Hitler really was a socialist

[Catfish]

The first one is a quote from this FEE itself, where they advertise for themselves which is why it has quotation marks. The article tries to be neutral but clearly states what kind of organisation it is.
I also wonder why you only look at economy questions when it comes to comparing national socialism to socialism, or when equalising both.
Regarding socialism alone, they were committed anti-socialists.

"Historians have regularly disavowed claims that Hitler adhered to socialist ideology. Historian Richard Evans wrote of the Nazis’ incorporation of socialist into their name in 1920, “Despite the change of name, however, it would be wrong to see Nazism as a form of, or an outgrowth from, socialism….Nazism was in some ways an extreme counter-ideology to socialism”. Or as simply put by historian and Hitler expert Ian Kershaw, “Hitler was never a socialist.”"

[mapuc]

^Would you say he was a Fascist ? There are those who say so.

Markus

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by mapuc

^Would you say he was a Fascist ? There are those who say so.

Markus

He has his some ideas on what is Facist, National Socialist, and Marxist Socialist. In the first TIK video I posted I thought he even explain quite well how North Korea can rightfully declare itself a Democratic Republic.

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by mapuc

^Would you say he was a Fascist ? There are those who say so.
Markus

As far as i learned in history lectures "fascism" is a generic term, with NS being a kind of branch of fascism with some variations. Italy's fascism also had its foreign scapegoats, but it did not go as far as NS.
So you could call Hitler this but he is usually and better called "national socialist".

Originally Posted by Rockstar

[...] In the first TIK video I posted I thought he even explain quite well how North Korea can rightfully declare itself a Democratic Republic. [...]

Now i understand why this rightfully true democracy of North Korea must be so opposed to the undemocratic imperialist United States [/cyn]

[mapuc]

I admit I really don't know where to place Hitler's ideology. I have read books, seen documentary and even though I have difficulty to place him in correct ideology box.

I have throughout the years discovered that my friends, depending on their own political ideology standpoint have a tendency to place Hitler in the opposite camp.

All of my friends who vote on left wing parties has placed Hitler in the Fascism camp, while my friends who vote on right wing parties has placed Hitler in the Socialist camp.

And I just don't know where Hitler fit.
That's why I have said-Why is it so important to place Hitler in a certain ideology, isn't it more important to prevent a person like him being elected ?

Markus

[Skybird]

Thge answer to your question is that you will fail to fight an enemy whose ways and methods you do not correctly identify and understand.



And if you identified them you may find that many of these enemies all use the same or comparasble ways and methods. So by individually identifying them you nevertheless gain a common, general knowledge.



BTW, the term Fascism today is more used in a general way that almost is equal to the term "Nazism". Origianlly it was more spoecific and specifially idenetified the members of the Italian black skirt movement by mussolini. This meaning or historical context today is almost obsolete, it seems. If there is a significant trait that stands out and separaes it form just Nazism, then maybe it is its strong ideological accentuation of militarism and military citizenship. In fascism, at leats that was my subjective imrpoessiont hsi always was ideolgically founded form beginning on, whereas in Nazism it was just an added tool of power, added for "pragmatic" purpose. But maybe I see too much difference there, I am not busy with theoretically differentiating the two that much. To me its all the same wicked family, religious and political or both, its all the same wicked family.

Unfortunately, andnthis is most unwelcomed, it is very efficient as a way of power poltics and controlling people. Worse, who,e ature seems to be folliowungb pricnipels of totalitarianism. The fate and the suffering of the individual creature means nothing. The surevival of the species means everythging. That is totalitarianism in its purest, most consistent and most brutal form.



Very sobering. Since long I hold no romantic views on nature anymore.

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by mapuc

All of my friends who vote on left wing parties has placed Hitler in the Fascism camp, while my friends who vote on right wing parties has placed Hitler in the Socialist camp.

That's why I have said-Why is it so important to place Hitler in a certain ideology, isn't it more important to prevent a person like him being elected ?
Markus

Not all ideologically right-wing people place Hitler on the socialist side, a minority does. Hitler was not elected, he had lost the election to Hindenburg.

