I think I've finally figured out why the Nazis were considered a right-wing ideology
Anyone who has studied World War II should know that the full and proper name of the Nazi party was the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP). And anyone who knows anything about socialism knows that it is primarily a left-wing ideology. In recent years, this has led many people to believe that the Nazis were on the left-wing of the political spectrum.
But according to this article, Hitler actually opposed socialist ideas, and the Nazi party was socialist in name only, having taken the label in order to gain popularity with the German people. That's why historians have consistently said that the Nazis were a right-wing party, even though they bore the name of a left-wing ideology. The Nazis deceptively called themselves socialists, but many of their actual policies were ardently anti-socialist. Though they did have to implement some genuine socialist policies during their reign in order to appease the masses -- such as wealth redistribution, profit-sharing, nationalization of trusts, retirement pensions and free education -- they nevertheless stood ardently opposed to the ideas of racial and ethnic equality, which were supposed to be a keystone of socialism.
From the article:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In April, 1920, Hitler advocated that the [German Worker's Party (GPW)] should change its name to the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP). Hitler had always been hostile to socialist ideas, especially those that involved racial or sexual equality. However, socialism was a popular political philosophy in Germany after the First World War. This was reflected in the growth in the German Social Democrat Party (SDP), the largest political party in Germany. Hitler, therefore redefined socialism by placing the word 'National' before it. He claimed he was only in favour of equality for those who had 'German blood'. Jews and other 'aliens' would lose their rights of citizenship, and immigration of non-Germans should be brought to an end.
[...]
In September 1921, Hitler was sent to prison for three months for being part of a mob who beat up a rival politician. When Hitler was released, he formed his own private army called Sturm Abteilung (Storm Section). The SA (also known as stormtroopers or brownshirts) were instructed to disrupt the meetings of political opponents and to protect Hitler from revenge attacks.
[...]
At the end of the march Hitler would make one of his passionate speeches that encouraged his supporters to carry out acts of violence against Jews and his left-wing political opponents. As this violence was often directed against Socialists and Communists, the local right-wing Bavarian government did not take action against the Nazi Party."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I admit, for the longest time, I had been operating on the assumption that the Nazis were actual, genuine socialists, because that's what they called themselves. But if this article is true, it flips things around completely. Not that I would ever become a socialist, because I've studied economics too much to believe socialism could ever work. But I do finally understand how and why the Nazis were considered to be part of the right-wing, in spite of their party's name.
(As a side note, I also found it interesting that the Nazi SA were sometimes called "stormtroopers." Could that have been where George Lucas got the term from?)
But according to this article, Hitler actually opposed socialist ideas, and the Nazi party was socialist in name only, having taken the label in order to gain popularity with the German people. That's why historians have consistently said that the Nazis were a right-wing party, even though they bore the name of a left-wing ideology. The Nazis deceptively called themselves socialists, but many of their actual policies were ardently anti-socialist. Though they did have to implement some genuine socialist policies during their reign in order to appease the masses -- such as wealth redistribution, profit-sharing, nationalization of trusts, retirement pensions and free education -- they nevertheless stood ardently opposed to the ideas of racial and ethnic equality, which were supposed to be a keystone of socialism.
From the article:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In April, 1920, Hitler advocated that the [German Worker's Party (GPW)] should change its name to the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP). Hitler had always been hostile to socialist ideas, especially those that involved racial or sexual equality. However, socialism was a popular political philosophy in Germany after the First World War. This was reflected in the growth in the German Social Democrat Party (SDP), the largest political party in Germany. Hitler, therefore redefined socialism by placing the word 'National' before it. He claimed he was only in favour of equality for those who had 'German blood'. Jews and other 'aliens' would lose their rights of citizenship, and immigration of non-Germans should be brought to an end.
[...]
In September 1921, Hitler was sent to prison for three months for being part of a mob who beat up a rival politician. When Hitler was released, he formed his own private army called Sturm Abteilung (Storm Section). The SA (also known as stormtroopers or brownshirts) were instructed to disrupt the meetings of political opponents and to protect Hitler from revenge attacks.
