More evidence that nazism was left wing

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

There's loads of debate if you bothered to look. As I said before, you take everything at face value - you should try thinking outside of the box.

Okay, show me how many historians academics globally believe it is left wing in total?

Or Political scientists globally?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Okay, show me how many historians academics globally believe it is left wing in total?

Or Political scientists globally?

Define "left wing".

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


PMSL, is a fact, not the "norm."

Its not about accepting anything, but understanding Nazism and politics.
Those who wrongly claim  its left wing, have a political agenda and motivation in doing so. To steer away the truth about Nazism. Most people understand the Holocaust based on the hate formed by the Nazis and centuries of hate in Germany with Lutheranism, for how it happened.

Like I said, you need to think for yourself, not just go on what others say and treat it as "fact". Do you understand the political and economic situation in Germany before the Nazis came to power? Hitler didn't just fall from a tree in 1933 you know.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Define "left wing".

So you chickened out yet again.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:

So you chickened out yet again.

Not at all. If you're going to claim something, you need to explain your definitions.

In any case, I haven't claimed that Nazism was left wing, I've merely said that it's a valid debate, so your claim that Tommy is on a wind up is not fair. You, on the other hand, dismiss all debate on it because you think in a very black and white way, and you are unable to think outside of the box.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Like I said, you need to think for yourself, not just go on what others say and treat it as "fact". Do you understand the political and economic situation in Germany before the Nazis came to power? Hitler didn't just fall from a tree in 1933 you know.

PMSL, I understand the political and economic situation from the beginnings of the 20th century in Germany right up to the end of WW2

All you are doing is posting up misdirection, because you have not the first clue what you are talking about and want to defend your chubby wannabe boyfriend Tommy.

If you think Nazism is not Far Right Politics, then it just furthers proves how much of an idiot you are.

Take any political science course and see for yourself why you would be laughed at

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Not at all. If you're going to claim something, you need to explain your definitions.

In any case, I haven't claimed that Nazism was left wing, I've merely said that it's a valid debate, so your claim that Tommy is on a wind up is not fair. You, on the other hand, dismiss all debate on it because you think in a very black and white way, and you are unable to think outside of the box.

Really?

So posting up the number of academics who understand history and politics, requires the definition of "left wing"?

No that is called misdirection.

No I dismiss rubbish by idiots, because it is rubbish.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


PMSL, I understand the political and economic situation from the beginnings of the 20th century in Germany right up to the end of WW2

All you are doing is posting up misdirection, because you have not the first clue what you are talking about and want to defend your chubby wannabe boyfriend Tommy.

If you think Nazism is not Far Right Politics, then it just furthers proves how much of an idiot you are.

Take any political science course and see for yourself why you would be laughed at

You clearly don't understand the political situation of that time at all. You're thinking in today's terms of "left wing" and "right wing".

Being nasty about Tommy or me does not do you any credit - it merely shows that you are trying to cover up your lack of knowledge. When you are in doubt, you merely fall back on quoting what others say - but in a very selective way.

Good political courses are not meant to be full of sheep, they are supposed to be for people who do question things. Think beyond GSCEs where people are supposed to just repeat what they've been told rather than think for themselves.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Really?

So posting up the number of academics who understand history and politics, requires the definition of "left wing"?

No that is called misdirection.

No I dismiss rubbish by idiots, because it is rubbish.

I want to know your definition, not the definition of others. That's what I mean - think for yourself instead of relying on "experts".

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You clearly don't understand the political situation of that time at all. You're thinking in today's terms of "left wing" and "right wing".

Being nasty about Tommy or me does not do you any credit - it merely shows that you are trying to cover up your lack of knowledge. When you are in doubt, you merely fall back on quoting what others say - but in a very selective way.

Good political courses are not meant to be full of sheep, they are supposed to be for people who do question things. Think beyond GSCEs where people are supposed to just repeat what they've been told rather than think for themselves.

1) It stems from understanding history and politics

2) He is a thick idiot, that is a fact and buys into many conspiracy idiocy, that is plain evidence for his stupidty and is thus also a fact

3) So you are against education them and you brought up GSCE's, where I was talking about degree's in Political science.

4) All you have done is defend an idiot, in Tommy, because the reason is you have not the first clue what you are talking about.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I want to know your definition, not the definition of others. That's what I mean - think for yourself instead of relying on "experts".

