What ideology did the National Socialism party have?

[mapuc]

Did they belonged to the right wing or the left wing ?

Where shall I start...

Some weeks ago many Jewish tombstones was vandalized around Denmark.

A little week later the Police caught those who had done this...Among those who was arrested was the leader of a Naziparty and other members.

Due to this, a Vehemently discussion arose among my friends on FB.

Many of my friends claimed they belong to the left-I guess it have to do with the word Socialism

While other claim they belong to the right.

I have said to my friends, in school I learned that this party was far right...throughout my youth and adulthood I have through documentary been told it isn't that simple, when it comes to the ideology of the naziparty.

My opinion on this:

I couldn't be more indifferent if they belong to far right or to the left...
What the most important thing in this is that this little fella with moustache threw Europe and the world into a........

Therefore the important thing is not figure which side they belong to, but to fight them with every mean possible-using democracy.

Markus

[Eichhörnchen]

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by mapuc

Did they belonged to the right wing or the left wing ?

Where shall I start...

Some weeks ago many Jewish tombstones was vandalized around Denmark.

A little week later the Police caught those who had done this...Among those who was arrested was the leader of a Naziparty and other members.

Due to this, a Vehemently discussion arose among my friends on FB.

Many of my friends claimed they belong to the left-I guess it have to do with the word Socialism

While other claim they belong to the right.

I have said to my friends, in school I learned that this party was far right...throughout my youth and adulthood I have through documentary been told it isn't that simple, when it comes to the ideology of the naziparty.

My opinion on this:

I couldn't be more indifferent if they belong to far right or to the left...
What the most important thing in this is that this little fella with moustache threw Europe and the world into a........

Therefore the important thing is not figure which side they belong to, but to fight them with every mean possible-using democracy.

Markus

The NSDAP was as socialist as socialism can go. Goebbels agitated already in the late 20s against the wealthy and property-owning class and left no doubt on what it would mean for them if the NSDAP was ever to claim government power. They just added racism to their set of cards. But the production ressources all were put under state control - either by expropriating the unlucky owners, or by the owners voluntarily joining the party opportunistically, the result was the same. The money was under state control. Private property rights of ordinary households were overthrown, households had to give up items and materials the party ruled to be of interest for the state, from gold to iron, evertyhing was possible.Then there were the voluntary donation actions for Hitler's famous "Führergeschenke" on his birthdays, or such collections for the cause of supporting the troops in this or that battle. Metal was in short supply, and many other item classes, so it made sense to hold many such events. Finally, still in February 1945 Hitler declared in an adress to the party that there is no principle difference between national socialism and bolshewism. The clash between germany and the USSR was none over differences in ideology, but over two big criminal egos, and ressources: "Lebensraum". Conmpare both regimes and how they secured their power and terroprised their eocnimies - and show me big structural differences! There are no big difference. Both were planned economies, both controlled the money systemn, both terrorised the owning class, both submitted the individual under the collective.

I said it before: the claim that the political left is the natural enemy of Nazis, and that the Sovjets defeated a system that was cojpletely and strictly from their own, is one of the biggest successful proipaganda coups in the hiusotry of mankind. Designed to hide that left regimes share the same reaosns and basics of power with the Nazis and in principle both are twins, and offsprings of the same mind. Socialism always ruions society and economy and soone ror later thign sare that bad that the ideology can only be enforced by the use of brute force onto people. Thats why regimes of "right" and "left" origins sooner or later always look the same and establish the same kind of terror regimes.

Thats why I do not join the left to stop or confront the right, or vice versa. To me, they are both the same. I dispise them both and for identicla reasons: collectivism, totaliatrianism, injustice, and brute violence in the suppression of the individual.



I am not the firts one saiyng this. Quite some historians have notied that before. Usually they do ntio get apllause, sicne they violate the holy gospel of today' socialist societies that come in the clothings of "democracy".



It sounds simple or cheap to just point at the word "sozialistische" in "National-sozialistische Arbeiterpartei Deutschlands". But its true, it means what it reads like.

[Catfish]

^ Bull****.

@Mapuc: Your school is right, and when you begin to believe Facebook or Skybird you will soon run into problems.

Hitler included all buzzwords of the time in his party's name to get the most of people into it, from "socialists", to workers, to strong right-wing nationalists bemoaning the outcome of WW1 and striving for revenge. Despite the name there was not much content that qualifies as socialist.

