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?