Today marks 100 years since Hitler assumed the leadership of the National Socialist German Workers Party, better known as the Nazis, giving rise to millions of debating points accusing anyone right of centre of being a "Nazi".

We've had plenty of arguments on this forum about whether he was a socialist or not, and no arguments that he wasn't evil, so at least we an agree on something.

In this article Larry Reed makes a very persuasive case that Hitler was a socialist http://fee.org/articles/what-the-nazis-had-in-common-with-every-other-collectivist-regime-in-the-20th-century/.

"Ask yourself this: Does the following statement sound like something a socialist would say or something a free-market, capitalist advocate would espouse?

'The good of the community takes priority over that of the individual. But the State should retain control; every owner should feel himself to be an agent of the State; it is his duty not to misuse his possessions to the detriment of the State or the interests of his fellow countrymen. That is the overriding point. The Third Reich will always retain the right to control property owners.'"

A good point, which then led me to think about how our politicians, both left and right, whatever that means under the current disposition, have a remarkably similar attitude when it comes to pandemic control. Businesses have certainly been expected to be agents of the state.

I'm particularly alarmed by the idea that control might go beyond where it is now to suggest that if you haven't been vaccinated, then you will be the only ones who have to lockdown.

Socialism seems to mutate more than the virus, infecting without differentiating between "left" and "right".

We can learn from the period of history at how
Adolf Hitler rose to power. This history holds
important lessons on the rise of Nazism in
Germany and how similar excesses can be prevented
in the future for us here in this country.

Once a fascist group obtains political power it can be
difficult to displace.

Voters need to steer clear from
political groups that are not committed to democratic
processes or have radically motivated agendas.

Politicians sharing power in their own party, or in
other parties can be dangerous. Politicians of the
center right and the center left may see each other
as historical opponents but they should be allied in
fighting extremists on either side.

Hitler's ascent involved conservative politicians sharing
power with an extremist party and being outmanoeuvred,
quickly falling in line when the new regime had
cemented its power.

In our troubled times and the rising of political extremism
around the world we can learn from the lessons of the past.

cont'd ...

There's more at the following link:

http://www.thecoversation.com/understanding-how-hitler-became-german-helps-us-deal-with-modern-day-extremists-118516

Excuse my typo. Here's the link again:

http://www.theconversation.com/understanding-how-hitler-became-german-helps-us-deal-with-modern-day-extremists-118516

Of course Hitler was a socialist; but we live in a country where some people think the Liberal party is conservative, ignoring the fact that 'liberal' actually applies to the left.

The interesting thing about it being 100 years since Hitler is that it neatly fits the 'once in a hundred years' theory of events. We now have another thuggish dictator and would be world leader in Xi Jinping.

The Liberal Party in Australia cannot be compared
to the Liberals in the US. They are totally different.

What a load of rubbish! The only thing the Nazi's had going for them as far as "socialism" was concerned, was in their name. Hitler came to power with the backing of the political conservatives, and with the approval of German Capitalism, the military, and with the blessing of conservative Christian church leaders. Once in power Hitler went about disbanding other political parties, and murdering any left wing political opposition, including trade unionists and academics, alone with Jews and other undesirables. Throughout the war Capitalism was the driving force behind German war production. The Nazi's could have called their party, The German Peoples Freedom Party, just as apt.

What many Australians don't know is that Robert Menzies, the founder of the Liberal Party, having been of eligible age and a supporter of Australia's involvement in World War One, had dodged service himself. Menzies had a pathological hatred of Communalism, and with the communists at their zenith in Australia in the 1930's, Menzies seen Fascism as a safe bulwark against the communists. Following a two week official visit to Nazi Germany in 1938, disappointed not to have met the Fuhrer personally, Menzies returned with glowing reports of the success of Nazism in Germany. With the outbreak of war Menzies was seen as an appeaser and was kicked out of office.

If Hitler was a socialist why were his first acts to ban Trade Unions and jail Communists?

The socialist part of the party name came from the Nazi Party predecessor - "The National Socialist German Workers’ Party".

The Nazis were popular with most voters because they acted against the left, not because they were part of it and that's why he was initially supported by various world leaders.

Instead of controlling the means of production or redistributing wealth to build a Utopian society, the Nazis focused on safeguarding a social and racial hierarchy.

Hi rache,

Glad I'm not the only one to know the truth. Hitler's rise to power was arranged by the German National People's (Conservative) Party leader Franz Von Papan, the German equivalent to Australia's 'Pig Iron' Bob Menzies. It was Van Papan who brokered a deal with President Hindenburg to appoint Hitler Reich Chancellor under emergency powers.

Hitler was perceived a lot differently in 1930's Australia than he is today. For many Australians, particularly conservatives, Hitler and Mussolini with their brand of Fascism were seen as saviours from the great economic and social hardships of the times. The conservative side of politics had a genuine fear of Soviet Union style utopian Communism which was also perceived far differently by many ordinary Australians than communism is today. It was not out of place in Australian society then to say; "Hitler is doing a great job in Germany, Australia needs an Adolf Hitler", or for another to say much the same about Joseph Salin, these tyrants had lots of so called moderate supporters in Australia. The events of 1939 seen Australia's "Swastika Mob" as my Old Man would say, disappear up their own arses, including Robert Menzies.

The Old Man was a Langite, a great supporter of Jack Lang, believing Lang was the greatest Politian never to be Prime Minister. I admire Lang, and have read everything I can about the 'Big Fella', as I have about 'Pig Iron' Bob.

The National Socialists did what all Socialists do.

Despite their claims that they promote peace, equality and liberty, socialists/Nazis have been in the vanguard of violence, demonising anyone who disagrees with them and, where possible, suppressing human rights. Far from being advocates of social reform and advanced thinking, socialists/Nazis - whatever you want to call them - invariably embrace a statism in which individuals have neither freedom nor peace.

*Socialists confuse equality with sameness.
*Socialism was a reaction to the enlightenment, a counter-movement based on an ideology that scorns rational thinking.
*Socialism mangles history and truth in any way that fits a Marxist/Nazi mould.
*Socialism is riddled with contradictions.
*Socialism brought about the ruination of Sumaria four thousand years ago, and it has been doing the same ever since to societies stupid enough not to learn from the past.

Another person who doesn't know anything about National Socialism is leading plonker, lawyer, and failed Green candidate, Julian Burnside.

Burnside has tweeted likening Israelis to Nazis, absurdly saying that their treatment of Palestinians looks like the Holocaust.

Burnside, Greens, Socialists, Nazis - all the same.

When Hitler formed the NSDAP it was but one of an estimated 300 political parties throughout Germany, each with a differing view as to how to address the problems besetting the defeated nation. A plurality were communist although Comintern was to bring end to intern communist bickering over the next 5 years.

Hitler only attended the original DAP meeting (which set him on a political coarse) on assignment from the Wiemar state to keep an eye on the revolutionary groups. So perhaps the lesson in Australia is that authorities stop secretly monitoring the right wing groups lest one of their number become radicalised. :)

Whether the Nazis were socialist or not depends on your definition of the term. Clearly before 1939 they were socialist according to the understanding of the term at the time. After the war, the term had to be redefined to salvage it from association the Nazis. The same process had to happen later to save the term communist from association with Stalin. Most of the anxiously gullible fell for the redefinition.

As I pointed out in a previous thread, there was little difference between the Nazis and the communists such that members could easily move between the two groups without really changing their view - just their uniforms. The same thing happened in 1945 when previous Nazis joined the east German communist groups without any real change of ideology.

The attraction toward authoritarianism during times of crisis is, it seems, universal across time and place. Even here, even among those who profess love of freedom and the individual such as those in our Liberal governments, the self-inflicted covid crisis has led to a lurch to authoritarianism. They started off assuring us that there would be no vaccine mandate, but as it became clear that a significant minority didn't buy their vaccine promises, they've tended toward coercion. And we've seen that in democracies throughout the world.

From the article provided by Graham.

"The good of the community takes priority over that of the individual. But the State should retain control; every owner should feel himself to be an agent of the State; it is his duty not to misuse his possessions to the detriment of the State or the interests of his fellow countrymen. That is the overriding point. The Third Reich will always retain the right to control property owners." (Adolf Hitler, 1931)

Not even halfwits would deny that that is Socialism, but it's obvious that a couple of people here are sub-halfwits.

Quoting from Britannica:

"To say that Hitler understood the value of language
would be an enormous understatement. Propaganda played
a significant role in his rise to power. To that end, he
paid lip service to the tenets suggested by a name like
National Socialist German Workers' Party, but Hitler's
primary - indeed, his sole focus, was on achieving power
whatever the cost, and advancing his racist, anti-Semitic
agenda."

There's more at the following:

http://britannica.com/story/were-the-nazis-socialists

Oh, so the famously left leaning Encyclopedia Britannica says the Nazis weren't of the left.

Well I'm sure that will convince those who prefer to be told comforting fairy-tales as opposed to doing the leg work.

Read the history and avoid the middle man.

mhaze,

The left leaning Britannica?

Really?

Goodness me.

And Hitler was a socialist?

And you claim to do your research.

Try again - you're embarrasing yourself.

And if you don't like Britannica - there are other sources
not all of them left leaning. (LOL).

cont'd ...

I suppose that Donald Trump was/is a socialist as well?

Hi Foxy,

Yes, to people like mhaze who still believe there are communists under every bed, even Mills & Boon novels are seen as radical subversive commie propaganda.

Hi ttbn,

You say; "Burnside, Greens, Socialists, Nazis - all the same." were you not a member of the Banana Nazi's just a short while back. There is evidence the Liberal Party was started by a Nazi sympathiser in 'Pig Iron' Bob Menzies, and PM for many years. Just as there is evidence that Nazi's fleeing Eastern Europe to Australia joined the Liberal Party post WWII. They were very influential, having several members of their 'Ugly Faction' elected to the NSW parliament, and at least one to the Federal Parliament, under the Liberal Party banner.

Neo-Nazi's tried to join the 'Young Nationals' recently, the National Party could not guarantee that all had been expelled. Such people may be handing out HTV's at the next election for the Nationals. One Nation, now there is fertile ground for the extreme right.

In a sense all mass government could be said to be concerned with the interests of all in society or the many- Aristotle said that a good sovereign acted acts in the interest of all. Which could be said to be based on a principle similar to "from those with ability to those with need".

Compared with a european monarchy based on hierarchy of loyal and capable aristocratic families the benefits of achievements flowing down often inefficiently from the monarch (not that the benefits necessarily flow efficiently in other societies). Upward social movement between levels occurs over many generations- although downward movement can be fairly sudden. A balance between the levels is carefully managed by the monarch in order to prevent rebellion, weakness, destruction of the kingdom.

It's interesting to study primogeniture and village communities from the 1000's in the British Isles.

Aristotle warned of a tyranny of the masses. Locke believed that a tyranny of the masses could be used to create a fairer society- but all forms of mass society create gaps- some so large that millions fall into them. Hobbes believed that conflict was inevitable. All government creates some balance between tyranny and freedom. Sometimes utilitarianism is used- this is the basis of democracy- in modern society utilitarianism has taken a real beating in favour of arbitrary intersectionalism. Modern government is a complex interaction of principles.

There had been movement of Hebrew peoples from Russian cleansing after it annexed parts of the Lithuanian-Polish Empire in 1890 into German Prussia- Hitler from memory identified with Prussia from his war service- Hitler came from Austria which saw changes when the Austro-Hungarian Empire fell apart. Hitler perhaps saw a problem that needed to be fixed- he had seen the horrors of WWI which Britain was insulated.

This is interesting...

http://www.huffpost.com/entry/expulsion-germans-forced-migration_b_1625437

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_cleansing_campaigns

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pale_of_Settlement

Prussia lost much of it's territory after WWI from memory. France for example had a fairly small Hebrew population in 1890. Spain/ Britain had expelled Hebrew peoples in the 1500's or earlier from memory.