[...]
At the end of the march Hitler would make one of his passionate speeches that encouraged his supporters to carry out acts of violence against Jews and his left-wing political opponents. As this violence was often directed against Socialists and Communists, the local right-wing Bavarian government did not take action against the Nazi Party."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I admit, for the longest time, I had been operating on the assumption that the Nazis were actual, genuine socialists, because that's what they called themselves. But if this article is true, it flips things around completely. Not that I would ever become a socialist, because I've studied economics too much to believe socialism could ever work. But I do finally understand how and why the Nazis were considered to be part of the right-wing, in spite of their party's name.
(As a side note, I also found it interesting that the Nazi SA were sometimes called "stormtroopers." Could that have been where George Lucas got the term from?)
SOURCE URL: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERnazi.htm
Ultimately though, today it's really not about "Left" versus "Right": it's about the Globalist versus the rest of us, i.e., the Commoners. The Left/Right paradigm is just a divide & conquer tactic. The Globalists use BOTH sides to achieve their goals. Need proof? Look no further than our own two-head, one-party political system, traditionally known as "Democrats" and "Republicans". Further proof can be found in what Mayer Amsel Rothschild said concerning governments: ""Let me issue and control a Nation's money and I care not who makes its laws". circa 1838.
There is another anarchy of sorts, however, in which everyone is completely free to choose independent of a central authority, but in which the rules are the same for everyone. It revolves around individuals being their own police and demands very rigid self-discipline. I suspect that no one really mentions it much because very few people actually have the self-discipline to make it work and it would rely upon foundational understanding of everything so as to comply with natural laws. Omniscience and self-discipline are not highlights of humanity at this point...
I say that because sender47 is right. Anarchy as well as tyranny can both be applicable to either the right or left sides of the political spectrum. The only way for that to be possible is for the tyranny/anarchy axis to be perpendicular, rather than parallel, to the traditional liberal/conservative axis.
Commune the Holy Grail of Collectivism is also free of authority. (Paris commune is an example of fight between right and left anarchist about what was that)
Just to point that out, one thing is Collectivism. Individualism and another Authoritarian-Libertarian.
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
Where do “ideas of racial and ethnic equality, which were supposed to be a keystone of socialism” come into this definition? In fact, the author admits that the Nazis “appease[d] the masses -- such as wealth redistribution, profit-sharing, nationalization of trusts, retirement pensions and free education” – e.g., classical socialism. According to the article, “Hitler actually opposed socialist ideas” – and not a single example of which specific socialist ideas did Hitler oppose. Just make a statement and the reader is expected to assume it to be factual.
As well illustrated by Orwell, who observed socialism in its infancy in Spain, the Party will re-define basic concepts to make the result whatever it wants it to be. If the Party says that 2 + 2 = 5, then it is 5! BTW, the US Ministry of Education, in its Core Curriculum, says that if a “student” in a government “school” feels that 5 + 5 = 11, then 11 it is!
All that socialism is, is government ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange.
The supplanting of a truly free market with a system of public-private partnerships governing production, distribution and exchange is better called fascism.
Racism seems unique to the Nazis, and to Emperor Hirohito's generals. But racism is a form of collectivism. Rand herself called racism the lowest form of collectivism known to man.
I am also skeptical of any article or person saying that the Nazi Party was either right or left because Nazi has now become the flagship insult to any group you do not like. If you can make a believable case that your opposition has a lot in common with the Nazi Party you score points with those who lock onto that word.
How times have changed. I was stunned when I saw all those Jew-Baiting signs carried around by that Occupy Movement.
During the 60s I was a white racist because that was all I was exposed to. My logic and soul grew up during the early 70s. I find racism repulsive.
And I do not understand the Progressive dislike of Jews and even more so the Jews who support Progressives.
I'm not sure where the right/left description came from, but it's mis-leading. Maybe that's it's purpose.
It is widely believed that Nazis were Right Wingers because graduating class after graduating class after graduating class after graduating class after graduating class have been told that Nazis were Right Wingers. "Make the lie big enough and tell it enough times and it will become truth." Another evil SOB said that.
