Soviet History

[maven]

If I had a dollar for every commentator on Al Jazzera English, CNN or Press TV Iran this week who said "The Islamic Republic of Iran has never invaded any other country" I'd be rich.

But here's where they are wrong. The Mullahs consitute a deviousness rarely observed in International politics since Adol Hitler. What is Hamas in Gaza but an Iranian invasion? What is Hiz'bollah in Lebanon but an Iranian invasion? What is Muqtadar Al Sadr in Iraq but an Iranian invasion? Truly the Wooden Horse was never so much used!

[baggi]

i dont care what iran has done in the past. look at what they are doing now, supporting hizballah and hamas.

[Mediocrates]

Neither did the CCCP. They 'liberated' their brethren.

[Rob]

Iran is occupying some Emirati islands which it took by force some 40 years ago.

[Y. Shulamith]

There's a first time for everything, eh???

[takeo]

If I had a dollar for every commentator on Al Jazzera English, CNN or Press TV Iran this week who said "The Islamic Republic of Iran has never invaded any other country" I'd be rich.

But here's where they are wrong. The Mullahs consitute a deviousness rarely observed in International politics since Adol Hitler. What is Hamas in Gaza but an Iranian invasion? What is Hiz'bollah in Lebanon but an Iranian invasion? What is Muqtadar Al Sadr in Iraq but an Iranian invasion? Truly the Wooden Horse was never so much used!

If supporting and financing political groups is "invading" than the US invaded almost the entire world.
Now who'll make a thread called "Israel and the US never invaded another country" ?

[Mil]

Posted by maven:

If I had a dollar for every commentator on Al Jazzera English, CNN or Press TV Iran this week who said "The Islamic Republic of Iran has never invaded any other country" I'd be rich.

That's not true. Iran did participate in the invasion of UAE in the 70s. In the 80s Iran invaded Iraq.

As to the history... Persian Empire.... well, most of the Russian South today's Armenia, Georgia, Degestan, Chechnya, Azerbajan, and other... used to be Persian.

Today, Iran is a very aggressive country. If they could invade somebody they definitely would. But they can't so they send their agents to Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Gaza.

[takeo]

Posted by maven:

If I had a dollar for every commentator on Al Jazzera English, CNN or Press TV Iran this week who said "The Islamic Republic of Iran has never invaded any other country" I'd be rich.

That's not true. Iran did participate in the invasion of UAE in the 70s. In the 80s Iran invaded Iraq.

As to the history... Persian Empire.... well, most of the Russian South today's Armenia, Georgia, Degestan, Chechnya, Azerbajan, and other... used to be Persian.

Today, Iran is a very aggressive country. If they could invade somebody they definitely would. But they can't so they send their agents to Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Gaza.

They are very nationalistic and they are a regional power to reckon with, that's certainly true. And their influence in Iraq and the Arabic world as a whole has increased a lot since 2003.


In the 80s Iran invaded Iraq.

Wasn't it Saddam who invaded Iran first?

[Mil]

Posted by Takeo:

They are very nationalistic and they are a regional power to reckon with, that's certainly true. And their influence in Iraq and the Arabic world as a whole has increased a lot since 2003.

It was always like that historically with Iran and Persian Empire before that. First it was the Ottomans, then the Russians (in fact most of the lands Persians lost was to the Russians - those who you happen to love with all your heart), then came the British and found oil which took Persia out of obscurity, then during WWII Iran was literally invaded by Soviets and the British (the Soviets you love), then came the Cold War and newly created Arab states started fighting each other, and Iran, for regional control and oil. Then of course there is the Sunni/Shia thing and the all encompassing Kurdish problem.

Iran's main problem are the Arabs and definitely not the Israelis. It was the Iranians and not the Israelis who bombed French-built Osirak first (the Iranians simply socked at it). In any case Iranians are idiots.

Wasn't it Saddam who invaded Iran first?

Yeah - and then Iranians invaded Iraq.

[maven]

The Arabs are still occupying Persia. But they have murdered, repressed or forceably converted enough Persians to stay.

[takeo]

Posted by Takeo:

They are very nationalistic and they are a regional power to reckon with, that's certainly true. And their influence in Iraq and the Arabic world as a whole has increased a lot since 2003.

It was always like that historically with Iran and Persian Empire before that. First it was the Ottomans, then the Russians (in fact most of the lands Persians lost was to the Russians - those who you happen to love with all your heart), then came the British and found oil which took Persia out of obscurity, then during WWII Iran was literally invaded by Soviets and the British (the Soviets you love), then came the Cold War and newly created Arab states started fighting each other, and Iran, for regional control and oil. Then of course there is the Sunni/Shia thing and the all encompassing Kurdish problem.

Iran's main problem are the Arabs and definitely not the Israelis. It was the Iranians and not the Israelis who bombed French-built Osirak first (the Iranians simply socked at it). In any case Iranians are idiots.

Wasn't it Saddam who invaded Iran first?

Yeah - and then Iranians invaded Iraq.


You forgot to mention the anglo-american invasion of Iran in the 50's to grap Iran's oil.

[takeo]

The Arabs are still occupying Persia. But they have murdered, repressed or forceably converted enough Persians to stay.

??? You mean there's an Arab minority in Iran or what?

[maven]

??? You mean there's an Arab minority in Iran or what?You mean like....the white minority in South Africa? Except they did'nt get to screw all the blacks and so win in the end!:p

[Mil]

Posted by Takeo:

You forgot to mention the anglo-american invasion of Iran in the 50's to grap Iran's oil.

Anglo-American invasion of Iran in the 50s? Is that new history of some sorts? That I want to hear!!! Who were American commanding generals at the time? Or is there a Wiki page you can point to?


The last time Iran was invaded by Europeans was in 1941 by the Soviet Union and the British. The last most invasion of Iran was by Arabs in 1981.... or more precisely by Iraq sponsored by Saudi and UAE money.

[takeo]

Posted by Takeo:

You forgot to mention the anglo-american invasion of Iran in the 50's to grap Iran's oil.

Anglo-American invasion of Iran in the 50s? Is that new history of some sorts? That I want to hear!!! Who were American commanding generals at the time? Or is there a Wiki page you can point to?


The last time Iran was invaded by Europeans was in 1941 by the Soviet Union and the British. The last most invasion of Iran was by Arabs in 1981.... or more precisely by Iraq sponsored by Saudi and UAE money.

operation Ajax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax)

It was not an invasion in the strict sense of the word, but even US leaders aknowledge it was a serious breach of Iranian independance. It ended Iranian democracy, installed an tyranny, and marked the beginning of the rise to power of the Ayatollahs. And than you people wonder why people hate the US all over the world...

In 2001, Madeleine Albright, US Secretary of State, apologised to Iran, saying that intervention by America in the internal affairs of Iran was a setback for democratic government.[12] This anti-democratic coup d’état was a "a critical event in post-war world history" that destroyed Iran’s post-monarchic, secular parliamentary democracy, by re-installing the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, as absolute ruler,[13] replacing an elected native democracy with a pro-foreign monarchic dictatorship. The coup is widely believed to have significantly contributed to the 1979 Iranian Revolution, which deposed the pro-Western Shah and replaced the monarchy with an anti-Western Islamic Republic.[14]

Jacob G. Hornberger, founder and president, of The Future of Freedom Foundation, said, "U.S. officials, not surprisingly, considered the operation one of their greatest foreign policy successes — until, that is, the enormous convulsion that rocked Iranian society with the violent ouster of the Shah and the installation of a virulently anti-American Islamic regime in 1979".[39] According to him, "the coup, in essence, paved the way for the rise to power of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and all the rest that's happened right up to 9/11 and beyond".[39]

[Mil]

What happened in 1950s had absolutely nothing to do with "Democracy" in Iran. Mossadeq was no Democrat. And he was not deposed by CIA or the MI5 but rather by his own people who were angry at the economic failures of Mossadeq's government.
If Mossadeq would have stayed in power he would have probably turned into another regional dictator on par with Nasser, Assad, and Saddam.

The monarchy that came after-wards was hell of a lot less repressive and very much less bloody then the current Aytollahs; though definitely it was the monarchy that brought in the Aytollahs. All in the same way as the tsar in Russia, who was a complete abomination, brought in Revolution and the Communists.

[Mediocrates]

Or whatever. The question I have is why stop at nearly 60 years ago. What about all those imperialist war crimes since the Treaty of Westphalia, 1648? Cmon communists you're not even trying.

[takeo]

What happened in 1950s had absolutely nothing to do with "Democracy" in Iran. Mossadeq was no Democrat. And he was not deposed by CIA or the MI5 but rather by his own people who were angry at the economic failures of Mossadeq's government.
If Mossadeq would have stayed in power he would have probably turned into another regional dictator on par with Nasser, Assad, and Saddam.

The monarchy that came after-wards was hell of a lot less repressive and very much less bloody then the current Aytollahs; though definitely it was the monarchy that brought in the Aytollahs. All in the same way as the tsar in Russia, who was a complete abomination, brought in Revolution and the Communists.