There were some complaints by local diaspora's over the Hebrew influence over local sovereign's perhaps during the 1800's- and there was some conflict with the Hebrew's- sadly they didn't really have anywhere to go to. This conflict is mentioned in Shakespeare's Merchant Of Venice. Britain lobbied for a Hebrew homeland after WWII sadly many Muslims were dislocated.

Hebrew's lost their dominated territory in Judea after the 70AD Roman confrontation. Perhaps because of the Roman difficulty in extracting the Hebrews from Judea the lesson was passed on to the Holy Roman Empire based in Germany. It's surprising that the Hebrew's survived the Roman's- perhaps it was only due to the empires fragmentation that they did.

Good point mhaze- "Whether the Nazis were socialist or not depends on your definition of the term. Clearly before 1939 they were socialist according to the understanding of the term at the time. After the war, the term had to be redefined to salvage it from association the Nazis. The same process had to happen later to save the term communist from association with Stalin. "

Perhaps Hitler was an Ethnic Socialist, Stalin a National Socialist, and Trotsky a Global Socialist. Trotsky certainly didn't seem to prioritize the starvation of the russian peasants.

From Graham- "The good of the community takes priority over that of the individual. But the State should retain control; every owner should feel himself to be an agent of the State; it is his duty not to misuse his possessions to the detriment of the State or the interests of his fellow countrymen. That is the overriding point. The Third Reich will always retain the right to control property owners." (Adolf Hitler, 1931)

It's perhaps a balance between the levels of the social hierarchy.

Paul1405- "German National People's (Conservative) Party"

People's parties are mostly Communist- but I'd have to check in this case.

Often politics is about power

The only thing some have to hang their coat on with their Nazi ideology is the word "Socialists" is in the name.

"Instead of controlling the means of production or redistributing wealth to build a utopian society, the Nazis focused on safeguarding a social and racial hierarchy. They promised solidarity for members of the Volksgemeinschaft (“racial community”) even as they denied rights to those outside the charmed circle."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/02/05/right-needs-stop-falsely-claiming-that-nazis-were-socialists/

The racial aspect of Nazis can been seen on this Forum, just read some of the posts from our beloved extreme right members whenever the topic of Aboriginals is raised.

Foxy,
it seems to me that if you're going to abjure reading actual history and instead rely on others to filter it for you, then it would be wise to know the leanings of those you rely on to do the filtering. You ask incredulously "The left leaning Britannica?"

Failing to understand the leanings of those you rely on to tell you what to think inevitably leads to the garden path.

"there are other sources
not all of them left leaning. (LOL)."

Is that a nervous laugh?
Yes there are plenty of other sources. I'd recommend you read Shirer (Rise and Fall of the Third Reich), Bullock (Hitler: A Study in Tyranny and/or Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives) or AJP Taylor (Origins of the Second World War). Read these not for the opinions of the authors but the information contained therein.

You could also read the originating documents of the Nazis in 1920 - the so-called 25 points. You could also read the actual words of Hitler and his lieutenants.

Or you could simply continue to seek out those who'll tell you what you want to hear, without regard to their bias.

Paul

writes:"mhaze who still believe there are communists under every bed"

When you don't have the wherewithal to argue my actual views, then make them up and then ridicule the fiction. Standard Paul there.

Calum ...

wondered about Paul's assertions about von Papen. Paul claimed "Hitler's rise to power was arranged by the German National People's (Conservative) Party leader Franz Von Papan,". As with most of Paul's historic knowledge, that's rubbish. von Papen was never a member of the NSVP let alone its leader.
While its true that von Papen was intimately involved in the mechanics behind Hitler becoming Chancellor, the main factor was simply that the Nazis were the largest party in the Reichstag, though never a majority.

mhaze,

William L. Shirer's "The Rise and Fall of the
Third Reich, Speer's "Inside the Third Reich,"
Ron Rosebaum's "Explaining Hitler," have been
part of my own library collection for decades.
( Modern History was one of my majors for my
undergraduate degree). I'd recommend you get a
hold of Ron Rosenbaum's "Explaining Hitler."
It's quite a revelation. Also Robert Conquest
does a great job on comparing Hitler and Stalin.

Do try to do your research in the future before posting
if you want a response. Otherwise I'll go back to not reading
your posts - and not taking you seriously.
As I stated earlier - you are becoming an
embarrasment.

cont'd ...

As for the statement of Encyclopedia Britannica
being left-leaning?

Britannica is the oldest English language general
encyclopedia, first published in 1768 in Edinburgh,
Scotland.

Since its founding the encyclopedia has relied on
both outside experts and its own editors with various
subject area expertise to write its entries.

These entries are then fact-checked, edited, and
copy-edited. A process intended to ensure that the
articles meet Britannica's long held standards of
readability and accuracy. Moreover that same team
of editors regularly revise and update existing
articles.

I've worked in various libraries and Britannica has
always been regarded as an English language reference
work. A reputable one. I have never heard of it ever
being described as "left leaning." Still who says
we can't learn something new on this forum?

Foxy,

I've read Shirer (twice). It covers the issue at hand. I don't know how you could have read it and still think Hitler wasn't socialist.

I've read Speer. It doesn't cover the issue at hand so completely irrelevant as regards Hitler's socialism.

I've read Rosenbaum. I don't recall it discussing this issue. Perhaps you can tell me where it does so. I've still got it in my Kindle library so I can look it up after you point me in the right direction.

I read pretty much all of Conquests books. I don't recall him discussing this issue either. Again perhaps you could give a pointer where he does so.

You write: "Do try to do your research in the future..."

I've done my research. Indeed in this thread on this issue I'm the only one bringing forth facts, unlike those who just do a quick Google search trying to find someone who'll tell them what they want to hear.

"Otherwise I'll go back to not reading
your posts -"

Oh no! However will I cope?

As to the Encyclopedia Britannica, as compared to most (eg Wikipedia) it's pretty good. If I want to find out the mating habits of the red-throated warbler, that's where I'd go. But on issues of political controversy, it's always going to come down on the left side. Not as left leaning as Wikipedia, but in that direction

Good work mhaze- Kudos.

Well this is a rather confusing post to respond to.

Were the NAZIs originally socialist and did that inform a reasonable amount of their manifesto? Of course. But it is also clearly evident that much of the said manifesto or 25 points was primarily employed in furthering toxic nationalism and their hatred of Jews.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Program

As such it is puerile to be attempting to make the case that the NAZIs were any kind of flag bearer for Socialism. Read the 25 points. What most utterly pervades the manifesto is the kind of deep corrosive nationalism we have recently seen employed by Trump.

Another example might be to claim they supported democracy due to point 6 which states: The right of voting on the state's government and legislation is to be enjoyed by the citizen of the state alone. We demand therefore that all official appointments, of whatever kind, shall be granted to citizens of the state alone.

But of course as soon as they got the chance they abolished elections.

The NAZIs were Jewish hating fascists through and through. The deprivations caused by brutal reparations sowed the seeds for their support within the Germany. Without it they would have likely remained some fringe party like One Nation. What they did was adroitly use the vehicles of socialism, nationalism and antisemitism to gain power.

Why fixate on one?

Good Work Steele, Kudos!

Yes SR I completely agree.

The Nazis were socialist but not solely socialist. They were nationalist but not solely nationalist. They were racist but not solely racist.

"The NAZIs were Jewish hating fascists through and through."

Well I wouldn't go that far, but they were fascists....and fascists were socialists. Heh, SR you're on a roll here.

"As such it is puerile to be attempting to make the case that the NAZIs were any kind of flag bearer for Socialism."

Completely agree....who said that?

Foxy,

wrote:"Good Work Steele, Kudos!"
Oh dear Canem Malum...looks like you got under her skin.

So Foxy, you were very happy to purport to have read widely and have special knowledge on the issue based on your research which you accused me of not having done. But once you were asked to be specific about your assertions (a claim without evidence) you suddenly disappear. Its what I expected but it's still interesting.

So Foxy, you claimed that Rosenbaum in "Explaining Hitler" and Conquest somewhere wrote about the issue at hand. Are you going to show me where? We both know the answer, don't we?

Dear mhaze,

You write: “Well I wouldn't go that far, but they were fascists....and fascists were socialists.”

Really? Here we go again. By what measure do you deem fascists as socialists?

“Fascism opposed class conflict and the egalitarian and international character of mainstream socialism, but sometimes sought to establish itself as an alternative "national socialism". It strongly opposed liberalism, communism, anarchism, and democratic socialism.”
Wikipedia

I think the last is the most telling.

This habit of yours of finding the smallest crack to launch yourself through is getting a little tiring. Were there some socialist elements to the dictators who lorded over fascist regimes? Of course, about as much as the KKK are a Christian organisation, which they are. Yet if I were to frame the Christian movement by the actions of the KKK you would be the first to call foul.

As to: “who said that?” I think you will find Graham did, or at least drove for it in his post.

Dear Foxy,

Thank you. I have in my extended family a German immigrant who lived in Berlin during the war as a child. He tells me that one of the popular things Hitler did was to cap the amount of profit a business could make either at wholesale or retail. Though obviously targeting Jews for a people struggling under reparations this was manna.

He listened to Hitler on the radio live and raised the similarities with Trump well before the last election and was a lot more concerned about him than I, this was despite his strong born-again Christian beliefs.

Dear Steele,

My parents lived in Germany during the war.
I have two brothers born
there. One died during the war. Once again
Thank You for setting the record straight
and for your well reasoned postings. I have
decided to be more selective in whose posts
I read and respond to. I admire your patience
though.

I have heard this all before e.g. Peter van O. claiming the Nazis were socialist (due to nominative determinism); no, simply because socialist was a misleading descriptor. Meanwhile, the Nazi's pre WWII obsession and sworn enemy was Soviet socialism or communism yet now Russia is held up by many conservatives as a shining example of Christian conservatism and family values.....

Further, in addition to the Nazis having much German business support from sole through SME to big business, also included some US subsidiaries i.e. Ford, GM, IBM, Standard Oil etc. for whom a state controlled economy was nirvana e.g. precluding significant competition and also opening up opportunities.

Like the latter, how often do we see Australian corporates or sectors, whether public co. or otherwise, refuse socialist state subsidies or indirect support e.g. via influenced policies? Never....

mhaze- You did the work mate. I merely waved the pom poms. Foxy is just a vanilla ideologue- just needs to open her mind a little- most of us have been where she is- blind spots.

The central tenet of socialism is the control/ownership of the means of production. As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer.

While many industries were privately owned and run, the state largely directed who was hired, what was produced, and the profit that the company could make.

Canem Malum re Foxy.

What I find fascinating about Foxy is her blatant fabrication. She clearly has no understanding or depth of knowledge about the issue but tries to pretend otherwise. She does a quick search and finds reference to a few books which she hopes to pass off as being the basis of her 'research' and then, having this pretend research, she then tries to claim a superiority of knowledge.

The fact however is that she just made all this 'research' up.

Unfortunately for her, I'm quite familiar with all the books she found on her 10 minute internet 'research' and know that her claims were rubbish and therefore her claims to have studied those books was equally rubbish.

We've been here before and her usual process is to now claim she doesn't want to discuss it any longer. A better person would own up but alas....

mhaze- I can relate to your fascination.

I don't have an issue with Foxy having an opinion or view based on a quick search even one that is different than mine. But it's not "the truth". Is this what people do talking in the imperative- maybe there's a word for it.

There are always going to be people that know more about something than myself- I'm still entitled to my opinion.

When it's an issue of tradition then people can choose to associate with people and create communities that are consistent with the principles of that tradition and bring up their children in the same.

It seems obvious that mediocrity and tyranny and conflict results if there isn't some management of the complexity and borders between philosophies. The philosophies are created in order to create stability- if the borders are broken down it can result in fear. And there are valid reasons for this fear.

At some point you have to question whether certain philosophies belong within a superset- and it may be necessary to separate the interests of the superset and the subset- so that both groups can develop in a way that ensures their own self determination without being destroyed.

