jambai Posted July 30, 2011 Share Posted July 30, 2011 If you're assuming the nazi existing, yeah Hitler or no Hitler wouldn't matter (starting a war that is not winning it ). But the scale and all the minor circumstances would probably different. If no nazis, I'm not sure there would be any war - at that time. Obviously the leftists lost in beginning of 20's but I don't think there would be another national extremist party like the nazis. And I definately think only an extreme regime would dare to go to war. Yes Poland/France/Czechoslovakia/Rhineland territories etc etc but the german people weren't all that desperate. Democracy still had a chance 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted July 30, 2011 Share Posted July 30, 2011 If you're assuming the nazi existing, yeah Hitler or no Hitler wouldn't matter (starting a war that is not winning it ). But the scale and all the minor circumstances would probably different. If no nazis, I'm not sure there would be any war - at that time. Obviously the leftists lost in beginning of 20's but I don't think there would be another national extremist party like the nazis. And I definately think only an extreme regime would dare to go to war. Yes Poland/France/Czechoslovakia/Rhineland territories etc etc but the german people weren't all that desperate. Democracy still had a chance How does the saying go, nature abhors a vacumn? The last democratically elected government in Germany collapsed in 1930. Perhaps if there had been no great depression things might have gone differently, but a world economic crisis combined with a Communist state to provide support, logisitics and intelligence meant Europe was already a battleground in the 1930s. Hitler rose because the political situation had the industrial leaders looking for someone who could make sure they maintained a grip on power. They would have found another right wing extremist if Hitler hadn't been there. There just wasn't a moderate alternative that could deal with the crisis in society. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambai Posted July 30, 2011 Share Posted July 30, 2011 How does the saying go, nature abhors a vacumn? The last democratically elected government in Germany collapsed in 1930. Perhaps if there had been no great depression things might have gone differently, but a world economic crisis combined with a Communist state to provide support, logisitics and intelligence meant Europe was already a battleground in the 1930s. Hitler rose because the political situation had the industrial leaders looking for someone who could make sure they maintained a grip on power. They would have found another right wing extremist if Hitler hadn't been there. There just wasn't a moderate alternative that could deal with the crisis in society. I understand what you're saying but a german right-wing party rising up in the aftermath of the global recession doesn't necessarily equate a party similar to the Nazi party. The Nazis surely took advantage of the economic crisis but they rose up in 1919, not to any economic matter but a political. I found it unlikely that a "non-nazi" german right wing party would be so staunchly anti-semitic, cultivating an extremely aggressive nationalism and fabricating claims left and right internally and externally to completely demolish any hope of democracy? Even of such a party existed, the german nation in 1930 was not entirely the same as 1919; would they allow nazi-esque acts like anti-antisemitism/democrat-ism in such a scale? I don't know but I found it unlikely as it assumes all of the events and circumstances in the 20's happen just like it did in real-life. Yes I know, Weimar republic were doomed to fail but the stab legend, communists, economic crisis (outside influence), opposing parties all of that weren't predermined but likely to happen. Now what do you think 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASL Veteran Posted July 30, 2011 Share Posted July 30, 2011 The Nazi Party was not a party of the ‘Right’. The National Socialist Worker’s Party was very much a creature of the left. Here is the NAZI party platform http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/25points.htm Let me bring your attention to a few points 10.The first duty of every citizen must be to work mentally or physically. No individual shall do any work that offends against the interest of the community to the benefit of all. 11.That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished. 12.Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in blood and treasure, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as treason to the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits. 13.We demand the nationalization of all trusts. 14. We demand profit-sharing in large industries. 15.We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions. 16.We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle-class, the immediate communalization of large stores which will be rented cheaply to small tradespeople, and the strongest consideration must be given to ensure that small traders shall deliver the supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities. 