That view even conflicts with the the view of American government. Not to mention the general view in Iran... Mossadeq was the last elected head of state of Iran, and even US officials admitted the CIA and MI5 played a crucial role and payed the people who deposed Mossadeq. You will probably say that the CIA had no role either in the military coup in Chile or Venezuela, or in the invasion of Cuba...
The facts are that Mossadeq was elected, and the US and GB brought tyrants to power, because Mossadeq wanted the Iranian oil resources to be used for the benefit of Iran, not some Anglo-American oil companies. the same thing happened in Guatemala, were Arbenz wanted to nationalise the United fruit Company.



A hell of a lot less repressive? 10000's of people disappeared or were executed, many more were incarcelated,tortured, etc. in some ways it was more repressive than the current regime. And I didn't encounter a single Iranian who was nostalgic for the Shah-regime.

[takeo]

Or whatever. The question I have is why stop at nearly 60 years ago. What about all those imperialist war crimes since the Treaty of Westphalia, 1648? Cmon communists you're not even trying.

Oh, when we go further in history there are a lot of subjects. European colonialism, US-colonialism, the Monroe-doctrine, etc.

[Mil]

Posted by Takeo:



A hell of a lot less repressive? 10000's of people disappeared or were executed, many more were incarcelated,tortured, etc. in some ways it was more repressive than the current regime. And I didn't encounter a single Iranian who was nostalgic for the Shah-regime.

:) I guess you are defending the Aytollahs then?

[bararallu]

Or whatever. The question I have is why stop at nearly 60 years ago. What about all those imperialist war crimes since the Treaty of Westphalia, 1648? Cmon communists you're not even trying.

Because the "revolution" is not a historically founded principle but rather an ideological one based on dialectic and fabricated 19th century sociology of development. There is nothing intrinsically true of socialism other than the raw climb to power of one segment of society (=Burgers) over another (=blue bloods) with the bludgeoning use of yet another (=Serfs/poor). A place the Jews first excelled at and then realized their folly... at least most did, that were not capped by the mustache regimes. Western Jews (many anyway) are virtually the equivalent of Galapagos finches when it comes to this level of "social action" naiveté.... and Tako is not a member of this grouping but rather a programmed agitator. Just like Torquemada was not a Jew, even though most of his ancestors were conversos and today both could probably collect sohnut money.

[takeo]

Posted by Takeo:



A hell of a lot less repressive? 10000's of people disappeared or were executed, many more were incarcelated,tortured, etc. in some ways it was more repressive than the current regime. And I didn't encounter a single Iranian who was nostalgic for the Shah-regime.

:) I guess you are defending the Aytollahs then?

No, they are bad too! But compared to the regime of the Shah the Ayatollahs are not all that bad. I stress the words "compared to"... if you read American media it's as if Iran was an example for the region untill the bad Ayatollahs ended the dream.

[takeo]

Socialism was an answer to capitalist development. Most western states adopted some elements of marxism since WWI and ended the pure class centered capitalism of the 19th century.
Anyway, the mullah-regime is not socialist, but is centred around the religious merchant middle class, it is still a class society.

[Mil]

Translation of Nazism literally means National Socialism or Nationalsozialismus, in German. Quite an answer to capitalism.

[takeo]

Translation of Nazism literally means National Socialism or Nationalsozialismus, in German. Quite an answer to capitalism.

Nazism was not an answer to capitalism but a reaction against communism (which nearly succeeded in Germany before the rise of Hitler) and the consequences of WWI. The only ideologies which somehow claim the legacy of marxism and socialism are the communists and to a lesser extent the social-democrats.
He adopted the word socialism but in reality fascism and socialism have little in common.
After WWI and the communist revolutions in some European countries elements of socialism have been introduced, and social-democratic parties started to govern many Western countries. They introduced social security, universal healthcare, better rights and conditions for the working class, which limited the class struggle and class polarisation, especially in North-Western-Europe.

[Mil]

Hitler, in fact, met all the prerequisites for socialism... Unemployment benefits, free healthcare, free education (including college), subsidized vocations, enforced work week hours, subsidized housing, retirement benefits.... National Socialism was a lot more socialist then France today. Hitler's Germany is in fact considered one of the first, if not the first, modern "nanny" state and many of the policies created by National Socialism were integrated into post-war European systems (including France.)

[takeo]

Hitler, in fact, met all the prerequisites for socialism... Unemployment benefits, free healthcare, free education (including college), subsidized vocations, enforced work week hours, subsidized housing, retirement benefits.... National Socialism was a lot more socialist then France today. Hitler's Germany is in fact considered one of the first, if not the first, modern "nanny" state and many of the policies created by National Socialism were integrated into post-war European systems (including France.)

This is not true. Socialism doesn't exclude people based on their ethnic origin, only nationalist ideologies do. The economic base of fascism is "solidarism". It means the higher classes are solidary with the lower classes of the same ethnic group, in return the lower classes accept the "natural supremacy" of the higher classes.(which means labour unions are forbidden). That's a whole different principle compared to communism or even social-democracy. Hitler was financed by the most powerfull capitalists in Germany, who saw nazism as a barrier against communism.
Anyway I don't see what's wrong with unemployment benefits, free healthcare, free education, enforced work week hours, etc. if that's socialism than socialism is good. But today even liberals and conservatives in Europe (and I think Canada and Australia as well) would never touch these rights, if not they would be obliterated during elections. Because people consider it to be their right. (most people in Western- Europe don't even realise it's not so obvious in other parts of the world). And these are the main reason why poverty and health situation in the US is in a much more dire state compared to other Western nations.

[Mil]

Like I said - Hitler was an ardent socialist. You don't need to believe in race equality or anything else of the sort to be a socialist. In fact Hitler's arrangement with the corporations was very similar to what currently happens in most EU countries where state has a big say in corporate governance.

As to American health situation.... my collegue's grandmother lives in Canada and the grandmother has a medical condition. The doctor said that her stomach is to be MRIed. In Canada it took my collegue's grandmother 2 years to get an MRI!!!!!! In America it literally takes a day!!!! Four years ago my grandfather went to his doctor and was told that he had may be a week or a month.... in two days my grandfather was already on the operating table and got a quadruple bypass. Two days!!!!!!

There are both pluses and minuses to subsidized health care. We in America are mostly afraid that nationalized healthcare will destroy the quality and the accessibility, and make a mass of things like it does in Canada or Britain. Our hospitals are full of Canadians who come to USA to get something done for which they have to wait a long time to get in Canada (sometimes years). It also will prevent doctors for choosing their profession and limit progress (American high prices on medicine subsidize most of the modern medical research).

As far as unemployment, retirement, and other we also have all of that.

[takeo]

Mil


Like I said - Hitler was an ardent socialist.

He was an ardent opposer of socialism and especially communism, just read Mein Kampf.


You don't need to believe in race equality or anything else of the sort to be a socialist.

A real socialist or marxist doesn't believe that one race is superior to the other, doesn't even believe in the notion of one state for one people.


In fact Hitler's arrangement with the corporations was very similar to what currently happens in most EU countries where state has a big say in corporate governance.

Really? Mostly working conditions in Europe are set as a result of negociations between state, corporate managers and the trade unions.



As to American health situation.... my collegue's grandmother lives in Canada and the grandmother has a medical condition. The doctor said that her stomach is to be MRIed. In Canada it took my collegue's grandmother 2 years to get an MRI!!!!!! In America it literally takes a day!!!!

And what if you don't have money or a good (thus very expensive) health insurance, in that case it still takes 2 days? I don't know the situation in Canada, but I posted statistics on this site that prove that not only is the quality of European health system superior, more efficient, but also far more people have acces to good health services, whereas in the US an important part of the population has to rely on inferior health services.



Four years ago my grandfather went to his doctor and was told that he had may be a week or a month.... in two days my grandfather was already on the operating table and got a quadruple bypass. Two days!!!!!!


Is that the case for every American, or only the ones with good health insurance? In France or Belgium, urgent life-saving operations are carried out at once. If not urgent it may take longer, depending on the schedule of the operating doctor, but everyone can affort it, and very few people in these countries have expensive private health insurance. Sometimes you have to pay 1000 or 2000 euro extra, depending on the doctor, people who can't afford it get support from special state services.





There are both pluses and minuses to subsidized health care. We in America are mostly afraid that nationalized healthcare will destroy the quality and the accessibility, and make a mass of things like it does in Canada or Britain.

In Belgium or France there are no real waiting lists, so it depends on how it is organised.


Our hospitals are full of Canadians who come to USA to get something done for which they have to wait a long time to get in Canada (sometimes years).

But I've seen that on the whole the health situation in canada is better than in the US, since some Americans can't affort good medicines or treatment.




It also will prevent doctors for choosing their profession and limit progress (American high prices on medicine subsidize most of the modern medical research).

