Anyway, yes, Hitler was a socialist.
This reveals an evaluation that also reveals your character. If you say the Nazis were âshoddyâ and disorganized and that was the reason that people survived their concentration camps, the logical assumption is that you think that had they been organised that nobody would have survived. Your use of the word âshoddyâ which has a touch of disdain, highlights subpar abilities, and is a criticism typical of what you have posted here.
When you consider that we are talking about human beings who were being exterminated at such a rate that nobody realised outside of Germany (or even in Germany for that matter) realised the extent of the atrocities, how even schoolclasses of children were gassed, together with their teachers, because it wasnât something that the Naziâs wanted everyone to know about, your criticism of their performance is a sign of your own inhumanity.
PZRâs method of arguing tends to turn dialogue into a battle of egos. Hence the name calling. If one thinks thatâs what is going on, then for you, it is.
I read that some in the Nazi party early on entertained socialist ideas like unions in their platform. Hence the inclusion of âsocialistâ in the partyâs name. Hitler opposed this. In the interview I referenced Hitler opposes his definition of socialism to socialist ideologies generally considered to represent the term. His, of course is the ârealâ socialism.
Letâs remember that socialism is a social construct. There is no socialism in the absolute sense. Social constructs depend on the âbuy inâ of people for the existence. If people stop believing in money it will have no value. Hitler got enough people to buy into his brand of (whatever you want to call it) to bring a plague of violence on the world.
Socialism has become a word of approbation to the American Right wing. So tarring people with the term is a political strategy. Political labels donât mean anything in an absolute sense. So we can argue about them interminably if it makes us happy.
1 Like
Donât worry kids. When the Russians get to us in the next few years. We will be begging for the Nazis. #WW3
Only cuz the Nazis were nukeless.
Bob is absolutely correct in his understanding of Hitler and SocialismâŚ
the Nazi party put those who called themselves Socialists, into
prison including the concentration camps of the dayâŚ
Many well-known Socialists were attacked even killed by the ''Brown Shirts",
in the years before the Naziâs came to power⌠Nazism wasnât about Socialism,
but about the gaining and maintaining of power⌠by whatever means possibleâŚ
Kropotkin
The insanity and lack of true historical facts is astounding.
Worship your neoliberal corporate overlords, plebs. As you enjoy to do.
0% of posters in this topic have read even some of Mein Kampf.
but pretends to understand Hitler
Weak ass punks.
I am surprised at your attitude here and can only assume that you revere Hitler.
I have read as much as anyone since I live in Germany, and I have read many sources in German of course. I canât understand how anyone could criticise the IDF and revere Hitler, unless, of course, you are just a blatant antisemite, in which case you can kma.
Any accurate historio-logocentric ideological predicate signification in semantics for political or economic âpositionâ is impossible in this post-philosophical world.
U can no sooner call marx a socialist than u can call hitler a nazi.
The formative praxis of the ideal as the active immanent structuralization of reality is always in a state of incomplete metalingusitic trans-digressive evolutionary rhizomic flux such that each concept inevitably gives way to its opposite through recursive conjunction or by already containing within its own identifying structures and symbols the entire matrix of the associative semantic meaning possibilities for any set of identifying statements.
For all of the highfalutin terminology, if Marx wasnât the first Marxist and Hitler didnât create the NSDAP but spoke about its formation, then who was or did?
When I was reading about Nazi Germany in the new democratic Germany, it was 1980, only 35 years after the end of the war. There were Social Democrats and former Communists who had been in the concentration camps still alive and serving in Parliament. There were authors writing books about their experiences, and a large amount of documentation was made available to pupils to inform them of the precise developments that led to Nazi Germany.
We are only now in a new century, and maybe later generations will have difficulty distinguishing ideologies, but Iâve read as much critical literature as I could from authors who are, to a large degree, no longer alive. After speaking with people who lived in that period, I think I have a fair idea of what happened. This modern idea that you cannot distinguish anything is just bullshit that has perverted the original idea behind postmodernism.
âthen who was or did?â
Joe Biden and the deepstate.
No seriously, except for only a few distinct characteristics, there arenât any absolute identifiers for what constitutes a âsocialistâ or âcommunistâ society. They all bleed into each other, lending and borrowing elements from each other. This is why erâbody is confused about what the nazis were doin. They did some socialist stuff, sure⌠but then u could say they also didnât do some socialist stuff. The most important shit. Those few distinct characteristics.
All this assuming erâbody is talking about the marx/engels socialism, which has never been realized.
But by now everyone should know that the claim by the nazis to be socialist was only to attract the german peopleâs interests.
