Adolf Hitler: left or right?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 02:23:24 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  History (Moderator: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee)
  Adolf Hitler: left or right?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Adolf Hitler: left or right?  (Read 5480 times)
buritobr
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,606


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: July 29, 2015, 05:19:24 PM »

Arguments endorsing the view that he was left-wing
> The name of his party
> The color of the flag of his party
> NSDAP had an anti-capitalist wing: the SA
> State interventionism in the economy in the Third Reich
> German-Soviet Treaty (1939-1941)

Arguments endorsing the view that he was right-wing
> The most definitive one: when his government was established, in January 1933, the right-wing parties in the Reichstag endorsed it and the left-wing parties (SPD and KPD) opposed
> There were communist demonstrations in Berlin against Hitler when he became the chancellor
> The German Stock Markets rose when Hitler became the chancellor: stock markets usually "vote" for the right
> The former kaiser, in exile, endorsed Hitler
> During the Weimar Republic, the sum of the vote for the left (SPD+KPD) was stable. When the vote for the SPD decreased after 1929, the vote for the KPD increased. The vote for the NSDAP increased when the vote for the other right-wing parties decreased
> Hitler closed the SA
> Hitler supported the nationalists in the Spanish Civil War. Even though, there are some crazy far right people nowadays who say that Hitler was left-wing and that Franco was a nice guy
> The nazi state interventionism supported wage decrease and profit increase. It favored higher income inequality
> The Weimar Republic had good relations with the USSR. The soviet-german relations froze between 1933 and 1939. They were restored in 1939 because Germany needed raw and the USSR needed time
Logged
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,174
Denmark


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: July 29, 2015, 05:26:30 PM »

This is not really worth debating. Hitler was left wing is a bogus claim.
Logged
MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!
Kalwejt
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,380


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: July 29, 2015, 05:31:03 PM »

Are we doing this again?
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,192
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: July 29, 2015, 05:36:04 PM »

Yes, the weird meme (that is America's fault) that right-wing = limited government, left-wing = big government is a direct contribution to this POV.

Hitler was a right-winger in a right-wing party. Perhaps you can make an interesting debate about whether the Strassers etc. can genuinely be called left-wingers, but Hitler was an ardent conservative, who allied with the big landowners and industrialists, who crushed the independent trade unions and their affiliated groups, who opposed "decadent culture", who got the majority of the vote from the Middle-class and who was initially reliant on monarchists and right-wing nationalists to enter government.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: July 29, 2015, 05:57:00 PM »

Urgh, not this sh!t again. I can't be bothered to write anything new, so I'll just use a search function to find some old posts on the subject:

Given what happend to actual Socialists under the Nazi regime (here's a random example), I do find the interwebs-tendency to scream that Hitler-Was-A-Socialist to be in astonishingly bad taste.

Oh for God's sake. No.

This issue seems to be raised on the forum a couple of times every year and I'm now tired of bothering to refute it in any detail, so I'll just note a couple of points:

1. No credible historian of the twentieth century believes that the Nazi regime in general or Hitler in particular were 'left-wing' in any respect. This includes some rather right-wing economic historians who specialise in aspects of Nazi economic policy, so this is not an example of a notoriously lefty profession closing ranks.

2. Nazi economic policy was geared entirely towards rearmament (which was achieved via an extraordinarily complicated form of fraud) and not towards any remotely left-wing (however defined) objective. Contrary to what is frequently asserted, the standard of living for the working class in Germany actually declined during the pre-war Nazi period as wages were kept under tight control by means of... well... authoritarian rule.

3. German industrialists (most of them) did remarkably well out of the Nazi regime and this was intentional (more so, in some ways, than in contemporary economies). The examples of Krupp and IG Farben are well known, but they were merely extreme examples of a more general pattern. The close relationship between capital and the regime was good for both of them; as profits soared, so did corporate contributions to the Nazi Party (why, yes. This was a rather corrupt regime).

4. A Trade Union controlled by the government is not a Trade Union.

Fundamentally, you can only argue that 'Hitler was economically left wing' if you define 'economically left wing' as 'prepared to intervene in the economy in order to make it grow'. Which is absurd.

Nazi underlying ideology = virulent nationalism/militarism, an especially nasty take on popular racial theories, anti-semitism (part of the former but enough of an issue, obviously, to deserve a mention on its own) and anti-socialism, combined with weird fetishes regarding leaders, action, and so on. Everything else was window dressing or a cynical attempt to win support (both electorally and in terms of powerful individuals and interest groups). If you think Hitler or any other leading Nazi gave a sh!t about whatever drivel the party adopted as its platform in its early years, then you should probably avoid further comment on the issue. Because there is just a little bit of a consensus over this.

Arguing that state intervention in the economy = Socialism isn't very clever. It means that you have to (for example) count all mainstream political parties and institutions in Europe between about 1945 (1940 or so in the case of Britain) and about 1973 or so as Socialist. Even more absurdly, it means that you have to count all European states before the rise of laissez faire as Socialist. And I think that would be a step into lunacy too far even for you.