This is known as Cultural Relativism- supposedly part of Postmodern Deconstructivism- but I think it's the solutions that I disagree with not the observation so much.

________

It seems that certain people believe that they are entitled to lie and cheat because others are more powerful than themselves and would hurt them otherwise. It might actually be valid in a sense- but it seems that sometimes it just undermines a relationship that would have been ok if it wasn't for their own insecurity.

I've brought the Hierarchy of Disagreement up a few times which outlines how to disagree constructively.

I don't think we will ever feel warm and fuzzy talking with Foxy- that's not what we are trying to achieve here. We aren't looking for Foxy's approval.

Sometimes it's helpful to poke the bear.

I've enjoyed your comments mhaze. Thanks again

Hi Foxy,

The village idiots are talking to each other about you, such flattery! Of course they beat their own drum, claiming to be super brains themselves. As I said, the village idiots.

Dear mhaze,

Geez mate, you comprehension levels are even weaker than your usual poor standard. Foxy has every right to put you on the cooler for a while.

Both the original post and Foxy's discussed whether Hitler was a socialist.

You mince in with “Oh, so the famously left leaning Encyclopedia Britannica says the Nazis weren't of the left.”

The discussion was about HITLER but you surreptitiously swung it to the NAZIS and the most substantive part of your counter argument was to raise their 25 points.

These were borrowed, so hardly originating from deep conviction on behalf of Hitler at all.

“The 25-point Program was a German adaptation — by Anton Drexler, Adolf Hitler, Gottfried Feder and Dietrich Eckart — of Rudolf Jung's Austro–Bohemian program. Unlike the Austrians, the Germans did not claim to be either liberal or democratic and opposed neither political reaction nor the aristocracy, yet advocated democratic institutions (i.e. the German central parliament) and voting rights solely for Germans — implying that a Nazi government would retain popular suffrage.
Wikipedia

And here you are decrying Foxy's apparent lack of further evidence while you list various books you have studiously read on the topic but can't furnish a single quote or idea from even one of them.

For you to claim: “I'm the only one bringing forth facts” when you are doing nothing of the sort is both childish and pathetic.

The only quote offered was Foxy's from Britannia. Absolutely nothing from you. Put up or put a cork in it.

Dear Paul and Steele,

Thank You both.

William Shirer wrote in "The Rise and Fall of the
Third Reich," :

"The party had to play both sides of the tracks."

"It had to allow Goebbels (and other propagandists)
to beguile the masses with the cry that the
National Socialists were truly socialists and against
the money barons. On the other hand, money to keep
the party going had to be wheeled out of those
who had an ample supply of it."
And there's much more in Shirer's
book which totally supports
what was given in Britannica.

" Hitler took a ragtag, worker's party in the 1920s and
built it up with nationalistic, militarist, and racist
rhetoric... With a baffling mix of idealism and
torchlight parades Hitler seized absolute control of a
wounded Germany. The Nazi party made socialist noises while
it cozied up to German industrialists."

Oh good, I'm please to see that Foxy's usual defenders have come out to defend her fabrications. I was beginning to feel a little sorry for her that she'd been abandoned.

SR wants quotes to prove the case that the Nazis were socialists as that term was understood pre-war. That's how SR thinks...summarise a massively complex issue into a sentence that he can then parse to death. But, unfortunately for poor old SR, it doesn't work that way. You really do have to read widely to understand what socialism meant pre-war and how the Nazis saw themselves and how others saw them.

So what to do when you need to go beyond the 10 minute 'research'. You go to PleaseTellMeWhatIWantToHear.com and pretend to have achieve enlightenment.

Not that any of you are going to do it, but if you were concerned to find out more you'd need to read whole books (oh no!) or at least whole chapters. eg Bullock's 'Hitler:a study in tyranny'. Read the chapter's entitled 'The Years of Stuggle', 'The Years of Waiting' and 'Revolution after Power'.

From Shirer's 'Rise and Fall' read the chapters 'Birth of the Nazi Party' and 'The Nazification of Germany'. Also the chapters on the Nazi-Soviet Pact where the similarities between the two regimes are discussed.

You could also try going to the horse's mouth and reading 'My Struggle'.

Dear mhaze,

Lol.

Well mate, now you are vying with shadowminister in the lack of substance stakes.

What a load of waffle.

You chided Foxy for lack of evidence but once again you deliver a post with zero evidence whatsoever.

Instead you now say it is far too complex for you to provide any. Well bully for you mate, and why do you think you could get away with that?

Foxy provided a quote from a well respected publication which you dismissed as too far left, yet there was zip from you in the way of counter evidence. Now she has offered up another without you providing a counter. You name all these books you have supposedly digested but can't give us a single quote or substantive idea from them. Why do you think that is?

You really are all bluff aren't you.

Foxy really doesn't need any help on this, you are self destructing every post you make.

Oh dear SR, this really is too hard for you isn't it.

First on Foxy. She said that she'd read these books that supported her view. I had actually read those books and knew that her claims were rubbish, that the books didn't even address the issue let alone support her claims. I invited her to provide evidence of her claims - not quotes just pointers where the books, all of which I own, said what she said they said. She decided she didn't want to talk any longer.

She did however offer quotes from Shirer which I had told her was the place to go but which don't in the least support her claims and if read in the original rather than as selective snippets, say the exact opposite of what she hopes.

I on the other hand have provided such pointers. Now I appreciate that suggesting you read whole books or even whole chapters is a bridge too far but alas....

But just because I like to be kind to the dills try these.....

From Bullock as per above... "But in origin NAtional Socialism had been radically anti-capitalist party, and this side of the Nazi programme was not only taken seriously by many loyal Party members but was of increasing importance in a period of economic depression.
The question of how seriously Hitler took the socialist character of National Socialism, had already been raised both before and after 1923....but following the victories of 1934 there was no longer any doubt that Hitler was determined to make Germany a socialist state".

From Shirer as above....quoting Hitler "Socialism is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists."

Dear mhaze,

Well now you are getting a little defensive old boy.

So tell me just when is the forum's history has the 'go read these links or read these book, ever been acceptable to you lot?

I recall you chiding Foxy for this very thing. But now when you want to get away with it it is suddenly okay, and those who don't do as instructed are dills? That is ridiculous, incredibly hypocritical and an obvious deflection from a weak argument on your behalf.

Bluff and bluster really doesn't cut it mate so why do you do it?

If read with the even slightest critical eye most of the 25 points that could be described as having a socialist flavour have their seeds deep in substantive racist themes. For a country being flooded with Jewish refugees for decades this had obvious resonance with the German people. The fact that you can't be particularly bothered to acknowledge this is pretty typical of you.

A socialist mask hiding a deeply racist core is hardly a reason the proclaim Hitler a card carrying firm believer in socialist principles because he clearly was not, unless of course you want to lump Trump in with him.

Dear Steele,

The word "socialist" does not make either Hitler
a socialist or Nazism a socialist project.
Just as the word "democratic" does not make the
Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea)
a democracy.

SR,

"So tell me just when is the forum's history has the 'go read these links or read these book, ever been acceptable to you lot?"

It's always been acceptable as far as I'm concerned. It's especially acceptable when dealing with an extremely complex issue where the odd quote doesn't and can't cover the complexity and nuance of the issue.

"I recall you chiding Foxy for this very thing. "

Nup, never happened. Just making it up again.But I do call Foxy out when she makes claims about books she purports to have read which I know to be false.

So I reluctantly provide a few quotes from the books I'd suggested need to be read to understand the issue. Reluctant because a snippet here and there doesn't cover the complexity of the issue. But I gave the quotes anyway at the insistence of SR. SR's response? Change the subject...ignore the quotes which were previously so vital. Stand Operating Procedure for SR.

But this was my favourite part of SR's idiocy....
"For a country being flooded with Jewish refugees for decades this had obvious resonance with the German people. "

The Jews had been in Germany for centuries, millennia even. Where were these fictitious floods of refugees coming from? It's just rubbish. The antisemitism in Germany in the 1920s wasn't due to refugees. It'd been there for centuries.

I hate to say this SR, but perhaps you need to read a bit more.

Dear Steele,

Just a bit of clarification for you.

My husband and I lived and worked for close to
ten years in the US.

He worked as an architect, and I worked as a librarian
in the University Library (Edward L. Doheny) at the
University of Southern California.

During our time in the US I joined the "Book of the
Month" Club in order to build up my collection of
interesting material. I managed to acquire - Churchill's
6 volume collection of the Second World War history.
Toynbee's set of A Study of History, The Random House
Dictionary of the English Language (unabridged ed.), The
Times World Atlas, and many more - including the works
mentioned earlier by Speer, Shirer, Conquest, and others.

I resent the implication that I'm a liar and worse.
That's primarily why I no longer want to deal with a
poster who shows such disrespect and who has been proven
wrong so many times and will never admit it.

Anyway, I thought you should have a clarification.

See you on another discussion.

Dear mhaze,

Bloody hell mate, try reading with a little comprehension.

In response to your quotes about the supposed anti-capitalism of the NAZIs I quite rightly pointed out that those parts of the 21 points dealing with this are steeped in racism rather than any true heart felt conviction about socialism, something that Foxy's quotes reinforce.

As to these “fictitious floods of refugees”:

From Norman Chantor's book The Sacred Chain: The History of the Jews.

“In early 1880s severe pogroms broke out in Odessa and several other cities, to be repeated in 1903 in Kishnev in the Russian province of Romania. … The czarist regime watched in sullen contempt as millions of Jews fled westward.”

I would loan you my copy but it probably wouldn't survive the post.

From another source:

“At the height of the Jewish diaspora, 600,000 Russian refugees lived in Germany in 1922/23, more than half of them in the capital Berlin. For most of these people, Germany was only a pit stop on their way further west. Five years later, in 1927, there were only 150,000 Russians still living in Germany. According to Mediendienst Integration, this was largely due to a restrictive integration policy and a lack of legal or economic support for the refugees.”
http://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/8463/a-brief-history-of-refugees-who-escaped-to-germany

This will I hope disavow you of any dismissiveness about the numbers or the impact they had.

Go learn some history mate instead of trying to Lord it over others. You are obviously quite deficient in much of what drove the rise of Hitler and the NAZIs.

Dear Foxy,

No clarification needed. With mhaze we are seeing classic Dunning–Kruger.

“The Dunning–Kruger effect is a hypothetical cognitive bias stating that people with low ability at a task overestimate their ability. ... It is related to the cognitive bias of illusory superiority and comes from people's inability to recognize their lack of ability."
Wikipedia

SR you can add the Czarist anti-semitic hoax that still has legs 'The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion'; mostly on the right including alt/far right, QAnon etc. and still informing bogus discourse and conspiracies e.g. Soros in Hungary helping Abbott's chum PM Orban (this conspiracy is both anti-semitic and Islamophobic; something for everyone).

Many Russian Jews migrated from the Pale of Settlement including to Kishinev/Chisinau (Moldova) but one guesses like the nearby city of Iasi/Jassy across the border in Romania Jews were also subjected to pogroms; historian Mazower described Jassy as the worst place in Europe to be born a Jew late 19th century.

The only leading Nazi that could be considered a 'National Socialist' was SA chief Ernst Rohm who was murdered on Hitler's orders 1st July 1934 during the purge known as the Night of the Long Knives. Rohm seen the SA as the vanguard of the "National Socialist revolution" with the Nazi's obtaining power according to Rohm the revolution was to continue to the point of an utopian German socialist state, cleansed of Jews and other undesirables. Rohm had used his SA to attack strike breakers during a time when Hitler was trying to woo the German Capitalists into believing Nazism was acting in their interest. With the removal of Rohm, big capital found Nazism far more acceptable, and threw its total support behind it.

First of all Socialism is not Marxism although that boogeyman word is used interchangeably by the Reich Wing media, like "leftist".