One of the biggest "Proofs" used that Nazis were right wingers is that Nazis and Communists hate each other. And since Conservatives hate Communists, too, Nazis must be Conservatives, right?
The truth is that Nazis and Communists hate each other because they are basically the same thing. When the National Socialist party first arose, they *literally* walked into Communist Party Meetings and recruited them right out of their seats. For the same reason as Lions hate Hyenas on the plains of Africa, or how McDonalds hates the Wendys straight across the street, Nazis hate Communists. Because they all fight over the same sources of food. Lions wouldn't go out of their way to kill Hyenas (and vice versa) if they didn't both eat Gazelles. Nazis and Communists wouldn't hate each other if they both weren't competing for the sub-triple-digit-IQ moronic youngsters (dubbed "Useful Idiots").
Wilson created the first fascist-style regime in a western democracy but could only keep it together under the threat of WW1. FDR had a ready made excuse in the Depression and added a cult of personality to his New Deal which created fundamental transformational change and which the dimwitted "greatest generation" swallowed hook line and sinker bringing about the demise of our constitutional republic while allegedly fighting off FDR's ideological soul-mates.
The progressives in the US loved the fascists and nazis until WW2. FDR and Mussolini had a mutual admiration society going on. The Eugenicists in the US thought the Third Reich was heading in the right direction. (Although they wanted all of this expunged from the history books after WW2 revealed to the general public the full extent of the holocaust.
In the end, the game is about who holds the power, which is usually a small group of oligarchs or a single, dictatorial figure. Hitler, like Stalin, was gifted in building such an architecture of fear and distrust among his closest associates that no one was willing to challenge even his most insane decisions. Mussolini tried to create a similar atmosphere and failed. Franco built a small group of favorites, but engendered a feeling of trust and loyalty among them that enabled his survival and success.
Fascism has been portrayed as ownership of government by "corporatists", referring to a small group of powerful owners of large portions of the capitalist enterprise. If entities such as Krupp thought they had such control over Hitler, they were mistaken, but I believe we are much closer to the Fascist model in America today, as there is no Hitlerian charismatic figure with the skills to wrench control from the big owners of information trade. Obama doesn't have the skills of a Hitler or Stalin.
The authoritarian power wielders at the top in America have so twisted the vague definitions of left and right that conservatism, which leans away from centralized power in any form, is somehow accepted as a sign of looming "right wing" tyranny. The dictionary of American society has been rewritten while we watched and let it happen.
Left or right labels are irrelevant, just as is whether the poison destroying the republic is Fascist or Socialist in nature. Like the snake bite victim, Authoritarian poison kills freedom, no matter the source.
Oh, and don't make the mistake of equating the current Republican party with rightists (or Conservatives) either. Most modern Republicans are far more centrist than any Conservative - both on fiscal as well as social policy, which is why they cave to the far-left Democrats (there are no other kind remaining). They have no moral compass, and that is why the libertarians like the Pauls and the TEA party activists have been giving them fits.
I would echo other comments also say that you have to look at things from more than a right/left mentality. Ultimately, it is all about personal control vs government control of one's life and "pursuit of happiness". The battle is individualism (and the market) vs authoritarianism and big government. Regardless of Hitler's personal beliefs, he actively pursued the authoritarian avenue.
When someone has to lie to you to get you to form an opinion you would not form or behave in a way you would not otherwise behave if you were told the truth, you had better question their motives.
Right Wing philosophy trends toward increasing personal freedom and decreasing government, Right Wing 'utopia' may be the absence of the need for any government because in the perfect world citizens would enjoy infinite personal freedom constrained by infinite personal responsibility. As with any 'utopia' it is not an achievable state but it is an objective toward which to strive. How close can we get and how little government can we get away with?
The philosophy of the right is not defined as being the opposite or even opposition to Communism or Socialism or Marxism. The philosophy of the right is not, in any way, a philosophy of totalitarian governments.