It has no bearing on my question

In other words you are afraid to post up the stats on academics, as it would clearly embarrass you.

I am happy you are too embarrassed to do so.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


1) It stems from understanding history and politics

2) He is a thick idiot, that is a fact and buys into many conspiracy idiocy, that is plain evidence for his stupidty and is thus also a fact

3) So you are against education them and you brought up GSCE's, where I was talking about degree's in Political science.

4) All you have done is defend an idiot, in Tommy, because the reason is you have not the first clue what you are talking about.

So was I. People who take such courses are not laughed at if they have a different view to the "norm", they are embraced as free thinkers. Getting a good degree involves being able to think for yourself rather than repeat, parrot-fashion, what others have said. You would not do well because you rely too much on what others say.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


It has no bearing on my question

In other words you are afraid to post up the stats on academics, as it would clearly embarrass you.

I am happy you are too embarrassed to do so.

So how can you claim that Nazism is not left wing if you can't even define what "left wing" means?

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So was I. People who take such courses are not laughed at if they have a different view to the "norm", they are embraced as free thinkers. Getting a good degree involves being able to think for yourself rather than repeat, parrot-fashion, what others have said. You would not do well because you rely too much on what others say.

They generally are laughed at, for having views that go against history and are done so for a political agenda.

That is your first failing, when you fail to see the motive behind a persons claim.

There is nothing wrong with thinking for yourself, however just inventing something to make a false charge, when it is not based on facts but lies, should be ridiculed.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So how can you claim that Nazism is not left wing if you can't even define what "left wing" means?

I can define left wing, but it has no purpose to my point on academics, which you are too embarressed to post up.
Here is an idiots guide for you

http://idontgetpolitics.co.uk/right-left-wing

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


They generally are laughed at, for having views that go against history and are done so for a political agenda.

That is your first failing, when you fail to see the motive behind a persons claim.

There is nothing wrong with thinking for yourself, however just inventing something to make a false charge, when it is not based on facts but lies, should be ridiculed.

Well then it wouldn't be a very good course, and the tutors would not be good. History is open to interpretation - don't you know that? It's the people who refuse to see another point of view when it comes to history or politics who have their own agenda.

Do you not agree that the political situation at the time was quite unique, and you simply can't just apply your own modern-day thinking to the situation?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


I can define left wing, but it has no purpose to my point on academics, which you are too embarressed to post up.
Here is an idiots guide for you

http://idontgetpolitics.co.uk/right-left-wing

Well go on then - define it in your own words.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well then it wouldn't be a very good course, and the tutors would not be good. History is open to interpretation - don't you know that? It's the people who refuse to see another point of view when it comes to history or politics who have their own agenda.

Do you not agree that the political situation at the time was quite unique, and you simply can't just apply your own modern-day thinking to the situation?

1) PMSL, nobody is saying you cannot different views, but lies and falsehoods should be rightly laughed at and ridiculed. Its not a case of a point of view, but sheer ignorance.

2) The Politics of the time had been building up for sometime with such views. Take for example the Pan Germanic League? Or does your limited knowledge have no understanding of this organisation?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


1) PMSL, nobody is saying you cannot different views, but lies and falsehoods should be rightly laughed at and ridiculed. Its not a case of a point of view, but sheer ignorance.

2) The Politics of the time had been building up for sometime with such views. Take for example the Pan Germanic League? Or does your limited knowledge have no understanding of this organisation?

There have been no lies. Look up some quotes from Nazis and from Hitler. If you don't agree with someone, you simply say it's all "lies" - a very lazy way of thinking. You might get a politics degree but you would never get a good grade because you would be afraid to go against the "norm", or to question the majority way of thinking.

Do you know anything about Hitler's early life, or do you think he suddenly dropped from the sky in 1933 and became a dictator?

Ben Reilly wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


Liberals inherently favour individuals freedoms and liberties, and are against the existence of big state, big government, and the subsequent authoritarian control/unnecessary interference it inevitably ends up having over everyday peoples lives...!

I like this liberal ideology of small govt, small state, low taxes and minimal state control/interference on individuals and/or their freedoms and liberties...!

I should have remembered, this is all a joke and a game to you.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

I should have remembered, this is all a joke and a game to you.

No joke... no game...!

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

There's loads of debate if you bothered to look. As I said before, you take everything at face value - you should try thinking outside of the box.

