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.