Actually in many European countries universities and research centers (also subsidized) cooperate with medical multinationals.



As far as unemployment, retirement, and other we also have all of that.

How much percent of your last salary do you receive and for how long if you get fired? (I know it depends, but in general)

[Mediocrates]

Israel is a socialist country and you yourself use that to bludgeon them over the head with because it's not a perfect harmonious unicorn state.

[Mil]

Posted by Takeo:

He was an ardent opposer of socialism and especially communism, just read Mein Kampf.

dude, you on drugs? NAZI - translates as NATIONAL SOCIALISM . Hitler was opposed to communism but not to socialism.

A real socialist or marxist doesn't believe that one race is superior to the other, doesn't even believe in the notion of one state for one people.

A "real" socialist? What does socialism have to do with race equality?

Really? Mostly working conditions in Europe are set as a result of negociations between state, corporate managers and the trade unions.

In the case of Nazi Germany the government very much set the standards to the working conditions including work hours, safety, retirement benefits, compensation, salary requirements and many other perks.... nothing much different from today. In fact Hitler's Germany's was the innovator of the many mechanisms used today such as worker's comp and many others. Why don't you actually READ up on all this first before making comments. There are many good books on this.

There was a reason why Hitler, and in that case Mussolini were respected by their people. In fact you should really be an admirer of Mussolini because he was also an ardent socialist and never really preached racial politics, which got him popular support of many Italian Jews.

[scattergood]

Nazism was not an answer to capitalism but a reaction against communism (which nearly succeeded in Germany before the rise of Hitler) and the consequences of WWI. The only ideologies which somehow claim the legacy of marxism and socialism are the communists and to a lesser extent the social-democrats.
He adopted the word socialism but in reality fascism and socialism have little in common.
After WWI and the communist revolutions in some European countries elements of socialism have been introduced, and social-democratic parties started to govern many Western countries. They introduced social security, universal healthcare, better rights and conditions for the working class, which limited the class struggle and class polarisation, especially in North-Western-Europe.

Facism actually started well before Hitler. Mussolini is really the originator of Facism. Italian Facism had no racial component, and was strictly a socialst line of thought.

You can argue that Nazism, the German brand of facism, was different from Italian facism in that it contained a racial component, but it was an offshoot from a left / communist / socialist meme. The main organizing principal in communism is the worker vs. everybody else. The main organizing principal in Nazism is Germans against everybody else. Both were socialist, just organized around a different us v. them.

Take out the racial purity stuff from the Nazi party platform and it reads just like a socialist / leftist / liberal / Democratic party platform.

[Mil]

Posted by scattergoat:

Take out the racial purity stuff from the Nazi party platform and it reads just like a socialist / leftist / liberal / Democratic party platform.

One would be surprised but Hitler was very progressive on workers rights, in fact overly progressive especially by today's standards. I am a WWII buff and it even surprised me that even during the war worker's rights, German workers, were very much followed through religiously and in part contributed to the massive labor shortages.

[scattergood]

Posted by scattergoat:

Take out the racial purity stuff from the Nazi party platform and it reads just like a socialist / leftist / liberal / Democratic party platform.

One would be surprised but Hitler was very progressive on workers rights - I am a WWII buff and it even surprised me that even during the war worker's rights, German workers, were very much followed through religiously and in part contributed to the labor shortages.

Yup, the platform had stuff like "Wages must be earned through labor" and "war profits are treason" and "big department stores must give space to smaller shop keepers", and all the other 'progressive' points on the economy.

[bararallu]

Former pure communist Mussolini, nationalized communism. and some more entertaining reading. (http://jonjayray.tripod.com/hitler.html)

This also begs the question why in fact was Volks Wagon formed up as a company...

[Mil]

Hitler excelled at government projects!!!!!!

[takeo]

Mil


dude, you on drugs? NAZI - translates as NATIONAL SOCIALISM . Hitler was opposed to communism but not to socialism.

He can use the word socialist but that doesn't make him a socialist. Just like Zirinovkskiy's Liberal-Democratic party isn't liberal nor democratic, or the Democratic People's Republic of Korea isn't democratic...




A "real" socialist? What does socialism have to do with race equality?

Socialism derives from marxism, a clearly international anti-nationalist ideology. What counts isn't your ethnic origin but which class you belong to.




In the case of Nazi Germany the government very much set the standards to the working conditions including work hours, safety, retirement benefits, compensation, salary requirements and many other perks.... nothing much different from today. In fact Hitler's Germany's was the innovator of the many mechanisms used today such as worker's comp and many others. Why don't you actually READ up on all this first before making comments. There are many good books on this.

But all these were only accessible for "real" Germans. And of course this is the main reason why he was popular among many Germans, but it doesn't make him a socialist. He just adopted some part of the social-democratic agenda to gain popularity among the working classes. Hitler also was the first to campaign against smoking in public, does it mean anti-tobacco activists or laws are nazi? Besides, salary requirements, compensation, retirement benefits, etc. aren't uniquely socialist, the christian-democrats also introduced and implemented those in the spirit of "rerum novarum". After WWI there was a consensus in the West that the conditions of the working classes had to improve to avoid bolshevik revolutions.



There was a reason why Hitler, and in that case Mussolini were respected by their people.

Certainly Mussolini wasn't respected any longer in Italy since the '40's.


In fact you should really be an admirer of Mussolini because he was also an ardent socialist and never really preached racial politics, which got him popular support of many Italian Jews.

He was a nationalist as well somehow, wanted to colonise Libia and the Balcans and reestablish the Roman empire, etc.
He was once a socialist (he's named after a Mexican revolutionary) but later turned into an ardent opposer of socialism and communism. In fact he was supported and his armed gangs were tolerated by the Italian government and the bourgeoisie because they saw him as a barrier against communism and socialism, which were very strong in Italy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini

[takeo]

scattergood


]Facism actually started well before Hitler. Mussolini is really the originator of Facism. Italian Facism had no racial component, and was strictly a socialst line of thought.

Italian fascism also had a very nationalist component, and wasn't socialist at all, it quickly turned into the preferred party of the Italian bourgeoisie and industry leaders. The archennemies of the fascists always were the communists. And the whole ideology of Mussolini was based on anti-communism.(who also killed Mussolini in the end) If you have a chance you should see the excellent Italian movie "novecento".




You can argue that Nazism, the German brand of facism, was different from Italian facism in that it contained a racial component, but it was an offshoot from a left / communist / socialist meme.

It wasn't, it was a new ultra-rightwing ideology, an offshoot of 19th century nationalism.



The main organizing principal in communism is the worker vs. everybody else. The main organizing principal in Nazism is Germans against everybody else.

That's not exactly the same, is it?


Both were socialist, just organized around a different us v. them.

nonsense, nazism wasn't socialist.



Take out the racial purity stuff from the Nazi party platform and it reads just like a socialist / leftist / liberal / Democratic party platform.


????? There is nothing socialist, leftist, democratic or liberal in the program of the NSDAP. Actually it was a very conservative party, for example they also condamned labour unions, gays, feminism, abortion(for Germans), "nigger-music", modern art, etc. and everything which didn't fit in their narrow view of how a true German should live. The same goes for Mussolini, who also got the support of the Catholic church. And of course they were also very anti-immigrant. It's not a coincidence that the ultra-right parties in Europe have neo-nazi's in their rangs.

[takeo]

Posted by scattergoat:

Take out the racial purity stuff from the Nazi party platform and it reads just like a socialist / leftist / liberal / Democratic party platform.

One would be surprised but Hitler was very progressive on workers rights, in fact overly progressive especially by today's standards. I am a WWII buff and it even surprised me that even during the war worker's rights, German workers, were very much followed through religiously and in part contributed to the massive labor shortages.

Because that's how he got the support of the German majority. anyway, is there something wrong with worker's rights?

[takeo]

Yup, the platform had stuff like "Wages must be earned through labor" and "war profits are treason" and "big department stores must give space to smaller shop keepers", and all the other 'progressive' points on the economy.

It doesn't make him a progressive, it's just populism. The reality is that he was supported by the big German bourgeoisie, and even had his followers among US industrialists (Fort). German capitalists made huge profits from the war, as did other capitalists around the world who traded with Hitler. (among which the grandfather of Bush)

[takeo]

Former pure communist Mussolini, nationalized communism. and some more entertaining reading. (http://jonjayray.tripod.com/hitler.html)

This also begs the question why in fact was Volks Wagon formed up as a company...

Nonsense, Italy and Germany always remained capitalist societies, and the fascists and nazi's were mainly supported by big industry and bourgeoisie.
The first victims of nazism and fascism weren't the Jews but the communists.
Many perished in concentration camps. Of course that part of history is omitted from your history reading.