What fuels those misunderstandings that the NSDAP was "socialist", is what Götz Aly recently wrote in his book: Hitler has a clear understanding that a (short) war would only be possible if he soothed the people: Giving them money, material goods, and in the later war give well-made funiture to people who had been bombed out of their houses and lost their property. And he took it from the jews.

Capitalism worked well in WW2 in Germany, from his connections to US entreprenuer Henry Ford (most war trucks were built by Ford), to private companies like Krupp, Thyssen, Henschel, you name it, who all made good money during the war. Not one of those companies was dispossessed. Hitler only did it with companies with directors that opposed him, like e.g. Hugo Junkers. He was dispossessed and dealt with in a way he soon died.

One dictator at the head of the state, killing or subdueing all resistance and people (or races) he despises, stealing their money to "make Germany great again" with his "movement" and invade neighbouring countries. How do you call that? Socialism?

[Skybird]

mapuc, catfish IS very leftleaning himself, je just does not want to be reminded of and called that. his claim is just facade. you have to look at the way the economy and society was structured, to see why the 3rd reich was a socialist regime. socialism/communism ARE totalitarian, collectivistic, fascist ideologies by their core and essence, and since they always sooner or later have eroded the basis of economics and supplying the people, they then can only be further held up by the use of force an violence of the party against the people: mounting suppression.
the production means were controlled by the state, either due to expropriating the owners, jews and ninjews alike, or because the owners voluntarily, even by confession, submitted to the party, and followed its demand.

the narration today puts anticapitalsistic lefties against capitalist nazis/rightwingers. this obscure attribution, where capitalism and right wing extremism are seen as the same thing, explains why there is interest to keep it that way: the claim of nazism present gives the justification for the fight against capitalism. and catfish falls for it, in full.
but i say again: by the results and by its structures, only not by used terminology, fsscism is socialism is communism. they are all offsprings of the same mind.

https://mises.org/library/why-nazism...m-totalitarian

[Catfish]

Once more you are unfortunately wrong, most historians do not agree with you. And please do not quote Mises or Rand for "proof".
https://fullfact.org/online/nazis-socialists/
http://www.csun.edu/~vcmth00m/NazismSocialism.html
https://www.wrath-bearingtree.com/20...ing-propaganda
https://www.abc.net.au/religion/nazi...story/10214302

Try to spread your propaganda and rewrite history, i'm out of here.

[Skybird]

Oh, a link war. How original.


https://www.nationalreview.com/2014/...onah-goldberg/


https://lawofmarkets.com/2019/04/28/...re-socialists/


However, my main argment stays the same: what I daid above, and the link to the article I posted one post above.


Its common nowadays that when socialisj has logged another failed experiment in its rcord, it is claimed that it only failed becasue it was no real socialism, and becasue not everybody went along with it, and in egneral: its always gthe mistake of the others anyway. Socialism is beyind the need to be proven right, just a single time for s atart, it mst not show a lasting success, becasue socialists know that socialism is right, so it must not be proven anymore at all. Since the description of the thrid reich as a socialist regime is a bomb that busts one of the most popular urban myths ever, and takes away the most beloved political Feindbild of the left by which they try to create additional self-legitimation, the left does nto want to realise the obvious truth. KIt would damage their self-perception too drastically.


My granfather was school teacher, German and History. He has lived in the Third Reich, and had to fight in the war. He had severl crashes with the directors and the superiors over his disobedience to not teach Catfish's reinterpretation of things, but to teahc his classes as well that the Third rEich was a socialist regime by fundament. I learned this just in recent years, my mother told me about it. History gets written by the victors, in this case: the Soviet Union amongst others, and The claimed communist regime in Moscow could not need to be put aside the regime in Germany in reputation and content. even if the similarities in the two tyrant'S regimes, stalin and Hitler, were all so obvious. And since then the world gets brainwashed over that the socialism is the natural opponent and enemy of Nazism and thus: is good and positive. It isn'T, and it never was. Its pretty much the same instead. And the mission to demonise capitalism and free market, lives on until today.


Nationalism and racism were just further ingredients of the recipe. But they are just spice, not substance, and they were skimming on the surface, to rally the crowds behind the cause and to have a scapegoat as a security valve for the energy of the masses.

[mapuc]

First of all

A big Thank you for your input/comments.

I do not have enough knowledge or gathered intelligens to tell a person s/he is wrong.

People have their belief or a standpoint and I mostly respect this.

I have read and heard a lot about this party and what their ideology are and my God have there been discussion among expert and historian on political ideology.

I say the same as Skybird

Nazi, Communist, Islamist(I know they are a not political, but they have a ideology) a.s.o, are all the same.

