Why do they keep calling them "far right" when they were the socialist party?

We’re here to mourn the millions of Germans killed in the war.

That includes the Jewish ones, right?

Right?

I think that God still gets the last laugh. . .

[Link: en.rian.ru...]

SOVIET JEWISH DOCTORS DISSECTED HITLER

On May 4, 1945, three Red Army soldiers, Churakov, Oleinik and Seroukh, retrieved the charred bodies of Hitler and Eva Braun from a crater by the walls of the Reichschancellory in Berlin. The soldiers laid the corpses out on a soldier's blanket. Hitler's two dead dogs (an Alsatian and a puppy) were also laid out.

Shortly after, the Fuhrer's corpse was sent to Buch in the northeastern suburbs of Berlin for identification. Colonel Krayevsky, the Red Army's chief pathologist, and doctors Anna Marants, Boguslavsky and Gulkevich carried out the autopsy in the local clinic.

The examination was overseen by Faust Shkaravsky, chief forensic expert for the First Belarusian Front.

All these doctors were Jews.

Even in his worst nightmares Hitler could never have imagined such a turn of events.

“Almost every German has relatives expelled from the east or a grandfather who was killed. We’re here to mourn the millions of Germans killed in the war.”

So many graves to piss on, so little time.

Cool Charles-

Thanks for finding a positive article on this-

I have to go to Germany in a month or so and gheez I was feeling like poulet.

Germany starts a war and commits genocide and then suffers the consequences. Boo hoo.

Cry me a river Hans.

#6 Megan

Interesting point; maybe their timing was poor. In recent decades, someone who does that gets U.S. aid and the promise of a state.

Right on! Someone had their thinking cap on and got organized fast! Oh the Left must be absolutely running around in circles like Rumpelstilstkin! LUV IT! :)

#6
Megan
And now the Palestinians are trying to do the same thing, but without facing the consequences. The difference is they have the EU and the UN on their side.

Berlin police said 6,000 demonstrators opposed to the far-right National Democratic Party (NPD) crowded into streets around Alexanderplatz square where 3,300 right-wing extremists gathered to protest what they called a German “cult of guilt.”

As I said on the earlier thread, they have what to be guilty about. Bastards. I wish they'd all die already.

Having said that, it's heartening to know that so many came out to protest this. Credit where credit is due. I have to wonder what excuse MartinG will have ...

..it's like Bugs Bunny's in charge and every time the left or the Islamofascists or the neo-Nazis get something together...the rest of us turn up and wizz on their parade. Wasn't it last week in Britain where the Islamists decided to have a humoungous rally...except that only 2,000 people turned up? And at another one of these things only 500 turned up. Not exactly earthshaking numbers!

I'm pretty sick of all the leftism and anti-Americanism coming out of Germany right now, but I'm glad they came out against the neo-Nazis. Unlike members of a certain "peaceful" religion whose response to hatred and violence committed in their name is to whine about being profiled.

Belize042 (#2)

That includes the Jewish ones, right?

Very good point but yeah, I doubt it.

West Germany became too prosperous too soon after World War II. After the crimes she committed she deserved at least two generations of abject poverty (50 years).

cjstavern #1 -

The Nazis were "Socialist" in name only. They were fascists and totalitarians. They were anti-Communist - many real Communists and Socialists ended up in concentration camps. The Nazis supported the right-wing fascist Franco in the Spanish Civil War, while the Soviets supported the leftists. The Nazis were many things, but left-wing they were not.

Voigt told Reuters, criticizing the anti-fascists as intolerant.

OK then.

Yeah, it's those intolerant anti-fascist fascists that are the real problem.

And my spell checker wants to change "Voigt" to "Vomit". How incredibly accurate it is.

Ironic that the only thing that fits re the nazis and Germany is Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

I will not ever forgive, nor will I forget what they did. Even though the crowd that was against them was larger than they were, there are still Germans,* most of whom were not even born during the war, and are quite young, that have never even met a Jew, that would gladly welcome another h***, and try to finish what he started...and now that Eurabia and the cult of islam are thriving? May G-d help us all, Christian and Jew.

*I wonder how many of the neo-nazis were from the cult of islam. They are quite a partnership.

A lot of Germans are tired of hearing May 8 called a day of "liberation, Voight told Reuters."

He's got a point although he doesn't realize it. The Germans weren't "liberated" from nazism, they were crushingly defeated by the Allies. "Liberation" makes it sound as if the the Germans were somehow captured or overrun by the nazis just like Poland, Holland, France, etc. The Germans were the nazis and most of them supported Hitler and his genocidal policies. They were not victims, they were perpetrators.

A neo-Nazi [Nationl Socialist German Workers party] march in Berlin was stopped by thousands of anti-fascist demonstrators

Utter and complete willfull ignorance that NAZIs were stinking collectivists. There would not be a history of nazism, communism, or fascism (what a semantical deception that word is) without an underlying philosophy of Collectivism.

Let's see anyone, including Fearless Leader (Bush) call a collectivist by his real name.

“This was not a day of ‘liberation’ but a day of defeat for Germany and it’s nothing to celebrate,” said NPD leader Udo Voigt.

You're right- it was a defeat for you. And you'd better remember this when you think sbout starting another world war or more mass murder, because the next defeat will be much, much worse for you. You should be grateful for how we treated your country when we won.

National-SOCIALISTS (left-leaning nutjobs but the left-leaning media is so embarassed about this little known fact they decided to call them 'extreme-right') versus Marxists (even further left-leaning nutjobs the media has no problem with although they are more violent and far better organized than the socialists) fighting on the streets of Germany. Reminds me of something. These so-called 'anti-fascists' are actually fascists themselves. I'm surprised they didn't all get together to rally against the evil neo-con Zionist Jooos.

zulubaby,

I have to wonder what excuse MartinG will have ...

Those Neo Nazis came from all over Germany, and all the NPD could scrape together were 3.300 from a nation of 82 million people.

As I said on the earlier thread, they have what to be guilty about. Bastards. I wish they'd all die already.y

I prefer living, thank you very much. :)

Re: "decided to abandon":

The NPD had intended to march through the centre of Berlin, but after militants were encircled by riot police for two hours, protesters were asked to call off the march.

[Link: www.theaustralian.news.com.au...]

We’re here to mourn the millions of Germans killed in the war.

Incredible chutzpah. They are mourning millions of Germans killed in a war that they started, after having also (along with Austria) started WWI thirty years previously.

The Germans are directly responsible for something like 50 million deaths in the 20th century. They should be grateful that the Allies allowed their country to continue to exist at all.

How pathetic are these idiots? The allegedly biggest march they've managed and a chance of worldwide press attention and they best crowd they could pull is 3,300! Out of a nation of 82,431,390 that's pretty pathetic and I bet a few of them were Austrians, Poles and Slovaks.

The NPD, citing constitutional free speech guarantees,

The absolute hypocrisy.

MartinG (#25)

Thank you for making my point for me!

I prefer living, thank you very much. :)

Unless you're a Nazi, I don't wish death on you.

My father in law is one of 8 children, and one of 2 who survived the War. My mother in law is much the same. That story is repeated millions of times across the former USSR. I know every death in war is tragic but I have a real difficult time having any feelings about Nazi Military veterans.

#22 Sol Roth

Now, Nazism and Communism shared much more memes than anyone of their followers would ever admit, but they still were different things. Nazis and Communists had a pretty heated argument too, between 1941 and 1945.

Iron Fist-

I just read your comments on Korea and another thread-and the attitude about just being friends with people that agree with you reminds me of this-

mean girls...

[Link: www.cbsnews.com...]

# 30 zulubaby,

Thank you for making my point for me!

Happy to oblige. ;) But my point is a valid one.

Unless you're a Nazi, I don't wish death on you.

I'm not, so that's alright then. :)

#3 Condor!

That was such a beautiful article from Novosti! It gladdend Mein Heart, but I doubt it would gladden Mein Kampf :-D

I might've been disposed to put on a puppet show with the remains, had I been there with the physicians in the article. (perhaps something Spike Jones-ish?)*

Ghoulish Yours,

DHIMMIPOWER

(Oh Dur Furher sez ve is dur meister race!)

Very interesting, Germany's poster child of moonbatism, none other that Gunter Grass, shares this guy's opinion.