Basically Socialism is when taxpayers money is returned to the people in the form of services or infrastructure and not handed out as bribes, favours or paybacks to mates and cronies.
It's also when taxpayers money is used to bail out or subsidise failing corporations during financial crises or prop up unprofitable industries.
Jobkeeper was an example of socialism although it was really directed at business interests rather than the workers.

When Gerry Harvey got a '1000cm Big Screen Jobkeeper TV' from Scotty's Store he got lifetime interest free on Neverpay, and a $12 million bonus cashback. Now there's a smart shopper for you.

Just in the last week, Scotty sent a jumbo jet full of cash to QANTAS which in turn booted 2,500 workers. Cash for the struggling share holders, nothing for the workers.

Gladys is keeping Liberal Party donors shops open, whilst closing down the little battlers. She's also redirecting Pfizer vaccines from Labor areas so the children of Liberal silvertails can have protection. Hundreds of rich kids at St Josephs private school have been given the Pfizer jab already. So much for "we are all in this together" nonsense.

For God's sake SR, this is becoming embarrassing.

Sure there were refugees from Eastern Europe in the 1880's. But they didn't go to Germany. The majority went to the USA (over 2million) and a sizeable number went to the UK which ultimately instituted the so-called Alien Laws to try to stem the tide. More than a few also went to Palestine. But to Germany? Well I imagine some ended up there, but hardly enough to make a dint. In any case this all happened well before the NSDAP was formed and therefore is irrelevant in regards to this discussion, although very relevant in regards to you trying to muddy the water over your error.

And yes there were some refugees in Berlin in the mid-Weimar period. Most of them went to the USA as well. But this was in Berlin and post-dated the cementing of antisemitism in the NAZI programme, and thus is irrelevant to this issue.

Antisemitism had been strong in Germany for centuries. The so-called second wave of Jews to the USA was caused by anti-Jew riots in German territories in the mid 19th century. Anti-Jew activity had been occurring in German states since at least the 13th century. Hitler had been an anti-semite before the war while in Austria. So it didn't need a few refugees to kick it off.

Besides the NAZI beef was with the Jewish residents, the bankers, moneylenders, shop keepers, intellectuals, not with a shrinking number of refugees passing through.

You seem highly fixated on the 25 point programme as announced at the inception of the NSDAP. Those parts of that programme which relate to economic issues all point to a socialist agenda.

Its always been my experience that those who stoop to using the Duning-Kruger argument have signalled that they've lost the argument and are grasping at straws to try to salvage some degree of pride. This is another example of that.

Foxy,

You made claims about Rosebaum's book and about Robert Conquest in an attempt to give a veneer of authority to your ahistoric claims. I have Rosebaum's book having bought it in one of those 2-for-1 deals Amazon offers for Kindle books, the other book being 'The Banality of Evil', a vastly more satisfying read. Rosebaum's book is okay as far as it goes but doesn't in the least cover the issue of whether Hitler was socialist.

Nor does anything I've read of Conquest and as I explained previously, I'm pretty sure I've read all of his output.

So I invited you to show me where these books that you claimed supported your assertions did so. And you haven't because you can't because they don't. I knew that was the case as regards Rosebaum and was pretty certain about Conquest as well.

Now all of that might have been left as is. But in addition to making unsupported and unsupportable assertions, you then doubled down by trying to sanctimoniously claim that your research trumped mine.

It was at that point that you earned both barrels.

There are two areas of history that I consider myself to be extremely well read and able to hold my own with any credentialed historian - 5th and 4th century Greece and German history post 1870.

My combined hardcopy and digital library on Germany has over 100 books, many more articles in addition to a similar number on the two world wars. All read. The best annotated. I've been doing this since I was a teenager.

IF you want to argue Hitler wasn't socialist, fine. Many have. Most do so by using a modern meaning of the term rather than the meaning applying in the 20/30s. Again fine but invalid in my opinion.

But trying to assert an opinion by claiming false authority and misrepresenting evidence to do so is always wrong, never right. Then trying to use that false authority to denigrate my own research is doubly wrong. And will, as far as I'm concerned, always earn both barrels.

Dear mhaze,

You claim: “For God's sake SR, this is becoming embarrassing.”

Well you certainly got that right.

What an unseemly scramble to pull yourself out of the hole you dug for yourself.

I had said: “For a country being flooded with Jewish refugees for decades this had obvious resonance with the German people.”

You had ignorantly retorted with: “Where were these fictitious floods of refugees coming from? It's just rubbish.”

When you were rightfully mocked by me and I quoted the fact that: “At the height of the Jewish diaspora, 600,000 Russian refugees lived in Germany in 1922/23, more than half of them in the capital Berlin.” It wasn't a “a few refugees at all was it.

These were concentrated in the Berlin capital proper which then had a population of around 2 million. You are claiming that having 15% of the Berlin population made up largely by destitute but highly visible orthodox Jews from Eastern Europe for whom a portion could only survive through illegal means, who featured strongly in the ranks of the Ringvereine gangs - had no impact in driving the discontent within the German people that saw the NAZIs rise to power?

What mental gymnastics you have had to perform to do so.

Concede the point mate, you are looking silly enough right now without adding to it.

When all you've got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

SR's method of 'research' (for want of a better word) is to find a fact that he likes and then pretend that its the most important fact, indeed the only fact, that matters.

A few days ago, that 'fact' was the Nazis 25-point plan. SR had found it or stumbled across it and since it was the only thing he had, he hammered it mercilessly. But, since he wanted to argue the Nazis weren't socialist when the 25-points proved otherwise, it was problematic.

So now SR has found out about some Jewish refugees and decided they are the sole cause of Nazi racism. No evidence mind you, but when did that ever stop SR?

He talks about the nation being flooded by refugees. But in fact only Berlin was affected and even then the refugees were just passing through en route to the USA. Why Berlin? Well at the time it was a very liberal and libertarian city.

What was happening in Berlin was not of any concern to the Nazis during their formative years. Indeed the Nazis didn't even have a Berlin branch to speak of until 1926 by which time this supposed flood of refugees had largely moved on.

Additionally, the Nazi attitude to the Jew was set long before this laughable flood had materialised. The 25-point plan that SR was so excited about a few days back was written before the 'flood'.

SR 20 minute 'research' won't have shown him this, but antisemitism had a long history in Germany back to the 13th century. The Nazis were formed around Bavaria and it had a particular history being the epi-centre of the Hep-Hep riots. Hitler, in 'My Struggle', said he became antisemitic before WW1. At the very least it was just after WW1 when he was exposed to the theory that the German Army was stabbed in the back for Jewish bankers. Nothing to do with a flood of refugees.

But that's all poor old SR has, so he'll keep in hammering away at it.

Dear old mhaze,

You do know that whenever you resort to talking about me rather than to me it is generally a pretty clear sign you have conceded the point.

An indeed you have. There previously fictitious refugees are now real, but just 'passing through' according to you.

Of course there was historical anti-Jewish sentiment in Germany as there was across all of Europe, hell the main reason for such numbers of Jews in Poland and Russia was their historic expulsion from Germany and other countries, particularly during the Crusades. But so many Germany Jews had made serious inroads into assimilating within German society.

As Cantor puts it:

“The excellent German state-supported school (the gymnasium) and the state universities afforded the Jews the opportunity for deep immersion in German language, literature, philosophy and science. Of course there were tensions, particularly in the universities, where Jews were excluded from most fraternities. But that was of little social consequence. A greater obstacle was the quotas against Jewish entry into the professional schools and to academic appointments.

Yet the Jews persevered and fully internalised German literate culture. Its deep learning and rigorous academic discipline – Wissenschaft – appealed to the Jews. It was an objective body of knowledge that they could thereby master and demonstrate that they belonged as physicians, lawyers, professors, civil servants, applied scientists and poets; and it was reminiscent of the dry, systematic rationality of the Talmud.”

As Cantor succinctly reflects: “By 1900 the conversion and intermarriage among German born Jews was approaching fifty percent. If Hitler had not intervened Jewish identity in German could have very well have lapsed by the middle of the twentieth century.”

However into the mix of severe economic hardships driven by a depression and severe reparation payments came hundreds of thousands of observant but poor Jewish refugees from 'beyond the pale'.

To even contend for a moment this was not a huge factor in enabling Hitler's rise to power is to deny history. It shows a dramatic gap in your knowledge on this topic and decries any notion that these were 'fictitious refugees'.

SR,

You have no evidence that these refugees had the slightest influence on the the Nazis. Just hopes or assertions or conjecture.

This supposed 'flood' occurred only in the north. And the 'flood' continued through to the USA. It had no effect on the Nazis in the south which was their base. You haven't found a single reference from Hitler to the supposed 'flood'.

By the time Nazi fortunes started to improve in the north the supposed 'flood' had long since gone. Whatismore, if you had even a passing understanding of the Nazi political fortunes in the north you'd see that they downplayed their antisemitic policy when campaiging in the north because they weren't all that popular.

From 'The Fuhrer and the People' from a NYT article in 1932....

"It is beyond doubt that, as the party is moving toward power, the sharp edges of many of its views are becoming blunt. Even though Adolf Hitler refused to submit to cross-examination the other day on the ground that the lawyer of his opponent was a Jew his speeches no longer bristle with pointed references to the anti-Semitic cause. He lately went so far in his repudiation of racial exclusiveness as to assert in a public statement that "against honest Jews we have nothing to say."

Hitler moderated his attacks on Jews in order to get German votes in 1932. There's plenty of information about those 1932/3 political campaigns. How does that gel with your supposition (for that's all it is) that the Germans were enraged for this fictitious flood?

Looks like you'll have to go back to PleaseTellMeWhatIWantToHear.com to get some other bit of 'evidence' to prove the Nazis were socialists.

Dear mhaze,

You prattled on with: “You have no evidence that these refugees had the slightest influence on the the Nazis. Just hopes or assertions or conjecture.”

You really are a berk.

Where, in anything I have written, did I assert these refugees had any direct influence on the NAZIs, I didn't.

Hitler's deep antisemitism was derived from his Austrian experiences where Jewish entrenchment particularly in Vienna saw over 50% of the lawyers were Jewish.

I have repeatedly said the refugee influx laid fertile soil for the rise of the NAZI party in places where they would not have otherwise enjoyed that popularity.

And this rot from you:

“A few days ago, that 'fact' was the Nazis 25-point plan. SR had found it or stumbled across it and since it was the only thing he had, he hammered it mercilessly. But, since he wanted to argue the Nazis weren't socialist when the 25-points proved otherwise, it was problematic.”

Utterly moronic. You first raised the 25 points in this thread mate.

All I have done is react to something you introduced into the conversation. Do you ever review anything you write?

You specifically claimed: “The antisemitism in Germany in the 1920s wasn't due to refugees”.

I answered with the quote: “At the height of the Jewish diaspora, 600,000 Russian refugees lived in Germany in 1922/23, more than half of them in the capital Berlin.”

Now you are saying “this supposed flood of refugees had largely moved on”. No, there were still 150,000 concentrated mainly in Berlin proper. This 10% of the population was on top of the existing Jewish population and were highly visible due to their orthodox Jewish behaviour.

For you to say this had no impact on the existing levels of antisemitism it just inane. This is what heightened NAZI popularity in the north. Look at what 2% Muslim population levels has stirred up in Australia with the One Nation leader wearing a burkha into our parliament for God's sake.

Dear Steele,

Talking about a hammer and a nail...

I wonder if the skeleton in mhaze's closet
carries a hammer and a sickle?

Interesting robust discussion. I find it's often more important to understand 'why' someone says what they do rather than 'what' they say. Remember the 5W's. I probably have some questions for mhaze (and perhaps Steele Redux) but I'll need to read the posts again and make a list.

The following is interesting..