As i said tho u can redefine âsocialistâ and move it around. What Iâm sayin is, the nazis may and can be socialists of some variation, but not the marx/engels variation. Certainly not. Clearly not.
I am a bit fuzzy still on Hitler but I do not think he was an actual socialist. I think he really did care for Germany and saw another culture as a threat, how he handled it was poor but I do think his intentions started off just, which is why he was in time magazine 1936. I am not a sympathizer but I do think he did have some justifications for the war, especially if those letters he wrote to âdisband armamentsâ that was ignored is true.
If he simply imprisoned what he saw as a threat and avoided killing, the history behind âNazi germanyâ would be completely different. After all, Americans imprisoned japs for the same reason, we just didnât kill them all.
I believe he allied with Japan due to:
A. Strategic militarily
B. Japanese understood how culture works and agreed with what Germany and Hitler wanted or saw as a threat. (Cultural invasion or a psychological/cultural war) which is why he tried bringing back the Holy Roman Empire, as it is always Germany and Italy with Christianity.
Please correct me if I am wrong. I am conflicted with Hitler because I am patriotic and agree with some of his ideas but if the holocaust DID happen to the extent of what is described and not âpropaganda fed to us for Jewish dominanceâ then I canât stand by that. Thereâs just a lot of coincidences between Jew and America/world that paints it in the way that it /could/ be propaganda, especially since America is Israelâs puppet, why else would they be when America is primarily a Christian nation?
Why I say potential propaganda is due to the following coincidences :
A. Was I there to observe it? No.
B. Can cinema/media spin a story like that to look realistic? Yes.
C. How powerful is Israel today? Pretty powerful with America as its puppet.
D. Israel is absolutely fucking Palestine right now with no remorse or thought back to âhow it feltâ during the holocaust when it âhappened to themâ.
Psychologically speaking, if I am beat or repressed my entire life, would I go about doing the same to others with no compassion at all after what I went through myself or even as a collective people? No, unless I was a psychopath or unless it never actually happened.
Like Orwell said âvictors of war, write the historyâ. Could Jews have been rewarded after the war for the technological developments they provided to America?
A little slice of the victory in war pie perse? (Einstein was Jewish, Oppenheimer was too, Jewish).
How this could have played out if it were or is propaganda. (Jews provide technological advancement âatom bombâ during the war and other intellectual advancements to America for a story and or âhistoricalâ piece that would place them into a place of power after the war and America backs them in the future.)
Look at Germany now, basically conquered by refugees. Could Hitler have anticipated such and tried preventing it by the genocide called the holocaust? There is a lot of pieces to this puzzle, some I may be missing but politics was never my strongest suit, psychology and spirituality/religion is.
The âjustificationsâ for war were the reparations which were harsh because, apart from the 1914-18 war, Germany had also ransacked France in 1871. The French economy was hit hard in the 1871 war, and it took a while to recover. He did a lot to suggest that he wasnât a threat, especially towards Britain and America, because he thought he had support there (he did), but his plans to expand eastwards were already set out in Mein Kampf, and the Slavic people were seen as almost as inferior as the Jews. This inherent racism played a part in his plans.
And you think that this racial profiling was okay? The stories of some of those Japanese internees were heartbreaking. The extermination of the Jews was seen by Hitler as a cleansing, because âtheir blood was infecting the German populationâ. Sounds familiar? Iâm afraid many Americans are very ignorant about history, which is probably why they allow it to repeat itself.
Japan was causing grave problems for America, and Britain was almost beaten; Hitler saw the Japanese as taking Americaâs attention off of him, but he was wrong. The Americans fought a war on several fronts, and when the Soviets joined in, he was beaten. The Holy Roman Empire was the same to Hitler as the Czar Empire is to Putin.
The holocaust did happen, and it doesnât make any difference that the Russian and Chinese revolutions killed more people. Indeed, the Jews have always been clever to make themselves important for the societies in which they lived. However, we must differentiate between the Jews as a people, living spread about the world, and the Zionists, who are largely not religious and who have pursued their own state. Rabbis leading up to the end of WWII were preaching that only when the Messiah returns will Israel return to the promised land.
Fundamental Christians want the Israeli state because it means for them, we are getting close to Armageddon and the return of Christ. If you realise that Armageddon is the prophesied location of a gathering of armies for a battle during the end times, you see a scenario for the end of civilisation â including that of non-Judeo-Christian people. Some Rabbis warn their congregations of this deceit. I believe that there have been numerous conspiracies by Zionists to compromise Western politicians, especially in America, which is why they always get their way.
I think my theory is simpler to explain.