Gunter Grass, the Nobel Prize-winning novelist, caused a stir this week when he argued that most Germans of the Second World War generation, including himself, saw the Allied soldiers entirely as invaders and not as liberators.

"I experienced May 8 in Marienbad, as a 17-year-old dummkopf who believed in the final victory right up to the end," Mr. Grass wrote this week in the newspaper Die Zeit. "So mine was not feeling of liberation, but of total defeat."

But, he said, Germans have since learned to think of the day as a liberation — but it would be wrong to pretend that May 8, 1945, was a victorious German moment.

"When the anniversary of the end of the war is celebrated in fine speeches as a day of liberation, this can only be retrospectively, especially as we Germans did little or nothing for our freedom."

[Link: www.theglobeandmail.com...]

MartinG (#34)

I'm not, so that's alright then. :)

In that case, rock on :-)

#16 Amy

The Nazis were many things, but left-wing they were not.

Luckily, you do law for a day job.

18 NY Nana

I wonder how many of the neo-nazis were from the cult of islam. They are quite a partnership.

I thought it was the leftists who were in partnership with the Islamists. But the leftists are against the neo-Nazis. So are the Islamists partners with the neo-Nazis AND the leftists at the same time?

Now, 3 000 / 82 000 000 = 3.66*10^(-5)...

What's that strange lifeform at #36, btw?

#40 BPP

Yes, it sounds absurd but it's like that.

Islamists are willing to ally with anyone who hates the Jews especially, and America in second place.

Add the fact that on some issues Nazis and Lefties have almost indistinguishable positions, and you get it.

# 38 zulubaby,

In that case, rock on :-)

Thanks, I will ;)

#1 cjstavern

I see I'm not the only one to notice that.

Well then, this is encouraging. When are the same people going to realize that Islam is not any different (and maybe even worse) than fascism?

#25 MartinG

Those Neo Nazis came from all over Germany, and all the NPD could scrape together were 3.300 from a nation of 82 million people.

Sorry to be picking on you, but that in itself is one of the MartinG excuses, albeit more elegantly veiled.

The number of Nazis that turned up says absolutely nothing about the ideological, albeit quiet support they get from many Germans.

While the exact numbers cannot be known, you know perfectly well that Nazis consistently receive 1 in 20 votes, last time around it was 1 in 10.

BPP @ 40

I thought it was the leftists who were in partnership with the Islamists. But the leftists are against the neo-Nazis. So are the Islamists partners with the neo-Nazis AND the leftists at the same time?

Why not?

42 FabioC.

Islamists are willing to ally with anyone who hates the Jews especially, and America in second place.

Add the fact that on some issues Nazis and Lefties have almost indistinguishable positions, and you get it.

I don't think so. Neo-Nazis and Islamists may both be anti-Semitic and both be anti-American, but the idea that they are in any kind of partnership is absurd. Neo-Nazis are implicated in many crimes AGAINST Muslims and want them thrown out of Germany. Jew-hatred isn't the only thing these guys are about.

As for leftists, I agree that many of the more extreme ones have taken on qualities that recall rightist authoritarianism, but to call them Nazis is going way way too far.

We have to remember just how uniquely virulent Nazism actually is and not make facile comparisons.

The only alliance that seems to me to be significant is the alliance of convenience between the far left and the Islamists. What this shows most of all is that for some leftists, anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism are so integral to their belief system that they are willing to get into bed with people whose values (on other issues) are about as far from the ideals of the left as it's possible to be.

American Neo-Nazis hate the Government and believe it is run by a secret cartel of Jews.

The Far Left hates the Government and has aligned itself with the Islamists by it's silence on the matter of terrorism, terrorists are merely insurgents, or patriots and we are the Fascist Oppressors.

Amy
yes the Russians and the Nazis fought, the nazis locked up commies.
But the Russians and the Red Chinese spent years in an uneasy armed truce. Just because ppl are fighting doesn't mean they don't have the same politcal leanings.

The nazis just wanted territory and power for themselves.

#40

I just read a bunch of your posts, as I hadn't really bothered to before, and I can see why:This, to BabbaZee, tells me all I need to know. *scroll* That thread is an education.

#42 FabioC.

Thanks. You saved me some typing! :)

BPP @ 48

You do must realize by now that the German Neo-Nazis could align themselves with the Muslims, nothing is out of the realm of possibility... nothing, when it comes to evil.

#46, hm:

The number of Nazis that turned up says absolutely nothing about the ideological, albeit quiet support they get from many Germans.

And they'll never get more than quiet support, for the quiet supporters thankfully don't have the courage to act on their convictions.

While the exact numbers cannot be known, you know perfectly well that Nazis consistently receive 1 in 20 votes, last time around it was 1 in 10.

Well, Schleswig-Holstein it was 2.5 %, a couple of months before that in the local elections in North Rhine Westphalia it was 2%. 10% was only in Saxony.

#46 hm
I wonder if thats why we still have troops over there.

#45 Jade

I think this post is misleading in that it suggests that these counter-protesters were somehow responsible for cancelling the march.

The fact of the matter is that riot police encircled the Nazis after which they led them out of town. (see link @ 26)
There was no way the government was going to let them march on this, the 60 anniversary of Germany's defeat.

Does anyone here actually believe that Nazis would cancel their march because of a few thousand counter-protesters?

#47 Bubble Girl

Exactly. There's plenty of things that Nazis and leftists agree on.

Btw, hi :-)

hm #39 -

Gee, what a stellar example of a well-reasoned argument backed up by facts as opposed to a no-content, personal attack.
/sarcasm

Saying that the Nazis were leftists is idiotic. See, I can do it, too.

#48 BPP

Of course, these short analyses tend to be a little generalistic. But there are documented historical instances of Nazi-Islamist alliances.

As for the far Left, I did not call them Nazi; I state that they sahre certain memes, albeit in slightly different versions.

Does anyone here actually believe that Nazis would cancel their march because of a few thousand counter-protesters?

You obviously haven't seen footage of the event. Those "brave race warriors" were absolutely shitting themselves. If the riot police hadn't taken the muscular approach that they did the anti-fascist protesters would've ripped them apart. The neo-Nazi's made the decision to cancel the march because it was obvious that there was no way they could safely continue.

Some master race, eh?

[Link: www.absoluteastronomy.com...]

Scroll down to the Nazism and Socialism section.

#54 MartinG

In any case, the fact that 3300 Nazis showed up says nothing at all about their level of support in the public.

For instance, all but 150 moonbats showed up at an anti-Bush protest in Holland yesterday and yet, anti-Bush sentiment runs at something like 80% amongst the general public.

And 6 of them got arrested for trying to "inspect" the "football". HAWHAW!

#53 Bubble Girl

This article, by Robert Spencer, in 2003 shows that it was already flourishing. Perhaps some forget, or do not care to remember the alliance between arafart's uncle, the not so grand muhti with h***, and understand that it is now flourishing again, with the cult of islam and the neo-nazis:islam's unholy alliance with neo-nazis, leftists

And as far as arafart and his uncle:arafat's h***-loving role model

“Almost every German has relatives expelled from the east or a grandfather who was killed. We’re here to mourn the millions of Germans killed in the war.”

That's fine, but you'd be a lot more credible w/o the shaven heads and Nazi regalia.

#61 Amy

Well, seeing as so many posters already connected the Nazism and socialism dots, I'd save myself the effort. ;-)

Anyway, I was going to find you another link, but yours makes my point pretty well.

I think your point is more that Nazism ≠ communism and I agree. However, Nazism is very similar to socialism, when you consider that the difference between communism and sociliasm is that socialism is a pre-stage of communism, one where not everything is owned by the state.

Two defining features of socialism are economic interventionism and collectivism (i.e. the "common good"). I think you'll agree that socialism and Nazism are virtually indistiguishable based on these characteristics.

# 62 hm,

now come on, apples and oranges, dude.

Anyway. signing off for bed, but feel free to post a response, I'll catch up in the morning.

#60 Dave Ray

I don't think those 30 secs on the news are any standard to judge this by.

Had it not been for state authorities, I don't think the Nazis would have cowered. In any case, we don't know and hopefully we won't have occasion to know, although I fear the latter is rather unlikely.