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13992-statistics
http://sites.google.com/a/makingly.club/atencade/geopolitik-karl-haushofer-und-seine-raumwissenschaft-1919-1945

There is also a certain amount of evidence as to the Jewish increase in proportion to that of adherents of other creeds. The following table is taken from Haushofer, "Lehrbuch," p. 510, and from Oettingen, "Moralstatistik."
Country. Years. Catholic. Protestant. Jews.
Austria 1851-57 8.20 5.40 19.60
" ...... 0.76 0.76 3.35
" Western 1861-70 2.86 2.86 3.08
Baden 1846-64 1.50 5.00 3.60
" 1857-63 0.85 1.06 1.04
Bavaria 1852-64 4.50 4.50 4.20
France 1861-66 0.36 1.10 2.27
Hanover 1852-64 3.30 5.00 8.60
Netherlands 1849-59 1.20 1.60 0.30
Prussia 1831-49 0.85 0.94 1.26
" 1852-64 11.40 11.10 12.90
Saxony 1854-64 27.10 15.30 68.10
Switzerland 1850-60 5.30 4.20 34.00
Württemberg 1846-64 0.20 0.40 3.40

But the figures of increase are often very deceptive, as they may indicate, not the natural increase by surplus of births over deaths, but accession by immigration. This applies especially to Germany during the early part of the nineteenth century, when Jews from Galicia and Poland seized every opportunity of moving westward. On the other hand, Ruppin has shown that within recent years, when forcible measures have been taken to prevent Russian Jews from settling in Germany, the growth of the Jewish population there has almost entirely ceased, owing to the falling off in the number of births, and, possibly, to emigration. The increase of the Jews of England and the United States during the last quarter of a century has, however, been exceptional, owing to extensive immigration.

Dear Canem Malum,

Thank you for those base line figures for Berlin around 1900.

Out of a population of 1,844,151 there were 86,152 Jews or 4.56 percent.

To have an influx of Russian Jewry into Berlin to the tune of 300,000 (half the 600,000 who had flooded into Germany) as refugees would likely have had huge social consequences in the early 1920s, just as the country was suffering extreme economic stress.

In late 1922 Germany defaulted on its second reparations payment so France and Belgium sent troops into the Ruhr Valley to confiscate industrial machinery. They shot over a hundred workers and expelled over 150,000 of them from the area. Besides factories they took over coal mines.

There was also wide spread industrial action across Germany and the government printed more money to pay workers. This accelerated the dive into hyper inflation and far deeper unrest.

Taking advantage of the unrest nationalists called the Black Reichswehr attempted a rebellion in Berlin while the Hitler and the NAZIs tried one in Munich in late 1923.

The proposition is that the influx of 600,000 Russian Jews into this mix over just this particular period had no impact.

What do you think and do you think like another here they were fictitious?

The proposition is that the influx of 600,000 Russian Jews into this mix over just this particular period had no impact.

What do you think and do you think like another here they were fictitious?
Posted by SteeleRedux

Answer-

mhaze seems to have significant knowledge here so I would talk about an issue and say how I see things and ask him how he sees the same issue.

Personally I would say that the influx of 600,000 Russian Jews (or any ethnic group) would be significant anywhere- but it's dependent on the context- and how they influence the community. Obviously any people will stand up against being marginalized in their own home. And the dynamics can change over time. In some places Chinese boat and business people have come to represent a problem and there has been violence. When a group of people of similar ethnicity move to another place there is a dynamic- but there are also regional differences. See ex-patriot communities for example.

You need to find out from mhaze how he sees the situation.

He can choose to answer or not.

At the end of the day you can still agree to disagree. Maybe you'll come to see the world differently in future after reflection- maybe not.

Land, community, tradition, family, safety, peace, war, generosity, environment, etc are complexly interrelated. Some talk of Cultural Relativism.

SR write:"I have repeatedly said the refugee influx laid fertile soil for the rise of the NAZI party in places where they would not have otherwise enjoyed that popularity."

Yes, you have repeated asserted that. You have no evidence for it, just asserted it.

So let's go through this. According to your numbers which are unverified but come from one article, there were up to 600000 Russians (not all of them Jews) in Northern Germany in 1922. This had reduced to 150000 by 1927. According to the same article you use there were only 90000 EastEuropean Jews in the whole of Germany by 1925.

I can't verify any of these numbers since the issue was so unimportant in the rise of the Nazis that it isn't covered in any of the histories I've looked at.

So according to you these refugees provided the Nazis with " fertile soil for the rise of the NAZI party". So let's look at this fertile soil in Berlin.

The Nazis had no presence to speak of in Berlin in 1926 when this flood' was supposedly happening. They had 600 members in 1926. Whatismore, in the 1928 election the Nazis got 1.4% of the total vote in Berlin. 1.4%. Fertile ground?

Berlin was a city of 4million by the late 1920s. An extra 90000 or so Jews wouldn't and DIDN'T have any affect on that city. Apart from conjecture you have no evidence of that. But the voting results prove your conjecture to be wrong.

As the Nazis began to gain more support in Berlin,due to the economic situation, not the Jewish issue, they found that their Jewish policies were problematic in north German. So they began to downplay those policies. I've already provided evidence of that.

SR, I know that in your ignorance of the period, you've bought the story that the antisemitic stance was what got the Nazis elected. But the opposite is true, at least in north Germany.

The Nazis were socialists and their socialist policies during the depression was what got them into power.

Just a bit of history on the period in question.

In 1920, the German Federation was still a relatively new country. The difference between the old Prussian north and the Bavarian south was still very pronounced. These were regions that had developed separately over the centuries, often under competing empires and had very different cultures.

Antisemitism was rife in Bavaria where the Nazi party was founded. But the north was far more cosmopolitan and accepting of the Jews. Berlin was the most libertarian city in Europe - sin city.... http://historycollection.com/17-reasons-why-germanys-weimar-republic-was-a-party-lovers-paradise/14/

Hitler was quite dismissive of the northerners in the early 1920s and thought of them as utterly debauched. When he tried to raise the revolution in 1923, he ignored the north on the basis that they wouldn't be able to resist his forces due to their debauchery.

Later, having decided to gain power via the vote, he needed the north and changed his emphasis to get northern votes. Remember this was the 1920s so it was possible to tell Bavarians one thing and Berliners another and get away with it.

As with almost everythig else you do, you found one irrelevant piece of data and tried to turn it into the most important issue. The Jews weren't the most important issue in the rise of the Nazis much less a small, transient, wave of refugees which was already over by the time the Nazis became interested in getting northern support.

Dear Steele,

Hitler was not a socialist. Nazism was not a socialist
project. And saying they were is not just incorrect but
wrong.
Nazism was a project built on antiSemitism, racism,
and dictatorial verve. One that took place in a specific
country and a specific time in history. There's so much material
available for people to research from books, film, articles,
archives. My daughter-in-law is German. She's from Braunsweig.
Her family still lives there and we communicate regularly.

Anyway - I admire your patience - but sometimes it's best to
simply walk away than argue.

Dear Foxy,

Walk away? No fear, this is great fun.

I mean who would think having mhaze claiming Jewish refugees into Germany was fictitious and then being able to show there were 600,000 of them during 1922-23 wasn't a bit of a laugh. Now at least he is conceding there was a 'wave' rather than a flood so I suspect he is learning although he likely won't admit it.

Dear mhaze,

You really do have a quite an anaemic take on the history of the time don't you.

The protestant north compared to the catholic south was the single greatest division between the two but doesn't get a single mention from you.

I deem the militant Catholicism emanating from France was a significant player in the tragedy which befell the Jews in Europe.

But back to the German Jews. Cantor puts it quite plainly:

“An informed observer of German Jewry in 1910 would make only three cautionary, downside observations. One was that the Jews were much more at home in the Protestant north than in the Catholic culture of southern Germany. Prussian Belin was a Jewish city; Barvarian Munich, Germany's second city, with its spectral memories of the Catholic Middle Ages, definitely was not. Second, while Jews were fully at home in the plutocracy and as yet there was no great resentment against them by the working class, the petty bourgeoisie – lower civil servants, small tradesmen, school teachers, skilled workers in heavy industry – resented the triumph and felt severely the pressure of Jewish competition."

"Third, the Jewish emigration from Poland after 1880 not only further inflamed petty bourgeois resentment and inspired some hostility in the working class but more immediately marred the perfect picture of Jewish assimilation that had previously existed. By 1900 the influx of more visibly alien Polish Jews, slower to dispense with the signs of traditional Judaism, was raising concerns among Jews and Gentiles alike. How fast would the accumulation of the Eastern Jews occur?”

Well it turns our very rapidly in the early 20s, but you claim with no consequences.

Again to Cantor:

“West of Poland the great majority of Jews were eager and willing to transform themselves – to shave their beards, wear up to date clothes, give their sons and usually their daughters a secular education, and be of immediate service to the government and society. … East of Germany there remained a huge mass of unassimilated Jews who threatened to turn around and move westward.”

Ultimately they did just that.

So the question then becomes whether it was the 'petty bourgeois' with their anti Jewish sentiments, rather than the strictly working classes with their notions of socialism that would be over represented among NAZI membership.

“In early 1933, just before Hitler's appointment to the chancellorship, the party showed an under-representation of "workers", who made up 30% of the membership but 46% of German society. Conversely, white-collar employees (19% of members and 12% of Germans), the self-employed (20% of members and 10% of Germans) and civil servants (15% of members and 5% of the German population) had joined in proportions greater than their share of the general population.”
Wikipedia

This clearly illustrates the primacy of anti-Semitic over socialist notions within the party.

Steele Redux- Do you know what "active listening" is? You don't have to agree with mhaze but I think it's at least important to try to understand why he sees things the way he does- but that's just me.

I think you're referring to the difference between Sephardic and Ashkenazi Hebrews- but my knowledge isn't so good.

mhaze- Thanks for your explanation and your patience.

History is full of subtleties- my understanding of mhaze's comments-

"Even though the Nazi's may not have liked Hebrew's" they didn't gain public support through like policies- they gained public support by focusing on the things that the local peoples cared about- in this case "economic problems".

Mao said for example- don't talk about the capitalists, talk about the greedy landlords- because the people know who they pay their rent to.

Perhaps Cantor didn't even understand the subtlety here or perhaps it didn't match the narrative.

Dear Canem Malum,

You said of mhaze: “You need to find out from mhaze how he sees the situation”.

Yet we already know exactly how he sees the hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees that poured into Germany from the East, they were apparently 'fictitious', full stop.

The rest of the discussion has been around him defending that position, one he has yet to disavow.

Now in his defense you are casting doubt about Cantor's take on the situation: “Perhaps Cantor didn't even understand the subtlety here or perhaps it didn't match the narrative.”

Norman Cantor was a Rhodes Scholar, did his Phd at Princeton University, was a Fullbright Professor at Tel Aviv University, he served as Dean of NYU's College of Arts & Sciences, as well as a professor of history, sociology and comparative literature and was an emeritus professor there until his retirement.

You appear to be attempting to put mhaze on some kind of equal footing with Cantor.

Do you have any idea how ridiculous that is? You are asking that I take mhaze's views into account to balance Cantor? Crazy.

I have let an eminent and well respected history professor make most of my argument for me. Mhaze has just primarily offered up his opinion derived mostly from the argument that because the books he read didn't go into this in depth then it can't stand.

Mhaze is politically and therefore ideologically programmed to want to attack socialism. Any loosening of the charge the Hitler was a socialist weakens his world view. That is why he is holding on to this totally discredited take.

“The Jews weren't the most important issue in the rise of the Nazis much less a small, transient, wave of refugees which was already over by the time the Nazis became interested in getting northern support.”

Steele Redux- Thanks for your feedback

"Hitler was not a socialist. Nazism was not a socialist
project. And saying they were is not just incorrect but
wrong."

Oh Foxy did you reach that conclusion following your extensive research in books like Rosenbaum's 'Explaining Hitler'?

Foxy, its very clear you have no knowledge, let alone special knowledge on this. Please stop making a fool of yourself.

SR,

1. Let's clear this up. I never said the Jews coming in were fictitious. I said that it wasn't a flood. More to the point it wasn't anything that had the slightest impact on the rise of the Nazis. That you need to distort this demonstrates how out of your depth you are.

