LYCANOX: On socialist germany and rise of nazism

[Beatnik Bob]

Originally Posted by Lycanox

Again, read up history. It is common fact.

Even that movie Hitler the rise of evil addressed Hitlers hatred for socialism.

If it’s such a fact, then how come every time for the past few posts, when I have requested a LINK you did not deliver. The only link you did deliver was one that had nothing to do with your position.

And now you cite a movie as proof that hitler hated socialism, while I have cited a reputable book on socialistic economics and 1930 Germany proving definitively that Germany was socialistic.
And I also gave prime examples of his economic structure as well as an example where Hitler was essentially the CEO of every major business, which is socialism.
In case you have forgotten what socialism is, here is the definition:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

FROM LINK: 1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

1930s Germany fits those two descriptions exactly.

Concerning your unfounded statement that hitler hated socialism: (whether or not that is the case, you need to still provide a link). If you do not provide a credible LINK to prove your unfounded beliefs, then what you say is not true based on your zero evidence.

Even capitalist countries regulate their prizes by either controlling inflation. Or taxing or supporting industries.

That is a different type of price regulation. Inflation and taxing are issues directly associated with the government, not private businesses. Private businesses neither receive state taxes, or print money, so inflation or taxation do not relate to them at all.
And in capitalist countries the president does not have unlimited say on price regulation. Go read up on what socialism actually is.

And the government setting the prises to a mandatory level is common in war time situation. The allies did this as well.

Please read basic economics. Even before the war Hitler was commander in chief of all businesses. In capitalistic societies, prices are set with the cost of labor etc. in mind, socialistic price setting policies are often indifferent to such things.
Also, as a matter of peace time policy, the prices of goods are not set by the president. Whereas socialistic economies rely on setting prices, even in a time of normalcy.
You can refer back to the M-W definition of “socialism,” where it describes the lack of private ownership in socialism.
You and I both know germany was socialist. A capitalistic nation would have never been able to do what hitler achieved. His nationalization of the banks is what helped end the german depression, and “legally” default on owed debt.

And as I have demonstrated, that is incorrect.

You failed to demonstrate any such thing. Germany lacked both the funds and the support to suppress the Nazis within their country.

But if the government had banned the nazies in an very early moment.
They would very likely prevented the party from becoming meaningfull.

They weren’t banned earlier on because they weren’t a threat, not to mention it would be illegal. It is the complete antithesis of a democracy to BAN a political party.
Political parties express the will of the people, suppressing the will of the people is fascistic and in the very least, undemocratic.

So a recap of why the Nazis could not be stopped:

-It’s illegal and undemocratic. The only way in which the Nazis could have been stopped is by counter-campaigns and military action.

-Those measures weren’t taken because Germany lacked the funds and support.

-Many high ranking individuals in the german government were national socialists. Banning the national socialist party would not have been approved in a democratic institution, because there was too much dissenting opinion.

-Going after officials in your government who were socialists would cause political turmoil, chaos or even a regime change.

Actually there were plenty of other socialist parties active in the country at that time.

To my knowledge, there was only one German NAtional soZIalist party.

[GamerGal]

Hitler was a Conservative. The NAZIs were the Conservative Party in Germany in response too the SOCIALIST Parties, and the Communist Parties, and other LIBERAL parties. It's why Republicans like Prescott Bush and Disney thought Hitler was a good guy and funded him. Nazi's were ultra-nationalist ultra-conservatives, who were like the GOP of America while the socialists/Commies/liberals were on the other side.

No I am not saying GOP are NAZI I'm just explaining that NAZIs were the conservative party in Germany, like the GOP is the conservative party in America. Ok so the republican party supported Hitler and planned a military coup and overthrow FDR so they could join Hitler but they aren't actually NAZIs

[Beatnik Bob]

Originally Posted by GamerGal

Hitler was a Conservative. The NAZIs were the Conservative Party in Germany in response too the SOCIALIST Parties,

That's a common misconception.
The only national socialist party in germany, to my knowledge, was the nazi party.
They were not conservative, if by conservative you mean capitalistic.

If by conservative you mean they advocated "nativism," then you are correct.

[JenaS62]

Hitler was indeed a socialist.

"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:
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).