# 3 Condor

However did you see what the Russkies did after they did their autopsies etc on Hitler, They creamated him and flushed his ashes down the John.

#66 MartinG

Yeah, apples and oranges like comparing an F22 to a B747. But they both fly and your story about deriving the level of silent support from the number of Nazis that showed up in Berlin does not.
Good night.

Re my #65

I'd save = I thought I'd save

I don't think those 30 secs on the news are any standard to judge this by.

There was slightly more coverage than that here, and take it from me...neo-nazis generally run scared when outnumbered. Without the state authorities they would've left far quicker, because they knew they were on to a hiding to nothing. I may not agree with the various rabble involved in anti-fascist movements in Europe, but I appreciate they're fanatical about hurting and roughing up neo-Nazis. Organisations like Antifa actively promote militant anti-facist violence.

And from another point of view, I've seen how Nazis work on the football terraces...as soon as they're confronted there...they run.

MartinG (#54)

And they'll never get more than quiet support, for the quiet supporters thankfully don't have the courage to act on their convictions.

That's exactly the kind of bullshit excuse that I've come to expect of you. So "quiet" Nazis are okay? Good grief. Keep making excuses for these animals and let's see how that reflects on you. It amazes me that you fail to see how noxious your point of view is.

hm #65 -

I guess you didn't read what I linked to very carefully.

Here it is for everyone:

Because Nazism is an abbreviation for "National Socialism", and Nazi leaders sometimes described their ideology as a form of socialism, some people believe that Nazism was a form of socialism, or that there are similarities between Nazism and socialism. It has also been argued that the Nazi use of economic intervention, including central planning and some limited public ownership, is indicative of socialism.

Nazi leaders were opposed to the Marxist idea of conflict and opposed the idea that capitalism should be abolished and that workers should control the means of production
For those who consider class conflict and the abolition of capitalism as essential components of socialist progress, these factors alone are sufficient to categorize "National Socialism" as non-socialist.

Nazi leaders made statements describing their views as socialist, while at the same time opposing the idea of class conflict
espoused by the Social Democrats (SPD) and Communists. Established socialist movements did not view the Nazis as socialists and argued that the Nazis were thinly disguised reactionaries
Historians such as Ian Kershaw also note the links between the Nazis and the German political and economic establishment and the significance of the Night of the Long Knives
in which Hitler purged what were at the time seen as "leftist" elements in the Nazi Party and how this was done at the urging of the military and conservatives.

Many of the traditional center and right political parties of the Weimar Republic
accused the Nazis of being socialists citing planks in the Nazis' party program which called for nationalization of trusts and other socialist measures. However, the German National People's Party (DNVP), the most important party on the mainstream right, usually treated the Nazis as a respected potential member of coalition cabinet.

The Nazis came to power through an alliance with traditional conservative forces. Franz von Papen, a very conservative former German Chancellor and former member of the Catholic Centre Party supported Hitler for the position of Chancellor and later became an important Nazi official. The Enabling Act which gave the Nazis passed only because of the support of conservative and centrist deputies in the Reichstag, over the opposition of Social Democrats and Communists.

To be continued.

... don't have the courage ...

Yeah, such courage the Nazis have. They're fucking psychopaths and bullies. They're the dregs of the earth, worthless trash. There's nothing "courageous" about being a racist POS.

"3,300 right-wing extremists gathered to protest what they called a German 'cult of guilt.'”

The German guilt for WWII and for the Holocaust is very real. Whining about guilt because you don't like the fact that you really are guilty is not only stupid, it's childish.

The sad thing is that these young fools didn't learn a single blessed thing from the terrible atrocities and war crimes of their grandfathers - and, even worse, that they lack the simple human decency to be ashamed of them.

#71 Dave Ray

Sadly, even if one accepts your premise, it doesn't make the problem go away, it might just as well grow bigger.

In any case, I dont think its a good idea to support fanatics who get violent, whatever their persuasion. The whole point of fanaticism is that it is irrational and thus subject to mutation.

I might or might not happen to agree with fanatics in any particular instance but I'd never support violent means because they're sure to take it the wrong way.

#72 zulubaby

Hi zb :-)

I think our friend MartinG is well meaning, its just that his reasoning is often specious, so I was surprised to see you seem to have been persuaded by him earlier on this thread. :-p

When the Nazis were still an opposition party some leaders, particularly Gregor Strasser, espoused anti-big business stances and advocated the idea of the Nazis as a workers' party. In spite of this, most workers continued to vote for the SPD or the KPD as late as the March 1933 elections held shortly after Hitler's appointment as chancellor.

Central to Nazi ideology and propaganda was not the rights of workers or the need for socialism but opposition to Marxism and Bolshevism which the Nazis called Judeo-Bolshevism. According to the Nazi world view Marxism was part of a Jewish conspiracy
Rather than being afraid of the Nazis' "socialism" many prominent conservatives and capitalists supported and funded the Nazis because they saw them as a bulwark against Bolshevism.

Ideologically fascism and Nazism reject the most important aspects of Marxist theory. For instance, Hitler did not exalt the working class over the capitalist class as Marx prescribed. In his book Mein Kampf, Hitler wrote 'the suspicion was whispered in German Nationalist circles that we also were merely another variety of Marxism, perhaps even Marxists suitably disguised, or better still, Socialists... We used to roar with laughter at these silly faint-hearted bourgeoisie and their efforts to puzzle out our origin, our intentions and our aims. '

Moreover, Hitler despised Karl Marx as a Jew
and condemned communism and Marxism as Judeo-Bolshevism pledging to block its rise in Germany arguing that the nation's downfall was due to Marxism and its Jewish influence.

There were ideological shades of opinion within the Nazi Party, particularly prior to their seizure of power in 1933, but a central tenet of the party was always the leadership principle or Führerprinzip. The Nazi Party did not have party congresses in which policy was deliberated upon and concessions made to different factions. What mattered most was what the leader, Adolf Hitler thought and decreed. Those who held opinions which were at variance with Hitler's either learned to keep quiet or were purged, particularly after 1933.

hm, everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt. Once.

#73 Amy

I guess you didn't read what I linked to very carefully.

Now, now, you know what they say about throwing with stones when you live in a glass house.

I'll go through what you highlighted:

1. "Socialist progress" is code for "communism" - so what you highlighted only serves to support my point.

2. 'Hitler purged "leftist" elements'. Now, as a lawyer, you know that it all depends on what the meaning of the word "leftist" is?
Besides, Hitler also had his SA chief Roehm executed. Causation can work in strange ways when you're a dictator.

3.'alliance with traditional conservative forces'. Ok, so because conservative forces alligned themselves with Hitler that somehow means the Nazis weren't socialist?

Although this is in some respects comparable to the behavior of certain Communist dictatorships such as that of Stalin in the Soviet Union or Mao Zedong in China, it also presents a strong contrast to the collective leadership exercised in other Communist parties, more so to the more democratic organization of most European socialist parties.

In power, the Nazis jettisoned practically all of the socialistic aspects of their program, and worked with big business, frequently at the expense of both small business and the working classes. Gregor Strasser was murdered, as was Ernst Röhm while Otto Strasser was purged from the party. Independent trade unions were outlawed, as were strikes. In place of the unions, the Nazis created the Deutsche Arbeitsfront. The Nazis took other symbolic steps to co-opt the working classes' support, such as the introduction of May Day as a national holiday in 1933. These were described by socialists as superficial moves designed to win the allegiance of workers rather than grant them any material concessions at the expense of capital.

Industries and trusts were not nationalised, with the exception of private rail lines (nationalised in the late 1930s to meet military contingencies). The only private holdings that were expropriated were those belonging to Jews. These holdings were then sold or awarded to businessmen who supported the Nazis and satisifed their ethnic and racial policies. Military production and even film production remained in the hands of private industries whilst serving the Nazi government, and many private companies flourished during the Nazi period. The Nazis never interfered with the profits made by such large German firms as Krupp, Siemens AG, and IG Farben. Efforts were made to coordinate business's actions with the needs of the state, particularly with regard to rearmament, and the Nazis established some state owned concerns such as Volkswagen. But these were functions of the new German expansionism rather than an implementation of socialist measures. Germany had moved to a war economy, and similar measures occurred in the western democracies during the First World War, and again once the Second World War had begun.