Okay, show me how many historians academics globally believe it is left wing in total?

Or Political scientists globally?

Tommy Monk wrote:Comparison of Nazism and Stalinism
A number of authors have carried out comparisons of Nazism and Stalinism, in which they have considered the issues of whether the two ideologies were similar or different, how these conclusions affect understanding of 20th century history, what relationship existed between the two regimes, and why both of them came to prominence at the same time.

This article also includes quotes about Fascism and Marxism, even though these are not necessarily synonymous with Nazism and Stalinism.

Quotes Edit

Marxism has led to Fascism and National-Socialism, because, in all essentials, it is Fascism and National Socialism.
Frederick Augustus Voigt, Unto Cæsar (1939), p. 95

Fascism and Bolshevism are not two opposing principles, they are both the negation of the same principles of freedom and order.”
Francesco Saverio Nitti, "Bolshevism, Fascism and Democracy" by former Prime Minister of Italy (1927) pp. 126-127

Roosevelt had no illusions about revolution. Mussolini and Stalin seemed to him ‘not mere distant relatives’ but ‘blood brothers.’
Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., The Politics of Upheaval: 1935-1936 (The Age of Roosevelt, Vol. III), New York: NY, Mariner Book: Houghton Mifflin Co. (2003) p. 648.

Some of the similarities and parallels include: Frequent recognition by Hitler and various Nazi leaders (and also Mussolini) that their only revolutionary and ideological counterparts were to be found in the Soviet Union . . . [and the] espousal of the have-not, proletarian-nation theory, which Lenin adopted only after it had been introduce in Italy . . . Hitlerian National Socialism more nearly paralleled Russian communism than has any other non-Communist system.
Stanley G. Payne, A History of Fascism, 1914-1945, University of Wisconsin Press (1995) pp. 210-211

Kurt Schumacher, the charismatic leader of the Social Democrats who had suffered nine years in Hitler’s concentration camps, called the German Communists ‘red-painted nazis.’
Melvyn P. Leffler, and Odd Arne Westad, ed., The Cambridge History of the Cold War, Volume 1 Origins, Cambridge University Press (2010) p. 150

Fascism and Communism represented the urge of the lower middle class to complete the French Revolution—which had signalized the victory of the 'Third Estate' over the Church, the monarchy, and the feudal aristocracy—by destroying, in turn, the privileges of the new capitalist class brought into being by the Industrial Revolution.
Vera Micheles head, Europe in Retreat, New York: NY, Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. (1939 revised edition) p. 87.

The Bolshevists set the precedent. The success of the Lenin clique encouraged the Mussolini gang and the Hitler troops. Both Italian Fascism and German Nazism adopted the political methods of Soviet Russia. The only difference between Nazism and Bolshevism is that the Nazis got a much bigger minority in the elections preceding their coup d’état than the Bolsheviks got in the Russian elections in the fall of 1917.
Ludwig von Mises, Omnipotent Government: The Rise of the Total State and the Total War, Mises Institute (2010) pp. 178-179. First published in 1944 by Yale University Press.

Between the misdeeds of Hitler and those of Stalin, in my opinion, there exists only a quantitative difference... I don't know if the Communist idea, if its theory, already contained a basic fault or if only the Soviet practice under Stalin betrayed the original idea and established in the Soviet Union a kind of Fascism.
Margarete Buber-Neumann, Under Two Dictators: Prisoner of Stalin and Hitler, London: UK, Pimlico, (2008), p. 300. First published in 1949.

Stalinism and fascism, in spite of a deep difference in social foundations, are symmetrical phenomena. In many of their features they show a deadly similarity.
Leon Trotsky, The Revolution Betrayed: What Is the Soviet Union and Where Is It Going? , Labor Publications, Inc., Detroit, MI (1991) pp. 237-238., Chap. 11, “Whither the Soviet Union.” First published 1937)

Lenin was the greatest man, second only to Hitler, and that the difference between communism and the Hitler faith was very slight.
Joseph Goebbels, as quoted in The New York Times, “HITLERITE RIOT IN BERLIN: Beer Glasses Fly When Speaker Compares Hitler and Lenin,” (Nov. 28, 1925) p. 4.