You have no evidence that this made-up flood had any effect. No evidence. I've given a small sample of the ample evidence to the contrary. If this fictitious flood was so important how do you explain that the Nazis got a mere 1.4% of the Berlin vote immediately after this fictitious flood occurred? I'm guessing you'll continue to pretend to not notice that evidence.

The issue of this supposed flood revolves around the mid 1920s when you say this flood occurred. But to try to hide your errors on this, you talk about the 1880s, 1900 and 1933. Nothing about the 1920s. Why? Because your claims are ignorant rubbish.

"This clearly illustrates the primacy of anti-Semitic over socialist notions within the party."

This after a quote that mentions neither Jews or socialism. Sheeeesh.

Like Foxy, SR just wants the Nazis to be not socialist. He can't argue that from the facts, so he goes off on this rant about some Jews coming in that changed everything, and when its shown that that is rubbish,he just ignores it.

Here is the crux of SR's a-historic claims:

1. He said there were 600000 Jews in and around Berlin which the Nazis used to garner support.

In fact, using the very data that SR relies on, by 1927 when the Nazis started to work in Berlin, there were 90000 Russian refugees in the whole of German. Some of them were Jews and some were in Berlin.

2. So, according to SR, these few tensofthousands of Jews in Berlin in 1927 were fertile soil for the Nazis to garner support from the antisemitic Berliners.

In fact, in the next election in 1928 the Nazis, then known for their antisemitism because of Hitler's 'My Struggle', received 1.4% of the Berlin vote. Fertile soil indeed? BTW in that election, this fertile soil was so useful for the Nazis </sarc> that they got 2.6% of the national vote. A decline from the previous election. By comparison the Communists got over 10%.

Tell us all about the fertile soil again SR. Or as usual, ignore unhelpful data.

3. So according to SR, the Nazis used this fictitious Berlin 'fertile soil' to gain support through to 1933.

By 1930 the Nazis got 18% of the vote. Fertile soil? Well there was a little thing called the Great Depression going on which might have had something to do with it. But as usual SR will ignore unhelpful data. Oh and the Nazi still only got 11% of the Berlin vote. Heh, but let's ignore that, eh SR. Even in the last 'free' election in 1932, overall the Nazis got 37% of the vote but less than 30% in Berlin.

So this fertile soil in Berlin seems rather dysfunctional to anyone other than SR.

4. SR also decides to ignore the evidence that the Nazis realised that their antisemitism was unpopular in large parts of German and that, in all elections after 1928, they downplayed their Jewish policies. A strange thing to do when they had such fertile soil.

Oh I know...let's ignore that unhelpful data. That's what SR always does.

mhaze,

Read any of Ian Kershaw's books?

Or even heard of Ian Kershaw?

Dear mhaze,

You claim: “I never said the Jews coming in were fictitious.”

Oh come on.

This is your direct quote: “The Jews had been in Germany for centuries, millennia even. Where were these fictitious floods of refugees coming from? It's just rubbish.”

Even now you seem incapable of accepting they were even refugees much less came in numbers, nor did you know where they were coming from, something even the most beginner student of that period of history should have known.

Then this from you: “The issue of this supposed flood revolves around the mid 1920s when you say this flood occurred. But to try to hide your errors on this, you talk about the 1880s, 1900 and 1933. Nothing about the 1920s. Why? Because your claims are ignorant rubbish.”

What? I explicitly talk about the 1920s. The 600,000 figure I gave was from there. What drugs are you on?

As to ignorance that is all you my friend.

In fact your knowledge on this topic really is breath-takingly shallow isn't it.

The main nationalist party in the 1924 elections was the hard right and anti-Semetic German National People's Party. They held particular sway in the north and garnered the second largest block of votes in the 1924 Federal Election.

“Before the rise of the Nazi Party, it was the major conservative and nationalist party in Weimar Germany. It was an alliance of nationalists, reactionary monarchists, völkisch and antisemitic elements supported by the Pan-German League.”

“Several prominent Nazis began their careers in the DNVP. After 1929, the DNVP co-operated with the Nazis, joining forces in the Harzburg Front of 1931, forming coalition governments in some states and finally supporting Hitler's appointment as Chancellor (Reichskanzler) in January 1933. Initially, the DNVP had a number of ministers in Hitler's government, but the party quickly lost influence and eventually dissolved itself in June 1933, giving way to the Nazis' single-party dictatorship, the majority of its former members joining the Nazi party.”

Wikipedia

In 1924 the then temporarily rebadged NAZI party garnered 6% of the vote so Germany had over a quarter of its voters casting their ballot for hard right, nationalist, avowedly anti-Semitic parties.

So the flood of refugees, primarily Jewish, had no impact? What a crock.

Look mate, you are obviously struggling with this period of history. I'm not sure whether the books you have been reading haven't included these obvious strands or it has been your ideology which has allowed you to skip over them.

Finally takes a lot of imagination to see this just as Jews coming in but not in great numbers. They were, 600,000 at one point.

They were in proportionally far greater numbers than the Middle Eastern refugees who entered Germany this century and if this forum had been around at that time you may well have been posting threads like this but with Jews as the target:

“Susanna Feldman was a 14 yr old Jewish girl living in Wiesbaden, Germany when she was accosted, raped and strangled to death by Ali Bashar, a young Iraqi refugee who was already suspected of another rape and violent robbery. Bashir and his family fled Germany back to Iraq (the place they sought refuge from!!).”

Yes Foxy, I know of Kershaw. I have several of his books.

Which one, from your extensive reading, would you recommend as supporting your erroneous claims?

My main recollection about Kershaw is that he criticised AJP Taylor for not having sufficient, or any, ideological bias as regards his book on the origins of WW2. Taylor is one of my favourite historians about the period in question and his book about the origins of the war really did change the way I viewed the period and historic inquiry in general.

Criticising an historian for not being biased enough really should colour the way one views Kershaw's output.

SR, Yes I wrote " these fictitious floods of refugees". The flood was fictitious, not the refugees.

Of course all of this is a side issue. These refugees had no electoral effect in Germany. You haven't offered up even one passing piece of evidence that the Nazis used the 'flood' for electoral purposes. Because they didn't because it wasn't an issue of note. Its all in your mind and you think its important because, in your ignorance of the period, its the only thing you know.

I listed a bunch of things you ignore to maintain you false narrative. Can't help but notice that you continue to ignore them.

mhaze,

I think that this argument has gone on for long enough.
Going around in circles is not achieving anything
productive. It needs to stop. This should not be a
competition - between - "I'm right!" "You're wrong!"
Frankly I no longer care any more. I thought I could
achieve something by not arguing - but explaining
why I was right (smile) - waste of time.

Anyway - lets agree to disagree - and move on.
Nazism arose in Germany, gained power in Germany,
held power in Germany and would ultimately fall at
the end of the Second World War in Germany.

WWII - was a long time ago. Most Germans did not live
in the Third Reich. It's their grand parents or parents
if they're still alive who may remember. Modern Germans
are less emotionally involved. Nazi ideology is no
longer popular. Nowadays far right parties are against
Muslims and foreign communities (like the Turkish, or
the Serbian). Hitler is poorly regarded - after all
WWII devided the country into 2 for decades.

I would say that many Germans consider Hitler to be an
evil. The swastika and other Nazi emblems are forbidden
in Germany.

Anyway, have a nice day.
Stay safe.

Dear mhaze,

Dancing on the head of a pin aren't you.

There weren't refugees then there were. You couldn't imagine where they could have come from but now you concede they came from Russia. You called them Russian refugees rather than Jewish ones but now you concede there were Jews among them. You cast doubt on the 600,000 figure but then go on to say that they weren't there at a specific time. You say a few years after this figure they seem to have been stripped from the German collective memory so don't explain the rise of anti-Semitic parties.

And what is this from you? “You haven't offered up even one passing piece of evidence that the Nazis used the 'flood' for electoral purposes. Because they didn't because it wasn't an issue of note.”

Why do you think there are no anti-Jewish election posters at the time? Well it is pretty simple for someone who has had an even cursory look at that period, but not you apparently.

The Wiemar Republic had quite strict anti-hate laws which were enforced and which saw Goebbels banned from speaking at one stage.

Actually Goebbels is interesting in that after joining the party in 1924 he initially disavowed himself from Hitler.

“Hitler was opposed to the socialist leanings of the northern wing, stating it would mean "political bolshevization of Germany." Further, there would be "no princes, only Germans," and a legal system with no "Jewish system of exploitation ... for plundering of our people." The future would be secured by acquiring land, not through expropriation of the estates of the former nobility, but through colonising territories to the east. Goebbels was horrified by Hitler's characterisation of socialism as "a Jewish creation" and his assertion that a Nazi government would not expropriate private property. He wrote in his diary: "I no longer fully believe in Hitler. That's the terrible thing: my inner support has been taken away."”
Wikipedia

However: “After reading Hitler's book Mein Kampf, Goebbels found himself agreeing with Hitler's assertion of a "Jewish doctrine of Marxism".”

Recognising his talent for propaganda Hitler made Goebbels Gauleiter for the Berlin section in August 1926. By mid 1927 the Berlin police had banned the Nazis from Berlin and Goebbels himself was under a strict speaking ban so he started a newspaper.

“Material in the paper was highly anti-communist and antisemitic. Among the paper's favourite targets was the Jewish Deputy Chief of the Berlin Police Bernhard Weiß. Goebbels gave him the derogatory nickname "Isidore" and subjected him to a relentless campaign of Jew-baiting in the hope of provoking a crackdown he could then exploit.”
Wikipedia

So there we have it, Hitler as both Foxy and I have been trying to educate you on, was no socialist to speak of. His anti-socialist views managed to alienate one of the leading Nazi figures. The propaganda stemming from the Nazis in Berlin was far more antisemitic than socialist.

This yet again contradicts much so much of what you have been saying but I know it won't make a dent with you though hopefully others will get something from it.

Foxy,

There is no doubt as to the odium in which the Nazis (national socialists) are held. The inconvenient truth is that Communists (international socialists) were

1-far far worse.
2-both more closely related ideologically to each other than to capitalism.

SR,

The Nazis were anti-communist, not anti-socialist primarily because they were both competing in the same socialist pool.

socialism

A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

A philosophy that encompasses communism, and fascism / national socialism.

shadow minister,

In his 2010 book: "Hitler: A Biography,"
British historian and Hitler expert Ian Kershaw
wrote:

"Hitler was never a socialist by any common definition
of the term."

The use of the word "socialist" does not change anything.
It does not make Hitler or the Nazis socialists.
Just as the use of the word "Democratic" does not make the
Democratic People's Republic of Korea - North Korea, a
democracy.

Foxy,

Please stop. That's not a quote from Kershaw but a paraphrasing of Kershaw in an article trying to save socialism from Hitler. Even your quote of the article isn't right. The article is from a biased site and Kershaw by his own admission didn't mind showing his own bias - see above. So an article on a biased site quoting a biased commentator is hardly compelling.

In Kershaw's defence, if you read Kershaw's book, which you clearly haven't, you'll find him to be much more nuanced on the socialism issue.

I know that you want so much to pretend that you have special knowledge and special access to information on this, but you keep proving the opposite.
So please just stop.

As to the socialism issue, as I said at the outset, it depends on the definition of socialism you prefer. Before the war, the Nazi platform conformed to the then definition of socialism. After the war, the term was refined so as to save it from Hitler just as communism was refined to save it from Stalin and then refined to save it from Mao and then refined to save it from Chavez.

The Nazis were anti-capitalist and determined that the economy be subordinated to the needs of the state and that the state existed to ensure the common weal of its citizens. That was socialist then but not now.

It is very clear that SR has no intention of discussing this with anything approaching honesty.

Having done his usual 20 minute crash course on an issue that has generated an estimated 10000 books, SR then picks one obscure piece of data and pretends that data is the way to understand the entire issue.

But as I been showing his assertions to be mere conjecture, he has been forced to start distorting even meagre data he has. The very article he relies on for all this says there were "90,000 Jews from Eastern Europe were living in Germany in 1925 " yet SR wants to ignore the data from his own source and pretend there were 600000.

