle, likewise, was a minority among the French establishment. Most of them remembered things like 1871, 1848, 1830, the Napoleonic era of 1799-1815, and most of all the French Revolution of 1789-1794. As a result, the French establishment in 1940 chose to appease the Nazis and formed the collaborationist Vichy regime in the south of the country, rather than arm the French masses against the German invaders.

You seem to think ww2 was just an american affair and America gets to write the history.

On the contrary, the Soviets and the Partisans were the biggest reasons for the Allies winning WW2, not the US. At least Roosevelt was pushing for a second front in Europe as early as 1942, because he wanted Stalin's help against Japan in the Far East, whereas Churchill delayed a second front for as long as possible (i.e. June 1944) because he was more interested in British imperial interests in North Africa, Italy and the Mediterranean/Red Sea.

Bullshit, he was as bad or even worse than Hitler, but really why try to compare the two evil human pieces of shit? Oh right you need to, to make some kind of a point. What the point is, I have no idea, but brownie points for trying.

Stalin is the left's monster, and his infamy is for us to deal with, not right-wing capitalists. Hitler is the capitalists' monster, the ultimate creature of fascist reaction. It isn't moralism that drives this outlook, but the different class interests that Stalin and Hitler came from and represented in power.

Who cares that was decades ago. Most of those people are dead and burred and the ones alive were fucking children.

If we do not understand the past (i.e. history), how can we possibly understand how we have arrived at the present situation?

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Churchill by then saw Nazi Germany as the biggest threat to the British Empire, but in 1938 he was still a minority among the British establishment, with the majority favoring Chamberlain's policy of appeasement of the Nazis and to direct German attentions to the east, i.e. towards the Soviet Union.

De Gaulle, likewise, was a minority among the French establishment. Most of them remembered things like 1871, 1848, 1830, the Napoleonic era of 1799-1815, and most of all the French Revolution of 1789-1794. As a result, the French establishment in 1940 chose to appease the Nazis and formed the collaborationist Vichy regime in the south of the country, rather than arm the French masses against the German invaders.

You bring up Truman, which is a point in time after the war started. Then when asked about those affected by the war, you in turn give a pre war history lesson. Good job. Best goal post move in decades.

On the contrary, the Soviets and the Partisans were the biggest reasons for the Allies winning WW2,

Never said they weren't, what I said was they were a tool used by the allies to help defeat Hitler. You claimed they were allies.

Stalin is the left's monster, and his infamy is for us to deal with, not right-wing capitalists. Hitler is the capitalists' monster, the ultimate creature of fascist reaction. It isn't moralism that drives this outlook, but the different class interests that Stalin and Hitler came from and represented in power.

Stalin was a monster. That you're so ignorant or blind by your own conspiracy theories and can't see that, is your problem to deal with. Don't try and push your idea of reality on the rest of us.

If we do not understand the past (i.e. history), how can we possibly understand how we have arrived at the present situation?

The past is; the Budapest accord, where in the new country of Ukraine was given guaranties of it's border for turning over their Nuclear weapons to Russia. Maybe you missed that part of your history course.

 

[Lazaran]

We’re still waiting for "Becky" / "Buffy" to provide their detailed and passionate condemnation of Putin and Russia for their well documented interference, atrocities, and crimes against humanity.

I suspect we’ll be waiting a loooooong time.



"Becky" / "Buffy"

 

[icanhelp1]

Churchill by then saw Nazi Germany as the biggest threat to the British Empire, but in 1938 he was still a minority among the British establishment, with the majority favoring Chamberlain's policy of appeasement of the Nazis and to direct German attentions to the east, i.e. towards the Soviet Union.

De Gaulle, likewise, was a minority among the French establishment. Most of them remembered things like 1871, 1848, 1830, the Napoleonic era of 1799-1815, and most of all the French Revolution of 1789-1794. As a result, the French establishment in 1940 chose to appease the Nazis and formed the collaborationist Vichy regime in the south of the country, rather than arm the French masses against the German invaders.


On the contrary, the Soviets and the Partisans were the biggest reasons for the Allies winning WW2, not the US. At least Roosevelt was pushing for a second front in Europe as early as 1942, because he wanted Stalin's help against Japan in the Far East, whereas Churchill delayed a second front for as long as possible (i.e. June 1944) because he was more interested in British imperial interests in North Africa, Italy and the Mediterranean/Red Sea.


Stalin is the left's monster, and his infamy is for us to deal with, not right-wing capitalists. Hitler is the capitalists' monster, the ultimate creature of fascist reaction. It isn't moralism that drives this outlook, but the different class interests that Stalin and Hitler came from and represented in power.


If we do not understand the past (i.e. history), how can we possibly understand how we have arrived at the present situation?

I agree with most of your posting but one very important fact you don’t mention…It was the US back door support for Stalin in the shipment of massive military and logistical support that allowed Stalin’s regime to not totally collapse.

 

[Wat_Tyler]

I agree with most of your posting but one very important fact you don’t mention…It was the US back door support for Stalin in the shipment of massive military and logistical support that allowed Stalin’s regime to not totally collapse.