[takeo]

In power, the party attempted to form an economic policy that was a "third way" between capitalism and socialism, this was called Corporatism. In theory, trade unions and businesses would unite to form a cooperative organization to establish wages, hours of labour, and other issues. However when attempted to be put into practice, corporatism was heavily criticized by the industries who had provided financing in the past to Mussolini to protect them from socialism, and demanded that he keep the labour movement weakened to maintain their support, to which Mussolini and the party agreed, causing corporatism to favour businesses over workers who could be in only Fascist unions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Fascist_Party

The Nazi Party is generally described as being at the extreme or far right of the left-right political axis;[6] however in some two dimensional models based on economic parameters, such as the political compass, the Nazi Party is categorized as centre-right.[7]

On 27 February 1933, the Reichstag building was set on fire. This Reichstag fire was blamed on a communist conspiracy and the KPD's offices were closed, its press banned and leaders were arrested. Hitler convinced President von Hindenburg to sign the "Reichstag Fire Decree", suspending most of the human rights provided for by the 1919 constitution of the Weimar Republic. A further decree enabled preventive detention of all communist leaders, amongst many thousands of others.

Since the new government lacked a majority in parliament, Hitler held a new election in March 1933. With the communists eliminated, the Nazis dominated the election with 43.9%, and with their Nationalist (DNVP) allies, achieved a parliamentary majority (51.8%).

A further decisive step in the Nazi seizure of power (Gleichschaltung) was the "Enabling Act", which granted the cabinet (and therefore Hitler) legislative powers. The Enabling Act effectively abolished the separation of powers, a principle enshrined in the German Constitution. As such, the Act represented an amendment to the Constitution and required a two-thirds majority in parliament in order to pass. Hitler needed the votes of the Centre Party, which he obtained after promising certain guarantees to the Centre's chairman (Ludwig Kaas). The Centre Party's thirty-one votes, added to the votes of the fragmented middle-class parties, the Nationalists, and the NSDAP itself, gave Hitler the right to rule by decree and to further suspend many civil liberties. The communists were opposed to the Enabling Act; but the KPD could not vote against it, since it had been banned. This left the SPD as the sole party in the Reichstag who stood against the Act, but their votes were not sufficient to block the Act's passing. As punishment for their dissent, the Social Democrats became the second party banned by the Nazis (on 22 June), following the move of their leadership to Prague.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_German_Workers%27_Party

The only two parties opposing Hitler and the first two being banned were the communist and social-democratic parties. The right-wing parties collaborated with Hitler.

[Mil]

Posted by Takeo:

He can use the word socialist but that doesn't make him a socialist. Just like Zirinovkskiy's Liberal-Democratic party isn't liberal nor democratic, or the Democratic People's Republic of Korea isn't democratic...

? Neither was Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.


Socialism derives from marxism, a clearly international anti-nationalist ideology. What counts isn't your ethnic origin but which class you belong to.

Look it up.



But all these were only accessible for "real" Germans.

Yes it was!!!!!



Besides, salary requirements, compensation, retirement benefits, etc. aren't uniquely socialist, the christian-democrats also introduced and implemented those in the spirit of "rerum novarum". After WWI there was a consensus in the West that the conditions of the working classes had to improve to avoid bolshevik revolutions.

And Hitler went the furthest.


Certainly Mussolini wasn't respected any longer in Italy since the '40's.

Because of the war.


He was a nationalist as well somehow, wanted to colonise Libia and the Balcans and reestablish the Roman empire, etc.

and Stalin decided to take over parts of Finland, colonized the Baltics, Poland, Bessarabia.... socialism has nothing to do with that. Saddam's Iraq was also a socialist state.


He was once a socialist (he's named after a Mexican revolutionary) but later turned into an ardent opposer of socialism and communism. In fact he was supported and his armed gangs were tolerated by the Italian government and the bourgeoisie because they saw him as a barrier against communism and socialism, which were very strong in Italy.

? He was very popular.

[takeo]

Mil




And Hitler went the furthest.

Not really, the Scandinavian countries went the furthest. These are truly wellfare-countries, unlike the US, where a lot of poverty remains and there is still a very strong class-society.



Because of the war.

And also because he was considered the representative of the bourgeoisie. After the war the communists remained the largest party in parliament for decades. (they could never form a government, among other reasons because the US applied strong pressure on the Italian establishment not to form a coalition with the communists)



and Stalin decided to take over parts of Finland, colonized the Baltics, Poland, Bessarabia.... socialism has nothing to do with that. Saddam's Iraq was also a socialist state.

But Stalin himself wasn't even a Russian but a Georgian, this was not about Russian nationalism. Saddam was very much a Pan-Arab nationalist rather than a socialist. Baathism is all about nationalism, socialism is mostly window-dressing, in reality Iraq was a class-society.




? He was very popular.

But he didn't remain popular for long.

[takeo]

What happened in 1950s had absolutely nothing to do with "Democracy" in Iran. Mossadeq was no Democrat. And he was not deposed by CIA or the MI5 but rather by his own people who were angry at the economic failures of Mossadeq's government.
If Mossadeq would have stayed in power he would have probably turned into another regional dictator on par with Nasser, Assad, and Saddam.

The monarchy that came after-wards was hell of a lot less repressive and very much less bloody then the current Aytollahs; though definitely it was the monarchy that brought in the Aytollahs. All in the same way as the tsar in Russia, who was a complete abomination, brought in Revolution and the Communists.

Today Obama cited the American operation to depose Mossadeq as an example of evil American crimes in the region that should be avoided in the future.

[scattergood]

scattergood



Italian fascism also had a very nationalist component, and wasn't socialist at all, it quickly turned into the preferred party of the Italian bourgeoisie and industry leaders. The archennemies of the fascists always were the communists. And the whole ideology of Mussolini was based on anti-communism.(who also killed Mussolini in the end) If you have a chance you should see the excellent Italian movie "novecento".

The just because the communists didn't like the facists doesn't mean they come from opposite ends of the political spectrum. Who killed Trotksy exactly? Why did the USSR and China square off so much and have border disputes?

Facism and Communism are cut from the same cloth, compete for the same target market (the workers / volk) and thus have natural emnity.



It wasn't, it was a new ultra-rightwing ideology, an offshoot of 19th century nationalism.


Um, stating something to be true doesn't make it so. Besides, your sentence doesn't even make sense. What is the 'it'? Nazism or Italian Facism?



That's not exactly the same, is it?


Um, no, hence why I said that. But you are missing the overall point. Facism and Communism all come from a socialist backdrop. How they get there may be different, but the common man vs everybody that is out to screw them is the shared meme.



nonsense, nazism wasn't socialist.


Nonsense, Nazism was completely socialist. See, I can just claim something too. Let's look at the facts. They called themselves socialist. Hiter called them socialists. Their policies were socialist.





????? There is nothing socialist, leftist, democratic or liberal in the program of the NSDAP. Actually it was a very conservative party, for example they also condamned labour unions, gays, feminism, abortion(for Germans), "nigger-music", modern art, etc. and everything which didn't fit in their narrow view of how a true German should live. The same goes for Mussolini, who also got the support of the Catholic church. And of course they were also very anti-immigrant. It's not a coincidence that the ultra-right parties in Europe have neo-nazi's in their rangs.

This is truly idiotic on your part. Let's look at a few of their platform planks (from: http://people.westminstercollege.edu/faculty/mmarkowski/H113/AH/platform.html):


11. Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery. Yeah, that's totally right wing!

12. In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits. Again, those right wingers just HATE war profits!

13. We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries (trusts). Yup, right up there with the right wing capitalist ideology!

14. We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries. Wow, clearly those right wing industrialists just love this stuff.

15. We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare. Those right wing welfare state advocates are at it again.

16. We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality. Yjp, those nasty right wing capitalists just love COMMUNALIZATION and explicit state support for SMALL FIRMS.

17. We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land. Again, those nasty right wingers just hate speculation and private property.

That you can seriously think a right wing / capitalist extremist group can support these points is idiotic. Support for small firms, communalization of land, forced sharing of industrial profits, expansion of old age welfare, and the abolition of unearned incomes are straight out of the left wing / liberal playbook.

[takeo]

scattergood


The just because the communists didn't like the facists doesn't mean they come from opposite ends of the political spectrum. Who killed Trotksy exactly? Why did the USSR and China square off so much and have border disputes?

The society envisioned and the program of both are also very different.



Facism and Communism are cut from the same cloth, compete for the same target market (the workers / volk) and thus have natural emnity.

Not really, the fascists appealed mostly to the middle classes and the bourgeoisie.



Um, stating something to be true doesn't make it so. Besides, your sentence doesn't even make sense. What is the 'it'? Nazism or Italian Facism?

I mean class struggle and ethnic struggle are not exactly the same.




Um, no, hence why I said that. But you are missing the overall point. Facism and Communism all come from a socialist backdrop. How they get there may be different, but the common man vs everybody that is out to screw them is the shared meme.

It is not. Fascism derives from darwinism (survival of the fittest) and nationalism. And the theme of the common man versus everyone else is also a shared theme by many conservatives, for example in the US, and of the islamofobic ultra-rightwing in Europe.