Absent any evidence SR just declares that all these Jews must have altered the political situation in Germany. He has no evidence for that, just declares that it must be so because he wants it to be so. This makes sense to him - go figure!

Yet when I provide evidence that these Jews didn't provide the Nazis with "fertile soil for the rise of the NAZI party" SR just ignores that data. The evidence shows that in the election after this fertile soil was supposedly sown, the Nazis LOST votes. I'm not if SR ignores that because he doesn't want it to be true or because, as with most things, the figures confuse him.

So here we have these Jews coming in and, in the fervoured imagination of SR, giving the Nazis a chance to gather antisemitic votes. Yet in reality, the Nazis LOST votes.

SR, in his 20 minute research misunderstands so much about the issue and the period. He didn't know about the north-south divide in Germany, or the origins of the Second Reich. He assumes antisemitism was so rife in Berlin that Jewish refugees must have swung the electoral vote. He doesn't know this, just conjectures that its true. And when presented with evidence that its not true, he ignores the evidence and starts distorting his errors.

We all know it. Perhaps SR will even admit it to himself.

For anyone really interested in knowing the full
history of Hitler and Nazism Ian Kershaw's book
"Hitler," is now available in a single abridged
paperback. It's the definitive biography of the
Nazi leader and supersedes all previous accounts
that only a first rate historian could write.

Ian Kershaw was knighted in 2002.

mhaze,

You're the one who needs to stop making a fool
of yourself.

I can't help you any further.

Talk to the hand.
And if you have any further questions consult
my middle finger.

Dear mhaze,

Lol.

Yes I thought that last couple of posts of mine would have you talking about me rather than to me. Bit of a pattern it seems.

And have a look at you, reduced to virtually regurgitating previous posts and studiously ignoring the continuous rollout of supportive quotes and statistics.

As to the Nazi party losing votes from the May 1924 Federal election to the December 1924 election their bloody leader was in prison over that entire time ya mug.

In fact the party had been banned and had to run under the banner the National Socialist Freedom Movement in both.

Once out of prison Hitler took the time to rebuild the party and reassert his control over it and it was only in 1928 did the formally run as the Nazi Party gaining 2.6% of the vote. By 1930 it was 18% and by 1932 it was 37%.

The party took great pains to lay the fault for the depression at the feet of Jewish bankers and industrialists in the 1930 election and this obviously had strong resonance. It was the fruits of hard anti-Jewish propaganda by the Nazis for an extended period of time.

Finally you say: “SR, in his 20 minute research misunderstands so much about the issue and the period.” Haven't we been down this path before when you accused me of raising the 25 points when in fact it was you who introduced it. Silly, silly little fellow.

So one more time SR.

Your assertion was that these Jewish refugees in Berlin from 1922 to 1927 were 'fertile soil' for the Nazis to gather votes. You had and have zero evidence for that....zero evidence other than your fond wish it was true.

When presented with evidence that the Nazis vote in Berlin was a mere 1.4% in 1928 when they were supposedly benefiting from this 'fertile soil' of Jewish refugees, your response has been to go off on tangent left right and centre because that single piece of information unravels your entire unresearched and unevidenced conjecture.

When presented with evidence that, far from the Jewish refugees or Jews in general being 'fertile soil' for the Nazis, that the Nazi antisemitism was electoral poison in Berlin which they had to and did downplay, you ignore that evidence and conjecture the opposite. Of course, as usual, your conjecture was unresearched and unevidenced but that pretty much describes most SR posts.

It's all very well to head off to the gutter Foxy but, let's face it, this thread hasn't been your finest hour.

First you list a number of books which you intimate you're familiar with and which you assert support your point. But we then find that these books don't in the slightest support your point, that your are utterly UNfamiliar with them and really don't have the slightest notion what they're about. They were just a list that you found online which you thought you could slip through to bolster your esteem.

Then, showing that you learned precisely nothing from that salutary lesson, you decided to try to intimate a familiarity with another author. But to demonstrate your familiarity you end up quoting from an article about the author and even get that quote wrong. And in doing so you ignore the nuance that author has about Hitler and even leave out the nuance in the article you quote.

"Oh what a tangled web we weave...."

Dear mhaze,

ROFL.

Mate I have rammed evidence down your throat continuously but you are determined to studiously ignore it.

During the 1928 elections were the first one where the Nazis proper ran and the first contested without their leader behind bars.

The main right wing antisemitic party of that time was German Nationalist People's Party and it recorded the second highest amount of votes in that election. As said they ultimately joined the Nazis.

I said from the start it was the influx of Jewish refugees which laid fertile ground for the Nazi Party. You have tried to rubbish it by saying at the height of one such influx 1922/23 the Nazis didn't receive much of the vote in the 1924 elections, but to repeat they were banned and their leader was in jail.

The German people had a choice in 1930 and 1932 between the hard left and the hard right as a reaction to the depression gripping the country and they went with the avowedly antisemitic party/s.

It kind of reflected what happened during the Trump election where significant numbers of Bernie Sanders supporters fell in behind Trump when Bernie failed to get the Democrat nomination.

But listen, there really is no need to get so defensive. You obviously feel alone in this. Even CM who is most certainly not one of my biggest fans accepts what I have put. But look at it this way, you have most likely learnt something which you hadn't considered previously. It will take time, but I am confident at some stage others may well consider you well versed in this topic. That's just not the case now.

I wish you well on that journey.

However back to Graham's original question, was Hitler a Socialist? Well it is obvious from Goebbels's quotes that not really at all. In the face of that are you going to concede the point?

mhaze,

Just trying a bit of humour to lighten things up
because nothing else was working. But, Never mind.

As for this not being my finest hour?
Look in the mirror old chap. Your finest hour is
still to come. And I hope that it will eventually
happen for you.

Come on. Your history on this forum speaks for itself.
When have you got anything right. You've been discredited
so many times. Your posts speak for themselves. Look who
gives you kudos. That says a great deal. And yet you don't
stop. Your views on any subject are extremely one-eyed
narrow, and indicate such a narrow worldview.

You speak about my lack of knowledge. You have no idea of
knowing what my level of education is - or my life
experiences. And as I stated earlier - on this subject -
all you have to do is your research from very well known
sources like Ian Kershaw, Shirer, Speer, Conquest, (yes -
him too - "Reflections on a ravaged country") They all
indicate what those times were like.

Anyway, what you think does not make one iota of difference
to the general scheme of things. There's enough material
out there - for people to read and make up their own minds
on the subject. Trying to insult me - is not going to change
the facts of history. But having access to the right books
from reputable historians stands on their own merits.

I don't believe that you have read any of the books mentioned.
And I certainly don't believe they're part of any collection
of yours. Your expressed opinions on this subject prove that.

Whatever happens to German history, we can be sure of one thing:
It's history will live on into infinity. And for that we
can thank the hard working historical recappers who worked
themselves into the ground to keep the flame of history alive
for future genrerations. In other words you can thank people
like Steele and myself, to mention just a few.

You're welcome!

cont'd ...

My apologies for the typos.

Robert Conquest's book should have read:

"Reflections on a ravaged century."

And the
ISBN for Ian Kershaw's paperback on Hitler
is - 9780141035888.

SR started off asserting with his usual unresearched surety that "I have repeatedly said the refugee influx laid fertile soil for the rise of the NAZI party in places where they would not have otherwise enjoyed that popularity."

Now SR has finally understood the monumental error that was and has decided this 'fertile soil' (which is should be remembered exists nowhere except in SR mind) didn't benefit the Nazis at all but some other party which he now pretends are a proxy for the Nazis.

So some progress by SR there toward the actual truth. If I was prepared to write another 40 or 50 posts I'd probably get SR to finally understand the facts which are that these refugees in Berlin had no effect on the Nazi vote and that indeed, in Berlin the Nazi antisemitism was unpopular. But I'm not prepared to undertake the task of dragging him kicking and screaming to the truth.

"You obviously feel alone in this."

Those enamoured with the truth are never alone. But I appreciate that you are desperate to be in the herd.

Foxy,

So now we finally get her to offer some clarification to her original claims that Conquest covered this issue. She thinks its in his book 'Reflections on a ravaged century". Unfortunately for Foxy I'm very familiar with that book. I even praised it in these pages a year or two ago. And unfortunately for Foxy I have to tell her that it doesn't say anything like what she hopes.

Foxy, if you have that book, and that's a big if, read the chapter 'The Nation: Hope and Hysteria". It tells a very different story to what you purported. Indeed it has some discussion how similar the Nazis and the Communists were and how easily members moved from one to the other.

So again we have Foxy claiming special knowledge and special research where none exists.

mhaze,

You really have no understanding of that period.
I could go on listing more and more material for
you to read - but it would be a waste of my time.
Your mind is closed and nothing will penetrate it.
It's not my job to educate you. You're obviously happy
in your ignorance which is fair enough. You obviously
want to stay that way.

Foxy,

I posted the dictionary definition of socialism and Nazism fits it like a glove.

Ian Kershaw and the other left whingers tried to redefine socialism as being a class struggle which Fascism is not. In this, they are fundamentally wrong.

Dear mhaze,

This is a hoot old boy so thanks.

That the Jewish refugee influx gave fertile ground for antisemitic parties is beyond doubt and it was the Nazis who through their propagandist Goebbels made the most of it. Why is that is the slightest bit controversial. Because you are determined to flog this side issue rather than dealing with the supposed socialist values of Hitler.

When I try and bring the conversation back to that issue off you go again with your repetitious arguments about what the rest of us consider a given.

Why is this so hard for you? Is it that your long held beliefs are being uncomfortably challenged? Well that is what happens on occasions.

Absolutely nothing you have posted thus far supports any notion that Hitler was an ardent socialist. How about you give it a try now.

One other point for SR to ignore.

When his original claims about the Nazis garnering votes from the 'fertile soil' were shown to be rubbish, he then tried to salvage face by saying the "German Nationalist People's Party...recorded the second highest amount of votes in that election [1928]."

Unfortunately for SR, in that election the German Nationalist People's Party's vote FELL by fully one third as compared to the previous election. So it seems this 'fertile soil' that, as is now very clearly seen a mere figment of SR's wild imagination, didn't do anyone any good.

No wonder SR wants to change the subject back to the original issue....his diversion made him look the dill.

Foxy likewise decides to avoid the issue. This after having tried to show her superior knowledge by referring to Robert Conquest, and been shown to yet again not know anything about that author.

She whines "I could go on listing more and more material for
you to read". Well yes Foxy you can go on trying to find lists of books on the WWW and you might stumble on some I'm not familiar with. But might I suggest that a better idea might be to actually read one or two of the books you merely claim to have read.

mhaze,

Do you think if you keep repeating something often
enough it will come true. Listen old chap - we've
discussed Robert Conquest in the past
- especially regarding the Ukrainian famine.
"Harvest of Sorrow." was a book I had mentioned
at the time as being part of my vast
collection of books. I've discussed Stalin and Hitler
on this forum including quoting from my
own material.

Anyway, if it makes you feel superior in some way -
go ahead and be happy that despite my profession,
education,
and life experiences - you're the one with all the
knowledge who doesn't need the www. and is the only one
who reads books and has a book collection.

Yay!

There you go!

And wait for it - you'll be getting a "kudos" any time
soon from your resident admirer (LOL).

Dear mhaze,

Lol.

Is this your version of covering your ears, closing your eyes and rocking backward and forward mouthing some comforting mantra?

You cry: “Yes, you have repeated asserted that. You have no evidence for it, just asserted it.”

The evidence is what would have been history's most virulently self-evident anti-Semitic party gained power in Germany and proceeded to murder and gas millions of Jews.

I have shown that up until the 1920s Jews were integrating relatively well in German society. You chose to ignore that.

Now you are contending that this was not fertile ground and that once the Nazi party was allowed to run in elections properly its appeal soared spectacularly due to some yet to be described collective and sudden madness.