One word: Studebaker.

 

[VinnyVeritas]

But the Left needs Hitler to be “of the right” because they can’t divorce themselves from Stalin and Mao, and having all three would just be too much.
Kink_a_bit

Exactly. You've earned a gold .

 

[Wat_Tyler]

Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei


Hmmm, right there in the name. But then again, half of our defective buttplug posters consider themselves as progressive humanitarians, so there's that.


Doing the things that make George Orwell puke . . . .

 

[VinnyVeritas]

He only went to the "Socialist" moniker to church himself up with the intellectual Left whom he successfully courted...

 

[ll74]

But the Left needs Hitler to be “of the right” because they can’t divorce themselves from Stalin and Mao, and having all three would just be too much.
Kink_a_bit

Exactly. You've earned a gold .

The thread is literally RG needing to have Hitler be from the left.

Hitler hated Russia and Communism.

 

[VinnyVeritas]

And yet he found them to be useful allies...

 

[Bray123]

Hitler was a left-winger!
The election was rigged!
Millions of people dying of Covid was all a hoax!

If we don't hear the stupids, we'll never know the truth.

 

[VinnyVeritas]

True that! Thank you for the stupids.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

And yet he found them to be useful allies...

Which explains why he attacked them.

 

[SilentSometimes]

This is my favourite part:

Hitler on Class Abolition​

“We must on principle free ourselves from any class standpoint.” – April 12, 1922, speech in Munich

“There are no such things as classes: they cannot be. … here there can be no class, here there can be only a single people and beyond that nothing else.” – April 12, 1922, speech in Munich

In practice, he meant everyone except: Jewish people, people of colour, anyone with a mental disability, rich people who had things he wanted, etc.

It’s almost like he didn’t really mean all of the things he said to gain public support… almost like he’s a big, fat, liar! *gasp*

 

[ll74]

And yet he found them to be useful allies...

As I said....the thread isn't truly about Hitler. It's about ReochGad's incessant hatred of the left and need to vilify them.

And no, he's not the only one making threads to vilify opponents. In the end, vanity threads are dumb

 

[ll74]

Socialist control of private enterprise seemed sensible then to the German majority, so that's what he rode into power. Current power hungry tinpots might say something about protect the earth, respect all genders, etc. Whatever people want to hear.

Hitler didn't allow public control.

 

[Rightguide]

And a lot of people label themselves Christians but sure as hell don’t act it. If I call myself a billionaire my bank account doesn’t change. Actions speak louder than words.

None of that inventive circumlocution changes the fact that Hitler viewed himself as a Socialist.

 

[ll74]

None of that inventive circumlocution changes the fact that Hitler viewed himself as a Socialist.

You view yourself as a descent human being and it doesn't mean you are one.

But hey....people in history should view you as one

 

[stxjimmy]

Socialist control of private enterprise seemed sensible then to the German majority, so that's what he rode into power. Current power hungry tinpots might say something about protect the earth, respect all genders, etc. Whatever people want to hear.

Not so. German banks were rescued following the depression and privatised by hitler.

German industry was privately owned, though directed by the regime. Favourable contracts to those who supported the war effort and the suppression of trade unions.

The nazi war economy was mixed and centrally planned and directed, later utilising slave labour. Many companies mired in the regime still exist, listed on stock markets and held in family trusts.

 

[stxjimmy]

None of that inventive circumlocution changes the fact that Hitler viewed himself as a Socialist.

Not so, hitler saw himself as the leader or fuhrer. The personification of the German identity.
Yet again you post with no evidence to back up your outlandish claims.

 

[Rightguide]

Socialist control of private enterprise seemed sensible then to the German majority, so that's what he rode into power. Current power hungry tinpots might say something about protect the earth, respect all genders, etc. Whatever people want to hear.

Not so, hitler saw himself as the leader or fuhrer. The personification of the German identity.
Yet again you post with no evidence to back up your outlandish claims.

Come back when you've actually educated yourself on the subject.

 

[FelHarper]

The left is not Hitler.

Neither is the right.

Because Hitler was a fascist fuckhead.

Both sides of the political spectrum can evolve into fascism....all it takes is for one singular leader to seize power and ignore the electors

This is exactly the point I was going to make. Fascism is not what happens when you take right-wing policies and push them to the extreme. Fascism contains within it several specific assertions about the world and policy prescriptions that don’t align neatly into the political spectrum. And fascism is dead, dead, dead, though that doesn’t stop some people from invoking it as an existential threat.

 

[ll74]

Come back when you've actually educated yourself on the subject.

You're wrong. Your bias is not an educated perspective.

 

[ll74]

This is exactly the point I was going to make. Fascism is not what happens when you take right-wing policies and push them to the extreme. Fascism contains within it several specific assertions about the world and policy prescriptions that don’t align neatly into the political spectrum. And fascism is dead, dead, dead, though that doesn’t stop some people from invoking it as an existential threat.

Fascism isn't dead. Fascism exists in multiple places in the world and it does because people fail to block the consolidation of power to any one entity. Having a weak governmental branch or allowing other branches of government to circumvent checks and balances.....etc..etc.