[T]he totalitarian states, whether of the fascist or the communist persuasion, are more than superficially alike as dictatorships, in the suppression of dissent, and in operating planned and directed economies. They are profoundly alike.
Walter Lippman, The Good Society, News Brunswick: NJ, Transaction Publications (2005) p. 89. First published in 1937

In spite of Bolshevism’s and fascism’s different attitudes, above all, private property and nationalism, both fascists and antifascists acknowledged common sources and resulting similarities between Bolshevism and fascism, including their revolutionary ideology, their elitism, their disdain for bourgeois values, and their totalitarian ambitions.
Cyprian P. Blamires, editor, World Fascism: A Historical Encyclopedia, Volume 1, Santa Barbara: CA, ABC-CLIO, Inc. (2006) p.p. 95-96.

What the Nazis have introduced in Germany is a form of graduated Bolshevism, directing their first attack not against the capitalist class as a whole, but against Jewish capitalists, excoriated on racial rather than economic grounds…Nor is there reason to expect that the Nazis will stop at this point.
Vera Micheles head, Europe in Retreat, Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., New York (1939 revised edition), p. 207.

A number of features of Bolshevism and Nazism/Fascism did show striking similarities, including their revolutionary action and proletarian nation theories, leadership principles, one-party dictatorship, and party armies. Hitler publicly acknowledge his debt to the Bolsheviks when, for instance, proposing to make Munich ‘the Moscow of our movement.'
Cyprian P. Blamires, editor, World Fascism: A Historical Encyclopedia, Volume 1, Santa Barbara: CA, ABC-CLIO, Inc. (2006) p. 96.

The modern State claims all of these powers, and, in the matter of theory, there is no real difference in the size of the claim between communists, fascists, and democrats.
Walter Lippman, A Preface to Morals, News Brunswick: NJ, Transaction Publishers (1982) p. 80. First published in 1929.

[F]ascism and communism are not two opposites, but two rival gangs fighting over the same territory—both are variants of statism, based on the collectivist principle that man is the rightless slave of the state.
Ayn Rand, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, New York: NY, Signet Book from the New American Library (1967) p. 180

By the time of the disintegration of the Soviet Union, Marxist theoreticians had begun to evaluate fascism in a totally unanticipated fashion . . . More than that, as Marxist theorists were compelled to reinterpret fascism in the light of empirical evidence and political circumstances, the fundamental affinities shared by Marxist and fascist regimes became apparent.
A. James Gregor, "The Faces of Janus: Marxism and Fascism in the Twentieth Century", Yale University Press (2000) p. 13

I must confess that I think as most German businessmen do who fear National Socialism as much as they did Communism in 1932… Business friends of mine are convinced that it will be the turn of the ‘white Jews’ (which means us, Aryan businessmen) after the Jews have been expropriated… These Nazi radicals think of nothing except ‘distributing the wealth’… Some businessmen have even started studying Marxist theories, so that they will have a better understanding of the present economic system.
Günter Reimann, The Vampire Economy: Doing Business Under Fascism, Mises Institute (2014) p. 6. Letter from German businessman, first published in 1939.

[B]y the early 1930s, the 'convergence' of fascism and Stalinism struck Marxists and non-Marxists alike.... By the mid-1930s, even Trotsky could insist that 'Stalinism and fascism, in spite of deep difference in social foundations, are symmetrical phenomena'.
Arnold Beichman, “The Surprising Roots of Fascism,” "Policy Review" #102, Hoover Institution (Aug. 1, 2000)

What Marxism, Leninism and Stalinism failed to accomplish, we shall be in a position to achieve.
Adolf Hitler, according to Otto Wagener in Hitler Memoirs of a Confidant, editor, Henry Ashby Turner, Jr., Yale University Press (1985) p. 149.

From the point of view of fundamental human liberties there is little to choose between communism, socialism, and national socialism. They all are examples of the collectivist or totalitarian state … in its essentials not only is completed socialism the same as communism but it hardly differs from fascism.
Ivor Thomas, in The Socialist Tragedy (1951), p. 241.

Russia was the example for fascism... Whether party ‘communists’ like it or not, the fact remains that the state order and rule in Russia are indistinguishable from those in Italy and Germany. Essentially they are alike. One may speak of a red, black, or brown ‘soviet state’, as well as of red, black or brown fascism.
Otto Rühle, “The Struggle Against Fascism Begins with the Struggle Against Bolshevism,” the American Councillist journal Living Marxism, (1939) Vol. 4, No. 8.

