Hitler was a socialist!

[Middle-aged Europe]

Yes, he was a socialist. A national one.

You're an idiot.

Am I? Clue me this one then, cretin, what was Hitler's party called?

Aha. I win.

So you actually believe that East Germany was a democratic republic ??

[k-onmmunist]

Yes, he was a socialist. A national one.

You're an idiot.

Am I? Clue me this one then, cretin, what was Hitler's party called?

Aha. I win.

So you actually believe that East Germany was a democratic republic ??

Course it wasn't. I said my remark tongue in cheek but Xahar chose to take it literally, probably just because he wants to assume the worst about me.

His economic policies DID have socialist elements, but socially, Hitler was a reactionary nutcase.

[ChrisJG777]

Yes, he was a socialist. A national one.

You're an idiot.

Am I? Clue me this one then, cretin, what was Hitler's party called?

Aha. I win.

No, you lose.  The "National Socialist German Workers Party" was no more socialist than North Korea is a democracy.  The name means nothing.  It's like the Jamaican Labour Party actually being a conservative party than a social democratic one.

[k-onmmunist]

Yes, he was a socialist. A national one.

You're an idiot.

Am I? Clue me this one then, cretin, what was Hitler's party called?

Aha. I win.

No, you lose.  The "National Socialist German Workers Party" was no more socialist than North Korea is a democracy.  The name means nothing.  It's like the Jamaican Labour Party actually being a conservative party than a social democratic one.

read the above post.

[ChrisJG777]

Yes, he was a socialist. A national one.

You're an idiot.

Am I? Clue me this one then, cretin, what was Hitler's party called?

Aha. I win.

No, you lose.  The "National Socialist German Workers Party" was no more socialist than North Korea is a democracy.  The name means nothing.  It's like the Jamaican Labour Party actually being a conservative party than a social democratic one.

read the above post.

I did and you still lose.  To think that Hitler was a socialist is an indicator of such sheer idiocy that it'd make Sarah Palin look like a member of Mensa.

[k-onmmunist]

Yes, he was a socialist. A national one.

You're an idiot.

Am I? Clue me this one then, cretin, what was Hitler's party called?

Aha. I win.

No, you lose.  The "National Socialist German Workers Party" was no more socialist than North Korea is a democracy.  The name means nothing.  It's like the Jamaican Labour Party actually being a conservative party than a social democratic one.

read the above post.

I did and you still lose.  To think that Hitler was a socialist is an indicator of such sheer idiocy that it'd make Sarah Palin look like a member of Mensa.

*sigh*

Hitler nationalised transportation, supported autarky and had all small businesses merged into large conglomerates under government supervision. These all sound like relatively left wing economic views to me.

From the Nazi Policy Manifesto:


13. We demand the nationalization of businesses which have been organized into cartels.

14. We demand that all the profits from wholesale trade shall be shared out.

[ChrisJG777]

Yes, he was a socialist. A national one.

You're an idiot.

Am I? Clue me this one then, cretin, what was Hitler's party called?

Aha. I win.

No, you lose.  The "National Socialist German Workers Party" was no more socialist than North Korea is a democracy.  The name means nothing.  It's like the Jamaican Labour Party actually being a conservative party than a social democratic one.

read the above post.

I did and you still lose.  To think that Hitler was a socialist is an indicator of such sheer idiocy that it'd make Sarah Palin look like a member of Mensa.

*sigh*

Hitler nationalised transportation, supported autarky and had all small businesses merged into large conglomerates under government supervision. These all sound like relatively left wing economic views to me.

From the Nazi Policy Manifesto:


13. We demand the nationalization of businesses which have been organized into cartels.

14. We demand that all the profits from wholesale trade shall be shared out.

*Facepalm*

Hitler was a politician, the party's manifesto was designed to pull voters in, which in the case of those two examples the intended target was the working class.  Once in power though, he never acted on those particular promises.  Under the Nazis, trade unions were outlawed and factory owners were empowered over their employees even more.  And where is your evidence that small businesses where merged?  I studied history, especially that time period, and nowhere did I read anything about small businesses merging.  Besides, don't delude yourself, any chance of the Nazis becoming even remotely socialist died along with Röhm and his followers.  Also, the fact that actual socialists were persecuted and imprisoned pretty much says enough.

Of course though, you can continue to delude yourself as you undoubtedly will.

[Alexander Hamilton]

imasocialisttoowhatdoesthatmakeme?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Shut up. Now and forever.