Look mate, you have painted yourself into a corner and you just want to be let out. You can't respond to anything else at this point because it is consuming you.

When you are feeling a little better about yourself I would be interested in what you make of Goebbels's remarks about Hitler's socialism.

Play on.

mhaze- Take care mate. You've convinced me to go and check my history books on my understanding. At least you've achieved something constructive.

Hi Steele,

Many German Jews believed they had nothing to fear from the Nazi's. To them they were loyal Germans, having lived all the life in Germany born in Germany without problems, and many had fought for the Fatherland in WWI. So there was nothing to fear, so they thought.

Dear Paul,

Indeed. And they likely would have taken comfort from the anti-hate speech rules in place at the time.

It is a fascinating cauldron of events but with extraordinarily dark consequences. So many people only take the one perspective and refuse to entertain others namely because they delve into the era to support their own ideological positions.

It deserves better.

Well Hollywood has done pretty well out of the Nazi's as they have continued to make money out of throwing stones at them one hundred years after- in this I guess they are almost as successful as Mohammedism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoning_of_the_Devil

Steele Redux said- "So many people only take the one perspective and refuse to entertain others namely because they delve into the era to support their own ideological positions."

Graham Young was the one that "delved into the era" as you put it- in this case. Are you accusing him Steele Redux of being a Nazi? Scandalous.

Perhaps there are valid reasons why the subject was 'delved into'.

I find that Communists and Socialists and Locke Liberals often try to hide their own bigotry by pointing to what they label as bigotry in others- subtle- I'm sure that everyone has their own bias on all sides of politics- an alternative to talking out our differences is violent confrontation.

World War II produced tens of millions of victims.
Some were combatants, some civilian casualties of the war.
Others were victims of genocide planned by the warring
powers.

Both the Nazis and the Communists had committed unheard
of cruelties. Concentration camps - on both sides of
the front - operated at a high pitch prior to and during
the war years. While the USSR policy of mass murder
preceded that of Nazi Germany, most notably with the
artificial Ukrainian Famine of 1932-33, the wholesale
destruction of the Russian peasantry, and later of the
peasantry and intelligentsia in the occupied
territories as well, the Nazis soon matched Soviet
terror with their whosale slaughter of Jews, Gypsies, and
others, in equal numbers, if not proportions of their
populations.

As stated in "The New KGB" :

" There is no dispute about the enormity of Hitler's
holocaust. But it is equally important to be as aware
of the accomplishments of the Soviet secret police,
which brought death to at lease four times as many
Russians, Poles, Jews, Latvians, Lithuanians, Estonians,
Japanese, Koreans, Chinese, Gypsies, and Romanians as
Hitler did in his eleven years as a leader of the
' 1,000-year Reich."

While half of the criminals, the Nazis, have been
pursued all over the world for their crimes, the other
half, the Communist criminals, were allowed to go free,
They were, in effect, given tacit permission to continue
the operation of their concentration camps, to expand
their draconian systems to include psychiatric wards,
thereby raising torture, suppression, and murder to a
science.

The fact that the process persisted was vividly disclosed
to the free world by Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn in his
book - "The Gulag Archipelago".

Foxy threw a tantrum..."Anyway, if it makes you feel superior in some way -"

After this I'll leave you unvexed.

The thing is this Foxy. You tried to claim superior knowledge and research by referring to books that you claimed to be familiar with.
I knew those books and knew they didn't in the least support your claims for them and therefore invited you to show how they did so.

Now at that point you could have shown some knowledge of the books and pointed me to some part of it that you thought supported your claims. But you never did that. You haven't once tried to show anything about the Rosebaum book that is even vaguely relevant here.

At least with Conquest you did,evntually, try to salvage some credibility by at least suggesting where I might find him making comments supporting your claims. Except that the book you picked out says the exact opposite, again demonstrating a lack of knowledge about that book.

You then tried to add Kershaw to the list but again couldn't find anything in his books that supported your claims and were reduced to quoting from an article that misquoted Kershaw where you misquoted the article!!

We see this from you a lot Foxy. The false claims of expertise and knowledge which you then try to use to win a debate. We saw it most egregiously in regards to the US Electoral College.

One can only hope that this has been a lesson to you and that the next time you make claims about special knowledge or special research, you're prepared to demonstrate it.

I don't know much about Solzhenitsyn but Jordan Peterson seems to refer to him a fair bit.

I get the impression that he is a sophisticated writer perhaps at times mysterious in the way that sometimes Russian's are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Solzhenitsyn

He's on my reading list.

Jordan Peterson refers to Russian writers a fair bit- from memory Dostoevsky.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fyodor_Dostoevsky

So SR,

Re-writing the history of the thread now?

Here's how it went:

* you stumbled across some minor data showing some Jews from Eastern Europe ended up around Berlin in the mid-1920s.
*From this you decided that these refugees explained the rise of the Nazis because they created 'fertile soil' for the Nazis to use their antisemitism to garner support.
* To reach this conclusion you had to ignore most of the available data about antisemitism in Germany in the period - eg there was little antisemitism in the north at that time; the whole north-south divide. When I say ignore, for you it was more a case of not actually knowing it.
* You claimed the Nazis got electoral support due to their antisemitism which was fueled by the refugees. But things like the fact that the Nazis only got 1.4% of the Berlin vote only, and that the other main racist party saw their vote fall by 1/3rd in that same election destroyed that claim. You ignored that.
* When I pointed out that the Nazis antisemitism was so unpopular that they started to downplayed it in the German north,you ignored that.

Basically, SR, you have this unresearched opinion that the Nazis were all about antisemetism and that explains their rise.

But the histories and the evidence shows that the Nazis gained power because of their economic policies - their socialist policies - not their racial policies. Indeed I'd argue that they gained power despite their antisemitism not bcause of it. While the antisemetism was popular in the south, it was less so in the populace north and the Nazis dealt with that by ceasing to emphasis it.

This is partly why the Jews were initially blaise about the Nazi take-over. Most Jews were in the north and they hadn't seen the most virulent aspects of the Nazi creed. It was only later that they realised their mistake.

At that point they started getting out of Dodge. About 5% of Jews left when Hitler came to power. 85% did so following the Nuremberg Race Laws (1935).

Canem Malum,

If you're going to have a go at Solzhenitsyn then might I suggest:

1. One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich. A nice short novel to get you started. It was released during Khrushchev's reign but later banned in Russia.

2. The Gulag Archipelago 1918–1956. But make sure you read the single volume version which is weighty enough. The full multi-volume version will have you wishing to be sent to a gulag. :)

3. Warning to the West - a compendium of speeches which seem even more relevant today than they were in the 1970s.

Thanks mhaze- I'll have a skim of the reading material that you've kindly provided. It'll probably never have a good understanding- but at least I'll be able to ask intelligent questions.

Dear Canem Malum,

You write: “Are you accusing him Steele Redux of being a Nazi? Scandalous.”

What an idiotic thing to say.

I'm referring to the kind of base right wing ideology which says 'Hitler was a socialist therefore socialism is bad'.

It is very hard, as I have illustrated, to make the case that Hitler was a dedicated socialist. Goebbels didn't think he was, nor did the membership in the party reflect it either, both of which I have furnished evidence for.

Their antisemitism was their main brand and they used it well.

As to reading Dostoevsky perhaps not. I think it is almost churlish for Australians to be partaking of his works when we live in such a lucky country. He obviously speaks to Peterson's many demons but not a lot of people are that impacted. However another favourite of his is Nietzsche who is well worth the effort. Enjoy.

Dear mhaze,

You write: “One can only hope that this has been a lesson to you and that the next time you make claims about special knowledge or special research, you're prepared to demonstrate it.”

Well that really is the pot calling the kettle black.

Dear Steele,

My mum bought me the booklet - "One Day in the Life of
Ivan Denisovich" decades ago. She found it moving.
For me - it was a simple - yet a powerful
read. For mum it brought back so many memories of
what her family and country had suffered. There were so
many other accounts available - "The Frozen Inferno,"
comes to mind. That I could not finish and had to put down
for a while. There's an old Russian proverb - "No - don't
dwell on the past. If you dwell on the past you shall lose
an eye." But the proverb goes on to say - "Forget the past
and you'll lose both eyes."

That's why it is important for researchers not to distort
the evidence about established historical events. They
need to go where the evidence, not ideology leads them.

Just talking about history books I'd just like to note the passing overnight of Donald Kagan who, among other things, wrote the definitive book on the Peloponnesian War. Well four volumes really.

I have the hardcover versions - probably the most expensive books I ever bought.

Its an astonishing work and all histories on the war are indebted to and compared with Kagan's work.

Donald Kagan's "On the Origins of War," is another
work worth mentioning. BTW: He was born in Kursenai,
in the district of Siauliai, Lithuania to a Jewish
family. He came from very good stock -
which may explain his talent and inquiring mind.

What is clear to anyone that can read a dictionary is that Nazi's / fascists were socialists.

While it is true that the Nazi's did not get on with those that called themselves socialists it was largely because those "socialists" were of the Marxist/communist stripe.

What left whinge extremists hate is that socialism while purporting to be the vehicle for social justice has delivered tyranny in various forms kills millions of people in the process.

Both Hitler and Stalin were socialists as was Mao and Xi Jinping whose regime more resembles fascism.

shadow minister,

The following link may makes things even clearer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Nazism_and_Stalinism

mhaze- Solzhenitsyn seems to be a superior intellect- I listened to the speech at Harvard and read the wiki article plot of One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich- It's interesting in a sense that the Khrushchev regime banned the book. There are many excellent quotes- truly a gold mine. Thanks for helping out a neighbourhood engineer

Foxy,

That article explains well the two extremes of socialist dictatorships.

shadow minister,

The link I gave explains the differences of the
two systems and how they were different in a
number of aspects. It explains the differences between
the two extremes and why they're not the same.

Foxy,

The two extremes have differences but many similarities.

Both are one-party tyrannies led by leaders with a personality cult.

Both are based on government ownership/ control of the economies (known as socialism) and both killed many of their own citizens (with Stalin far in the lead)

shadow minster,

In the Molotov-Ribbentrop Treaty of 1939, Stalin
and Hitler agreeing in a secret pact to divide
Eastern Europe and allow the advances of the
Wehrmacht and the Red Army for the purpose of
dividing the hapless Balts, Poles, and others,
which led to the World War.

History is clear that in 1939, Stalin and Hitler
were allies against the free people of Europe.
They were both, by then, accomplished killers,
even though Stalin led the score in victims
tortured, starved, and massacred.

Each created panic and chaos throughout Europe.
Each produced millions of refugees and homeless.
Each was expanding and building concentration camps
in which millions of innocent victims would perish.

Both despised and mistrusted democracies. Both
abhorred Jews, Christians, and organized religion.
Both were set on their conquests. The two dictators
used the same methods to deal with their domestic
opposition - terror.

In accomplishing their mutual goals, the dictators used
their respective political parties, the Communist Party
of the USSR and the National Socialist German Workers'
Party, to rid their societies of all political opposition.

Each party had its enforcers - the Communists, their
NKVD (now the KGB) and the Nazis, their Gestapo.
For all practical purposes, both security police
organizations used the same inhumane methods in their
operations. The NKVD and the Gestapo used informers,
collaborators and assistants from among the very
people they set out to enslave or destroy.

Some assisted voluntarily, while others collaborated
because of fear or weakness.

There were also, of course, numerous courageous men and
women who refused to participate in the
subjugation and destruction of the targeted groups
and individuals.

There were Jews who interceded with their lives to save
persecuted Christians, there were Christians who died in
their attempts to save Jews. They died, some along with
their entire families, or accepted their fates in
concentration camps rather than betray their fellow men.

Some are known, but most perished and are known only to
God. These heroes embody human nobility in its highest
form and stand as beacons in the otherwise bleak
history of World War II.

cont'd ...

shadow minister,

Yes, the two extremes do have differences, but
many similarities.