Taken from this website:

http://jonjayray.tripod.com/hitler.html

[iulian28ti]

Originally Posted by Beatnik Bob

If it’s such a fact, then how come every time for the past few posts, when I have requested a LINK you did not deliver. The only link you did deliver was one that had nothing to do with your position.
...........................

Well, one thing is clear. Hitler took power from sick and senile Hindenburg, he merged the chancellery and presidency, he was never voted into power. Well, some 30% or so voted him, LOL !

[lycanox]

Originally Posted by JenaS62

Hitler was indeed a socialist.

"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:
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).

Taken from this website:

http://jonjayray.tripod.com/hitler.html

Sharing some ideas with socialism does not make a group a socialist group.
Even America follows some socialist ideas.

Lots of ideas on this list are even used in capitalistic countries and even the US as well.

Originally Posted by Beatnik Bob

If it’s such a fact, then how come every time for the past few posts, when I have requested a LINK you did not deliver. The only link you did deliver was one that had nothing to do with your position.

Because unlike, you I actually read books. And not drag all my information from the Internet.

And now you cite a movie as proof that hitler hated socialism, while I have cited a reputable book on socialistic economics and 1930 Germany proving definitively that Germany was socialistic.
And I also gave prime examples of his economic structure as well as an example where Hitler was essentially the CEO of every major business, which is socialism.
In case you have forgotten what socialism is, here is the definition:[/QUOTE]
http://translate.google.com/translat...n&hl=&ie=UTF-8
http://translate.google.com/translat...s1-mei-1927%2F

Socialism was regarded a Jewish plot by the Nazies. And thus socialists were prosecuted. And were as announced by Himmler on 30 march 1933 deported to Dachau.
His hatred of socialism is also what fueled his irrational invasion of Barbarossa.

I also provided quotes from Goebels dairy. One of the most important party member of the nazies. Regarding Hitless opposal to socialism.
And thus a key witness.

Claims that Hitler is pro socialism are just as absurd as claims that Hitler was a Jew. And should be regarded as right wing propaganda.
After all, why would Hitler prosecute them if he was one himself.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism


1930s Germany fits those two descriptions exactly.

[/QUOTE]
Absolutely not as Germany at that time still has private property.
Nor was the entire economy state run.

Concerning your unfounded statement that hitler hated socialism: (whether or not that is the case, you need to still provide a link). If you do not provide a credible LINK to prove your unfounded beliefs, then what you say is not true based on your zero evidence.

You did not provide evidence that he wasn't, Only that he borrowed some ideas.

[QUOTE]
That is a different type of price regulation. Inflation and taxing are issues directly associated with the government, not private businesses. Private businesses neither receive state taxes, or print money, so inflation or taxation do not relate to them at all.
And in capitalist countries the president does not have unlimited say on price regulation. Go read up on what socialism actually is.

Please read basic economics. Even before the war Hitler was commander in chief of all businesses. In capitalistic societies, prices are set with the cost of labor etc. in mind, socialistic price setting policies are often indifferent to such things.
Also, as a matter of peace time policy, the prices of goods are not set by the president. Whereas socialistic economies rely on setting prices, even in a time of normalcy.
You can refer back to the M-W definition of “socialism,” where it describes the lack of private ownership in socialism.
You and I both know germany was socialist. A capitalistic nation would have never been able to do what hitler achieved. His nationalization of the banks is what helped end the german depression, and “legally” default on owed debt.

Again, they do have unlimited say about it. Especially during a conflict.
Like world war 2 was.

The US en england regulated prices back then aswell.

You failed to demonstrate any such thing. Germany lacked both the funds and the support to suppress the Nazis within their country.

Again bullshit.

Stop thinking about times when the Nazis already had lots of power.
But just a small group of people preaching in bars and restaurants.

They weren’t banned earlier on because they weren’t a threat, not to mention it would be illegal. It is the complete antithesis of a democracy to BAN a political party.
Political parties express the will of the people, suppressing the will of the people is fascistic and in the very least, undemocratic.

The nazies were not a important political party in the beginning and could thus easily be banned.
And the NSDAP was already on a watch list for being a problem even before Hitler joined.

As for the will of the people.
Do you really believe that if the will of the people was a genocide. It would be wrong to stop them?

So a recap of why the Nazis could not be stopped:

-It’s illegal and undemocratic. The only way in which the Nazis could have been stopped is by counter-campaigns and military action.

Democracy and freedom of speech should have its limits.