Markus

[Dowly]

Oh ffs. Tells a lot about the times we live in that we have to debate about this.


I start to sound old... help me. Can we go back to titties? Like bikini threads or something? Friday Fun(bag) days?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by mapuc

Islamist(I know they are a not political, but they have a ideology)

Oh, they are, Islam is a power-political ideology before anything else, it is political claim in religious disguise. The followers that Muhammad sent to the nomadic tribes to demand and collect taxes/protection money/whatever you call it, were the same men who on these opportunities preached Muhammad'S will and demands. Its as if her ein the West the chuch priests and the state'S tax officials would be the same people. You cannot separate the two from each other. Thats why Western societies with their claimed and wanted (but often not practiced to all consequences) secularism and separation between religion and politics cannot really get a hold of it. Islam pushes for social and political changes in its favour, becasue it does not accept multi-culturalism, only monoculkturalism - itself, that is, and so it demands the freedom of religious practicing guaranteed in western constitutions to prevent any resistence to said changes. Our own constitutions are being turned against us here! In Islam, politics, social control of all levels of society down to the single individual, and religion, all are monolithically united. The relgion serves as a method to ensure the self-conjtorllign and self-censoign of the individual on behalf of the state/polticla lesadership/those in power.

It wa snot much different in Europe during the dark Age. Its just that our ancestory moved beyond that, after many fights and sacrifices. Thew Islamci world got stuck in it, until today. They had no Glad Tidings, you know, its as if they got stuck with nothing but the Old Testament and its archaic idea of a God that Jesus tried to overcome. Christian religion - or better: Judaism - had that revolution. Islam not.

[Jeff-Groves]

Sorry. But no discussion of Nazi's is complete without the Alien influences being discussed!
And I don't mean Earthly Aliens.
And I vote with Dowly. Back to titties or something.

(Hey Dowly! You SURE that's an Alpaca?)

[Catfish]

Mapuc:

"It's all the same."

Of course it is. And all is so easy to believe, suddenly. Did you know the moon is made of green cheese.
I despair with "humanity"

Originally Posted by Dowly

Oh ffs. Tells a lot about the times we live in that we have to debate about this. I start to sound old... help me. Can we go back to titties? Like bikini threads or something? Friday Fun(bag) days?

Where's that 'LIKE' button when you need it !

[mapuc]

^ I don't believe in anything anymore

As I wrote in my first post

"I couldn't be more indifferent if they belong to far right or to the left..."
The words "be mor indifferent" should have been "couldn't care less"

And by the way...Dowly is right

Markus

[JU_88]

Well that esculated quickly. the far right and far left have alot more in common than they would like to admit. e.g both have an unhealthy obsession with group identity and seek power though division (dividing society in to perceived victims and perpertrators based on group.) Both think tyrrany through political violence is perfectly acceptable. And belive in the naive and childish notion of some kind of achievable utopia - 'as long as they are the ones in charge - of course'
Plus they can't debate for crap with out getting into a rage, but then such radicals (at the grunt activist level anyway) are not usually particularly bright people, so thats no surprise.
Remember when the News used to bring in an 'Expert' in certain segments, anyone else noticed how often they bring in 'activists' now instead. pretty funny. Rather than person with great analycal skills here's is a mindless zelot.

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by mapuc

[...] "I couldn't be more indifferent if they belong to far right or to the left..." [...]Markus

Markus, i do not mean it personally, but there are so many trolls here lately that i am beginning to lose patience. I wonder if anoyne went to school or had some education; it looks as if most get their information and belief from The Sun, Fox News or Facebook.

It is of course a self-amplifying effect, when you look for your opinion you get your tailored answers (Skybird might tell you some psychological reason), provided by Google, so you can happily live on in your filter bubble, provided by "neutral" seach engines or political opinion builders like Express UK, Fox News or Russia Today.

So you post some 'easy' or should i say 'naive' (sorry) questions, seeing people trying honestly to answer, but then you pick the most right wing answer (which you already decided to believe when you "asked"), and in the end always say you believe in their reasoning. Not only here, not only now.
For me, this is nothing else but trolling. If you are real and want real answers read some books for F's sake. The internet is an influence-propaganda machine providing positive feedback to give in to personal prejudices and amplify them, with support to those who pay most.
But nothing can replace a good school education or your own educated decision and thinking. You should always have doubts about easy answers, always question your own opinion, it will help understanding in the end.

I probably used the wrong words, was insulting and impatient and arrogant, and i am sorry. And i'm finally out, promised.