The refugee situation in Germany is due to the blindness of German politicians to the pro-Russian nations, who have been encouraging the overwhelming of the EU with refugees, using our goodheartedness against us. The EU is a thorn in the side of America, Russia and China, and the BRICS nations are being encouraged to break the EU and demand reparations for colonial times. It is really quite straightforward when you see the links. It is no surprise that Trump would be the biggest asset for Russia and China, isolating the EU, and leaving us to the mercy of Russia.
And Russia/communism planned to expand westward and consume nearly all of Europe, would that have been better? His book was published long before the war, are you saying people didnât read it at the time to grasp a concept or perception of him being anti-Semitic? Why did Germany let an inherent racist grow to power? And better yet, why did Britain and America support him with his book already being published if it detailed his plans and you could identify him as a racist. Hitler allied with Stalin at first then broke that treaty because he knew Stalin also wanted to expand into Europe, so you have a power of struggle of two political parties fighting over EU while one side was sanctioned harshly and also fighting for their own country to be treated fairly and grow stronger. Are political leaders not supposed to try and make their country stronger?
I mean, if you have one culture being invaded by another culture, at what point do you kick them out or get rid of them as to not pollute your own culture and ideology? Yeah itâs sad, but the world is dog eat dog, thatâs nature. Self preservation of idea and culture is important. What happens to a mycological culture when one bad spore is introduced, the entire culture dies.
Japan used to not even let people into their country from the outside because they knew how culture works.
Ok you say Americans are ignorant to history, well itâs not Americaâs job to hold the rest of the worlds fucking hand and help them rise to power, America rose to power by itself and with very select help by France due to their hatred of Englands power, America isnât the world police and I feel like itâs due to views like yours that many of these shit politicians we have have to play, âworld policeâ. We and the west helped China rise to power, Israel, now look whatâs happening? We get bit in the ass by Israel and their war with Palestine and have to constantly be on edge with Chinaâs potential to begin WW3. History repeats itself not solely because of America but because repetition is part of the human condition and nature. And itâs hard to say what is and isnât history when you werenât there to observe it first hand. I could have a kid and tell them that Lebron James was the president of the US and theyâd believe it.
Yes as I said, Japan was Germanyâs ally for several reasons, one was military strategy. Why would Hitler anticipate America attacking Germany or Japan when America openly supported Hitler when it started? This makes little to no sense historically, in fact, the only reason America DID attack Germany was because American was attacked first. Despite EU begging for American intervention, America said no they wanted no part. Because America is NOT the world police. Wonder why we are now, hmmmâŚâŚ coincidence I guess and also coincidence we just so happen to be Israelâs puppet and military aid constantly.
I would side with the Roman Empire over the Czar Empire, I view it as being much more successful in its time, maybe this is my German ancestry speaking. You know, general Patton, a high ranking general at the time in America, stated : âWe fought the wrong enemyâ referring to fighting the communists instead of Germany. What country do you live in? England? Donât talk to me about âracialâ profiling if youâre from England, how many places did they invade and slaughter again? Casualties and cultural elimination is part of war and nature due to self preservation.
Ok but there is no promised land, all land is equal land, there to be taken or defended. Anything stated otherwise outside of resources and strategical location of that land being important, is manipulative and a self-important view, which the Jews use constantly for their own gaining power.
How do you know 100% what happened back then, were you there to observe it? Iâm curious because why would Orwell state victors of war write the history afterwards if this never happened in history?
So if Jews are so sneaky and plot to have political power everywhere based off of their religious prophecies (and they do have power) why would we now or Germany back then want them as apart of our culture? This self importance they project onto the rest of the world to gain political power IS the reason why Hitler viewed them the way he did and why America is Israelâs puppet. Do you think America backing Israelâs war is a good thing when America has its own issues in its own country? They play a game of victim if youâre against them and then doing whatever they want when youâre on their side, this is healthy? In a relationship thatâs called narcissism and gaslighting which is viewed as toxic.
That may be so but how often in reality do you solve some existential or deep problem that is just simple and not complex. Something âsimpler to explainâ doesnât equate to it being correct, especially when we do not know the truth because we were not there first hand.
So here youâre saying Germany is doomed because of the pro Russian or communist nation, is it possible Hitler foresaw this in his time and tried to prevent it? You either are perceived as good and get walked on and over or you are perceived as âevilâ and do what is necessary to prevent your OWN culture and country being drowned out by another.
I think America needs Trump right now more than ever, EUs problems are not our problems, that may sound mean but itâs true. We have so many problems in America right now that, why the fuck, would we focus all of our resources helping others if we canât help ourselves? We donât want war with China and Russia and honestly I view them as great assets and have a likemindedness in terms of a patriotic sense to their country in comparison to a lot of Americans, I view that as strong. I view watered down culture as weak and malleable, not reliable, easy to poison, easy to destroy.