The rights of his 6 million victims are more important than the right of one small political party to speech and exist.

What you are doing is opposing every logical way genocides and such can be prevented.

-Those measures weren’t taken because Germany lacked the funds and support.

Nonsense. As they did prosecute Hitler later for his failed revolution.
Showing clearly the ability to prosecute them.

-Many high ranking individuals in the german government were national socialists. Banning the national socialist party would not have been approved in a democratic institution, because there was too much dissenting opinion.

-Going after officials in your government who were socialists would cause political turmoil, chaos or even a regime change.

Wrong again, as it was possible to stop the Nazies before they gained that much control.

To my knowledge, there was only one German NAtional soZIalist party.

Than your knowledge is dead wrong, as Germany was littered with thousands of different little parties varying from communist to corporatist. Small riots were even common back then between such parties.

[JenaS62]

Originally Posted by lycanox

Sharing some ideas with socialism does not make a group a socialist group.
Even America follows some socialist ideas.

Lots of ideas on this list are even used in capitalistic countries and even the US as well. .

Spend some time on that website I provided. What I posted is just a small fraction of it.

Originally Posted by lycanox

Claims that Hitler is pro socialism are just as absurd as claims that Hitler was a Jew. And should be regarded as right wing propaganda.

Actually claims that Hitler was right wing is left wing propaganda. Hitler had far more in common with the left wing than the right including eugenics, the philosophy of working for the betterment of all, hatred of capitalism and on and on.

[lycanox]

Actually claims that Hitler was right wing is left wing propaganda. Hitler had far more in common with the left wing than the right including eugenics, the philosophy of working for the betterment of all, hatred of capitalism and on and on.

Nazism was an separate ideology on its own. Which placed itself in a position between socialism and capitalism, where it borrowed from and hated both.

Which is why both parties can find ample arguments for blaming the other.

[Beatnik Bob]

Originally Posted by lycanox

Sharing some ideas with socialism does not make a group a socialist group.
Even America follows some socialist ideas.

If America nationalized its banks and did away with the majority of its free market ideals, and nationalized a good deal of private property, I would call America socialist.

So far though, America has not adopted the economic or political system of 1930s germany.

Because unlike, you I actually read books. And not drag all my information from the Internet.

I wish that were true.

If it is true, then please CITE these mysterious books you read, like I did, instead of just citing wikipedia articles, or articles with little scholarly merit.

The following articles you provided do not prove that germany wasn't socialist.

http://translate.google.com/translat...n&hl=&ie=UTF-8
http://translate.google.com/translat...s1-mei-1927%2F

Those links do not prove that Germany wasn't socialist. Nor do they prove that Goebbels was at odds with Hitler due to socialistic beliefs.

The only things they prove, is that it is possible many germans were in denial that they lived in a socialistic society.

But saying you aren't socialist, and being socialist are indipendent things.
You can say you're not socialist, and still have a socialistic economy, as Germany had in the 1930s.

Again, if you want a SCHOLARLY BOOK on the issue, read "Socialism and Marginalism in Economics,"

Socialism was regarded a Jewish plot by the Nazies. And thus socialists were prosecuted. And were as announced by Himmler on 30 march 1933 deported to Dachau.

Did you think I wouldn't actually read the links lycanox?

Because I did. And nowhere does it suggest socialists were sent to Dachau.
Among the types of criminal prisoners sent to Dachau, only communists were.
(Socialism and communism are not the same thing).

I also provided quotes from Goebels dairy. One of the most important party member of the nazies. Regarding Hitless opposal to socialism.
And thus a key witness.

I don't accept wikipedia articles as scholarly sources.

After all, why would Hitler prosecute them if he was one himself.

Yeah, he wasn't a jew. But the above piece of "reasoning" makes no sense.
You have an odd sense of logic...sometimes.
Stalin being a russian didn't stop him from killing 23 million russians in arguably the worse genocide in the 20th century...

Absolutely not as Germany at that time still has private property.
Nor was the entire economy state run.

Then explain the nationalized banks and the Volkswagen example I gave. And explain hitler's policy of price setting before the war.

Also explain why, if Germany wasn't socialist, why all factories and businesses answered to hitler and the nazi cause.

The US en england regulated prices back then aswell.

IN WARTIME. NOT AS A TYPICAL ECONOMIC POLICY.