‘Nazis despotism’ [is] an equally hateful though more efficient form of the communist despotism.
Winston Churchill, “Excerpts from Churchill’s Manchester Speech,” The New York Times (Jan. 28, 1940)

The monstrous evils of the twentieth century have shown us that the greediest money grubbers are gentle doves compared with money-hating wolves like Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler, who in less than three decades killed or maimed nearly a hundred million men, women, and children and brought untold suffering to a large portion of mankind.
Eric Hoffer, In Our Time (1976) "Money," p. 37

Yet it is clear that both systems, the [Nazi] German and the [Soviet] Russian, must be considered from an economic point of view as socialist… Socialism is and has always been considered a system of economic organization of society. It is the system under which the government has full control of production and distribution. As far as socialism existing merely within individual countries can be called genuine, both Russia and Germany are right in calling their systems socialist.
Ludwig von Mises, Omnipotent Government: The Rise of the Total State and the Total War, Mises Institute (2010) p. 178. First published in 1944 by Yale University Press.

Fascism was the shadow or ugly child of communism . . . As Fascism sprang from Communism, so Nazism developed from Fascism. Thus were set on foot those kindred movements which were destined soon to plunge the world into more hideous strife, which none can say has ended with their destruction.
Winston Churchill, The Second World War, Volume 1, The Gathering Storm, Mariner Books (1985) pp. 13-14. First published in 1948.


https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Nazism_and_Stalinism

Thorin wrote:

Was Hitler a Socialist? Was Hitler a Left-Winger? Was Hitler a Liberal?

The idea that “Hitler was a left-wing socialist liberal” is a myth. Hitler was a Fascist. Fascism has some socialist roots, but it is a unique right-wing authoritarian and nationalist ideology separate from socialism or liberalism. This is true for Hitler’s Nazism (especially its later 1940’s form) and fascism in general (although each fascist ideology has unique planks that should be discussed separately).[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]


Bottomline: Hitler’s National Socialism can be thought of as fascism, a right-wing “evolution of socialism” focused on social hierarchy, authority, and the state. It was socialist in the way a despotic military state might be, in that it was a collectivist, organized, hierarchical, not democratic, exclusive, aggressive, authoritative, and tyrannical (what we might call right-wing socialism or right-wing “nationalist” populism). It was pretty far from anything considered “left-wing socialist” then or now, but it was even further from being “liberal” (and I think this confuses some liberty-minded citizens who can’t look past the NAZI’s collectivist nature to see that it was generally right-wing). Still, we may reasonably consider some fascist planks “to the left” of specific planks of other ideologies. After-all, fascism was collectivist to some extent, and Hitler’s National Socialism did offer planks like free healthcare for nationals (learn more about how left-wing and right-wing can be used as comparative terms issue-by-issue).


Key arguments against Hitler as a “left-wing socialist liberal”: Hitler was opposed to all the other socialist, liberal, democratic, and/or left parties of the Weimar Republic including the Capitalist Democratic Socialists (SPD and DDP) and the Communist Socialists (KPD). Furthermore, Hitler and his NAZIs ended up murdering and jailing the Socialist / Liberal / Left (for a NAZI at least) Wing of their party, the Strasserists, on the Night of Long Knives (Hitler led the far-right Nationalist Wing of the NAZI party and “purged” the “left-wing” of the party). Today when we say “liberal, left-wing, and socialist” in America we imagine someone like Bernie Sanders, but Bernie is a Social Democrat (like a mix between SPD and DDP). Bernie is more like the type of social liberal that the NAZIs “purged”, and pretty far from even a Strasserist.


For more reading: See Mussolini and Hitler Were Fascists and Fascism and Communism are different. Each article explains how the collectivist right-wing fascism of Hitler and Mussolini were different than the collectivist left-wing egalitarianism of Marx and the liberty-minded liberalism of the West. See also the NAZI’s early 1920’s “Strasserist Socialist” platform (which shows the party’s early fascist ideology and socialist roots), Mussolini’s 1932 Doctrine of Fascism (which explains fascism well), all the other socialist and left parties of the Weimar Republic including the German Democratic Party, the Social Democratic Party, and the Communist Party (which by contrast show how absurd it is to consider Hitler a left-wing socialist liberal; he even jailed and murdered the German socialists and liberals of the other parties in practice), and Hitler’s Mein Kampf (in which he explains his disdain for Marxism, Capitalism, Liberalism, and Democracy).


http://factmyth.com/factoids/hitler-was-a-left-wing-socialist-liberal/

Thorin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

No joke... no game...!

