Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well let's all hope that the Far left never institute their dream of pure communism and the far right never get their wish to create the fascist state they so desire. Both are totalitarian forms of government. Hopefully they will meet at the political back door and kick each other's ass into oblivion.
Who gives a crap what Hitler named his movement? He would have worn fishnets and a busteir to his rallies if it would have helped him gain more power and influence.
I might add that his armies were responsible for killing 20 million perfectly healthy left wing communists. So he was really no friend of socialism.
You're forgetting he was once an ally of the soviet union. His invasion of poland was conducted simultaneously with the soviets who then occupied the western half of poland. Are you aware the soviets also turned over the jews who inhabited that part of poland?
Unlike Lenin, Stalin was an anti-Semite and understood the uses of irrational hatred. His crimes took the forms of the sins of omission and commission. The omission was not to see Nazism for what it was, and ally with it in the Hitler-Stalin pact of August 1939. It remains one of the most hypocritical and stupid acts in the annals of diplomacy, where examples of hypocrisy and stupidity are not hard to find. Throughout the 1930s Communist writers, poets and propagandists had denounced fascism and urged a popular front against the Hitlerian menace. Then in August 1939 Stalin stood on his head and announced a Soviet reconciliation with Nazi Germany so they might partition Poland between them. Stalin believed in Hitler. Solzhenitsyn speculated in The First Circle that Hitler was the only man he ever really trusted. The complete surprise Hitler achieved when he invaded an unprepared Soviet Union in 1941 suggests that Solzhenitsyn was right. By signing the pact, the Soviet Union agreed to hand over the Jews of western Poland to the Nazis. Although conventional historians lazily say that the pact shocked a generation of leftists, Shindler points out that membership of the British Communist Party actually rose after the tyrants had cut a deal, and hardly anyone worried about the fate of Polish Jewry. Those who had shouted loudest about the dangers of fascism from 1933 to 1938 were as willing as Chamberlain and Halifax to appease it in 1939.
Read up on your History, Night oof the Long Knives, Hitlers Purge of the SA.
Or just Google, Russ Pearce and JT Ready
So, hitler carried out a purge of someone he considered a rival in the national socialist party. Stalin did the very same thing tho he managed to kill tens of thousands while doing so. Both leaders and parties are far more alike than not.
Naziism and neo-Naziism falls outside of the traditional American political spectrum. It's not very useful to think about them in modern American left-right terms, especially since Naziism originated in a different country and period of time altogether.
The Nazis were never called "the National Socialist Party" - they were the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, and everything else is merely translation. That's an important point to remember, since it can help avoid errors of categorization or confusion with disparate times and places.
The particular syllogism in the OP falls apart with the following premise:
Quote:
Socialists are liberals.
It depends. Some are; some are not. Some are neither right nor left in the American sense. For example, Imperial Rome was highly socialistic in some regards, especially as it concerned Roman citizens, and the city of Rome itself. But it would be inane to say that Imperial Rome was "left-wing" in nature.
Different time, different place, different system.
Read up on your History, Night oof the Long Knives, Hitlers Purge of the SA.
Or just Google, Russ Pearce and JT Ready
I've read The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich - I don't need to google anything.
Socialists can't purge their ranks? I seem to recall a man named Josef Stalin who is well known for a few purges - and I doubt very much that you could argue that he wasn't a socialist.
The Soviet Union wanted Germany to absolutely crush Poland, so Poland would be easily absorbed into the Soviet's ambition for world domination after the war.
Polish Jews were wiped out.
The Nazis and Soviets hated each other.
Many Poles fought with the British against Germany.
You're forgetting he was once an ally of the soviet union. His invasion of poland was conducted simultaneously with the soviets who then occupied the western half of poland. Are you aware the soviets also turned over the jews who inhabited that part of poland?
His treaties with other nations were just a matter of expediency. Trying to tag liberals with a swastika is absolutely baseless and ridiculous on it's face.
Did you guys get an assignment to see what was the most ridiculous postulation you could try and sell on the internet? Well, you get the prize logo'd coffee cup for your boiler room with this post.
Naziism and neo-Naziism falls outside of the traditional American political spectrum. It's not very useful to think about them in modern American left-right terms, especially since Naziism originated in a different country and period of time altogether.
The Nazis were never called "the National Socialist Party" - they were the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, and everything else is merely translation. That's an important point to remember, since it can help avoid errors of categorization or confusion with disparate times and places.
The particular syllogism in the OP falls apart with the following premise:
It depends. Some are; some are not. Some are neither right nor left in the American sense. For example, Imperial Rome was highly socialistic in some regards, especially as it concerned Roman citizens, and the city of Rome itself. But it would be inane to say that Imperial Rome was "left-wing" in nature.
Different time, different place, different system.
National socialist german workers party. Yeah we know. If put on a left right continuum what you have at the extremes are classical liberalism with it's reliance on limited government and communist dictatorship a totalitarian system relying on a powerful central government.
Somewhere between these systems we have the national socialists a totalitarian system who relied on a powerful central government. Since both the national socialists were a one party totalitarian system and the communists were a one party totalitarian system and the classical liberals were a multiparty system with a weak central government......connect the damn dots already.
His treaties with other nations were just a matter of expediency. Trying to tag liberals with a swastika is absolutely baseless and ridiculous on it's face.
Did you guys get an assignment to see what was the most ridiculous postulation you could try and sell on the internet? Well, you get the prize logo'd coffee cup for your boiler room with this post.
Trying to tag a political view that limited government is best at preserving civil liberties with a totalitarian form form of government that allows only limited to no civil liberties is ridiculous on it face.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