[k-onmmunist]

It can't just have been to attract voters, if they actually carried it out, which they did. Your reply is weak at best.

If you want an account of the absorbtion of small businesses into conglomerates such as IG Farben, just read The Dictators by Richard Overy.

[Marokai Backbeat]

imasocialisttoowhatdoesthatmakeme?

If you were a Socialist, my opinion of you might be higher.

And for the record, this topic is retarded and completely played out. All anyone has to do is look at the actual history of Nazi rule to know this is BS. Hitler's rhetoric and the name of their party is irrelevant. Actions louder than words and all that jazz.

[k-onmmunist]

Shut up. Now and forever.

Why don't you try actually debating things, rather than acting like a three year old as usual? Stop throwing your toys out of the pram and talk properly, dolt.

[ChrisJG777]

It can't just have been to attract voters, if they actually carried it out, which they did. Your reply is weak at best.

Whereas you replies have been weak no matter what.  It was solely to attract voters.  I know for one those two items you listed were never carried out.  You'll find that most (and certainly enough to count) businesses and factories remained under private ownership both before and during the war.  Hitler was not a socialist, get that into your head and stop acting like you've just been on the receiving end of a botched lobotomy.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Shut up. Now and forever.

Why don't you try actually debating things, rather than acting like a three year old as usual? Stop throwing your toys out of the pram and talk properly, dolt.

I discuss only with people who don't write every idiocy they think and start giving real arguments, other than commonplaces and shortcuts.

[k-onmmunist]

Shut up. Now and forever.

Why don't you try actually debating things, rather than acting like a three year old as usual? Stop throwing your toys out of the pram and talk properly, dolt.

I discuss only with people who don't write every idiocy they think and start giving real arguments, other than commonplaces and shortcuts.

So you discuss with people who aren't like yourself, basically?

[k-onmmunist]

It can't just have been to attract voters, if they actually carried it out, which they did. Your reply is weak at best.

Whereas you replies have been weak no matter what.  It was solely to attract voters.  I know for one those two items you listed were never carried out.  You'll find that most (and certainly enough to count) businesses and factories remained under private ownership both before and during the war.  Hitler was not a socialist, get that into your head and stop acting like you've just been on the receiving end of a botched lobotomy.

Hitler was socialist ECONOMICALLY. They may have remained under private ownership, but Hitler came them in line and the slightest dissent would have led to nationalisation. They were bullied and cajoled into doing as he said.

Also, many industries were nationalised, including the railways.

[k-onmmunist]

And before you ask how I know:

From the Wikipedia article on railway nationalisation:


The earliest railways in the German states were often run by private entrepreneurs. Starting in the late 1800s, the railways were recognised as important to the military, and operation often was taken over by the state, especially in Prussia and Bavaria. After World War I, the German Reich took over control of the state railways of Prussia, Bavaria, Saxony, Württemberg, Baden, Mecklenburg-Schwerin, Hesse and Oldenburg. The individual railways were merged into the Deutsche Reichsbahn-Gesellschaft in February 1924.[1] Due to impending war reparations, the DRG was a private company, but shares were bought by the Reich in 1937, effectively nationalising the corporation. In World War II the DR assimilated a great number of railway companies in the German-occupied territories as well as several smaller, previously privately owned lines in Germany. Post-World War II, after being under Allied administration between 1945 and 1949, the DR was split up into the Deutsche Bundesbahn and Deutsche Reichsbahn of the GDR, both state-owned. Private railways continued to exist in the West German realm of the DB, but DB and DR accounted for most of the rail traffic in post-war Germany. After German reunification, DB and DR became Deutsche Bahn AG in 1994. Whilst DB AG is a public limited company, all its shares are presently owned by the government of the Federal Republic of Germany. DB AG is now facing stiff competition in the freight and short-distance passenger sector, although they still hold a quasi-monopoly in the long-distance passenger sector. The IPO, originally planned for 2008, has been postponed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_nationalization#Germany

[ChrisJG777]

It can't just have been to attract voters, if they actually carried it out, which they did. Your reply is weak at best.

Whereas you replies have been weak no matter what.  It was solely to attract voters.  I know for one those two items you listed were never carried out.  You'll find that most (and certainly enough to count) businesses and factories remained under private ownership both before and during the war.  Hitler was not a socialist, get that into your head and stop acting like you've just been on the receiving end of a botched lobotomy.