Is that why you have a lol after a quote by Gobbles as the opening thread statement?

You constantly expose, this is nothing more than a game and a joke for you.

Start acting like an adult and people might start taking you seriously

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

There have been no lies. Look up some quotes from Nazis and from Hitler. If you don't agree with someone, you simply say it's all "lies" - a very lazy way of thinking. You might get a politics degree but you would never get a good grade because you would be afraid to go against the "norm", or to question the majority way of thinking.

Do you know anything about Hitler's early life, or do you think he suddenly dropped from the sky in 1933 and became a dictator?

How embarrassing an answer.
If people are selective over quotes ignoring countless others, it shows a very false picture to the views and policies of the Nazis.

If you did that as the bases for your case academically, that the Nazi's are left wing, you would be laughed at yet again.

I know plenty about the life of Hitler and have even read Mein Kampf.
I have also read back to the first concentration camps in Namibia, where there was genocide carried out by the Germans, many of which had ideology to the The Pan-Germanic League. Many of the racial theories were formed here during the administration of these death camps, for example Shark Island being one of the worst death camps. It was these racial theories that later played a crucial role in Nazism. You see Rags, you have to go further back than the 20th century, into the 19th century and even further with Understanding Lutheranism. Now based on the fact you clearly only have limited understanding of German History and politics, and you don;t want me to educate you, then you shall have to remain in ignorance.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Is that why you have a lol after a quote by Gobbles as the opening thread statement?

You constantly expose, this is nothing more than a game and a joke for you.

Start acting like an adult and people might start taking you seriously

I think its funny that although there is overwhelming evidence that the nazis/fascism is left wing, there are still people believing the lie that it is 'far right'!!!

Especially when all they have to back up their beliefs is that lefties say it is, so if must be!!!

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


How embarrassing an answer.
If people are selective over quotes ignoring countless others, it shows a very false picture to the views and policies of the Nazis.

If you did that as the bases for your case academically, that the Nazi's are left wing, you would be laughed at yet again.

I know plenty about the life of Hitler and have even read Mein Kampf.
I have also read back to the first concentration camps in Namibia, where there was genocide carried out by the Germans, many of which had ideology to the The Pan-Germanic League. Many of the racial theories were formed here during the administration of these death camps, for example Shark Island being one of the worst death camps. It was these racial theories that later played a crucial role in Nazism. You see Rags, you have to go further back than the 20th century, into the 19th century and even further with Understanding Lutheranism. Now based on the fact you clearly only have limited understanding of German History and politics, and you don;t want me to educate you, then you shall have to remain in ignorance.

Well you're always very selective about what you quote - you only pick the quotes which back up your very narrow views.

You still haven't defined left wing. If you claimed that a group was not left wing, and then couldn't define what you mean by "left wing", you're the one who would be laughed at.

Oh, and being racist doesn't necessarily mean that someone is right wing.

Thorin wrote:In Hitler's mind, communism was a major enemy of Germany, an enemy he often mentions in Mein Kampf. During the trial for his involvement in the Beer-Hall Putsch, Hitler claimed that his singular goal was to assist the German government in "fighting Marxism".^[99] Marxism, Bolshevism, and Communism were interchangeable terms for Hitler as evidenced by their use in Mein Kampf:


"In the years 1913 and 1914 I expressed my opinion for the first time in various circles, some of which are now members of the National Socialist Movement, that the problem of how the future of the German nation can be secured is the problem of how Marxism can be exterminated."^[100]


Later in his seminal tome, Hitler advocated for "the destruction of Marxism in all its shapes and forms."^[101] According to Hitler, Marxism was a Jewish strategy to subjugate Germany and the world and saw Marxism as a mental and political form of slavery.^[102] From Hitler's vantage point, Bolsheviks existed to serve "Jewish international finance."^[103] When the British tried negotiating with Hitler in 1935 by including Germany in the extension of the Locarno Pact, he rejected their offer and instead, assured them that German rearmament was important in safeguarding Europe against Communism,^[104] a move which clearly showed his anti-Communist proclivities.^[105] In 1939, Hitler told the Swiss Commissioner to the League of Nations, Carl Burckhardt, that everything he was undertaking was "directed against Russia" and continued with, "if those in the West are too stupid or too blind to understand this, then I shall be forced to come to an understanding with the Russians to beat the West, and then, after its defeat, turn with all my concerted force against the Soviet Union."^[106] When Hitler finally ordered the attack against the Soviet Union, it was the fulfillment of his ultimate goal and the most important campaign in his estimation, as it comprised a struggle of "the chosen Aryan people against Jewish Bolsheviks."^[107]