Now, the sad thing about the internets is that these arguments are so common that you can just...

And it's worth noting how pro-business the Nazi regime was in reality. Somewhere, deep within my pile of box files, I've a little chart comparing donations to the NSDAP from IG Farben (a company critical to the implementation of the Final Solution, as it happens) with IG Farben's profits. I will eventually find it and post it here - makes for interesting reading.

Because the Nazis = Socialist canard isn't worth wasting much time dismissing. No one (no one honest anyway) with a basic knowledge of early 20th century German history takes it seriously.

(for the record, IG Farben was a German chemical giant, the largest company in Europe (some of the time), a major financial donor to the Nazi regime (and as the companies profits went up, so did donations), a major user of slave labour and the manufacturer of Zyklon B. It was broken up (more or less) by the Allies at the end of the War. Krupp is another well-known example of a big company doing well out of the Nazis).

I mean, there's more but I can't be bothered to dig it up right now.

But I repeat my comment about bad taste.

Conclusion: fyck off and read a few books on the subject.
Logged
SWE
SomebodyWhoExists
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,234
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: July 29, 2015, 10:53:29 PM »

Grass: is it orange or green?
Logged
MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!
Kalwejt
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,380


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: July 30, 2015, 12:50:46 AM »

Yes, the weird meme (that is America's fault) that right-wing = limited government, left-wing = big government is a direct contribution to this POV.

Hitler was a right-winger in a right-wing party. Perhaps you can make an interesting debate about whether the Strassers etc. can genuinely be called left-wingers, but Hitler was an ardent conservative, who allied with the big landowners and industrialists, who crushed the independent trade unions and their affiliated groups, who opposed "decadent culture", who got the majority of the vote from the Middle-class and who was initially reliant on monarchists and right-wing nationalists to enter government.

If the Strassers were indeed left-wingers, then all "left-wing" elements were definitively purged in 1934, which futher disproved the "Hitler was left-wing" silliness.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: July 30, 2015, 01:39:23 AM »

Urgh, not this sh!t again. I can't be bothered to write anything new, so I'll just use a search function to find some old posts on the subject:

Given what happend to actual Socialists under the Nazi regime (here's a random example), I do find the interwebs-tendency to scream that Hitler-Was-A-Socialist to be in astonishingly bad taste.

Oh for God's sake. No.

This issue seems to be raised on the forum a couple of times every year and I'm now tired of bothering to refute it in any detail, so I'll just note a couple of points:

1. No credible historian of the twentieth century believes that the Nazi regime in general or Hitler in particular were 'left-wing' in any respect. This includes some rather right-wing economic historians who specialise in aspects of Nazi economic policy, so this is not an example of a notoriously lefty profession closing ranks.

2. Nazi economic policy was geared entirely towards rearmament (which was achieved via an extraordinarily complicated form of fraud) and not towards any remotely left-wing (however defined) objective. Contrary to what is frequently asserted, the standard of living for the working class in Germany actually declined during the pre-war Nazi period as wages were kept under tight control by means of... well... authoritarian rule.

3. German industrialists (most of them) did remarkably well out of the Nazi regime and this was intentional (more so, in some ways, than in contemporary economies). The examples of Krupp and IG Farben are well known, but they were merely extreme examples of a more general pattern. The close relationship between capital and the regime was good for both of them; as profits soared, so did corporate contributions to the Nazi Party (why, yes. This was a rather corrupt regime).

4. A Trade Union controlled by the government is not a Trade Union.

Fundamentally, you can only argue that 'Hitler was economically left wing' if you define 'economically left wing' as 'prepared to intervene in the economy in order to make it grow'. Which is absurd.

Nazi underlying ideology = virulent nationalism/militarism, an especially nasty take on popular racial theories, anti-semitism (part of the former but enough of an issue, obviously, to deserve a mention on its own) and anti-socialism, combined with weird fetishes regarding leaders, action, and so on. Everything else was window dressing or a cynical attempt to win support (both electorally and in terms of powerful individuals and interest groups). If you think Hitler or any other leading Nazi gave a sh!t about whatever drivel the party adopted as its platform in its early years, then you should probably avoid further comment on the issue. Because there is just a little bit of a consensus over this.

Arguing that state intervention in the economy = Socialism isn't very clever. It means that you have to (for example) count all mainstream political parties and institutions in Europe between about 1945 (1940 or so in the case of Britain) and about 1973 or so as Socialist. Even more absurdly, it means that you have to count all European states before the rise of laissez faire as Socialist. And I think that would be a step into lunacy too far even for you.

Now, the sad thing about the internets is that these arguments are so common that you can just...

And it's worth noting how pro-business the Nazi regime was in reality. Somewhere, deep within my pile of box files, I've a little chart comparing donations to the NSDAP from IG Farben (a company critical to the implementation of the Final Solution, as it happens) with IG Farben's profits. I will eventually find it and post it here - makes for interesting reading.

Because the Nazis = Socialist canard isn't worth wasting much time dismissing. No one (no one honest anyway) with a basic knowledge of early 20th century German history takes it seriously.