Hitler was socialist ECONOMICALLY. They may have remained under private ownership, but Hitler came them in line and the slightest dissent would have led to nationalisation. They were bullied and cajoled into doing as he said.

Also, many industries were nationalised, including the railways.

*Head-desk*

There is absolutely no doubt that Hitler was an absolute control freak, but his actions did not make him a socialist, just an ultra-authoritarian.  The act of simply nationalising businesses does not necessarily make one a socialist, it just means that you've nationalised a lot of businesses.  There's more to socialism than simply having the state run a lot of businesses you'll find, much more.

[k-onmmunist]

It can't just have been to attract voters, if they actually carried it out, which they did. Your reply is weak at best.

Whereas you replies have been weak no matter what.  It was solely to attract voters.  I know for one those two items you listed were never carried out.  You'll find that most (and certainly enough to count) businesses and factories remained under private ownership both before and during the war.  Hitler was not a socialist, get that into your head and stop acting like you've just been on the receiving end of a botched lobotomy.

Hitler was socialist ECONOMICALLY. They may have remained under private ownership, but Hitler came them in line and the slightest dissent would have led to nationalisation. They were bullied and cajoled into doing as he said.

Also, many industries were nationalised, including the railways.

*Head-desk*

There is absolutely no doubt that Hitler was an absolute control freak, but his actions did not make him a socialist, just an ultra-authoritarian.  The act of simply nationalising businesses does not necessarily make one a socialist, it just means that you've nationalised a lot of businesses.  There's more to socialism than simply having the state run a lot of businesses you'll find, much more.

I was just trying to point out some similarities. I think politicaladdict is a nutcase personally, and his Nazi obsession is annoying (I went through that phase when I was 11). Ultimately, it's all down to the definition of 'socialism'.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Shut up. Now and forever.

Why don't you try actually debating things, rather than acting like a three year old as usual? Stop throwing your toys out of the pram and talk properly, dolt.

I discuss only with people who don't write every idiocy they think and start giving real arguments, other than commonplaces and shortcuts.

So you discuss with people who aren't like yourself, basically?

Thanks.

And this from someone that said, among other things, that India belongs to UK because they took it, and that BNP is a Freedom Party because they say truths that nobody wants to say. I'm too lazy to search the quotes, so you can pretend you never said this. I absolutely don't care.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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.

[k-onmmunist]

Shut up. Now and forever.

Why don't you try actually debating things, rather than acting like a three year old as usual? Stop throwing your toys out of the pram and talk properly, dolt.

I discuss only with people who don't write every idiocy they think and start giving real arguments, other than commonplaces and shortcuts.

So you discuss with people who aren't like yourself, basically?

Thanks.

And this from someone that said, among other things, that India belongs to UK because they took it, and that BNP is a Freedom Party because they say truths that nobody wants to say. I'm too lazy to search the quotes, so you can pretend you never said this. I absolutely don't care.

The first statement was a joke. The second was simply because I admire their stand against political correctness. I know several BNP members of my age, and frankly I find their party disgusting and their ideology ridiculous. Much as I find socialism and communism really. I also did it just to annoy people because all the 'OMG BNP ROAST BABIES ALIVE LOL' comments were just stupid.

[k-onmmunist]

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.

I didn't say ALL government intervention in the economy is socialist, otherwise that would make me one. However, intervention on the Nazi scale was.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Shut up. Now and forever.

Why don't you try actually debating things, rather than acting like a three year old as usual? Stop throwing your toys out of the pram and talk properly, dolt.

I discuss only with people who don't write every idiocy they think and start giving real arguments, other than commonplaces and shortcuts.

So you discuss with people who aren't like yourself, basically?

Thanks.

And this from someone that said, among other things, that India belongs to UK because they took it, and that BNP is a Freedom Party because they say truths that nobody wants to say. I'm too lazy to search the quotes, so you can pretend you never said this. I absolutely don't care.

The first statement was a joke. The second was simply because I admire their stand against political correctness. I know several BNP members of my age, and frankly I find their party disgusting and their ideology ridiculous. Much as I find socialism and communism really. I also did it just to annoy people because all the 'OMG BNP ROAST BABIES ALIVE LOL' comments were just stupid.

Attacking political correctness means anything you want it to mean. Today, everybody loves to say to be "politically uncorrect", Sarko and Berlusca do the same. It is just a form of demagogy.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

If you want an account of the absorbtion of small businesses into conglomerates such as IG Farben

Arguing that such things were Socialist is... laughable. Utterly laughable.