Biographer Alan Bullock avows, Hitler "laid great stress" on the need to concentrate on a single enemy, an enemy he lumps together as "Marxism and the Jew."^[108]Shortly in the wake of the Commissar Order, a directive pursuant the German invasion of the Soviet Union, SS Deputy Reinhard Heydrich informed his SS henchmen of Hitler’s geopolitical philosophy which forged Bolshevism and Jews into the same mass with, "eastern Jewry is the intellectual reservoir of Bolshevism and in the Führer’s view must therefore be annihilated."^[109] Considering the eventual Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union (Operation Barbarossa), no additional inducements are really requisite concerning Hitler's hatred of Communism, particularly since the Nazi persecution and extermination of these groups was not only systematic, but it was extensive both within Germany and only intensified in the occupied zones during the war under Hitler's leadership.^[110]


Because Nazism co-opted the popular success of communism among working people while simultaneously promising to destroy communism and offer an alternative to it, Hitler's anti-communist program allowed industrialists with traditional conservative views (tending toward monarchism, aristocracy, and laissez-faire capitalism) to cast their lot with, and help underwrite, the Nazi rise to power.<sup>[111][112]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_views_of_Adolf_Hitler</sup>

Tommy Monk wrote:
"...See also the NAZI’s early 1920’s “Strasserist Socialist” platform (which shows the party’s early fascist ideology and socialist roots), Mussolini’s 1932 Doctrine of Fascism (which explains fascism well), all the other socialist and left parties of the Weimar Republic including the German Democratic Party, the Social Democratic Party, and the Communist Party (which by contrast show how absurd it is to consider Hitler a left-wing socialist liberal..."



Fascism has socialist roots... and nobody is saying Hitler was a left-wing wing socialist liberal... just that fascism/Nazism is left wing/far left!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:

Thorin wrote:In Hitler's mind, communism was a major enemy of Germany, an enemy he often mentions in Mein Kampf. During the trial for his involvement in the Beer-Hall Putsch, Hitler claimed that his singular goal was to assist the German government in "fighting Marxism".^[99] Marxism, Bolshevism, and Communism were interchangeable terms for Hitler as evidenced by their use in Mein Kampf:


"In the years 1913 and 1914 I expressed my opinion for the first time in various circles, some of which are now members of the National Socialist Movement, that the problem of how the future of the German nation can be secured is the problem of how Marxism can be exterminated."^[100]


Later in his seminal tome, Hitler advocated for "the destruction of Marxism in all its shapes and forms."^[101] According to Hitler, Marxism was a Jewish strategy to subjugate Germany and the world and saw Marxism as a mental and political form of slavery.^[102] From Hitler's vantage point, Bolsheviks existed to serve "Jewish international finance."^[103] When the British tried negotiating with Hitler in 1935 by including Germany in the extension of the Locarno Pact, he rejected their offer and instead, assured them that German rearmament was important in safeguarding Europe against Communism,^[104] a move which clearly showed his anti-Communist proclivities.^[105] In 1939, Hitler told the Swiss Commissioner to the League of Nations, Carl Burckhardt, that everything he was undertaking was "directed against Russia" and continued with, "if those in the West are too stupid or too blind to understand this, then I shall be forced to come to an understanding with the Russians to beat the West, and then, after its defeat, turn with all my concerted force against the Soviet Union."^[106] When Hitler finally ordered the attack against the Soviet Union, it was the fulfillment of his ultimate goal and the most important campaign in his estimation, as it comprised a struggle of "the chosen Aryan people against Jewish Bolsheviks."^[107]


Biographer Alan Bullock avows, Hitler "laid great stress" on the need to concentrate on a single enemy, an enemy he lumps together as "Marxism and the Jew."^[108]Shortly in the wake of the Commissar Order, a directive pursuant the German invasion of the Soviet Union, SS Deputy Reinhard Heydrich informed his SS henchmen of Hitler’s geopolitical philosophy which forged Bolshevism and Jews into the same mass with, "eastern Jewry is the intellectual reservoir of Bolshevism and in the Führer’s view must therefore be annihilated."^[109] Considering the eventual Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union (Operation Barbarossa), no additional inducements are really requisite concerning Hitler's hatred of Communism, particularly since the Nazi persecution and extermination of these groups was not only systematic, but it was extensive both within Germany and only intensified in the occupied zones during the war under Hitler's leadership.^[110]