I am too familiar with this debate style of yours. In the future, if you bring up a point that has already been answered, I'll just ignore it, to save time and space.

Stop thinking about times when the Nazis already had lots of power.
But just a small group of people preaching in bars and restaurants.

You mentioned that already earlier in your circular argument.

The nazis weren't a threat then.

They were...just a bunch of people preaching in bars and restaurants.

The nazies were not a important political party in the beginning and could thus easily be banned.

Theoretically, yes.
But they weren't really a threat then. By the time they were a threat, and nazis were being jailed, they were already too powerful to ban or destroy.

Right now you are attempting to do your usual circular argument. If I say the nazis were too powerful to ban, you suggest that when they were a small local power in Nuremberg, they could be banned. When I remind you that they weren't a national threat then, you cite the jailing of nazis later on.

But you are confusing two time periods in nazi development. In its early years, the nazi was neither a threat, nor was it overly powerful. When it was finally a distinguishable threat, it was too powerful to stop, due to lack of funds, support, and other factors that have been before-mentioned.

And the NSDAP was already on a watch list for being a problem even before Hitler joined.

Yes, but again. THEY LACKED THE FUNDS AND SUPPORT TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT.
C'mon, lyc...

Instead of going into a circular argument on my points, why can't you just rebut/refute them based on evidence instead of debating using arguments that have already been disproved.

As for the will of the people.
Do you really believe that if the will of the people was a genocide. It would be wrong to stop them?

I wasn't presenting the information (on why the nazi rise to power was unpreventable) from a standpoint of whether or not it was moral, I was presenting the information from a factual standpoint only.

Whether or not I morally believe the will of the people should have been suppressed in that instance, still doesn't affect the facts.
The reason you couldn't ban the nazi party, is because such an act would be illegal.

I don't agree with banning parties, true, but even if I did believe in banning the nazi party, it wouldn't change anything.

The rights of his 6 million victims are more important than the right of one small political party to speech and exist.

12 million people actually.

But more importantly, the nazis did not run on a platform of genocide. They ran on an anti-jewish/communist/etc. platform of hate and ethnocentrism, but they never, as a matter of policy openly stated that they wanted to extinguish jews via murder.

That's what they ended up doing, but it isn't something their party platform consisted of.
Which is an important factor in why the nazi party wasn't banned. Nobody foresaw it killing 6 million jews and millions of others.


Before you respond to that, with more wikipedia garbage please read the following taken from the book "The Atlas of Jewish History" by Martin Gilbert.

I already know you are going to try to prove that everyone in the world thought nazis were going to kill jews, but I am about to lay that myth to rest, with this passage:

Madagascar:

"1940 Germans envisage the settlement 4,000,000 European Jews with local autonomy under a German Mandate. Eichmann in charge of plans which were abandoned in 1941."

Many people, not just you, have trouble grasping the fact that the nazis did not consider killing jews as their first option. They just wanted to get them out of Europe. Initially, they had plans to relocate 4 million jews to Madagascar, where they could set up a form of self government under the German Empire.

The german government actually had wanted to send the jews to Palestine. But they couldn't, because it was still under British rule.

But because funds had to be focused elsewhere, they got rid of the jews in the most fiscally reasonable way they could think of.

What you are doing is opposing every logical way genocides and such can be prevented.

I'm not opposing many of those strategies. They just wouldn't work.

If germany could have brought down the nazi party, great.

Nonsense. As they did prosecute Hitler later for his failed revolution.
Showing clearly the ability to prosecute them.

Then obviously prosecution didn't work.

I am also talking about much more drastic measures being taken. Stopping hitler at that point wouldn't have stopped the momentum of the naxi party.

Wrong again, as it was possible to stop the Nazies before they gained that much control.

You have yet to provide any convincing evidence as to how that could be done.

Than your knowledge is dead wrong, as Germany was littered with thousands of different little parties varying from communist to corporatist. Small riots were even common back then between such parties.

Apparently you didn't understand what I just said. I said there was only one national socialist party, and you have not proved that statement false.

Nazism was an separate ideology on its own. Which placed itself in a position between socialism and capitalism, where it borrowed from and hated both.

Even IF that were true (and you have yet to provide any evidence that supports that position [your links do not support your position]),I believe jena is suggesting that political balances are always tilting to one sector. In the case of the germans (correct me if I misinterpreted you, jena), they were more socialistic and fascist than anything else.