I might or might not happen to agree with fanatics in any particular instance but I'd never support violent means because they're sure to take it the wrong way.

That's almost certainly the right way to look at it. However, if someone wants to beat up a neo-Nazi skinhead...who am I to tell them they're wrong.

#79 zulubaby

LOL.

I agree, although as far as this guy's concerned, I think I've gone down that road more than once.

The Nazis engaged in an extensive public works program including the construction of the Autobahn system. As with the expropriation of rail lines, however, the Autobahn system was created with the purpose of facilitating military transport, and government investment in transport systems is common in almost all nations. Similarly, all political movements that have formed governments have used economic intervention of some form or another. The suggestion that economic intervention is left-wing ignores the tradition of intervention practiced by monarchies and oligarchies in Europe before the eighteenth century, and the intervention, including protectionism, subsidies and anti-trade union laws, practiced by right-wing parties in government in Europe and North America during the eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

Since the fall of the Nazi regime, many theorists have argued that there are similarities between the government of Nazi Germany and that of Stalin's Soviet Union. In most cases, this has not taken the form of arguing that the Nazis were socialist, but arguing that both Nazism and Stalinism are forms of totalitarianism.. This view was advanced most famously by Hannah Arendt in The Origins of Totalitarianism. However, most socialists argue that Stalin's system was not a truly socialist one, since it did not meet certain requirements that they see as essential for socialism - requirements such as a functional democracy, for example.

The National Socialists were socialists, plain and simple. Hitler even publicly admitted it.

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." - Adolf Hitler, public speech, May 1, 1927

Yes, the Nazis were Leftists; it's a simple fact.

What part of "Never Again" do these phuckers fail to understand? As my Poppa would say: "Go scrub your yahchee with a wire brush."

The Left has been spouting the Big Lie that Hitler and Mussolini and the Nazis and the Italian Fascists weren't Leftists for years. It's nonsense; they were all 100% Socialists.

HITLER PUBLICLY ADMIITED THAT THE NATIONAL SOCIALISTS WERE SOCIALISTS. See the spech quoted above.

MUSSOLINI WASN'T JUST A SOCIALIST, HE WAS THE FORMER HEAD OF THE ITALIAN SOCIALIST PARTY.

Mussolini was a socialist journalist, a socialist editor, the leader of the Italian Socialist Party, and he was once commended by Lenin himself for his efforts on behalf of Socialism. You can't get any more Socialist than that.

Both National Socialism and Italian Fascism were Socialist, and therefore Leftist, movements. Those are the facts.

hm, yeah, why are we so tender with MartinG? ;-) Off to bed. Later ...

Re-posted from the earlier thread:

Protester at Berlin rally has Hitler's haircut and outfit.

Good pictures from the rally.

From the People's Cube (Formerly Communists for Kerry):

Hitler

Hitler is an important ideological weapon helping us win just about any argument with right-wingers. As such he must be viewed as pure evil at all times. This, of course, creates a philosophical paradox: it is common knowledge that morality is relative and there is no such thing as absolute good and evil. The answer is that Hitler is a necessary exception. If he didn't exist he'd have to be invented. What makes him so evil? It doesn't matter. He's evil, period. You needn't know unless you are an advanced student of the progressive theory. If you are, then you must know that Hitler was also building socialism, only it was for Arians only (National Socialism), in which minorities would slave for the White man. We the progressives want quite the opposite. Hitler's idea of uncompensated labor for The Greater Good™ (labor camps) was very different from our idea of uncompensated labor for The Greater Good™ (labor camps). That's where it gets tricky and any further discussions should only be allowed to Party-approved professors of progressive science.

#81 Amy,

Hmmm no offense, but having just read that the execution of Ernst Röhm, i.e. the leader of the SA, and therefore guiding spirit of all brown shirts, was in some way connected to Nazis not being socialists, I think I'm not going to waste my time with this crappy piece.

Probably written by some die hard socialist intent on disassociating his ideals from what Hitler got up to.

Whether you like it or not, Nazis and socialist have a lot in common and I think I made my point very clear in #65.

"For those who consider class conflict and the abolition of capitalism as essential components of socialist progress, these factors alone are sufficient to categorize 'National Socialism' as non-socialist."

Bull. 99.9% of people making that bogus claim unless are Socialists/Communists who are trying their best - and failing - to distance the evil that is Leftism from its monstrous offspring, National Socialism.

It simply doesn't work; Hitler publicly admitted that the Nazis were Socialists.

Malleus Dei

Thank you :-)

# 85

Hitler sure had things ass-backward with that statement. Capitalism REWARDS responsibility and performance. Now, there are plenty of exceptions, but in general, no responsibility or performance, no wealth or property.

"Probably written by some die hard socialist intent on disassociating his ideals from what Hitler got up to."

Yes, the Left tries very, very hard to lie like that. Fortunately it doesn't work if the people they are trying to lie to know any of the history of the time.

The Nazis pretended to be socialists (hence Hitler's rhetoric) in order to gain the support of the working class, but as the article I posted shows, in practice, the Nazis were not socialist at all. They preserved privately owned businesses, worked hand in glove with the most conservative elements of German society, suppressed union activity and purged real socialists from the Party.

I know that modern-day conservatives wish to brand the left-wing with the Nazi connection, but this is revisionism which ignores the facts.

Fascism and socialism are two different things.

zulubaby

It's in our nature to be like that ;-)

I'm off to bed as well (seeing as Malleus Dei has taken over on socialism watch)

Good night all.

#73 Amy

Hitler did not wish to demolish the price system of capitalism, and therefore proceeded to replace it with volkswirtschaft decrees?

Hitler wished to preserve capitalism, by removing the prices and interest rates that are the mechanism of capitalism?

That is some fine, high-quality bullshit.

hm @ 57

Hi hm... How's it going?

pookleblinky #98 -

These measures were taken in order to put the economy on a war footing, not because Hitler believed in socialist principles. He considered socialism and communism "Jewish" ideologies and hated them both.

Ask yourself only three questions:

1. Did Hitler wish to replace the decisions of other individuals with his own by coercion?

2. Did what you consider socialists, wish to replace the decisions of other individuals by means of coercion?

3. If you do not see the core similarity and root of both doctrines, what the hell are you smoking?

#100

"Hitler didn't believe in socialist principles, he only acted on them." is what you're trying to say. And that is patently absurd.

Amy,

Last post:

In June 1933, the Nazis passed a Law to Reduce Unemployment.

• The RAD (National Labour Service) sent men on public works; eg the autobahns.

• Government spending rose, 1932–38 from about 5 billion to 30 billion marks.

• Unemployment fell from nearly 6 million to virtually nothing.

• Hitler built up the armed forces (e.g. conscription took 1 million unemployed).

• The soldiers needed equipment, so this set steel mills, coal mines and factories back into production. The Luftwaffe gave jobs to fitters, engineers and designers.

• The Nazi state machinery needed thousands of clerks, prison guards etc.

2. Farming

• By the 1933 Farm Law, farmers were assured of sales and given subsidies.

• The government kept food prices at the 1928 level.

• BUT farmers were organised into the Reich Food Estate and strictly controlled (e.g., one rule stated that hens must lay 65 eggs a year).

3. Industry

• The New Plan of 1934 stopped imports, and subsidised industry. This is called 'Autarky' - the belief that Germany should be self-sufficient.

• Production rose, especially of oil, steel, coal and explosives.

• In 1936, Goering was put in charge. His Four Year Plan proposed to get the army and industry ready for war in four years.

• Employers were happy when workers were well disciplined.

• BUT businesses were strictly controlled; they could be told to make something different/ were not allowed to raise wages/ workers could be sent to other factories.

• Goering said: ‘Iron makes an empire strong; butter only makes people fat’.

• Economists know now that these policies cause massive economic problems.

4. Conditions

• The Nazis tried to make people proud (e.g. the film The Beauty of Work in 1934).

• BUT trade unions were banned and all workers had to join the German Labour Front. They lost their right to strike for better pay and conditions.

• Wages actually fell.

• People who refused to work were imprisoned.

• Wages and conditions on the RAD schemes were very poor.

5. Strength through Joy (KdF) Movement

• Workers were offered cut-price holidays, theatre trips and concerts. In Berlin, 1933–38, the KdF sponsored 134,000 events for 32 million people (2 million went on cruises & weekend trips, and 11 million on theatre trips).