That is not to say it is without the need for rules. One of the shortcomings of the left today is that the education system is poor and many of the so called ‘educated elites’ on the left don’t understand why certain prohibitions developed over the unenlightened millennia and then are surprised when the law of unintended consequences causes unexpected problems when traditional prohibitions are ignored. Or ancestors were no more ignorant that we are, they just didn’t have the benefit of the accumulated knowledge we have but they were able to figure out cause and effect relationships.
Ultimately, civilization depends on defending successful cultures. We are failing to defend the culture that gave rise to the country which has offered the greatest opportunity for individual freedom the world has ever known.
One of the best explanations of the philosophical spectrum was in this YouTube video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VogzExP3q...
Left wing = opposed to traditional government
...
NAZI = Left wing
...
THE RIGHT - that section of a political party ... which associates itself with traditional authority or opinion and which in legislative bodies is seated traditionally to the right of the presiding officer.
- - - Webster's Dictionary
THE LEFT - that section of a political party ... which differs most from traditional authority or opinion and which in legislative bodies is seated traditionally to the left of the presiding officer.
- - - Webster's Dictionary
It makes me wonder why Hitler betrayed Stalin. It seems like he should have used Stalin's support and the name "Socialist" to avoid fighting a war on two fronts. I don't understand how Germany went from a defeated country to a major power and then made apparently stupid decisions.
Another example of a military blunder was Hitler's refusal to give Rommel more support in North Africa. There was no military genius equal to Rommel in WWII - not even Patton or Eisenhower. It was only due to attrition and luck/divine providence that the Allies won at El Alamein and began to force the "Desert Fox" out of Tunisia and Libya. But the Allies needed North Africa in order to launch an attack on Italy and get it out of the war. Most military historians agree that D-Day couldn't happen until Italy had been neutralized.
Another major player was Herman Goering - Hitler's Air Marshall. Goering eschewed the development of heavy bombers and instead focused on fighter aircraft. If Germany had built bombers similar to the American "Flying Fortresses" that decimated German manufacturing, it is entirely possible that they could have stalled the war for the months necessary to complete development of atomic weapons, which they were only months from obtaining. They might even have turned the tide in Stalingrad.
The flaw with Rommel was he was *too* good - AH realized the man was a brilliant commander, and that clashed with his personal ego. Thats why he sent him to Africa, and later to Normandie to build fortresses. Had he held him close, as he did Albert Speer, and given him the trust he should have...
Then again, Hitler was definitely NOT CEO material... he was a corporal in WW1... Created huge rallies (with the hel of others), but did not have idea 1 how to delegate authority. It - this juvenile egotism - damaged almost every aspect of the reich, and spelled their doom from the start. Had he put his faith in the Professional Military (that Germany was ALWAYS proud of) instead of wanting to bask in self-aggrandizing glory, the war would have nded MUCH differently.
Nice, romantic way of saying they (typically) sacrificed millions of their own, relying on their harsh climate to once again fend off the invader.
AH was not CINC material. He did not have any mgmt experience. He knew how to rally mobs and thought himself a genius (hmm, reminds me of someone else). If he had been a capable mgr willing to share the limelight with his military leaders, then the European theater of WWII would have been a very different place. His micro-managing of the war doomed Germany to certain defeat. Stalingrad did not have to be a disaster, there were several strategies that would most likely have made it a victory.
Germany would have eventually been defeated. It simply did not have enough men and material to protect its greatly expanded boundaries. If Barbarossa had not been implemented, then Stailn would have enventually attacked anyway as Stalin feared Nazism for the same reasons that AH feared Bolshevism. Although he was also a nutcase (purged the military of anyone capable), he did have many millions of soldiers and civilians to send in waves to defeat Germany. Recall that once Barbarossa began, the USA started supplying the USSR with material and intelligence.