Nonsense, Nazism was completely socialist. See, I can just claim something too. Let's look at the facts. They called themselves socialist. Hiter called them socialists. Their policies were socialist.

They called themselves national-socialists, but they weren't socialists, they are usually located in the center-right (economic policy) or extreme-right (ethic policy). What's in a name? For example Sri Lanka is called the socialist democratic republic of Sri Lanka, well there is nothing socialist about Sri Lanka.







This is truly idiotic on your part. Let's look at a few of their platform planks (from: http://people.westminstercollege.edu/faculty/mmarkowski/H113/AH/platform.html):

Do you deny that the nazi's banned feminism, foreign influences, labour unions, abortion and persecuted gays?




11. Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery. Yeah, that's totally right wing!

actually is the republican party in favor of unearned incomes? It's just populism.



12. In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits. Again, those right wingers just HATE war profits!

That's very funny if you know that German industrialists made billions during the war, and often employed Russian or Jewish prisoners as work-slaves.



13. We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries (trusts). Yup, right up there with the right wing capitalist ideology!

That never happened. Besides he only had a problem with foreign owned industry and Jewish-owned industry, he was supported by the German capitalists.





14. We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries. Wow, clearly those right wing industrialists just love this stuff.

Well, the German capitalists really loved Hitler and donated a lot to him even before he rise to power.



15. We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare. Those right wing welfare state advocates are at it again.

Even in the most rightwing European states there is old age welfare.



16. We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality. Yjp, those nasty right wing capitalists just love COMMUNALIZATION and explicit state support for SMALL FIRMS.

I don't know in the US, but in Europe the rightwing parties rely on the middle class, and rightwing parties are usually the big defenders of the middle class and support small firms. Small firm owners will never vote for socialists or communists and in small firms social protection, labor union representation is usually the lowest.



17. We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land. Again, those nasty right wingers just hate speculation and private property.

once again, just populism, because in reality that didn't happen, and he was very much supported by the Junkers, the Eastern German big land owners.



That you can seriously think a right wing / capitalist extremist group can support these points is idiotic. Support for small firms, communalization of land, forced sharing of industrial profits, expansion of old age welfare, and the abolition of unearned incomes are straight out of the left wing / liberal playbook.


In Europe all these points have also been adopted by right/ultra-right parties.


On 23 March 1933 he had called Churches "most important factors" for the maintenance of German well-being.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party

[takeo]

The general membership of the Nazi Party, known as the Parteimitglieder, mainly consisted of the urban and rural lower middle classes. 7% belonged to the upper class, another 7% were peasants, 35% were industrial workers and 51% were what can be described as middle class.


There are very few middle class representatives in the communist party, mainly consisting of industrial workers and intellectuals.


Hitler did not mention any of the planks of the National Socialist Program in his book, Mein Kampf, and only talked about it in passing as "the so-called program of the movement".[9] Henry A. Turner holds that many of the program's vague calls for economic reform and pro-labor legislation, as well as its endorsement of democratic politics, went directly contrary to Hitler's own social Darwinist views and dictatorial ambitions. Furthermore, he noted that the program's calls for land reform and anti-trust legislation threatened the interests of the big business tycoons whose support and funding Hitler was trying to acquire (though his efforts in this direction proved largely unsuccessful).[10] Since he could not abolish the program entirely without causing a stir among the party's voters, Hitler chose to ban all discussion of it instead and hoped it would be largely forgotten.[11]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Program

Unlike Drexler and other party members, Hitler was less interested in the "socialist" aspect of "national socialism" beyond moving Social Welfare administration from the Church to the State. Himself of provincial lower-middle-class origins, he disliked the mass working class of the big cities, and had no sympathy with the notions of attacking private property or the business class (which some early Nazis espoused).[citation needed] For Hitler the twin goals of the party were always German nationalist expansionism and Antisemitism. These two goals were fused in his mind by his belief that Germany's external enemies - Britain, France and the Soviet Union - were controlled by the Jews, and that Germany's future wars of national expansion would necessarily entail a war against the Jews.[13]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_German_Workers%27_Party

The areas of strongest Nazi support were in rural Protestant areas
The Nazis' strongest appeal was to the lower middle-class – farmers, public servants, teachers, small businessmen – who had suffered most from the inflation of the 1920s and who feared Bolshevism more than anything else. The small business class were receptive to Hitler's anti-Semitism, since they blamed Jewish big business for their economic problems.

Like the republicans, the nazi's stronghold were the religious (mostly protestant) rural and middle-class.

there was a socialist element in the nazi-system, but it was quickly rooted out by Hitler himself.


The SA under Röhm's leadership soon became a major problem for the party. Many of the 700,000 members of this well-armed working-class militia took the "socialist" element of "national socialism" seriously, and soon began to demand that the Nazi regime broaden its attack from SPD and KPD activists and Jews to include the capitalist system. In addition, Röhm and his associates saw the SA as the army of the new revolutionary Nazi state, replacing the old aristocratic officer corps. The army was still outside party control, and Hitler feared that it might stage a putsch if its leaders felt threatened with an SA take-over. The business community was also alarmed by the SA’s socialist rhetoric, with which, as noted earlier, Hitler had no sympathy beyond transferring power from Churches to the State.

In June 1934, Hitler, using the SS and Gestapo under Himmler's command, staged a coup against the SA, having Röhm and about 700 others killed. This Night of the Long Knives broke the power of the SA, while increasing the power of Himmler and the SS, who emerged as the real executive arm of the Nazi Party. The business community was reassured and largely reconciled to Nazi rule. The army leaders were so grateful that the Defence Minister, Werner von Blomberg, who was not a Nazi, on his own initiative had all army members swear a personal oath to Hitler as "führer" of the German state. These events marked a decisive turning point in the Nazi take-over of Germany. The borders between the party and the state became increasingly blurred, and Hitler's personal will increasingly had the force of law, although the independence of the state bureaucracy was never completely eclipsed.

The effect of the purge of the SA was to redirect the energies of the Nazi Party away from social issues and towards racial enemies, namely the Jews, whose civil, economic and political rights were steadily restricted, culminating in the passage of the Nuremberg Laws of September 1935, which stripped them of their citizenship and banned marriage and sexual relations between Jews and "Aryans".

By the way, on the contrary to nazism or fascism zionism really has a very important, determining socialist component, the mainstream zionist movement was socialist and leftist for a long period, so was Ben Gurion, the Histratut, the Haganah, etc.. Actually it is even fair to say that today Israel would not exist if it wasn't for the leftist component in zionism, which was the most active one when the state of Israel was established.
And you can hardly deny that the whole system of Kibbutz is very socialist in origin, principle and idea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_Zionism

If socialism is so bad and the same as nazism, than you have to say the same about zionism. (I think we won't hear scattergood anymore ...)

[takeo]

Oh, to return to the subject, there is a wide gap between poor and rich in Iran, and the regime relies on the mostly rural Middle class of basar merchants(who are mostly ethnic Azeri's), which supported the ayatollahs and brought them to power. Apart from that some people well connected to the regime became very rich (such as Rafsanjani) and religious enterprises don't pay taxes. What the Ayatollahs did was replacing a corrupted upper-class by another one.
This is the main reason why most Iranians hate the regime. The main reason also why Ahmadinejad was elected (he represented himself as an ordinary Iranian who would clean out corruption and "bring oil profits to the table of every Iranian"; quod non... )

[Rob]

Ahmadinezjad personally send tens of thousands kids to clear the mine fields during the Iraq-Iran war.

[scattergood]

scattergood



The society envisioned and the program of both are also very different.

Again, not really. Both envisioned a 'collective' or 'communal' society. Communsits believed that such a collective would be created through the dialectic of class warfare, the Facists believed the collective would be created through the dialectic of the volk. The aims of both were substainially the same, how they got there was different.





Not really, the fascists appealed mostly to the middle classes and the bourgeoisie.


See above.




I mean class struggle and ethnic struggle are not exactly the same.


No, but the goals of the Facists and Communists were the same. A socialists, top down, totalitarian, communal society. In otherwords a 'progressive / liberal / left wing' paradise.





It is not. Fascism derives from darwinism (survival of the fittest) and nationalism. And the theme of the common man versus everyone else is also a shared theme by many conservatives, for example in the US, and of the islamofobic ultra-rightwing in Europe.


That Facism's collective is organized around the national identity doesn't mean it isn't a collective.

'Right - Wing' nationalism as you put it tends to eschew the collective and elevate the individual. Hence 'rugged individualism' and not 'subserviance to the state' a la communism and facism.




They called themselves national-socialists, but they weren't socialists, they are usually located in the center-right (economic policy) or extreme-right (ethic policy). What's in a name? For example Sri Lanka is called the socialist democratic republic of Sri Lanka, well there is nothing socialist about Sri Lanka.


Completely untrue as I have shown below. Futher, just because Sri Lanka may NOT be socialist doesn't mean that Germany wasn't.