• The KdF designed the Volkswagen (or ‘People’s Car’) ‘Beetle’, which it was planned to be able to buy for 5 marks a week.

• The government made sure that everybody could get a cheap radio.

[Link: www.johndclare.net...]

And btw, I don't buy into this "labor unions were banned" BS. The "Deutsche Arbeiterfront" - which everybody had to join - was a labor union.

#103

It's funny how the political spectrum has been imagined so one group of people who oppress and slaughter everyone in the name of a greater collective good, is seen as diametrically opposed to another group of people who oppress and slaughter everyone for the very same greater collective good.

Incidentally, Noam Chomsky has this to say about Socialism:

"What’s called the left includes Leninism [i.e., Communism], which I consider ultra-right in many respects…. Leninism has nothing to do with the values of the left – in fact, it’s radically opposed to them."

#99 Bubble Girl

Hi Bubbles,

I'm good, thank you. But must go and hit the sack now. Enjoy and c u tom.

The twice-as-big countermarch is something I need to see from Muslims. No, I need to see a hundred-times-as-big, a thousand-times-as-big Muslim countermarch against the Islamists. A million times as big. Then I'll believe most Muslims are for peaceful coexistence and equality.

pookleblinky -

You are describing totalitarianism, not socialism. There has never been a real Marxist government in the history of the world. The Soviet Union was also totalitarian. Socialism does not advocate replacing the decisions of other individuals with the leader's through coercion.

Hitler did not "act on socialist principles" at all. He did not nationalize industries or the means of production. He did not exalt the working class over the capitalist elements. He did not abolish private industries. He did not outlaw the practice of the Christian religion. He attacked trade unions.

As quoted above, he said:

In his book Mein Kampf, Hitler wrote 'the suspicion was whispered in German Nationalist circles that we also were merely another variety of Marxism, perhaps even Marxists suitably disguised, or better still, Socialists... We used to roar with laughter at these silly faint-hearted bourgeoisie and their efforts to puzzle out our origin, our intentions and our aims. '

#108 Amy

Hitler also said:

I have learned a great deal from Marxism, as I do not hesitate to admit. The difference between them and myself is that I have really put into practice what these peddlers and pen-pushers have timidly begun... I had only to develop logically what Social Democracy repeatedly failed in because of its attempt to realize its evolution within the framework of democracy. National Socialism is what Marxism might have been if it could have broken its absurd and artificial ties with a democratic order. (4. Quoted in Leonard Peikoff, The Ominous Parallels (New York, Stein and Day, 1982), p. 236.)

hm #104 -

A labor union that doesn't allow its members to strike for higher wages or better working conditions is no union at all in the true sense of the word.

The Nazi control of the institutions of the state were TOTALITARIAN and were intended to put the economy on a war footing, not to carry out socialist principles.

This country gives farmers subsidies, too, bailed out Chrysler, instituted a safety net and does not have a true free market system (eg, the Federal Reserve's control of interest rates). Does that mean we are a socialist and not a capitalist country?

#108 Amy

Socialism does not advocate replacing the decisions of other individuals with the leader's through coercion.

So how would one go about making those other individuals into socialists?

And he also said:

There is more that binds us to Bolshevism than separates us from it. There is, above all, genuine revolutionary feeling, which is alive everywhere in Russia... I have always made allowance for this circumstance, and given orders that former Communists are to be admitted to the party at once. The petit bourgeois Social-Democrat and the trade-union boss will never make a National Socialist, but the Communist always will. (4. Quoted in Leonard Peikoff, The Ominous Parallels (New York, Stein and Day, 1982), p. 236.)

Amy

Totalitarianism: The brutal oppression of the individual as he is forced to do the whim of another man via decrees replacing the voluntary cooperation of a price system.

Socialism: The brutal oppression of the individual as he is forced to do the whim of another man via decrees replacing the voluntary cooperation of a price system.

Fascism: The brutal oppression of the individual as he is forced to do the whim of another man via decrees replacing the voluntary cooperation of a price system.

Communism: The brutal oppression of the individual as he is forced to do the whim of another man via decrees replacing the voluntary cooperation of a price system.

pookleblinky #109 -

But Nazism was not Marxism, as Hitler himself says. He is describing totalitarianism as the antithesis of the "democratic order."

pure francis #111 -

How does one go about making other individuals into capitalists? This is a ridiculous question, with all due respect.

Amy,

might it be that you are confusing socialist with social democrat?

pookleblinky -

You obviously are more interested in advancing your personal political ideology than in looking at the facts.

Hitler's lip service to communism which you quoted was totally contrary to Nazi practice, which was to brutally suppress the Communist party in Germany and to persecute Communists.

pure francis #115 -

Not at all. I studied Marxism in quite a bit of depth. I am not a socialist, but I certainly understand the theory.

#114

Indeed, that is a ridiculous question. Capitalists do not concern themselves with coercing others. A capitalist economy is run according to the plans of each individual.

A socialist economy is necessarily NOT run by the plans of each individual. It is run by the plans of those who rule it. It is therefore absolute bullshit to speak of "democracy," in connection with a system founded upon the replacement of the plans of all people in a region with the plans of a few annointed Party leaders. Complete and utter bullshit to claim that either Hitler or the Socialists sought "democracy," or allowing individuals to express their decisions, by means of coercing them into conformity with their own plans.

SORRY AMY BUT COMMUNISM THAT TURNED INTO STALINISM WAS COMMUNIST FORM OF GOV'T

The idea that communism was never tried is so much baloney.

On the Nazi/Socialist thing, I think the difference is that socialists claim to have good intentions. Most of them probably sincerely believe that they are good people and that their intentions are good, that they just want to make people's lives better.

For the Nazis, on the other hand, it was always and unapologetically about raw power. They believed the strong deserved to dominate the weak and that was just the way it was. It was never about making anyone's life better or building a better or more just society. Hitler wasn't really even trying to make German's lives better ... they were simply his tool for extending his (and the Party made in his image) domination over human life.

Nazism is about the strong and powerful ruthlessly asserting their strength and power over others for no other reason than that they can.

#114 Amy

How does one go about making other individuals into capitalists?

One doesn't. One uses democracy to take care of it -- which proves that my suspicions in #115 were correct.

Socialism: A theory or policy of social organization which aims at or advocates the ownership and control of the means of production, capital, land, property, etc., by the community as a whole, and their administration or distribution in the interests of all. (Oxford English Dictionary)

Do you think actually think that most people would part with their property without coercion?
And do you actually think that the part where it says "distribution in the interest of all" preserves my individual freedom of choice?

#118 pookleblinky

To be sure, that was Amy's question, not mine. ;)

#122

I know, she changed it around for rhetorical purposes.

"How does one go about coercing people into not being coerced?!"

"How do you force a man to live absent the coercion of another?!"

Re #85:

The National Socialists were socialists, plain and simple. Hitler even publicly admitted it.

Malleus Dei, but that reasoning both Kerry and Bush are fiscal conservatives.

#123 pookleblinky

But this particular use of a rhetorical device backfired because it proved that she had meant something akin to the democratic form of socialism all along.

Sorry Amy, not trying to gloat, just trying to trace why we disagreed in the first place.

Cult of Guilt is the new German term for "shut the f*%K up!

[Link: members.iweb.net.au...]

Who's not afraid of the Germans?

People who oppose NAZIs are "left"? You think it's nothing, but who are the NAZIs? The "right"!
The media trying to paint the left as good guys, when in reality they are one of the biggest groups of Jew haters.

#124 hrun0815

You forgot to mention the other half of the story.

What he said may or may not be true. It goes both ways, even Kerry made promises that he was going to keep -- like raise taxes.

In any case, what he did is undeniable, i.e. subsidies, planned economy, import restrictions, price controls.

Re #129: Pure Francis, I'm not getting drawn into this pointless discussion.

I really don't care if you consider NAZIs as being on the left or on the right. Or if you want to label them Fascist or Totalitarian or whatever other label you can come up with.

Look at the strange way people regard re-emerging NAZI derived parties in Germany. On the one hand people say that they are in bed with the Islamic Terrorists, yet, they got their strong following in Saxony by running on a platform of strong national security and getting rid of all them pesky Muslim immigrants that are taking away jobs from them hardworking Germans.