Because Nazism co-opted the popular success of communism among working people while simultaneously promising to destroy communism and offer an alternative to it, Hitler's anti-communist program allowed industrialists with traditional conservative views (tending toward monarchism, aristocracy, and laissez-faire capitalism) to cast their lot with, and help underwrite, the Nazi rise to power.<sup>[111][112]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_views_of_Adolf_Hitler</sup>

Nobody is saying nazism/fascism is the same as communism... just like nobody is saying that the only type of left wing ideology is communism...

Thorin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


I think its funny that although there is overwhelming evidence that the nazis/fascism is left wing, there are still people believing the lie that it is 'far right'!!!

Especially when all they have to back up their beliefs is that lefties say it is, so if must be!!!

I on the other hand only have pity for people like you so clueless to history and politics, that you are so convinced by poor arguments not back by reason.

Now I am not even left wing and make no apologist arguments as you do for Nazism

I am a conservative Liberal, you on the other hand share many Far Right traits and thus are politically motivated to promote a falsehood that Nazism was left wing.

I mean the very fact Hitler declared war on Communism, proves fundamentally, you have the intellect of a 2 year old

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


I on the other hand only have pity for people like you so clueless to history and politics, that you are so convinced by poor arguments not back by reason.

Now I am not even left wing and make no apologist arguments as you do for Nazism

I am a conservative Liberal, you on the other hand share many Far Right traits and thus are politically motivated to promote a falsehood that Nazism was left wing.

I mean the very fact Hitler declared war on Communism, proves fundamentally, you have the intellect of a 2 year old

The Social Democrats also declared war on the Communists ...

Tommy Monk wrote:Fascism is rooted in socialism!!!

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


I on the other hand only have pity for people like you so clueless to history and politics, that you are so convinced by poor arguments not back by reason.

Now I am not even left wing and make no apologist arguments as you do for Nazism

I am a conservative Liberal, you on the other hand share many Far Right traits and thus are politically motivated to promote a falsehood that Nazism was left wing.

I mean the very fact Hitler declared war on Communism, proves fundamentally, you have the intellect of a 2 year old

The Social Democrats also declared war on the Communists ...

Thorin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Fascism is rooted in socialism!!!

Wow, is that the bases now for your many errors here, to be an apologist for Far Right Politics?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Wow, is that the bases now for your many errors here, to be an apologist for Far Right Politics?

Communism is not the only form of left wing ideology...

You seem to be saying that nazism/fascism cannot be left wing because it was not communism...

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The Social Democrats also declared war on the Communists ...

And what were there political views?

Take your time

Thorin wrote:So we can take the view based on Rags recent defense of Hitler and the Holocaust claiming insanity for the cause and now her defense of Tommys absurd Far Right made up views on Nazism being left wing. How she is not only an apologist of the crimes of the Holocaust but for Nazism itself.

How easy to expose the Far Right it seems.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:So we can take the view based on Rags recent defense of Hitler and the Holocaust claiming insanity for the cause and now her defense of Tommys absurd Far Right made up views on Nazism being left wing. How she is not only an apologist of the crimes of the Holocaust but for Nazism itself.

How easy to expose the Far Right it seems.

The only thing that's been exposed here is your idiocy and lack of intelligent thinking.

Tommy Monk wrote:
Didge... do you think communism and socialism are the same...?

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The only thing that's been exposed here is your idiocy and lack of intelligent thinking.

Well considering that is your response to my facts, says everything there is to say about what a deceitful and dishonest individual you are.
For you to claim anything around intelligence is laughable.

Like I say, idiot haters like yourself end up exposing themselves as you have with your idiotic views.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Well considering that is your response to my facts, says everything there is to say about what a deceitful and dishonest individual you are.
For you to claim anything around intelligence is laughable.

Like I say, idiot haters like yourself end up exposing themselves as you have with your idiotic views.

Where is the deceit and dishonesty?

Thorin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:
Didge... do you think communism and socialism are the same...?

There are differences.