The facist economic program is anything but center right. It is pure left wing, state controlled, anti - capitalistic.

Let's look at his own words, taken from a speech to the Party:




Addressing his own party, the NSDAP, in Munich in August 1920, he pledged his faith in socialist-racialism: "If we are socialists, then we must definitely be anti-semites - and the opposite, in that case, is Materialism and Mammonism, which we seek to oppose." There was loud applause. Hitler went on: "How, as a socialist, can you not be an anti-semite?" The point was widely understood, and it is notable that no German socialist in the 1930s or earlier ever sought to deny Hitler's right to call himself a socialist on grounds of racial policy.








Do you deny that the nazi's banned feminism, foreign influences, labour unions, abortion and persecuted gays?





actually is the republican party in favor of unearned incomes? It's just populism.




That's very funny if you know that German industrialists made billions during the war, and often employed Russian or Jewish prisoners as work-slaves.




That never happened. Besides he only had a problem with foreign owned industry and Jewish-owned industry, he was supported by the German capitalists.






Well, the German capitalists really loved Hitler and donated a lot to him even before he rise to power.




Even in the most rightwing European states there is old age welfare.




I don't know in the US, but in Europe the rightwing parties rely on the middle class, and rightwing parties are usually the big defenders of the middle class and support small firms. Small firm owners will never vote for socialists or communists and in small firms social protection, labor union representation is usually the lowest.




once again, just populism, because in reality that didn't happen, and he was very much supported by the Junkers, the Eastern German big land owners.





In Europe all these points have also been adopted by right/ultra-right parties.


Completely off point. You claimed that there wasn't ANYTHING left wing / socialist in the Nazi party platform, I think this has been completely disproven. Do you claim that the limitation of speculation, the sharing of war profits, the creation and support of old age pensions, the communalization of property for small firms are NOT socialist, are you really claiming that?

[takeo]

scattergood


Again, not really. Both envisioned a 'collective' or 'communal' society. Communsits believed that such a collective would be created through the dialectic of class warfare, the Facists believed the collective would be created through the dialectic of the volk. The aims of both were substainially the same, how they got there was different.


Both are totalitarian, but similarity ends there. The kind of society sharply differs. Nazi's wanted a society based on bloodlabels and ethnicity, based on the right of the strongest, a society where the lower classes accept the natural dominance of the higher classes, communism wants an egalitarian society and get rid of class and ethnic differences.
besides, what are Kibbutz other than "collectives"? Is there something wrong with collectives?







No, but the goals of the Facists and Communists were the same. A socialists, top down, totalitarian, communal society. In otherwords a 'progressive / liberal / left wing' paradise.


? you can say communists are totalitarian, liberals certainly aren't. Actually liberals believe every person should decide for himself how he wants to live. Conservatives are much more totalitarian than liberals. They want to decide for the individual how he/she should live. (no abortion, society based on church and religion, no gay marriages, only traditional families, etc.) They also want to limit the rights of the workers and labour unions, which means in reality less freedom for those workers, and omnipotence of the ruling elite, as was the case in 19th century Europe.





Completely untrue as I have shown below. Futher, just because Sri Lanka may NOT be socialist doesn't mean that Germany wasn't.

I proved nazi-Germany wasn't. There was a socialist component, but Hitler got rid of it and clearly choose for the bourgeoisie. In fact Israel and zionism was always much more influenced by socialism than nazism was.





The facist economic program is anything but center right. It is pure left wing, state controlled, anti - capitalistic.

It wasn't read my posts above.




Let's look at his own words, taken from a speech to the Party:

as I proved above, empty words. In fact when the SA leadership wanted more socialism he killed them, and swiftly got the support of German capitalists. Nazi-German economy was toroughly capitalist untill the end.





Completely off point. You claimed that there wasn't ANYTHING left wing / socialist in the Nazi party platform, I think this has been completely disproven.

I said they adopted a few socialist points, but never acted on those.




Do you claim that the limitation of speculation, the sharing of war profits, the creation and support of old age pensions, the communalization of property for small firms are NOT socialist, are you really claiming that?


That's right, other governments have also limited speculation, created old-age pensions and aided small firms which were absolutely not socialist or left-wing. And evenmore, it was just rethorics, German big companies made billions of profit during the war.

[Mediocrates]

Ahmadinezjad personally send tens of thousands kids to clear the mine fields during the Iraq-Iran war.

You say that like it's a bad thing. If it's good for them, I'm for it.

[Mediocrates]

The Soviet system destroyed itself because it denies the basic value of human worth. The Nazi system had to be destroyed by others because it denied the existence of human worth. I fail to see why you're arguing over who is better in this beauty contest. As far as I'm concerned we nuked the wrong country in WW2 and the fallout drifting eastward from Berlin to Moscow would have been icing on the cake.

[takeo]

The Soviet system destroyed itself because it denies the basic value of human worth. The Nazi system had to be destroyed by others because it denied the existence of human worth. I fail to see why you're arguing over who is better in this beauty contest. As far as I'm concerned we nuked the wrong country in WW2 and the fallout drifting eastward from Berlin to Moscow would have been icing on the cake.

Basic value of human worth you said? :rolleyes:

[Mil]

Human worth..... in USSR it did not exist. You were not there when Chernobol exploded and they kept us all on guessing.... and then they decided to move ahead with May Day Parade in Kiev anyways. God forbid the likes of Takeo would have their children live in such a system - a system he really wants to have.

[takeo]

Human worth..... in USSR it did not exist. You were not there when Chernobol exploded and they kept us all on guessing.... and then they decided to move ahead with May Day Parade in Kiev anyways. God forbid the likes of Takeo would have their children live in such a system - a system he really wants to have.

It could have happened in the US or Europe as well, an accident is an accident. If life was so bad, why are so many people in Ukrain, Russia, etc. nostalgic for the Soviet-period? And I wouldn't mind to live in such a system, it's not my aim to become rich. Only problem is that it would be more difficult to travel. The reformed communists got rid of certain stupidities in the old system, which is a good thing.

About human life, if the US would really value human life, they would not have killed millions in Vietnam and 10's of 1000's in Iraq, and they would provide acceptable healthcare and social security for every American.

[Mil]

You can move to China.

[takeo]

You can move to China.

I know some old friend who moved there for his job, he's very happy and married a Chinese girl.

[bararallu]

Takeo is a perfect example of a National Socialist, he is socialist for the benefit of the Russian Nationality.

[Kachah]

Takeo, full title of the Nazi party was NSDAP where A stands for "arbeiter" meaning "workers'" or in English political terms - Labor. (It has been already mentioned that S was for Socialist). So no doubt whatsoever Hitler and Lenin were twins in any true sense and so were their murderous regimes.
But now it gets interesting. The full title of modern beautiful country of Libya is actually Socialist People's Jamahiriya combining Socialism and Islam in one single terrorist entity. Mr Saddam Hussein who I am sure you remember well was the leader of Baath party. Baath is an abbreviation of - surprise! - Arab Socialist party, and we all know well what kind of socialism he preached. THe same party still holds power in Syria which is one of the major terror sponsors today.
Funny how well socialism blends with islam, eh? Thing is, there is no real difference in application of core socialist ideology be it Khmer Rouge, USSR or Iran for that matter. In fact, there is not much fundamental difference between Iranian regime and the Western Labor - they all have governing ideology first and human rights and freedoms distant second. All difference is in how exactly distant.

[takeo]

Takeo is a perfect example of a National Socialist, he is socialist for the benefit of the Russian Nationality.

Nonsense. I don't support oppression of Non-Russians by Russians, or oppression of non-Jews by Jews, or oppression of non-French by French people. I'm a French national with Russian-Jewish origins living in Belgium... (and I admit, I'm a russophile, which doesn't make me a Russian nationalist...) And as a socialist I don't support oppression of working, ordinary people by rich people and business executives.
You on the contrary support oppression of non-Jews by Jews. You're also in favor of the oppression of poor, working people by succesful rich people, "struggle of survival". You can make your own conclusions and comparisons...

[takeo]

Kacha


Takeo, full title of the Nazi party was NSDAP where A stands for "arbeiter" meaning "workers'" or in English political terms - Labor. (It has been already mentioned that S was for Socialist). So no doubt whatsoever Hitler and Lenin were twins in any true sense and so were their murderous regimes.

BS, see all the references I gave above. Actually nazism is a particularly firebrand nationalistic ideology, which in reality embraced and served capitalism.



But now it gets interesting. The full title of modern beautiful country of Libya is actually Socialist People's Jamahiriya combining Socialism and Islam in one single terrorist entity.

So what? Popular good brand names are copied by others with other intentions. How many countries call themselves democratic? Does it mean democracy is bad? Nothing new. I think Lybia is a corrupted dictatorship, yet it has the highest living standards on the African continent. So certainly not worse than most American puppets in the region, but not good either.