Do I want America to be communist? No. This does not mean it is not better to make peace and compromise with our enemies than to openly support everything that goes against them or anything they try to do.
Also, just have to say because of this whole discussion, I donât hate the Jews but I see what theyâre doing and it isnât ok.
Thought this was interesting too, considering only Naziâs are deemed the âaggressorsâ and or âinstigatorsâ of WW2
So if Jews across the world declare war on Germany first, Hitler is in the wrong for wanting them out? Got it.
There are too many different questions in that paragraph, but first of all, the idea of a direct Soviet invasion of Western Europe before the outbreak of the war wasnât a widely held belief or a central concern for most Western policymakers. In the interwar period, the Soviet Union was often seen as a potential threat by some European countries, especially those with anti-communist policies. This was primarily because of the rise of socialist parties in most Western countries. In Germany after WWI, the Communists and the Social Democrats declared Germany to be a republic almost simultaneously, but the Social Democrats had more power, and the Communists suffered losses among major players of the communist âSpartacus Bundâ when the Social Democrats, with the support of other parties, used force against them.
In 1917, the Bolshevik Revolution ignited fears of communist expansionism, and the Soviet Unionâs aggressive policies in the 1920s and early 1930s, including support for communist movements in other countries, intensified these concerns. The consequences of these actions were significant. For instance, the Soviet Unionâs support for the Republican faction in the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939) and the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939 contributed to suspicions about Soviet intentions. These events shaped the political landscape of the time because of the shift in thinking that started in the eighteenth century, imagining life under quasi-democratic governments rather than feudal states.
It is a bit of a surprise for many people today because it hasnât been widely publicised since the wars, but prior to the French Revolution, the thought that monarchies could end was never a real idea in peopleâs minds. They thought of it as a God-given order, and curiously, it was the reports from the now-called American/Canadian colonies which became popular, especially in France, of indigenous people criticising the conditions in French society and consequently of European civilisations generally, that initiated what we now call socialism. This affected sympathy for factory workers (long before Marx) working in abominable conditions and the idea of a new freedom. Of course, it was idealised, as these things often are, but there was something on the move in Europe.
However, the focus of Western European powers in the years leading up to World War II was primarily on the threat posed by Nazi Germany and the aggressive expansionist policies pursued by Adolf Hitler. The signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, which included a secret protocol dividing Eastern Europe into spheres of influence between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, was a significant event that caught many Western observers off guard and shifted attention away from the possibility of a Soviet invasion of Western Europe. Even today, there is evidence to suggest that Stalin had ambitions to extend Soviet influence into Eastern Europe, but whether he had concrete plans for a full-scale invasion of Western Europe is less clear.
We must distinguish between culture and political systems. Culture is necessarily a development of thought and ideas. This is certainly what was fermenting in European peoples, and before the twentieth century, we see aspirations to change things. The idea of equality before the law, and even equality between the sexes, had arisen, which had never been questioned. But, we act âas if all important ideas in a given age can be traced back to one or other extraordinary individual â whether Plato, Confucius, Adam Smith or Karl Marx â rather than seeing such authorsâ writings as particularly brilliant interventions in debates that were already going on in taverns or dinner parties or public gardens (or, for that matter, lecture rooms), but which otherwise might never have been written down.â
Graeber, David; Wengrow, David (2021-10-18T23:58:59.000). The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity. Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.
This continues today, and although it may not be a class war, it challenges power structures worldwide. All over the planet, we see the struggle of power against the will of the people.
Something of a consensus has emerged among intellectuals and even, to some degree, the political classes that levels of social inequality have got out of hand, and that most of the worldâs problems result, in one way or another, from an ever-widening gulf between the haves and the have-nots. Pointing this out is in itself a challenge to global power structures; at the same time, though, it frames the issue in a way that people who benefit from those structures can still find ultimately reassuring, since it implies no meaningful solution to the problem would ever be possible. (Graeber, David; Wengrow, David)
The shift has changed today, with Republican states sympathising with a âNew Aristocracyâ (Oligarchy) and giving political leaders dictatorial powers. If you like, this is a step backwards, and people like Barr (in America) are rewriting history in interviews to implement a new political status quo by saying that the American revolt wasnât against the King of England but against Parliament, thereby implying that power can ignore the peopleâs representatives (such as Congress). This is an ongoing process that those in power are trying to make work for them, and essentially, we see Oligarchs reaching out internationally, regardless of political structures, and in fact, undermining them. Brexit was a project of these new âaristocrats.â
Your assumption that âdog eats dogâ works for these people.