[Freddy]

Here is an article on the Nazi economy.

"It was common in those days, as it is in ours, to identify the Communists as leftist and the Nazis as rightists, as if they stood on opposite ends of the ideological spectrum. But Mises knew differently. They both sported the same ideological pedigree of socialism. "The German and Russian systems of socialism have in common the fact that the government has full control of the means of production. It decides what shall be produced and how. It allots to each individual a share of consumer's goods for his consumption."

The difference between the systems, wrote Mises, is that the German pattern "maintains private ownership of the means of production and keeps the appearance of ordinary prices, wages, and markets." But in fact the government directs production decisions, curbs entrepreneurship and the labor market, and determines wages and interest rates by central authority. "Market exchange," says Mises, "is only a sham."

http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.a...er=articledate

[iulian28ti]

Nice find Freddy. In fact, in Mein Kampf Hitler states that : "Thus, the task of the state toward capital was comparatively simple and clear: it only had to make certain that capital remain the handmaiden of the state and not fancy itself the mistress of the nation. This point of view could then be defined between two restrictive limits: preservation of a solvent, national, and independent economy on the one hand, assurance of the social rights of the workers on the other.
Previously I had been unable to recognize with the desired clarity the difference between this pure capital as the end result of productive labor and a capital whose existence and essence rests exclusively on speculation. For this I lacked the initial inspiration, which had simply not come my way.
But now this was provided most amply by one of the various gentlemen lecturing in the above-mentioned course: Gottfried Feder.
For the first time in my life I heard a principled discussion of international stock exchange and loan capital.
Right after listening to Feder's first lecture, the thought ran through my head that I had now found the way to one of the most essential premises for the foundation of a new party."

[lycanox]

Originally Posted by Beatnik Bob

If America nationalized its banks and did away with the majority of its free market ideals, and nationalized a good deal of private property, I would call America socialist.

Than in your opinion, capitalism does not exist.

So far though, America has not adopted the economic or political system of 1930s germany.

Neither did Hitler adopt the political system of Marxism or communism.

I wish that were true.

If it is true, then please CITE these mysterious books you read, like I did, instead of just citing wikipedia articles, or articles with little scholarly merit.

Books

Lekturamas. tweede wereld oorlog series.
Hitlers Handlangers
World war 2.
7000 jaar geschiedenis in beeld. De tweede wereld oorlog.

Documentaries.
Het duits archief tijdens de tweede wereldoorlog.
Het polygoon journaal in de tweede wereldoorlog.
Mein Kampf.
Nuremberg
The occuld history of the third reigh.
The nazies a warning from history.

And various conversations with people that actually lived in germany back then.

The following articles you provided do not prove that germany wasn't socialist.

You however failed to prove they were a socialist country.
Which is understandable as they weren't.

Those links do not prove that Germany wasn't socialist. Nor do they prove that Goebbels was at odds with Hitler due to socialistic beliefs.

Again, Goebbels himself said so in his dairy.

The only things they prove, is that it is possible many germans were in denial that they lived in a socialistic society.

What you have proved that you have no idea of the political situation 80 years ago.

But saying you aren't socialist, and being socialist are indipendent things.
You can say you're not socialist, and still have a socialistic economy, as Germany had in the 1930s.

They had no socialist economy. But a corporatistic economy.
Companies and possessions of arriers were not state owned back then.

Again, if you want a SCHOLARLY BOOK on the issue, read "Socialism and Marginalism in Economics,"

Did you think I wouldn't actually read the links lycanox?

Because I did. And nowhere does it suggest socialists were sent to Dachau.

The article literally said that socialists were send to Dachau.

Among the types of criminal prisoners sent to Dachau, only communists were.
(Socialism and communism are not the same thing).

Than please read again.

Message in the Munich Neue Nachrichten Sten: "A concentration camp for political prisoners at Dachau. In this camp, with a capacity of 5,000 people, all communists and socialists that the security of the state at risk, are brought together."

I don't accept wikipedia articles as scholarly sources.

Yeah, he wasn't a jew. But the above piece of "reasoning" makes no sense.
You have an odd sense of logic...sometimes.
Stalin being a russian didn't stop him from killing 23 million russians in arguably the worse genocide in the 20th century...

Not really.