Mr Saddam Hussein who I am sure you remember well was the leader of Baath party. Baath is an abbreviation of - surprise! - Arab Socialist party, and we all know well what kind of socialism he preached. THe same party still holds power in Syria which is one of the major terror sponsors today.

Same story. Yet it's true baathism incorporated some elements of socialism, altough their core business remains hardcore nationalism and these countries are still class societies. Saddam was a cruel dictator who favored his own clan, but I would prefere to live in Saddam's Iraq (which I visited back in 1999) than in today's Iraq... (which I don't visited, because non-muslims get killed there). I would also prefere to live in Saddam's Iraq than in impoverished Egypt ruled by American puppet dictator Mubarak. so you see there's no black or white, only grey. And the ones who pretend to be ultra-white are usually the darkest...



Funny how well socialism blends with islam, eh? µ

Well, back in the 80's the US gave billions to the likes of Osama Bin Laden. And the Saudi's financed Bush' election campaign... Fuinny how well US interests blend with Islam is it?





Thing is, there is no real difference in application of core socialist ideology be it Khmer Rouge, USSR or Iran for that matter.

Iran socialist? :rofl: Even expressing the word socialist will get you in jail.(as in many countries, for example some US-supported pseudo-democracies in Latin America). You obviously don't know what you're talking about.





In fact, there is not much fundamental difference between Iranian regime and the Western Labor -

:rofl:
Actually the Iranian regime and the left in the West are radically opposite in everything. You know who boycotted the UN conference on abortion and contraception: Iran, Saudi Arabia and the US... many of the views of the "christian majority" in the US or religious radicals in Israel have much more in common with eachother than they would like to admit. You won't find any greater opposers of mixing religion and politics than the left in the West.




they all have governing ideology first and human rights and freedoms distant second. All difference is in how exactly distant.

Talking about human rights: three countries are famous for executing people: Iran, China and the US (especially the states ruled by conservative republicans). And who in the West favors torture? Not the Western left... but the likes of Cheney and Rumsfeld

[Kachah]

BS, see all the references I gave above. Actually nazism is a particularly firebrand nationalistic ideology, which in reality embraced and served capitalism.
Not sure which particular part you call bullshit. Anybody can speculate his ass off on what ACTUALLY nazism was or is, I am saying that Mr. Adolf has called his party Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei. Do you want a translation? Now, the party was precisely socialist as it advocated Reich and the interests of the nation and lebensraum ABOVE the rights and the need of the individual. It also had the Vozhd (Fuhrer) and chief ideologist and the thought police - precisely as any other entity which I have mentioned.
It was undeniably socialist.

[bararallu]

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions"

Hitler, Speech of May 1, 1927. Quoted by Toland, 1976, p. 306

Hitler's Socialist Deeds
When in power Hitler also implemented a quite socialist programme. Like F.D. Roosevelt, he provided employment by a much expanded programme of public works (including roadworks) and his Kraft durch Freude ("power through joy") movement was notable for such benefits as providing workers with subsidized holidays at a standard that only the rich could formerly afford. And while Hitler did not nationalize all industry, there was extensive compulsory reorganization of it and tight party control over it. It might be noted that even in the post-war Communist bloc there was never total nationalization of industry. In fact, in Poland, most agriculture always remained in private hands. -FR (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1143131/posts)

[takeo]

Not sure which particular part you call bullshit. Anybody can speculate his ass off on what ACTUALLY nazism was or is, I am saying that Mr. Adolf has called his party Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei. Do you want a translation? Now, the party was precisely socialist as it advocated Reich and the interests of the nation and lebensraum ABOVE the rights and the need of the individual. It also had the Vozhd (Fuhrer) and chief ideologist and the thought police - precisely as any other entity which I have mentioned.
It was undeniably socialist.

Reputed historians declared that there was nothing socialist about Hitler and that Hitler served the interests of the capitalist upper-class, the word "socialist" was only window-dressing. "Lebensraum" has nothing to do with socialism but everything with nationalism. As a pro-occupation zionist you should know that...
"ideologists and thought police" reminds me of the "christian majority" in the US...

[takeo]

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions"

Hitler, Speech of May 1, 1927. Quoted by Toland, 1976, p. 306

Hitler's Socialist Deeds
When in power Hitler also implemented a quite socialist programme. Like F.D. Roosevelt, he provided employment by a much expanded programme of public works (including roadworks) and his Kraft durch Freude ("power through joy") movement was notable for such benefits as providing workers with subsidized holidays at a standard that only the rich could formerly afford. And while Hitler did not nationalize all industry, there was extensive compulsory reorganization of it and tight party control over it. It might be noted that even in the post-war Communist bloc there was never total nationalization of industry. In fact, in Poland, most agriculture always remained in private hands. -FR (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1143131/posts)

So your conclusion is that Roosevelt was a nazi? :rolleyes:

The very obvious nationalistic parallels between all nationalistic ideologies(fascism, zionism, etc.), is on the other hand ignored.

[Kachah]

Reputed historians declared that there was nothing socialist about Hitler and that Hitler served the interests of the capitalist upper-class, the word "socialist" was only window-dressing. "Lebensraum" has nothing to do with socialism but everything with nationalism. As a pro-occupation zionist you should know that...
"ideologists and thought police" reminds me of the "christian majority" in the US...
I am a Zionist but extremely contra-occupational. Occupation of the region called Judaea by the Jews - c'mon, get your bearings right! Judaea IS Jewish! Regardless of its current population majority or the opinion of the international community brainwashed by the Goebbelses of leftie propaganda.
Now, "reputed" is generally the "argument of people who ran out of arguments, same as "it is common knowledge that..." or "no need to find any proof to..".
THe truth of the matter is though that the Reich nationalized German industry or imposed labor-protective laws akin to full nationalization. THe fact that the Fuhrer decided to leave in the managerial positions the people who actually knew how to manage unlike Stalin who was instilling fear by shooting generations of his managers just says a lot about their views on how to achieve productivity rather than distinguish them in principle.
The word "socialist" says a lot more about the Nazis that the word "national" - just because all their methods, rules and goals were socialist with the touch up of nationalism as the most appropriate shape of teh socialism for the Geramny of the 30-s. THe same goes for Gaddafi or Hussein, advocating some form of moslem socialism as the most appropriate in their conditions.
By the way, when this cannibal Khomeini came to power, the Lefties were celebrating as they hated Shah Reza seeing him too pro-American. And his asylum was in Paris and nobody bothered him there, none of your imaginary socialist human rights activists. Why is that?

[takeo]

Kachah


I am a Zionist but extremely contra-occupational. Occupation of the region called Judaea by the Jews - c'mon, get your bearings right! Judaea IS Jewish! Regardless of its current population majority or the opinion of the international community brainwashed by the Goebbelses of leftie propaganda.

Also regarless of international law and regardless of the fact that the large majority living isn't Israeli or Jewish? Or do you deny that as well?
So you are pro-occupation as I tought. And the US government doesn't recognise the occupation either, are they also Goebbels fascists? :rolleyes:
You are in favor of Lebensraum for Israel, Drang nach Osten.


Now, "reputed" is generally the "argument of people who ran out of arguments, same as "it is common knowledge that..." or "no need to find any proof to..".

Just scroll back above and read my other posts, it's all there, with references.




THe truth of the matter is though that the Reich nationalized German industry or imposed labor-protective laws akin to full nationalization.

nonsense, the German industry was never nationalised, and labor-protective laws have nothign to do with nationalisation.




THe fact that the Fuhrer decided to leave in the managerial positions the people who actually knew how to manage unlike Stalin who was instilling fear by shooting generations of his managers just says a lot about their views on how to achieve productivity rather than distinguish them in principle.

Hitler left the german industry to the German bourgeoisie. Nazi-Germany was a capitalist country.




The word "socialist" says a lot more about the Nazis that the word "national" - just because all their methods, rules and goals were socialist with the touch up of nationalism as the most appropriate shape of teh socialism for the Geramny of the 30-s.

nonsense, I disproved that with historical references, see above. The core business of nazism was nationalism.
Zionism, however, has adopted a lot of socialist elements, the Histratut, Kibbutz, etc. were all crucial for Israel and zionism. (eventough the core business of zionism is of course nationalism as well, as it is of Arab nationalists)




By the way, when this cannibal Khomeini came to power, the Lefties were celebrating as they hated Shah Reza seeing him too pro-American.

Not only the lefties were celebrating the demise of the hated tyrant the shah, the entire Iranian people was. I see that you support this tyrants who killed many opposers. Which doesn't mean they liked their succeeder. You know leftists and communists played a crucial role in the fall of the tyrant, but thanks to US and Western efforts the ayatollahs took power instead of the leftists.




And his asylum was in Paris and nobody bothered him there, none of your imaginary socialist human rights activists. Why is that?


Because they prefered him over the communists taking over Iran. Cold war realpolitics, you know...