I sense your aggravation at my statement, but the fact is that the power structure known as the âBritish Empireâ had exhausted its resources and was struggling due to WWI. It needed the assistance of America to push back the aggressive fascism of Hitler and Mussolini, so it was no great surprise that the USA stepped in and took over from the British. We tend to think of this as a positive influence in the world because it was positive for us. The fact is that the World Bank and International Monetary Fund were aggressive in making a world economy, plunging countries into debt, and even financing power grabs to prevent communism from spreading.
Indonesia was an example close to my heart because in the sixties, when people were being slaughtered there, I was across the Malacca Straits in Malaysia because my father was part of the Armed Forces called in by the King of Malaya to protect them against the communist threat in Asia. Indonesia hadnât embraced communism, but the President there had permitted them to participate in the election. That was enough to organise a coup and kill 500,000 people, which was, of course, said to be the fault of communism. In reality, the Western Empire was wielding its resources. This is all about power politics, as it was in the twentieth century, and whenever the people rise up, they are slapped down or manipulated to think that the conflict is about something else. You know the cartoon of Rupert Murdoch sitting at a table with a plateful of cookies, and on either side are the middle or working class, respectively, with far fewer cookies. The caption says that Murdoch tells the middle-class man that the working-class guy wants his cookies. The truth is obvious, and Murdoch is a representative of power.
We helped China because there was money in it. They cottoned on to the game that the West has been playing (as did Russia) and said, we can play that game too! They have a small advantage in being a collectivist society, where the individual comes second â unless you have money and power. Of course, they challenge the West, but they havenât militarily intervened as much as others have. They let others do that for them, and the American-led NATO nations have followed suit. Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel â all conflicts in which we betray the supposed principles we claim to uphold because we can make money out of it. Our power structures are purchasable, and the weapon lobby invests a great deal of money.
That is why I will cut off here. As you see, I have a different view of history than you, and from what I have said, I have already answered many of your questions. As an added point, did you know that before WWII, there were few countries the British never invaded? Mostly, they didnât because other European states were already there, although that didnât always stop them. We have been sold a version of history that is slowly being shown to be misleading, but I doubt that it will be in time to prevent current developments.
I am curious as to what your view of Hitler is, do you view him as just bad or do you think he had any justification in trying to preserve Germany and do you think history can be rewritten or exaggerated for an agenda? I am also curious what you think of the Jewish declaring war on Germany before the war even began. Is that an act of innocence in regards to the Jewish population? To declare war first I mean.
The phrase âJudea Declares War on Germanyâ stems from a British newspaper, Daily Express, headline on March 24, 19331. This headline was in response to the boycott of German goods by Jewish communities around the world, which was a reaction to the Nazi persecutions following Adolf Hitlerâs appointment as Chancellor of Germany. Of course, this was not a literal declaration of war in the military sense but rather an economic and financial protest against the Nazi regimeâs policies and actions towards Jews. The boycott involved Jewish merchants, bankers, and consumers uniting to sever trade relations with Germany and was a significant form of non-violent resistance during that period.
Adolf Hitler was Austrian, had served as a corporal in WWI, and had great aspirations for the âGermanic race,â which he saw as the true âAryans.â However, the idea of the Aryans as a superior or âmaster raceâ emerged from a pseudoscientific and ideologically motivated interpretation of certain European intellectuals in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, most notably through the work of German scholars such as Friedrich Max MĂźller. MĂźller and others developed the notion of an Aryan race as the supposed ancestral stock of many European peoples, including Germans. They associated it with qualities such as intelligence, creativity, and nobility.
The term âAryanâ was initially used to describe a hypothetical ancient Indo-European people who were believed to have migrated from a homeland in Central Asia and spread across Europe, Iran, and India. So, not the blonde hair, blue-eyed ideals of the Nazis. Hitler and the Nazis distorted and exploited these pseudo-scientific concepts of race to advance their agenda of Aryan supremacy, which led to the persecution and genocide of millions of people deemed racially inferior, including Jews, Romani people, Slavs, and others, during the Holocaust and World War II.
In Mein Kampf, Hitler expressed his belief in the importance of racial purity and the superiority of the âAryan race.â He viewed eugenics as a means to protect and strengthen the supposed genetic superiority of the Germanic/Nordic peoples. He embraced eugenics as a central component of their ideology and policies. Eugenics is the belief in improving the genetic quality of a human population through selective breeding and other means to promote desirable traits and eliminate undesirable ones.
So, tell me, was that a good thing?