Stalin did not target his victims for being russian. Hitler did however kill people for being socialist.

Then explain the nationalized banks and the Volkswagen example I gave. And explain hitler's policy of price setting before the war.

Than please explain the nationalized banks in the US. And the setting of solid prizes in the allied countries.

What you are confusing with socialism is in reality just a normal occurrence during a mayor conflict or financial turmoil .

Also explain why, if Germany wasn't socialist, why all factories and businesses answered to hitler and the nazi cause.

They didn't.

IN WARTIME. NOT AS A TYPICAL ECONOMIC POLICY.

I am too familiar with this debate style of yours. In the future, if you bring up a point that has already been answered, I'll just ignore it, to save time and space.

If you did not constantly made the same arguments. I wouldn't have to repeat myself.

You mentioned that already earlier in your circular argument.

The nazis weren't a threat then.

They were...just a bunch of people preaching in bars and restaurants.

They were already considered a problem before Hitler joined.
And the government send undercover agents in to keep an eye on them.

Theoretically, yes.
But they weren't really a threat then. By the time they were a threat, and nazis were being jailed, they were already too powerful to ban or destroy.

Which is why it is important to ban them when they are still little.

Right now you are attempting to do your usual circular argument. If I say the nazis were too powerful to ban, you suggest that when they were a small local power in Nuremberg, they could be banned. When I remind you that they weren't a national threat then, you cite the jailing of nazis later on.

That is because the idea that the nazies weren't considered a thread is simply wrong.

But you are confusing two time periods in nazi development. In its early years, the nazi was neither a threat, nor was it overly powerful. When it was finally a distinguishable threat, it was too powerful to stop, due to lack of funds, support, and other factors that have been before-mentioned.

But to repeat myself again.
The Nazies were already considered a problem before Hitler even joined.

And had the government pressed harder after his arrest.
He would have been stopped.

Yes, but again. THEY LACKED THE FUNDS AND SUPPORT TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT.
C'mon, lyc...

Yet then please explain how they managed to trail and convict them.

And please provide evidence that the German government was forced to let criminals roam free due a lack of funds.

Instead of going into a circular argument on my points, why can't you just rebut/refute them based on evidence instead of debating using arguments that have already been disproved.


I wasn't presenting the information (on why the nazi rise to power was unpreventable) from a standpoint of whether or not it was moral, I was presenting the information from a factual standpoint only.

I offered some well documented key moments where they could have been stopped.

You on the other hand have provided no evidence.

Whether or not I morally believe the will of the people should have been suppressed in that instance, still doesn't affect the facts.
The reason you couldn't ban the nazi party, is because such an act would be illegal.

Then preventing the holocaust would be illegal.
Meaning that all those heroes that fought the nazies back then, were criminals.

What do you prefer. Allowing democracy to be ruind and 6 million people to be gassed so a couple of people can have their freedom of speech and democracy.

Or suppressing some racist fascist and make the world a better place by preventing it.

I don't agree with banning parties, true, but even if I did believe in banning the nazi party, it wouldn't change anything.


12 million people actually.

But more importantly, the nazis did not run on a platform of genocide. They ran on an anti-jewish/communist/etc. platform of hate and ethnocentrism, but they never, as a matter of policy openly stated that they wanted to extinguish jews via murder.

That's what they ended up doing, but it isn't something their party platform consisted of.
Which is an important factor in why the nazi party wasn't banned. Nobody foresaw it killing 6 million jews and millions of others.

Even calling for deportation and castration of groups is considered ethnic cleansing. And with the racist propaganda they have been spewing. Problems should be expected.
And not waved of in a misplaced trust in humanity.

Before you respond to that, with more wikipedia garbage please read the following taken from the book "The Atlas of Jewish History" by Martin Gilbert.

I already know you are going to try to prove that everyone in the world thought nazis were going to kill jews, but I am about to lay that myth to rest, with this passage:

Madagascar:



Many people, not just you, have trouble grasping the fact that the nazis did not consider killing jews as their first option. They just wanted to get them out of Europe. Initially, they had plans to relocate 4 million jews to Madagascar, where they could set up a form of self government under the German Empire.

The german government actually had wanted to send the jews to Palestine. But they couldn't, because it was still under British rule.

But because funds had to be focused elsewhere, they got rid of the jews in the most fiscally reasonable way they could think of.