Just like some people look at the fact that more people showed up to demonstrate against the NAZIs as a good signs, while others see that as a sign that the silent majority supports the NAZIs.

Or look at the funny little quote from Gunther Grass, so-called poster boy for the Socialists. Supposedly, the quote that he thought of the allied forces as invaders shows that he as a socialist held the same view as the NAZI party. However, in the complete context of the cited quote it is clear that AT THE TIME, having grown up with state-run media and brainwashing by the school, parents, after-school activities, ... most Germans believed in the final victory and were shocked when it did not happen that way. So, AT THE TIME, it did not feel as liberation, however, since then, in retrospect, it is clear that it was a liberation. And that is supposed to show an alignment of a Socialist with the NAZI party? Stange.

Re #129:

In any case, what he did is undeniable, i.e. subsidies, planned economy, import restrictions, price controls.

Hmm, so currently we are living in a semi-socialist country. Can I now say that Bush is a half-Hitler?

And of course it means that during WWII also the good old US of A was a socialist country. God, I hate those damn socialists so much!

yochanan #119 -

Do you know anything about Marxist theory? I assume not, because if you did, you would know that the Soviet system was never socialist, let alone communist. So your pronouncement is worth exactly zero.

pure francis #121 -

So you are presuming that democracy is necessary in order to have a capitalist system? Please.

#134

Capitalism requires a government that is limited in the use of coercion. The only form of government known to do that, is a constitutional republic, which necessarily must possess democratic institutions. Try getting a government prohibited from using force against innocents, in any other fashion.

Socialism, in contrast, requires a government that is not accountable to the public. It is, after all, attempting to replace the will of the public.

#133

Oh, I see. Socialism has never existed because so far, it has only lead to the deaths of 150-170 million people in the course of less than a century. Pesky laws of economics.

Always helpful to have a buffer between you and an ideology that murdered 150-170 million people. "Well, that wasn't real socialism. That was totalitarianism. And if you knew anything about socialism, you'd know that their method of coercing people to conform to the plans of a few, is TOTALLY different than our method of coercing people into our plans. Totally different! You see, their mass graves are nothing like our mass graves..."

Absolute bullshit.

Mourning the "millions of Germans killed in the war" is one thing. What these "neo" Nazis wanted to do is another thing.

The millions of Germans killed (and I'm sure they don't include the Jews) is just another testament to the insanity of Hitler and all the Germans who followed him down the trail of death and evil.

MARXIST COMMUNISM aka marxist socialism and NATIONAL SOCIALISM aka nazism are different political movements with different objectives. But they do have some things in common what they do have in common is that both acepted that the END JUSTIFIED THE MEANS. Both commited mass murder but who they murdered were different.

It is in my opinion rather foolish to say they are the same thing.

Amy I was in my foolish youth a trotskite socialist i left them over there anti-semitism.

stalinism was marxist

you are in denile every stalinist state clamed to be marxist.

Interesting discussion about various political philosophies. However, they have nothing whatsoever to do with Hitler's version of the National Socialists (Nazis) and Stalinist "communists". The philosphies that guided these two mad men of 20th century Europe was "power", total and absolute power. Whatever was required to achieve and hold that power was considered justified. I'm sure Hitler could not have discussed the fine points of communism with Stalin and could have cared less. He did not invade Russia because of its "political" system. He invaded Russia to conquer it and enslave its people. Stalin was not thinking of the nuances of communist philosphy when he ordered the Ukraine famine, he was only concerned with his POWER. The gulags in Stalin's communism were not there to satisfy a requirement of philosophy, they were there to kill people so that power could be maintained in the hands of a chosen few. I find it fascinating that we try to pigeonhole, monsters who tried to destroy nations and peoples, as socialist, commnunists et al. I would think they themselves would have sworn public allegiance to any philosphy if it would have helped their cause of world domination in any way whatsoever. So whether they were "communist, fascist, socialists or (you name it)" is totally irrelevant. They were monsters and caused the death of innumerable people and should be remembered for that rather the "political" system that their dictatorships most closely resembled. IMHO

# 72 zulubaby,

I'm not making excuses for them, I'm just saying that they are pretty well contained. I never said that 'quiet Nazis' are alright.

MartinG, read your own words with a cold eye and tell me that they don't come across as excuses.

--

Second generation revisited

"I saw them playing football," one survivor says. "The ball seemed an odd, ragged shape. I went closer and looked. It was a baby."

--

My mother told me of a beautiful cousin of hers, deported with her baby. At the selection point, she was sent to the right, the child to the left. She begged them to let her stay with her baby. They graciously consented. Mother and child were gassed together. Who said there was no family feeling in the Third Reich?

Enough. I have been to Yad Vashem and seen the name of their village, along with all the other names. My mother told me that afterwards, when the few returned to go like penitents from house to house, reclaiming the possessions thoughtful neighbors had been "looking after" for them, she heard one farmer say to his wife: "Look, more of them are coming back than they took away!"

Oh, those poor Germans. It's insulting to animals to refer to the Nazis as such. Animals would never be that savage. I spit contempt at any defense of such barbarity. It takes a special kind of evil to do what the Germans did and they were able to because the atmosphere allowed it, because it was permitted, because people looked the other way if not directly supporting what Hitler proposed. Read Hitler's Willing Executions. You'll get the idea.

“Almost every German has relatives expelled from the east or a grandfather who was killed. We’re here to mourn the millions of Germans killed in the war.”

Uh, you were in the East because you INVADED it.

Your grandfathers were killed because they took part in numerous illegal INVASIONS, and the invadees and their allies fought back.

Millions of Germans were killed because they blindly trusted and supported a CRAZY EVIL DICTATOR.

#131 hrun0815

Oh, so now they were all brainwashed those poor Germans? And tell me, if, as you say, it was parents doing the brainwashing, were they themselves also brainwashed?

You should have stuck to what you said in the first sentence.

#138 yochanan

I dont know who you're refering but I dont recall anyone here saying that the two were the same thing.

#134 Amy

Look, you got called on your BS, it happens. Stop digging and get over it.

David Wiltse's The Good German dramatically ponders a question that, all these years later, still begs an answer: How could ordinary Germans have stood by as the Nazis made their country conform to Adolph Hitler's insanity? Worse, how were so many seduced into participating?

I don't believe there were very many Germans who "stood by", I think that most supported what was being done to the Jews. Hitler succeeded because the conditions were right for him to do so. He didn't suddenly appear out of a vacuum.

zulubaby,

I repeat, I did in no way defend any of this. I only told hm that he is overstating the number of Nazi voters and active supporters, that's all.

That is completely different from defending those Nazis and their supporters that do exist.

Re #144:

Oh, so now they were all brainwashed those poor Germans? And tell me, if, as you say, it was parents doing the brainwashing, were they themselves also brainwashed?

Pure Francis, I did not say they were poor Germans because of brainwashing. I am saying that all the information these people got came from state run media, state run schools and in many cases from parents who were part of the NAZI party.

Tell me, where would a 17 year old like Grass in 1944 gotten the information that Germany was indeed losing the war and that it would be a good idea for Germany to lose the war? The internet?

The statement I made is not an excuse for any crime. It is an explanation why a person like Grass might think of the allies as invaders, and only later on, in retrospect, can he think of the allied forces as liberators.

I knew the NPD wouldn't get there when I saw the street repair sites Unter den Linden. There's no chance that police on the ground would allow Nazis, Antifa and a bunch of construction materials come together within throwing range. Anyone who manages to challenge the supreme court for a particular marching route but fails to walk along that street with open eyes in advance is stupid enough to deserve it.

I stopped counting the kaffiyes among the counterprotestors, it's so blatant though the weather was like wearing a shawl. They could instead endorse the ICC as Germany's lesson from history such as President Köhler did in his speech, that's the same statement a bit more subtle.

Re #147:

I don't believe there were very many Germans who "stood by", I think that most supported what was being done to the Jews. Hitler succeeded because the conditions were right for him to do so. He didn't suddenly appear out of a vacuum.