(for the record, IG Farben was a German chemical giant, the largest company in Europe (some of the time), a major financial donor to the Nazi regime (and as the companies profits went up, so did donations), a major user of slave labour and the manufacturer of Zyklon B. It was broken up (more or less) by the Allies at the end of the War. Krupp is another well-known example of a big company doing well out of the Nazis).

I mean, there's more but I can't be bothered to dig it up right now.

But I repeat my comment about bad taste.

Conclusion: fyck off and read a few books on the subject.

Why isn't the "brain-damaged chicken" post in this compilation? Sad
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,357


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: July 30, 2015, 02:44:27 AM »

Only Free Republic would call him left wing, everyone else agrees he was right wing
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: July 30, 2015, 11:28:24 AM »

Typically 'left-wingers' don't destroy left-wing organizations, ban trade unions, and invade a country that was more or less the vanguard of world-wide left-wing politics.
Logged
MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!
Kalwejt
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,380


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: July 30, 2015, 01:04:56 PM »

Typically 'left-wingers' don't destroy left-wing organizations, ban trade unions, and invade a country that was more or less the vanguard of world-wide left-wing politics.

I don't think Trotsky would agree about the stalinist state being a "vanguard of world-wide left-wing politics." Tongue
Logged
Clark Kent
ClarkKent
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,480
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: July 30, 2015, 01:11:55 PM »

Neither. I don't like left-wing politics but I'm not going to insult them by lumping in Hitler with them.
Logged
All Along The Watchtower
Progressive Realist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,426
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: July 30, 2015, 02:42:38 PM »

But weren't they National SOCIALISTS? Huh











jesus christ I hate these topics.
Logged
SATW
SunriseAroundTheWorld
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,463
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: July 30, 2015, 03:41:22 PM »

buritobr: Slightly stupid or flat out moronic? you decide, atlas.

Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,251


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: July 30, 2015, 09:43:02 PM »

According to tumblr, he was 'someone who believed very deeply in inequality and privilege'.
Logged
Leinad
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,049
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.03, S: -7.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: July 31, 2015, 03:15:54 AM »

Far-right. Everyone knows it. Not always in modern-day US politics, but 1930s Germany was a different time and place than 2010s US. I wouldn't even say it's an extension of conservatism, like what anarcho-capitalism is to libertarianism, but in the left-right spectrum (which is inadequate, it really is) Hitler was most certainly well right of center overall.

I'm not sure why Americans seem to think right=limited government and left=big government. Probably has something to do with either economic issues being the main focus, or maybe the right using the word "freedom" so often.
Logged
Middle-aged Europe
Old Europe
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,178
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: August 04, 2015, 05:21:29 PM »

But weren't they National SOCIALISTS? Huh











jesus christ I hate these topics.

And Vladimir Zhirinovsky is a Liberal Democrat.
Logged
Republican Michigander
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 394


Political Matrix
E: 5.81, S: -2.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: August 04, 2015, 05:37:16 PM »

"European conservatism" is different than "American conservatism." There is little to no libertarian influence in Europe where the old tradition is monarchist vs republic.

By American standards, leftist. Government totalitarianism is government totalitarianism. "National Socialist" and "Soviet Internationalist" are two cousins that both have secret police, massive government control of the population.

(American) Far right - Anarcho-capitalist. Far Left - Sovietism.

Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,192
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: August 04, 2015, 06:41:31 PM »
« Edited: August 04, 2015, 06:44:17 PM by Crabby And His Moron Brothers »

Seeing as how American libertarianism pretty much sprung into existence in the middle of the twentieth century, it hardly has had much influence on American conservatism as a whole. Rather, uS style conservatism has normally been very much on a similar vein to Europeam conservatism, from the quasi-monarchical stylings of the Federalists, the tariff-supporting Whigs and their allies, the nativist sentiments of the American/Know Nothings, the conservative elements of the Progressive moment (prohibitionists, "moral decency" guardians and the cheerleaders of imperialism), American exceptionalists and triumphalists in all their disparate incantations from paleo- to neocons etc.

Not to mention, y'know, the literal attempt to end democracy and install a Fascist dictatorship by the same sort of big business tycoons who grew rich off their bargain with the Nazis.
Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,678


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: August 04, 2015, 07:43:50 PM »

Are people trying to give Al a heart attack with these threads?
Logged
MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!
Kalwejt
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,380


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: August 05, 2015, 06:51:24 AM »

Are people trying to give Al a heart attack with these threads?

This is by far the most sophisticated assassination attempt since the death of King Edward II of England.
Logged
SWE
SomebodyWhoExists
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,234
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: August 05, 2015, 11:00:04 AM »

"European conservatism" is different than "American conservatism." There is little to no libertarian influence in Europe where the old tradition is monarchist vs republic.

By American standards, leftist. Government totalitarianism is government totalitarianism. "National Socialist" and "Soviet Internationalist" are two cousins that both have secret police, massive government control of the population.

(American) Far right - Anarcho-capitalist. Far Left - Sovietism.


Stop embarrassing yourself.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.064 seconds with 12 queries.