I am aware of the Israel option.
But mass deportation is still considered ethnic cleansing and highly immoral.

I'm not opposing many of those strategies. They just wouldn't work.

If germany could have brought down the nazi party, great.


Then obviously prosecution didn't work.

The problem is that they have been way to lacks about it.

I am also talking about much more drastic measures being taken. Stopping hitler at that point wouldn't have stopped the momentum of the naxi party.

Banning the entire Nazi party and revivals however would have done the trick.

You have yet to provide any convincing evidence as to how that could be done.


Apparently you didn't understand what I just said. I said there was only one national socialist party, and you have not proved that statement false.

There was also the "German Völkisch Freedom Party" and the "Volkisch social bloc"
Not to mention the various other parties to chose from.

Even IF that were true (and you have yet to provide any evidence that supports that position [your links do not support your position]),I believe jena is suggesting that political balances are always tilting to one sector. In the case of the germans (correct me if I misinterpreted you, jena), they were more socialistic and fascist than anything else.

They are fascist. There is no reason to doubt that label.

[Mezurashi]

for all those who think that Hitler was a Socialist please read a history of the Thule Gesselschaft and it's influence on the ruling body of the Nazi Party.

and as I said in a previous thread, nether Socialism, Communism or Capitalism works in a Dictatorship - what you get when that happens is a Dictatorship with ribbons and ruffles so to label them as anything but Dictatorships is clutching at straws (Jena you should know better already).

If America were a Dictatorship (as per definition and not assumption) would you still call it a Capitalist Nation?

if not, then why call the USSR Communist or Nazi Germany Socialist? unless you're just looking for something, anything, bad to say ...

oh, right, never mind ...

[Cartesiantheater]

Originally Posted by JenaS62

Spend some time on that website I provided. What I posted is just a small fraction of it.




Actually claims that Hitler was right wing is left wing propaganda. Hitler had far more in common with the left wing than the right including eugenics, the philosophy of working for the betterment of all, hatred of capitalism and on and on.

Go back and look at the political quiz.

Here are two images on the political quiz website superimposed together.

What you find is that out of Obama, McCain, Huckabee and Clinton, it is HITLERY Clinton that is the FARTHEST AWAY from Hitler! How's that for irony? (and Obama is farther from Hitler than both McCain and Huckabee).




As a whole, both Democrats and Republicans are about an equal net distance away from Hitler politically (although there are farther out outlying Democrats, but since these are anomalies, they can be disregarded. Of all politicians in the last Presidential race, Ralph Nader and Mike Gravel are just about equally the farthest away from Hitler. Ron Paul is the farthest Republican away from Hitler, and Gravel is the farthest Democrat, with Dennis Kucinich right on his tail).






The fallacy in this thread is that Hitler was EITHER left wing OR right wing, and that you are EITHER socialist OR capitalist.

Neither are true. These are FALSE DICHOTOMIES so characteristic of American thinking (and at least in my personal experience, I see it all the time among the "Rush Limbaugh" variety conservative).



In SOME WAYS Nazi Germany was socialist and in some ways it wasn't. In someways it was Left-wing and in some ways it was Right-wing.


Nazi Germany was against democratic socialism, it was against liberalism, it was against communism, against social liberalism, and it was against capitalism.

In other words, Nazi Germany was against BOTH extremes of American politics (which are a lot closer together on the bigger, international picture, mind you), yet for some reason both of these two sides are trying to claim that the other is like Nazism.


"Stop thinking in one dimension" would be the implication.

[iulian28ti]

The fallacy in this thread is that Hitler was EITHER left wing OR right wing, and that you are EITHER socialist OR capitalist.

Neither are true. These are FALSE DICHOTOMIES so characteristic of American thinking (and at least in my personal experience, I see it all the time among the "Rush Limbaugh" variety conservative).

I agree...

[James Random]

While he was leader of the National Socialist German Workers Party, he was quintessentially a Totalitarian. It amazes me to see how little people know about Hitler in this day and age despite the fact he's one of the most important figures in History for multiple reasons - good and bad.

The began as a socialist delivering mail on a pushbike in WW1 to the trenches. Somewhere between there and taking leadership of the National Socialist German Workers Party, he became a progressive where he made many fantastic changes to Germany that secured it's place as a economic competitor even here in the 21st century.