Zulubaby, if it wasn't such a sacrilege here on this board to question the uniqueness of the holocaust, I would suggest you look at other genocides. Then it might be possible to recognize that in human nature it is really not that uncommon for ordinary people to turn into horrible butchers that either actively participate or quietly stand by. But you are right, this certainly never happens out of a vacuum, conditions have to be right. Furthermore, I would suggest that people who might be curious about this start reading and watching everything about the genocide in Rwanda. It didn't happen too long ago, so many of the documentaries have a number of interviews with perpetrators and victims. One thing that seems to become clear is that in times of stress, humans are happy to be on the winning side, and would do a lot of things to remain on the winning side. Questiong methods and objectives of the winning side, for example in Rwanda, quickly moved you to the losing side.

But, since it is a sacrilege to metion the holocaust in conjunction with any other historical even, I will refrain from doing so. And please, do not see my hypothetical answer above in any way, shape or form as comparison between the Rwanda genocide and the Holocaust, or see it as some form of veiled excuse of the crimes committed by Germans during the Holocaust.

Wolfgang Bruno speculates on the possibility that Europe may descend into a clash of fascisms

[Link: wolfgangbruno.blogspot.com...]

He suggests that Europe is a land of extremes, and that the extremes can gain power very suddenly in Europe. It may come down to Islamo-fascism versus the more familiar type of fascism.

He sees Islam coming into power in Europe, but much will depend on where Islam gains power first. Coming into power in nuclear-armed France may provide a nuclear umbrella for sharia to gain control throughout the rest of Europe. If it happens first in certain other parts of Europe, a violent backlash could develop that results in a clash of fascisms.

All sorts of things are possible in his view, in Europe, the land of extremes.

MartinG, whatever.

hrun0815, you seem to have taken a shine to the word "sacrilege". Good for you. The Holocaust was unique. It wasn't the only atrocity in the world, but in no other situation were people hunted down, rounded up, and almost destroyed because of the religion they were born into. You can protest it all you want, it is what it is. You seem a little ignorant about it. Do some reading. And I know full well about Rwanda, thanks.

Re #153: Zulubaby, on the contrary, I do not want to protest anything. You posed the question that you could not imagine how so many people could partake in these atrocoties and how others stood by. I am just suggestion you look at the incidents where people decide to stand by, look away or take part.

Since it is less controversial, look at bullying behavior in school. Usually there are only a couple of bullies. But they surround themselves with people they get to take part in the bullying, then you have the majority who does nothing (happy that they are not the target of the bullying) and finally you have the victims of the bullies.

Again, I am not suggesting that a ten year old bully is equivalent to Hitler and I am not suggesting that a little bullying in fourth grade is equivalent to the attempt to wipe out all Jews from the face of the earth. I am merely suggesting that you look at these behaviors if you would like to understand how these things happen. The scale is in fact irrelevant when it comes down to the behavior of the indivitual.

Re #153:

hrun0815, you seem to have taken a shine to the word "sacrilege". Good for you.

Is sacrilege not the right word in this context? I thought that something sacred is something that is 'protected from violation or abuse by custom, law, or feelings of reverence' or something that is 'regarded with particular reverence or respect'. And a sacrilege is an 'act of disrespect or impiety toward something regarded as sacred.'

If it is not the right word, I will gladly use another term. Bear with me, though. I am still trying to learn this language.

hrun0815, mmm, yes, I get your point. Very important.

How embarrassing, and how devastating that this happened in the US. There is really nowhere safe for the Jews.

Two arrested outside Boston Holocaust gathering

yochanan #139 -

What the Stalinists claimed is irrelevant. Marx would not have recognized the Soviet system as the implementation of his theory, because it wasn't. The Congo can call itself a democratic republic - that doesn't mean it is one.

pure francis #146 -

You have your opinion, I've got mine. Nothing said on this thread has convinced me one bit as to the so-called "socialism" of the Nazi ideology.

zulubaby #157 -

"Today of all days, to have white supremacists come here from Arkansas, is most disappointing," he said. "I wish they'd go back home where they came from and bury themselves under the rocks that they crawled out from."

Good on Mitt.

These inbred mental defectives probably never even met a Jew in their misbegotten lives.

Amy (#159)

These inbred mental defectives probably never even met a Jew in their misbegotten lives.

I often say the same thing. I really believe that these lunatics have a strange idea of what and who the Jews are. They see us everywhere, that sinister conspiracy at play. It's enough to rot their brains, which is fine with me, mind you.

Blair warns Germany against developing WWII `victim culture` (Reuters)

Good advice albeit a little late.

#149 hrun0815

Well, maybe Grass noticed that all the Jews were suddenly gone, or any number of other bad things that must have been very apparent.

The way you're arguing this, the people of Iraq, who also didnt have internet, satellite dishes etc, must have thought those nasty American troops defeated their country. Sure didnt look like that to me, save for the die hards -- who had other motivations than nationalism to begin with.

Hmmm, or maybe the people of Iraq did notice that neighbors suddenly disappeared, that people had their hands chopped off and that Saddam kept promissing things they never got etc etc.

I'm not going to waste my time arguing with anyone who buys into this idiotic brainwashing theory. Anyone who lived in Germany between 1939 and 1945 and thought that the Nazis were an honest source of news was just plain stupid. Period.

#158 Amy

Nothing said on this thread has convinced me one bit as to the so-called "socialism" of the Nazi ideology.

That is because you insist on saying "socialism" when you actually mean "social democratic".

Which btw, you very eloquently proved in #114.

#151 hrun0815

Wow. It never ceases to amaze how ignorant people like yourself never give up trying to relativize the holocaust.

zulababy,

I really don't think there's much point arguing with these people, it's either can't get it or don't want to get it. Either which way, I'll go and play on another thread.

Re #162:

The way you're arguing this, the people of Iraq, who also didnt have internet, satellite dishes etc, must have thought those nasty American troops defeated their country. Sure didnt look like that to me, save for the die hards -- who had other motivations than nationalism to begin with.

Seems to me that Iraq is pretty divided between calling the US troops liberators or occupiers. Also, obviously, in Iraq a minority was actively opressing a large majority... so the repressed majority will more likely think of any troops getting rid of the opressors as liberators. In Germany the situation was reversed... the majority was killing the minorities.

Anyone who lived in Germany between 1939 and 1945 and thought that the Nazis were an honest source of news was just plain stupid. Period.

That may be true. I'm sure that you, as a smart and perceptive eleven year old would have realized in 1939 that everything your parents, your teachers and the media has been telling you, was nothing but a big lie. You would have then immediately joined the resistance as an eleven year old and hailed the allied forces as liberators. Very good.

In one way you are of course right, anybody who thinks that during wartime the government is a good source of the truth is just plain stupid... NAZIs not excluded.

Finally, I said it before and I will say it again. Anybody who ends their statements with 'period' does abviously not have enough arguments to back up their assertions. PERIOD.

pure francis, cut your losses. It's a waste of time. See you elsewhere.

hrun0815, read Hitler's Willing Executioners. Get back to me when you have. Toodleoo.

Re #168:

hrun0815, read Hitler's Willing Executioners. Get back to me when you have. Toodleoo.

Zulubaby, both you and I know that that would be a waste of time for me. If your well written arguments have failed to convince me, then why would Goldhagen convince me?

Somebody asked how so many Germans were able to stand by silently or actively participate. I suggested that this might be actually a common behavior, regardless of the scope of the events. People tend to join the winning forces and do a lot of things to stay on that side to not become like the victims.

This explanation gets rejected, of course, since due to the uniqueness of the Holocaust there must also be a unique process behind it.

Maybe, you or others can enlighten me. What is this force. Is it that Germans were genetically evil, so that even German children had an actively will to persecute Jews? Is it the German culture that has this inherent evil? Obviously, from many of the comments here about Germans, whatever the cause, it is still present in Germans/Germany, so it should be easy to identify.

Of course one thing that makes it difficult to explain the Holocaust on a unique trait of Germans or the German culture is the fact that Germans found so many willing helpers in foreign countries and different cultures.

In any case, all the rhetoric aside, I truly would like to know why do you think that so many Germans were able to stand by silently or actively participate in the Holocaust.

#169 hrun0815
"People tend to join the winning forces and do a lot of things to stay on that side to not become like the victims."

That is one aspect of human nature; but it is not enough to explain the hate that drives people, nor is it enough to explain the lies and misinformation that foments the hate.