[Skybird]

Not that simple, the people later had an opportunity (whatever it was worth...) to vote on Hitler uniting the two most powerful state positions in his person. He was not elected into office for Reichskanzler, but there was a referendum on his later amalgamation of the two top state titles, Chancellor and President.

German Wikipedia has a useable brief summary of what happened after the elections 1932:

The SPD recorded the success of Hindenburg for itself. Ernst Heilmann judged that the re-election was “a great victory for the party, a triumph for democracy”. But in a way it also exacerbated the political crisis. Hindenburg could not gain much from the circumstances of the second ballot, as he owed the victory primarily to the unloved Social Democrats and Catholics.

Immediately afterwards, Hindenburg began to lose confidence in Brüning, who had been his most active advocate during the election. Brüning's dismissal on May 29 was followed by Franz von Papen, a chancellor who rejected the republic. On January 30, 1933, Hindenburg appointed Hitler as Chancellor and allowed him to dissolve the Reichstag for new elections. On February 4, Hindenburg issued the President's Ordinance for the Protection of the German People, which initially repealed freedom of expression and assembly, and on February 28, the President's Ordinance for the Protection of the People and State, with which the other basic rights were suspended were. Hindenburg died on August 2, 1934, the day before Adolf Hitler had combined the offices of Reich Chancellor and Reich President in his person by law.

On August 19, 1934, the National Socialist government let the people vote on this amalgamation of offices in a referendum on the head of state of the German Reich, so that the election of 1932 remained the last presidential election in the German Reich.

[Catfish]

Hitler used the fire of the Reichstag to decree emergency laws against what he called the "communist uprising". In the following weeks his SA killed or subdued anyone who dared to protest, all critics were incriminated as "communists".
In the wake of escalating Nazi excesses, Hindenburg threatened to declare martial law unless Hitler took immediate steps to end the tension, so Hitler responded by ordering the "night of the long knives", in which several SA leaders, most notably Ernst Röhm, were murdered along with several of Hitler's other past rivals.

Contrary to popular belief, Adolf Hitler did not command a majority in the Reichstag voting on the Enabling Act. The majority of Germans did not vote for the Nazi party, as Hitler's total vote was less than 45%. In order for the enabling act to be passed the Nazis implemented a strategy of coercion, bribery, and manipulation. When Hindenburg died Hitler just declared himself the new head of the state, the "election" was really a referendum, and of course a fraud.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Catfish

Contrary to popular belief, Adolf Hitler did not command a majority in the Reichstag voting on the Enabling Act. The majority of Germans did not vote for the Nazi party, as Hitler's total vote was less than 45%. In order for the enabling act to be passed the Nazis implemented a strategy of coercion, bribery, and manipulation. When Hindenburg died Hitler just declared himself the new head of the state, the "election" was really a referendum, and of course a fraud.

That is more or less my understanding

[BrucePartington]

If I may, just to add some more insight into the Nazi party, I would like to share an interesting link I came accross the other day. It's a bit long, but worth it IMHO.



Opening Statement before the International Military Tribunal

On November 21, 1945, in the Palace of Justice at Nuremberg, Germany, Justice Robert H. Jackson, Chief of Counsel for the United States, made his opening statement to the International Military Tribunal.



May it please Your Honors:


https://www.roberthjackson.org/speec...tary-tribunal/

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by BrucePartington

If I may, just to add some more insight into the Nazi party, I would like to share an interesting link I came accross the other day. It's a bit long, but worth it IMHO.



Opening Statement before the International Military Tribunal

On November 21, 1945, in the Palace of Justice at Nuremberg, Germany, Justice Robert H. Jackson, Chief of Counsel for the United States, made his opening statement to the International Military Tribunal.



May it please Your Honors:


https://www.roberthjackson.org/speec...tary-tribunal/

Interesting perspective, but imagine a few here would argue even ROBERT H. JACKSON must have been tricked into thinking Nazis we’re socialists in name only.

The Party also avowed, even in those early days, an authoritarian and totalitarian program for Germany. It demanded creation of a strong central power with unconditional authority, nationalization of all businesses which had been “amalgamated,” and a “reconstruction” of the national system of education white “must aim at teaching the pupil to understand the idea of the State (state sociology).” Its hostility to civil liberties and freedom of the press was distinctly announced in these words:…