# Hitler was a socialist



## billc (Mar 12, 2011)

Another, longer explanation of Hitler and his socialism. This is partly for Sukerkin, and some others. The article is long and in depth and discusses a lot of the aspects of my earlier discussions on the topic. I am posting it now because I just found it. Here it is. THERE IS AN INDEX AT THE END OF THE ARTICLE THAT MAKES IT EASIER TO GET AT SOME OF THE BASIC POINTS ABOUT HITLER AND SOCIALISM.

http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id9.html

The conclusion of the article:

*In conclusion:* 

Because this article contradicts what most people think they know about Hitler, it has necessarily been a long one. There have been many potential questions to answer. I would therefore like to close with a useful _brief_ summary of what happened and why it is so little known. It is excerpted from a comment by Peter Hitchens on what is being taught in British schools and purveyed by the British media today: 


"A schools video produced last year on the Forties barely gives a walk-on part to Winston Churchill, a man who is being steadily written out of modern history because he does not fit the fashionable myth that the Tories sympathised with the Nazis and the Left were the only people who opposed Hitler.... 

LABOUR'S role in the rise of Hitler was to consistently vote against the rearmament measures which narrowly saved this country from slavery in 1940. Stalin's insane orders to the German Communist Party, to refuse to co-operate with the Social Democrats, virtually ensured the Nazis would come to power in 1933. 

This would be mirrored, six years later, in the joint victory parade staged by Nazi and Red Army troops in the then-Polish city of Brest, and the efficient supply of Soviet oil to Germany which fuelled the Nazi Blitzkrieg and the bombers which tore the heart out of London. 

But millions of supposedly educated people know nothing of this, and are unaware that the one country which behaved with honour and courage when the fate of the world was being decided was Britain."​It was the Left who were on Hitler's side, not the conservatives. And the Left were on his side because he was one of them.


----------



## granfire (Mar 12, 2011)

......


Can we please make billi go to Austria and repeat that?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 12, 2011)

He was a White National Socialist, which is a tad different from your run of the mill socialist; so, white national is more to the point, and socialist is just a way of saying all white nationals. Isn't this **** obvious?
Sean


----------



## SensibleManiac (Mar 12, 2011)

> And the Left were on his side because he was one of them.



???? 
This statement is so ridiculous there is only one reason behind it, rationalization of one's position.


----------



## Blade96 (Mar 12, 2011)

anti semitism was very common back then, of course marx's religious views are well known. How does that make hitler a socialists because marx had some views on religion like that and because Engel's feelings about the Rhine were that?

Ineresting article though, i read some of it, and skimmed through a lot of it only cause it's very long.

That and 

There goes ole Bill again


----------



## granfire (Mar 12, 2011)

Touch Of Death said:


> He was a White National Socialist, which is a tad different from your run of the mill socialist; so, white national is more to the point, and socialist is just a way of saying all white nationals. Isn't this **** obvious?
> Sean




You make no sense...


----------



## elder999 (Mar 12, 2011)

billcihak said:


> It was the Left who were on Hitler's side, not the conservatives. And the Left were on his side because he was one of them.


 
And here ya go:
:lfao:


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 12, 2011)

granfire said:


> You make no sense...


I'll take that as a compliment. LOL


----------



## granfire (Mar 12, 2011)

Touch Of Death said:


> I'll take that as a compliment. LOL



:angel:


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 12, 2011)

granfire said:


> You make no sense...


So you must be unaware Hitler was a white supremisist, and that given he was a socialist, there were just some people he didn't feel belonged; so,... oh never mind.:mst: They have this thing called the history channel; you should check it out.
Sean


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 12, 2011)

Hitler was not a socialist.

If you read real live reputable history books or the definition of Nazi in Germany of the time you to would know this. Or you could read about Socialism... but you didn't and you won't.

Oh and the links provided are just to give you a clue as to what they are and they do excuse you from picking up a reputable book or two on the topic and actually learn what they are/were... but then you won't read the links either so the whole book thing isn't going to happen


----------



## granfire (Mar 12, 2011)

Touch Of Death said:


> So you must be unaware Hitler was a white supremisist, and that given he was a socialist, there were just some people he didn't feel belonged; so,... oh never mind.:mst: They have this thing called the history channel; you should check it out.
> Sean



Or read billi's books? 
:lfao:


----------



## granfire (Mar 12, 2011)

Xue Sheng said:


> Hitler was not a socialist.
> 
> If you read real live reputable history books or the definition of Nazi in Germany of the time you to would know this. Or you could read about Socialism... but you didn't and you won't.
> 
> Oh and the links provided are just to give you a clue as to what they are and they do excuse you from picking up a reputable book or two on the topic and actually learn what they are/were... but then you won't read the links either so the whole book thing isn't going to happen



Ah, yes, I think I have linked works of real Socialists and Communists  for him to check out.

I hear the ground is shaking in Dachau, Bergen-Belsen, Buchenwald etc...a lot of grave spinning going on...


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 12, 2011)

granfire said:


> Or read billi's books?
> :lfao:


... or perhaps you are unaware, that white supremisists call themselves white national socialists; so, real or not, the term is on the table. I'm glad you find this so funny. I'm here to entertain you.:ultracool
Sean


----------



## Blade96 (Mar 12, 2011)

I love it when Bill starts talking bout his socialists 

Cause he's a closet socialist, you know. Didn't you all know this?


