rock jock
Member
bahadur,
Great analysis. I lost you on this, though:
Great analysis. I lost you on this, though:
Can you explain how Hitler did that?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Was Hitler a "right wing" socialist or is the left in denial of one of their own?
- Thread starter JoeSF
- Start date
- Status
-
Not open for further replies.
bad_dad_brad
Member
One more time!
Hitler was neither left or right. He was a parasitic populist seeking to further his agenda, which was two fold. Conquer and dominate Europe out of revenge for for the loss of World War I, and more significant, the destruction of Jews in Europe. Why Hitler hated Jews so much is a much debated issue. No matter, he did.
Hitler USED right wing politics to placate the elite and the army, hence fascism. Hitler USED left wing politics to placate the masses, hence socialism. But Hitler was all about himself and his power, his will, and his agenda. This man was a very dangerous malefic politician placed in history during a very desperate time, and the result was a catastrophe that the world is still reverberating from.
Hopefully we shall learn from this hard lesson of history and pray God that this never happens again (but I fear it will - for on a small scale it did in Bosnia just a few scant years ago.)
I just finished a horrific but important new work by the Pulitzer Prize winning historian, Richard Rhodes, entitled "Masters of Death." This sobering account recants the 1.5 million people that special SS killing squads murdered, mostly by shooting (men, women, children), upon direct orders of Hitler via his rodent toady Himmler, before mass killings were done via concentration camp gas chambers. This book is not for the faint of heart, but it is a must read to understand how terrible things were back then, and who was responsible for that ultimate horror.
I had to force myself to read it, but the author asked me to have the courage to do so, for he forced himself to write it, to remember the victims who have been largely forgotten, so that perhaps this tragedy would not be repeated. If you can read this book without weeping at certain passages, then you are harder than I am.
Hitler was neither left or right. He was a parasitic populist seeking to further his agenda, which was two fold. Conquer and dominate Europe out of revenge for for the loss of World War I, and more significant, the destruction of Jews in Europe. Why Hitler hated Jews so much is a much debated issue. No matter, he did.
Hitler USED right wing politics to placate the elite and the army, hence fascism. Hitler USED left wing politics to placate the masses, hence socialism. But Hitler was all about himself and his power, his will, and his agenda. This man was a very dangerous malefic politician placed in history during a very desperate time, and the result was a catastrophe that the world is still reverberating from.
Hopefully we shall learn from this hard lesson of history and pray God that this never happens again (but I fear it will - for on a small scale it did in Bosnia just a few scant years ago.)
I just finished a horrific but important new work by the Pulitzer Prize winning historian, Richard Rhodes, entitled "Masters of Death." This sobering account recants the 1.5 million people that special SS killing squads murdered, mostly by shooting (men, women, children), upon direct orders of Hitler via his rodent toady Himmler, before mass killings were done via concentration camp gas chambers. This book is not for the faint of heart, but it is a must read to understand how terrible things were back then, and who was responsible for that ultimate horror.
I had to force myself to read it, but the author asked me to have the courage to do so, for he forced himself to write it, to remember the victims who have been largely forgotten, so that perhaps this tragedy would not be repeated. If you can read this book without weeping at certain passages, then you are harder than I am.
Zander
member
I do thank you for your review. Personally, I don't need any more convincing nor am I in any sense confused as to the ID of the perpetrator. However, there is the undeniable fact that Hitler could not have imposed his will without willing accomplices. His "charisma" with the population cannot explain those who carried out his obscene and despicable plan for the extermination of those who opposed him, either in fact or in his bizarre imagination.This book is not for the faint of heart, but it is a must read to understand how terrible things were back then, and who was responsible for that ultimate horror.
Ah...back to the basic question. His remarks, recorded for history's sake, place him as a leftist. Perhaps an argument can be made that his remarks and pandering to the "right" have not been sufficiently recorded. Given that he is one of history's most researched figures, that's doubtful.Hitler was neither left or right.
If you can read this book without weeping at certain passages, then you are harder than I am.
Two points:
1. Weeping is not my primary reaction;
2. I'm not sure "harder" is an appropriate adjective.
There is no oxymoron implied in the concurrency of passionate reaction and dispassionate analysis.
Zander
member
Under one definition [non-political] of 'conservative'.A Communist hardliner under a communist regime is a conservative.
A distinction without a difference. See above...A Communist hardliner under a socialist economic system is generally refered to as conservative because they wish to further the ideals of the status quo.
More accurately, a 'revolutionary' in the context of our discussion. Think Che Guevara as opposed to Gus Hall.A communist hardliner in a capitalist economy would be considered a liberal for wishing to overthrow the status quo.
No flames from me. Obviously, you've given your opinion and your remarks more than casual interest and thought.There is much more to this, but I suspect I should wait for the flames....
bad_dad_brad
Member
Zander,
Read the book. Then make judgement.
Read the book. Then make judgement.
Zander
member
Perhaps you didn't understand my remarks; I don't need to read another book to "render judgement".Read the book. Then make judgement.
I'm not confused by my remarks; apparently you are.
Lest you be further confused, I offer two words:
Total condemnation.
I trust this is clear...
GinSlinger
Member
Zander,
To pull the terms "liberal" and "conservative" out of context is impossible. Liberal and Conservative were defined by Burke as per my original post. Lower case these words can be thrown before the swine, upper case the terms have historical meaning.
GinSlinger
To pull the terms "liberal" and "conservative" out of context is impossible. Liberal and Conservative were defined by Burke as per my original post. Lower case these words can be thrown before the swine, upper case the terms have historical meaning.
GinSlinger
- Status
-
Not open for further replies.