Sometime between there and the start of WW2 he became a totalitarian and allowed his totalitarian beliefs to fuel WW2. The holocaust had very little to do with the war proper, it was just a sideline desire to see a single master race and had it not been for his focus on this particular sideline, he may very well have won the war.

It's not generally known for certain what made him a totalitarian, but it's believed his hatred of Jews was inherent.

[Cherisa]

How com it's always Hitler? Stalin killed more, but Hitler is most discussed?
Why?

[lycanox]

You cant really compare evil by just looking at the number of victims.
History is littered with people that would have ranked higher scores than Hitler of Stalin. But failed because their civilization was not developed enough to kill lots of people. Or simply because there weren't enough people around back then.

So while Stalin killed more people. It had more to do with mismanagement, a results no matter the cost and aggressive mentality. And the fact that he had a vast amount of people in his control for a much longer time.
Which is in my opinion a degree less evil than Hitlers cold blooded systematic extermination approach.

As for this topic.
Stalin got his power in revolutions against other despots and dictators and removing the right rival party members.
While Hitler got his power democratically in what already was a a normal democratic free country.

Making Hitler a lot more relative to the debate of modern fascism in the modern western world. Than Stalin is.

[lycanox]

http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4...cetohitler.png

As a whole, both Democrats and Republicans are about an equal net distance away from Hitler politically (although there are farther out outlying Democrats, but since these are anomalies, they can be disregarded. Of all politicians in the last Presidential race, Ralph Nader and Mike Gravel are just about equally the farthest away from Hitler. Ron Paul is the farthest Republican away from Hitler, and Gravel is the farthest Democrat, with Dennis Kucinich right on his tail).

I think you are reading the chart a bit wrong.

Qua economic policies, the republicans the furthest away from Hitler.
But the problem with Hitler was however not his economic system. But his political totalitarian system. And looking at that scale, the Republicans are a lot closer to Hitler than the democrats are. With some politicians even at roughly the same level.

[James Random]

Originally Posted by Cherisa

How com it's always Hitler? Stalin killed more, but Hitler is most discussed?
Why?

Cause, for some reason, Lycanox is obsessed with the Nazi's.

[Cherisa]

But Hitler is the most brought up. I guess I'll go start a thread about Stalin..

[JenaS62]

Originally Posted by Cherisa

But Hitler is the most brought up. I guess I'll go start a thread about Stalin..

I started the Ukrainian holocaust thread but Lycanox refused to believe that Stalin intended genocide. He blamed it on a scientist and bad planning. You'd be wasting your time.

[MaximumPain]

Stalin's purges are well documented. I don't think his were as ethnically motivated as Hitlers while he did target some minorities (including Jews) a lot of the killing he did was just to insure he kept power. Another thing is that with the Nazis they had their racial hatred right in their platform and propaganda.

Remember that Stalin was our ally and his nation really did the heavy lifting against the Nazi threat due to facing at least 70% of the German army and taking by far the most casualties military and civilian (in the west its still not clear how many Chinese the Imperial Japanese army killed and we will never know). At the end of the war it was politically expedient to go after the Nazis and ignore what the soviets did the world so wanted peace by then that they ignored the crimes of war.

[lycanox]

I started the Ukrainian holocaust thread but Lycanox refused to believe that Stalin intended genocide. He blamed it on a scientist and bad planning. You'd be wasting your time.

Mostly because no evidence has ever surfaced that Stalin deliberately intended to cause massive famines with the purpose of killing ukrainians.
And if the famines were only supposed to target the Ukrainians. It makes very little to no historical sense that similar but unrelated famines occurred in Russian populated areas and even allied foreign countries as well.

That a man killed millions of people does not mean that every person that died in his country died because he wanted to kill him.

[James Random]

Originally Posted by lycanox

Mostly because no evidence has ever surfaced that Stalin deliberately intended to cause massive famines with the purpose of killing ukrainians.
And if the famines were only supposed to target the Ukrainians. It makes very little to no historical sense that similar but unrelated famines occurred in Russian populated areas and even allied foreign countries as well.

That a man killed millions of people does not mean that every person that died in his country died because he wanted to kill him.

I'm sorry but you seem to know as much about history as you do microbiology, which is not very much. The Stalinist holocaust is well documented. You'd be wise to open up a real history book rather than just googling for nonsense.