Look at the post-Holocaust anti-semitic sentiment today in Europe, which expresses itself against the Jewish state. In a poll taken in Europe, people were asked what state is a danger to world peace. The most common answer in the poll was that Israel is a danger to world peace. In other words, to the extent that this measures threats to world peace, it is Israel that is the greatest threat to world peace. And there is in Europe a great hostility to Israel, which is related to an opposition against the right of Jews to defend themselves. It is also related to a hostility toward the US. There is also a Holocaust inversion sentiment in Europe, that describes the Jewish state as the new Nazi entity, and the Jews of that state as the new Nazis. And our president is described as the new Hitler, and slanders are developed that purport that he is responsible for planning 9/11. The lies and hatred are mind-boggling to me.

I find it difficult to see how the lies and misinformation about the Jewish state, and the hatred toward it, as well as the lies and resentment and hostility toward the US, and especially hostility toward our president (an irrational hostility known as Bush Derangement Syndrome), derive simply from a desire "to join the winning forces". It seems to me that there is more of a pathology that drives the lies and hate than a desire simply "to join the winning forces". Don't you agree?

#157 Zulubaby:

The American Pravda (Associated Press) had it so that the Communists were not mentioned (they were simply "activists," but the Boston Herald had some captions mentioning Communist sympathizers among the crowds). The Globe Jr. (Boston Metro) had it on its front page also calling them "anti-Nazi" activists. And to say that circulation in newspapers is not going down due to bias...

I say let them both beat each other bloody. Darwinism will take care of itself...

Re #170:

That is one aspect of human nature; but it is not enough to explain the hate that drives people, nor is it enough to explain the lies and misinformation that foments the hate.

I totally agree, it really does not explain at all where the hate comes from or how things get started. All it does is to potentially give an insight into what happens when the proverbial excrement has hit the fan. So, this in no way was thought to explain in any way where anti-American or anti-Semitic sentiment in Europe comes from-- just like it was not meant to explain where the desire of a bully comes from to tease other kids.

Yankee Yankee Zulu (#171)

I say let them both beat each other bloody. Darwinism will take care of itself...

I'm with you on that. Problem is, they keep breeding.

#169 hrun0815 -

This explanation gets rejected, of course, since due to the uniqueness of the Holocaust there must also be a unique process behind it. Maybe, you or others can enlighten me. What is this force[?]

Infallacy in crime. Kill the Jews, and all the world will applaud and let you do anything.

On the other hand, kill the Cossacks or the Tutsis, and outside the reach of your power you will still be seen as a criminal.

Re #174:

Infallacy in crime. Kill the Jews, and all the world will applaud and let you do anything.

Leo, unfortunately, I do not understand your term "infallacy in crime". A quick look on google shows that you used this term previously and explained it thusly:

[...] by sacrificing the Jews the Nazis would have won global infallacy in crime. This is a dangerous cultural by-product of the murder which did not emerge from genocides that were driven by materialistic interests rather than by the spirit of human sacrifice. And the mundane genocides did not leave death cults which continue independently even after the actual death camps were long dismantled, but the Holocaust did.

So, the uniqueness comes from the fact that the Jews were seen as 'human sacrifice'? Sacrifice for who/what? A sacrifice implies that something is given to a higher being/deity or that something is given up at a loss for the giver. I do not understand how you think the extermination of the Jews would qualify.

Also, do you have any idea where this unique reaction of people towards the indiscriminate killings of Jews would come from? Is there and inborn or learned mechanism that makes people look away or participate as soon as Jews are being killed, yet step in and oppose when other people are killed indiscriminately? Is it indeed unique to the killing of Jews or would the 'infallacy of crime' also apply to the killing of the Sinti and Roma or even to the killing of the metally handicapped during the third reich?

Infallcy in crime (Unfehlbarkeit im Verbrechen) is taken from an essay by Stanilaw Lem on Jim Jones. There's no translation into English, unfortunately. The basic idea is that committing a crime that everybody agrees with enables the perpetrator to go on unopposed until everybody is dead.

Sacrifice for who/what?

It is the meaning of the word Holocaust:

As suggested by its Greek origin (holos "whole", and kaustos "burnt") the word designates an offering entirely consumed by fire, in use among the Jews and some pagan nations of antiquity. As employed in the Vulgate, it corresponds to two Hebrew terms: (1) to holah, literally: "that which goes up", either to the altar to be sacrificed, or to heaven in the sacrificial flame; (2) Kalil, literally: "entire", "perfect", which, as a sacrificial term, is usually a descriptive synonym of holah, and denotes an offering consumed wholly on the altar. At whatever time and by whomsoever offered, holocausts were naturally regarded as the highest, because the most complete, outward expression of man's reverence to God.

It was expected that German troops would push through Russia down the Caucasus and advance in North Africa to close in on the lands of Islam from both sides while the Mufti was preaching from Berlin. Though the Holocaust was interrupted, you can still see most Muslims lying at Hitlers feet. A completed slaughter ritual might have fully convinced the Muslims that Allah was a German. I think the description as sacrifice is appropriate because the effects of the genocide on the audience were more important than its economic effects. And its always there as an implication, because unike in English, in both German and Hebrew there are no separate words for "sacrifice" and "victim."

Also, do you have any idea where this unique reaction of people towards the indiscriminate killings of Jews would come from?

America was founded as a Christian culture by individuals who had cut their ties to Europe, but Europe was collectively transformed from a barbarian culture into a Christian culture through a process of aristocrats making decisions in the name of their serfs. Though it shares Christianity with America, this is is a transformational experience Europe shares with the Islamic lands, and unfortunately this experience connects the promise of freedom from serfdom to the idea of reaching back to these barbarian roots. By killing the last Jew, all what is derived from Judaism could be stripped off and we would be barbarians again, just with modern technology instead of the clubs and sticks.

Re #176: So I understand a little better why the term Holocaust is applied. And from the side of the Jews it is understandable that it would be termed sacrifice (since this can also be equivalent to being a victim).

However, it sounds like the perpetrators of the holocaust saw the action as sacrifice as well. What information suggests that indeed Hitler wanted the holocaust not as a way to get rid of Jews which he and others saw as a subclass of human beings but rather as an offering/sacrifice?

I think the description as sacrifice is appropriate because the effects of the genocide on the audience were more important than its economic effects.

Hmm, but the audience was kept away from the genocide/sacrifice as much as possible. The killing of the Jews was not celebrated in public for an audience. It was done as efficiently as possible, away from the media and the general population in camps. Shouldn't a sacrifice for an audience have a much more public component?

hough it shares Christianity with America, this is is a transformational experience Europe shares with the Islamic lands, and unfortunately this experience connects the promise of freedom from serfdom to the idea of reaching back to these barbarian roots. By killing the last Jew, all what is derived from Judaism could be stripped off and we would be barbarians again, just with modern technology instead of the clubs and sticks.

That doesn't make much sense to me. Why would the barbarians that were converted to Christianity decide to revert back to barbarians by erradicating Judaism. Why would't they unleash their violence against Christianity?

The death camps were established in the hinterlands of the war against Russia to conceal them from the West, but the target audience was largely in Islamic lands that German troops would reach via Russia. And Mufti al-Husseini had his own radio station, his own volunteer bataillons in the Balkans, his close friendship with top Nazi leaders and went back to the Islamic lands after WWII... see Islamic antisemitism and its Nazi roots

Why would the barbarians that were converted to Christianity decide to revert back to barbarians by erradicating Judaism. Why would't they unleash their violence against Christianity?

Too often Christianity would rather become a part of this suicidal tendency than stand against it. Even today too many Christians resent the Jews for what is perceived as their sacrifice of Christ to Pontius Pilate. Never mind that Pilate anyways was a Saddam of his time. As Christianity is a generalization of Judaism, this Mel Gibson interpretation bites the hand that feeds it spiritually, but nevertheless it's there.

“A lot of Germans are tired of hearing May 8 called a day of ‘liberation’,” Voigt told Reuters, criticizing the anti-fascists as intolerant. “Almost every German has relatives expelled from the east or a grandfather who was killed. We’re here to mourn the millions of Germans killed in the war.”

Reminds me of the rhetoric about Iraq being an "occupation" rather than a liberation.