17. We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land. 20. In order to make it possible for every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education, and thus the opportunity to reach into positions of leadership, the State must assume the responsibility of organizing thoroughly the entire cultural system of the people. The curricula of all educational establishments shall be adapted to practical life. The conception of the State Idea (science of citizenship) must be taught in the schools from the very beginning. We demand that specially talented children of poor parents, whatever their station or occupation, be educated at the expense of the State. 21. The State has the duty to help raise the standard of national health by providing maternity welfare centers, by prohibiting juvenile labor, by increasing physical fitness through the introduction of compulsory games and gymnastics, and by the greatest possible encouragement of associations concerned with the physical education of the young. 23. We demand that there be a legal campaign against those who propagate deliberatepolitical lies and disseminate them through the press. 24. We demand freedom for all religious faiths in the state, insofar as they do not endanger its existence or offend the moral and ethical sense of the Germanic race. The party as such represents the point of view of a positive Christianity without binding itself to any one particular confession. It fights against the Jewish materialist spirit within and without, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our folk can only come about from within on the pinciple: COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD 25. In order to carry out this program we demand: the creation of a strong central authority in the State, the unconditional authority by the political central parliament of the whole State and all its organizations. Now, let’s have a look at the Communist Manifesto of 1848Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.Abolition of all right of inheritance.Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country.Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial productionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Communist_Manifesto As far as people of Jewish faith are concerned - well Karl Marx hated them just like the Nazi's did http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/ I don't really want to start a political discussion here, but a little research can go a long way. Nazi's are not communists though. There are important differences. However, the National Socialist Worker's Party was most assuredly 'left wing' and not 'right wing'. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambai Posted July 30, 2011 Share Posted July 30, 2011 Yeah whatever, right-wing or not. People call it right-wing because the party's acts, agenda and beliefs has much more in common with right-wing extremists than left-wing. Surely their origins are leftists and as far as domestic economic politics is concerned. This however doesn't qualify to call the Nazi party for "left-wing". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vark Posted July 30, 2011 Share Posted July 30, 2011 Which bits of the acts, agenda and beliefs of the Nazis have more in common with the right-wing extremists? Seems to me extremists of either left or right share the same agenda. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambai Posted July 30, 2011 Share Posted July 30, 2011 Uh, everything? They and the Italian fascists defined the extreme right - and they had also roots from the left - and you ain't going to tell me fascism is left-wing, or? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noob Posted July 30, 2011 Share Posted July 30, 2011 Both Fascism and Communism posit the state as the ultimate power, whereas Capatalism posits the market as the ultimate power, with the state being demoted to a subservient role, both approaches to governance create the same thing, the concentration of power and wealth into the hands of an elite, which in my opinion leads to corruption and criminality on a grand scale. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambai Posted July 30, 2011 Share Posted July 30, 2011 Both Fascism and Communism posit the state as the ultimate power, whereas Capatalism posits the market as the ultimate power, with the state being demoted to a subservient role, both approaches to governance create the same thing, the concentration of power and wealth into the hands of an elite, which in my opinion leads to corruption and criminality on a grand scale. But that's not the same as fascism is left-wing or? As your right of course but I'm not arguing against that but the notion that either fascism or nazism is left-wing. If that's the case, communism is right-wing and the whole system collapse Both extremist sides have many things in common but we don't define them in the whole "right-wing left wing" scale based on that, (we simply call them authoritarian/undemocratic etc etc. We tend to lump them together on their differences, which I admit can be hard to define but it's there, and it's also based on their own stances. Ie, the two extremes didn't like each other, despite being somewhat similar, like the "original" nazists being lumped together with other right-wing extremists () because they cooperated against the communists. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poesel Posted July 30, 2011 Share Posted July 30, 2011 Please bear in mind the the notion of what is 'left' or 'right' wing differs very much between Germany and the USA. If I take the list from ASL Veteran and try to match it to a current german party it would best fit to the leftmost party we have (1)(2). Taking US standards our conservative government would be democrats while the opposition would be something like socialists (3). US republicans would bee seen as a very right wing party (4). What is left or right lies very much in the eye of the beholder. But history tells us that at the extreme ends usually something bad happens. (1) I'm NOT insunuating they have anything in common with the NSDAP (2) we have more than 2 partys here (3) thats communism plus free market (4) does exist here but next to no influence 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambai Posted July 30, 2011 Share Posted July 30, 2011 hehe yeah I know it differs from country to country and I can understand why americans can consider NSDAP leftist LoL! just joking. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted July 30, 2011 Share Posted July 30, 2011 Wow we are really heading into shark infested waters here. Regardless of name and sloganeering, the Nazis were allied with German big business. By default therefore I think you pretty much rule them out of the "leftist" sphere. That there is a lot of similarity between extremists of any political persuasion is I would think a given. Nice example is Robert Mugabe. ZANU was undoubtedly a leftist political organization in the fight against Apartheid. It's current political posture however has little to do with the slogans and posturing of it's past. Going back to Jambai's response. Anti semitism of the Nazis was not something most of the world objected to. We see it a lot differently post war, but the international response to Nazis anti semitism left a lot to be desired to put it lightly. As to the aggressive nationalism and fabricating claims, well I can't say the Nazis had a lock on that either. Do the words Manifest Destiny ring a bell? Just look at American politics now. All I can do is scratch my head and wonder how our population became so politically ignorant or is it simply people just prefer simple solutions. Persoanlly I believe that to be true and the more complicated the situation we face, the more folks tend to extreme simplistic solutions. Reality does not intrude. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vark Posted July 30, 2011 Share Posted July 30, 2011 Both Fascism and Communism posit the state as the ultimate power, whereas Capatalism posits the market as the ultimate power, with the state being demoted to a subservient role, both approaches to governance create the same thing, the concentration of power and wealth into the hands of an elite, which in my opinion leads to corruption and criminality on a grand scale. Having lived under both systems, I far prefer the concentration of power found under capitalism! Sburke, you caution us about sailing into shark infested waters and then bring in current US politics! I think the terms left/right-wing are really past there sell by date in the current economic climate, Communism was crap for the majority but crony capitalism for the select few and what of modern China? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted July 30, 2011 Share Posted July 30, 2011 Sburke, you caution us about sailing into shark infested waters and then bring in current US politics! Yeah I know, probably really bad move, but what I was trying to get to and likely did a poor job of was going back to the position of the German population of the 1930's (and of a lot of other countries as well). The economic/social/political situation was extremely complex and dire. People like to find a simple solution that seems to answer all their problems and their ability to ignore that there is absolutely not one iota of truth or practicality to the position becomes irrelevant. Trying to face that the answer is probably really complex and there are no quick easy solutions is just not acceptable. Hmm that almost sounds like a discussion of some of the desired features for CMBN..... okay now I am in Great White waters... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted July 30, 2011 Share Posted July 30, 2011 The Nazi platform info from ASL Vet was fascinating. However, in reality they abandoned most and had a very cozy relationship with industry/capitalism, both German and Allied (negotiations thru Switzerland). "Trading with the Enemy" by Charles Higham was a good book on the subject. http://www.amazon.com/Trading-Enemy-Charles-Higham/dp/044019055X 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vark Posted July 30, 2011 Share Posted July 30, 2011 True, but sometimes the solution is simple but deliberately complicated by people who are self-serving, to put it mildly. I feel like a dip in the fin studded water, so here goes! Regarding the US, the solution is pretty simple, stop promising to give people money you KNOW you will not have in the future (most states budgets make the overall US position seem quite rosy) and stop spending money you don't have. See the solution is simple, trouble is the way to enact the solution is the tortuous road, hence the attraction of political extremes. Simple solutions with simple ways to enact them, of course by simplifying the enacting phase of the cycle they normally sow the seeds of their own eventual destruction, alas, often after inflicting grievous harm on societies who take their time on the first stage. A classic; stopping Hitler was simple, enacting that was the hard part and the delay caused by the necessary processes allowed Hitler the window of opportunity he had planned for. As for far-left and far-right hating each other. I think that's simply because each holds a metaphorical mirror up to the other showing their glaring inconsistencies and faults, often provoking acts of extreme violence or brutality as shields against the psychological dissonance the encounter created. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noob Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 Having lived under both systems, I far prefer the concentration of power found under capitalism! Capitalism compared to Communism is definately the lesser of two evils as far as the relative freedoms of the respective domestic populations is concerned, however it's the effects of capitalism and its adherents on other countries populations that bothers me, for example the United States is one of the most capatalist and free societies in the world, yet it has intervened in more countries than any other country in modern history, mainly in the name of protecting the US elites political and economic interests as shown in the link provided http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LemuelG Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 Looking at the issue as 'left/right' only confuses matters. While Gregor Strasser was alive and in a position of influence, the Nazi platform had more than a faint whiff of socialism about it, there is no doubt the party platform could be described as 'leftist'. Strasser was highly influential, and the organizational genius behind the rise of the Nazis from Bavarian curiosity into national powerhouse; Schleicher offered him the vice-chancellorship ahead of Hitler, and it sealed his fate (being murdered SS men.. I mean 'pussys' through the window of his cell). A monolithic, 'extremist' view of Nazis in general is a mistaken attitude, a vote for the NSDAP was not exactly a vote for a bayonet in the heart of every Gypsy-child. There's way more to it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 Hitler rose because the political situation had the industrial leaders looking for someone who could make sure they maintained a grip on power. They would have found another right wing extremist if Hitler hadn't been there. There just wasn't a moderate alternative that could deal with the crisis in society. I agree with this. A conservative, even authoritarian, government was probably inescapable at that point. However, it didn't have to be a leader with Hitler's predetermined fixation on war as the only solution. That could have meant a great deal on how matters worked out. Some kind of war, even a serious one, likely would have taken place. But it wouldn't have had to be slaughter and destruction on such a massive scale. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 The Nazi platform info from ASL Vet was fascinating. However, in reality they abandoned most and had a very cozy relationship with industry/capitalism, both German and Allied... True, but reading Tooze, I came away with the impression that that was only a temporary, opportunistic arrangement. I think their long term goal always remained the nationalization of industries and the devolution of Germany into a mostly agrarian society with most of the farming being done by small yeoman landholders. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dietrich Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 Anybody here read William Manchester's The Arms of Krupp? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IMHO Posted July 31, 2011 Author Share Posted July 31, 2011 Hitler rose because the political situation had the industrial leaders looking for someone who could make sure they maintained a grip on power. They would have found another right wing extremist if Hitler hadn't been there. There just wasn't a moderate alternative that could deal with the crisis in society. Well... I guess Hitler rose because his language and ideas were popular. The industry did support him but at the beginning it was limited. They supported him because he was gaining electoral base not that they bought votes for him. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IMHO Posted July 31, 2011 Author Share Posted July 31, 2011 I agree with this. A conservative, even authoritarian, government was probably inescapable at that point. However, it didn't have to be a leader with Hitler's predetermined fixation on war as the only solution. That could have meant a great deal on how matters worked out. Some kind of war, even a serious one, likely would have taken place. But it wouldn't have had to be slaughter and destruction on such a massive scale. Michael And we've got Uncle Joe. He would have started something sooner or later I guess. May be he'd have been shy of going against half of the world but some minor territorial wars he might have done. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 And we've got Uncle Joe. He would have started something sooner or later I guess. May be he'd have been shy of going against half of the world but some minor territorial wars he might have done. That's a real possibility. I think his preference was to use his armed forces to intimidate rather than engage in outright warfare, but under certain circumstances—as in Poland and Finland—did not shrink from the latter. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhantomApple Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 Isnt right wing vs left wing period based? I'm no historian on politics, but hasn't the definitions changed over the last 60 to 70 years in the US? *edit* seems I missed a page. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.