Actually, Hitler attacked the Soviet Union in a pre-emptive strike because the Soviet Union was poised to attack within a week of Barbarossa. The first historian to disclose these carefully hidden (by the Soviets) facts is Victor Suvorov in "Icebreaker." The facts support this. On June 22, 1941, 141 Soviet divisions were concentrated within a few kilometers of the border, all their aircraft were pre-positioned within a few kilometers of the border (that is why the Germans were able to destroy them in one day, just like the Isralies did in 1967). The Russians have abandoned all their previously held defensive positions, trainloads of supplies were being dumped right at the terminals by the border and none of the bridges were mined - in fact, the mines were removed a few weeks prior. Even the most numerous Russian tank at the time, BT-7, of which the Soviets had about 50,000, was designed to be very fast, with weak armor, and could shed its tracks and run on wheels at very high speed. Keep in mind that the Soviet Union did not have roads which the BT-7 could have possibly utilized - those roads were in Germany! Those tanks were useless in a defensive war and were abandoned.
The myth of Germany attacking the USSR for all the reasons that you've listed above have been pushed by the Soviets and swallowed by the West in order to hide the Soviet impending attack on Germany and their clear intention, under the guise of getting rid of Hitler, to continue rolling through Western Europe.
A-bombs make Russians glow just as brightly as they make Japanese...
His military policy was NOT isolationism, or we wouldn't have ended up at war. Isolationism means not supplying the enemies of your enemy behind the cloak of neutrality. It means not refusing to sell scrap metal to Japan because of their expansionism.
Where's the evidence that his SCOTUS picks led to extending existing policy further than it would have extended otherwise?
I can't stand FDR, but you're not condemning him for his real flaws.
Yes, he made the Depression worse and longer. His military policy wast stupid, but only because he sent 60% of our men and material to the European theater, instead of to the REAL war with Japan; likewise the lend-lease he sent to Russia. Of course, that was his driving purpose behind getting us into the war; first, to dig us out of the Depression he had us stuck in, in a Keynesian fashion, and second, to save the communists from being crushed by the fascists.
FDR did have to be forced into the war. Yes, he was providing war materials, but that's just commerce, no different than Switzerland. It was only after the Lusitania (which was probably carrying ammunition) and finally Pearl Harbor that FDR was finally pushed by public outrage to truly engage and declare war on the Axis powers. Germany invaded Poland in September of 1939. The Battle of Britain was in 1940. German U-boat wolfpacks were sinking US shipping in 1940. Despite Churchill's pleading, the US didn't formally declare war until December 8, 1941 (Japan) and December 11 (Germany). Say what you wish, but FDR was an isolationist, though it should be noted that most of America up to Pearl Harbor shared that sentiment.
And you really need to read up on your military history. Germany was by far the more dangerous of the Axis powers due to its research. It wasn't Japan that had developed the Tiger (Panzer) tanks, 88mm armor-piercing guns, the largest battleships afloat (the Bismarck and Tirpitz), the Messerschmitt supersonic fighters, the V-1 and V-2 missiles nor was within months of having the atomic bomb. After the battle of Midway when Japan lost four major carriers and all their experienced pilots, the rest of the Asian theater was long, bloody mop-up work, but that's all. The Japanese had will and territory, but they were only half as dangerous as the Germans, who were technologically superior and also nursing a deep-seated grudge for the one-sided treaty of Versailles that pushed their economy into shambles.
And to be fair, FDR did not instigate the Depression. That was started by Herbert Hoover - similar to Bush/Obama today. Just like FDR, however, Obama has made the economy worse through exactly the same tactics: higher taxes and an expanded welfare state. Obama is similarly attempting to pack the Supreme Court. What I fear is that unlike FDR, Obama wants to drag us into a war like the one in Syria that could easily escalate into a worldwide conflict. He has been reading from the same history books that tout that war got us out of the Great Depression and that it was propping up the economy during Vietnam, both of which are fallacies. War only sucks/diverts/destroys resources. It was the improvements of private enterprise that brought us out of the Great Depression. I wish our current leadership would heed this wisdom, but I am not holding my breath.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hitler began to argue that "capitalists had worked their way to the top through their capacity, and on the basis of this selection they have the right to lead." Hitler claimed that national socialism meant all people doing their best for society and posed no threat to the wealth of the rich. Some prosperous industrialists were convinced by these arguments and gave donations to the Nazi Party, however, the vast majority continued to support other parties, especially the right-wing German Nationalist Peoples Party (DNVP).