----------



## granfire (Mar 12, 2011)

Blade96 said:


> I love it when Bill starts talking bout his socialists
> 
> Cause he's a closet socialist, you know. Didn't you all know this?



LOL, you mean we talk about that most we don't have and crave worst? 
:lfao:


----------



## Blade96 (Mar 12, 2011)

granfire said:


> LOL, you mean we talk about that most we don't have and crave worst?
> :lfao:



Yah.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Mar 13, 2011)

Actually, they used the term socialist to get votes. Not because of what they did.
And at no point did they get a majority vote either. Hitler lost the elections. He just grabbed power and rode a wave of anti semitism.

Last I know, anti semitism is not exactly a trait of the left, but of the right wingers.
Of course it would be too much to expect Bill to actually read up a bit on history. Much easier to parrot fruitcakes. Like the time when he said segregation in the US was to be blamed on the left, because it was backed by the government and everybody knows that the left love big government...


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 13, 2011)




----------



## billc (Mar 13, 2011)

From the article:  Hitler and Marx on Jewish people.

Note that Marx wanted to "emancipate" (free) mankind from Jewry (_"Judentum"_ in Marx's original German), just as Hitler did and that the title of Marx's essay in German was _"Zur Judenfrage"_, which -- while not necessarily derogatory in itself -- is nonetheless exactly the same expression ("Jewish question") that Hitler used in his famous phrase _"Endloesung der Judenfrage"_ ("Final solution of the Jewish question"). And when Marx speaks of the end of Jewry by saying that Jewish identity must necessarily "dissolve" itself, the word he uses in German is "aufloesen", which is a close relative of Hitler's word "Endloesung" ("final solution"). So all the most condemned features of Nazism can be traced back to Marx and Engels, right down to the language used. The thinking of Hitler, Marx and Engels differed mainly in emphasis rather than in content. All three were second-rate German intellectuals of their times. Anybody who doubts that practically all Hitler's ideas were also to be found in Marx & Engels should spend a little time reading the quotations from Marx & Engels archived here. 





But what about Hitler's policies towards the Jews? How do we explain those? Towards the beginning of this paper, I quoted Dietrich's (1988) conclusion that Hitler's antisemitism was only a minor part of his popular appeal to Germans. One reason for this view is the important but seldom stressed fact that there was nothing at all odd or unusual about a dislike of Jews almost anywhere in the world of the 1930s. Hitler was to a considerable degree simply voicing the conventional wisdom of his times and he was far from alone in doing so. The plain fact is that it was not just the Nazis who brought about the holocaust. To its shame, the whole world did. That part of the world under Hitler's control in general willingly assisted in rounding up Jews while the rest of the world refused to take Jewish refugees who tried to escape -- just as the world would later refuse many Vietnamese and Cambodian refugees and will in due course refuse to take other would-be refugees from other places. Racial affect is now recognized as universal in psychology textbooks (Brown, 1986) and Anti-Semitism is, sad to say, an old and widely popular European tradition. There seems to be considerable truth in the view that the Nazis just applied German thoroughness to it.


----------



## CanuckMA (Mar 13, 2011)

I would politely ask you to just STFU about the Shoah. You are a clueless little troll and are so incredibely insulting to the memory of the families of many members here.


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 13, 2011)

This is just disgusting.


----------



## Blade96 (Mar 13, 2011)

This does not prove in the least that hitler was a socialist. 

I have a history major in university and I know this.

But still.....bill makes me laugh when he writes about his socialists.


----------



## granfire (Mar 13, 2011)

Blade96 said:


> This does not prove in the least that hitler was a socialist.
> 
> I have a history major in university and I know this.




Ah, you just think you do. billi has the sources that can explain how the world works! 

Don't be surprised if he claims that the answer is not 42 after all...


----------



## Blade96 (Mar 13, 2011)

granfire said:


> Ah, you just think you do. billi has the sources that can explain how the world works!
> 
> Don't be surprised if he claims that the answer is not 42 after all...



Thanks. 

I'll turn to him from now on.... (i speak fluent sarcasm hehehe)

And also cause he's nice, he's not mean to me, and he makes me laugh.


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 13, 2011)

Okay ...

I publicly and openly put a member here on my ignore list for obvious reasons.  And while I may not agree with much of what another poster says, it is not good form - in fact, it is against the rules - to follow them around and cut them down personally in thread after thread after thread.

I would suggest reporting posts that violate Terms of Service or the posting rules - and I would also suggest addressing matters like this in an intellectually confrontative manner instead of personal insults.


----------



## granfire (Mar 13, 2011)

shesulsa said:


> Okay ...
> 
> I publicly and openly put a member here on my ignore list for obvious reasons.  And while I may not agree with much of what another poster says, it is not good form - in fact, it is against the rules - to follow them around and cut them down personally in thread after thread after thread.
> 
> I would suggest reporting posts that violate Terms of Service or the posting rules - and I would also suggest addressing matters like this in an intellectually confrontative manner instead of personal insults.



Well, unless not having a opinion of your own is a TOS violation, he is not doing anything wrong, besides _being wrong_.

And it's hardly following him around when he is everywhere you try to take a step at. 

And while I agree it's poor form to follow somebody around, some of the poop he posts MUST be refuted, because it is factually wrong and, as has been noted, incredibly insulting to the memory of an awful lot of good people and their families. 

And after all, try to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man....


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 13, 2011)

*Thread Locked Pending Review*


----------