[takeo]

Eventually, the Nazi party developed strong relationships with big business [7] and abolished trade unions[8

Hitler's political beliefs drew heavily upon Social Darwinism – the view that natural selection applies as much to human society as it does to biological organisms.[22] Hitler's interpretations of this idea produced two separate conclusions: on the one hand, Hitler believed that history was shaped by a violent struggle between nations and races, and that a nation needed to be united under a strong, centralized state led by an heroic leader in order to succeed in this struggle. On the other hand, Hitler also believed that individuals within a nation battled with each other for survival, and that such ruthless competition was good for the health of the nation, because it promoted "superior individuals" to higher positions in society.[23]

As big business became increasingly organized, it developed an increasingly close partnership with the Nazi government. The government pursued economic policies that maximized the profits of its business allies, and, in exchange, business leaders supported the government's political and military goals.[7]

Is this socialism? :rolleyes: It reminds me of the ultra-capitalists in the US: big business, abolishing trade unions, ruthless competition between individuals, close ties between business leaders and the government...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany

[Kachah]

Also regarless of ..the fact that the large majority living isn't Israeli or Jewish? Or do you deny that as well?...
You ruin your own argument, takeo. The large majority of what is now Israel wasn't Israeli or Jewish 3/4 of the century ago.

[Kachah]

nonsense, the German industry was never nationalised, and labor-protective laws have nothign to do with nationalisation.


Hitler left the german industry to the German bourgeoisie. Nazi-Germany was a capitalist country.
Nope. It was unmistakenly socialist.
The "unalterable" 25 point 1920 program of the party proposed, among other things, "that all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished"; "the nationalization of all trusts"; "profit-sharing in large industries"; and "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." (http://mises.org/story/3274)




Zionism, however, has adopted a lot of socialist elements, the Histratut, Kibbutz, etc. were all crucial for Israel and zionism. (eventough the core business of zionism is of course nationalism as well, as it is of Arab nationalists)...
You are confused. Zionism has not adopted anything, Zionism is Zionism. But some Zionists are socialists (in fact way too many of them, but this is another story why the Jews like socialism so much).



Not only the lefties were celebrating the demise of the hated tyrant the shah, the entire Iranian people was. I see that you support this tyrants who killed many opposers. Which doesn't mean they liked their succeeder. You know leftists and communists played a crucial role in the fall of the tyrant, but thanks to US and Western efforts the ayatollahs took power instead of the leftists....
This is typical leftie demagogy. No, you see wrong and I don't support killing tyrants. I don't even support them in the making when they preach rotten socialist ideas to the Chardonnay Socialites in nice places like France or Belgium. I like the tyrants hanging on the gallows.
Over the years the communists played only one crucial role - to kill as many people as possible - and the lefties supported them, sometimes inadvertently.

[MGB8]

Iran is occupying some Emirati islands which it took by force some 40 years ago.

Bump. Kind of an important point. As are the subsequent ones about how Iran's arming and training and funding of Hezbollah to support a Shiite takeover of Lebanon, and also it's arming and support of Hamas to attack Israel, are indeed acts of war and acts of violent political aggression to expand their own power base, if not outright invasion. Needless to say, Iran as a modern country has not existed for that long (although Iran itself was never colonized, although for large parts occupied and effectively controlled by greater powers). Iran in it's modern form has been around since 1921. Prior to that there were various wars, some of which were Iran/Persia was the invading country - although, again, after the 18th century we are talking about a minor power (as compared to, say, Russia, the Ottomans, the English, etc.)

[takeo]

Kachah


Nope. It was unmistakenly socialist.
The "unalterable" 25 point 1920 program of the party proposed, among other things, "that all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished"; "the nationalization of all trusts"; "profit-sharing in large industries"; and "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." (http://mises.org/story/3274)

All these aren't necessarily socialist, other ideologies and parties adopted these points as well. (including zionism)
But if look what happened in reality and to their policy and ideology once they rase to power, as I proved, nazism was toroughly capitalist and supported by the big German capitalists. even in the US and GB there were more than a few capitalists with nazi-sympathies



You are confused. Zionism has not adopted anything, Zionism is Zionism.

Zionism is in the first place nationalist, as as nazism, but it is much more socialist than Nazism if you look at their social program the first decades of Israeli independence and even before, and its most important institutions such as Histratut, Kibbutz, etc.




But some Zionists are socialists (in fact way too many of them, but this is another story why the Jews like socialism so much).

Most zionists were socialists during decades.



This is typical leftie demagogy. No, you see wrong and I don't support killing tyrants. I don't even support them in the making when they preach rotten socialist ideas to the Chardonnay Socialites in nice places like France or Belgium. I like the tyrants hanging on the gallows.

You support the shah of Iran which killed, tortured, etc. 10's of 1000's of political opposers. I'm quite sure you support tyrants like Pinochet as well. He had the same idea as you about socialists and communists... (hang them on the gallows)



Over the years the communists played only one crucial role - to kill as many people as possible - and the lefties supported them, sometimes inadvertently.

So when the Shah or the US kill people it's ok but communists can't kill?

[Kachah]

All these aren't necessarily socialist, other ideologies and parties adopted these points as well. (including zionism)? Well, if you want to play "see no evil, hear no evil" - than yes, sure, whatever. The article in my link is comprehensive proof of the socialist nature of the Nazi economical activity. But you are welcome to pledge ignorance and come up with any kind of leftie excuses, there have been so much of them over decades.

[Kachah]

Zionism is in the first place nationalist, as as nazism, but it is much more socialist ... and its most important institutions such as Histratut, Kibbutz, etc.THe word is Histadrut and your "etc" shows that you've run out of examples.
Zionism is no socialism or capitalism in any place. You are thoroughly messed up, pal. A lot of Zionist were socialists, that's true. But Zionism itself is politically non-aligned. Ben Gurion was a Zionist and so was Kachane. And so are many right-wing settlers particularly from the States (and some from Australia). And they hate socialism with passion. All Zionists. Wake up and shake off your stereotypes.

[Kachah]

You support the shah of Iran which killed, tortured, etc. 10's of 1000's of political opposers. I'm quite sure you support tyrants like Pinochet as well. He had the same idea as you about socialists and communists... (hang them on the gallows)
So when the Shah or the US kill people it's ok but communists can't kill?
Well, if I have an open check book I would obviously go for Woodraw Wilson or Count Bernadotte instead of Shah or Pinochet. Or even Ghandi.
But I don't have it and when the choice is commy thug Alliende or Pinochet I choose Pinochet and surely I select the Shah over the medieval canniballistic ayatollas. Would you prefer the opposite (remember, on your personal insistence we are talking realpolitik here)?

[bararallu]

THe word is Histadrut and your "etc" shows that you've run out of examples.

One can only hope that a "Histratut," or any medical cognate, was performed on this lackey of Arab imperialism for it to fix in his brain.

[Mil]

Anyways, our local European socialists apparently know very little about National Socialism. It basically tells us that the quality of European education is very speculative especially when it concerns European history itself. May be the Europeans are trying to forget about what they actually supported and what was in fact the basis for many of their own reforms?

There are tons of books available on what exactly was National Socialism describing its economic, social economic and ideological aspects. Are these books not available in Europe?

[takeo]

Well, if you want to play "see no evil, hear no evil" - than yes, sure, whatever. The article in my link is comprehensive proof of the socialist nature of the Nazi economical activity. But you are welcome to pledge ignorance and come up with any kind of leftie excuses, there have been so much of them over decades.

The articles I posted prove that nazism was absolutely not socialist but very capitalistic, that labour unions were forbidden, the right of the strongest and competition between individuals was the official program, and that the capitalists supported the nazi party, which first of all persecuted communists and socialists, even before the Jews.

You can believe in fairytales as much as you want, but nazism was capitalist and ultra-rightist, while zionism was largely socialist and leftist (at least untill the last two decades).

.

[takeo]

THe word is Histadrut and your "etc" shows that you've run out of examples.
Zionism is no socialism or capitalism in any place. You are thoroughly messed up, pal. A lot of Zionist were socialists, that's true. But Zionism itself is politically non-aligned. Ben Gurion was a Zionist and so was Kachane. And so are many right-wing settlers particularly from the States (and some from Australia). And they hate socialism with passion. All Zionists. Wake up and shake off your stereotypes.

You can't deny that Histatrut and Kibbutz played a crucial role in zionst/Israeli history, as did socialists such as Ben-Gurion, Golda Meir, Rabin, etc.

In the nazi-movement only the SA embraced socialism, but they were quickly rooted out and killed by Hitler, Gestapo and SS. (see the articles I posted above)

[takeo]

Well, if I have an open check book I would obviously go for Woodraw Wilson or Count Bernadotte instead of Shah or Pinochet. Or even Ghandi.
But I don't have it and when the choice is commy thug Alliende or Pinochet I choose Pinochet and surely I select the Shah over the medieval canniballistic ayatollas. Would you prefer the opposite (remember, on your personal insistence we are talking realpolitik here)?

So, you prefer rightist murderous tyrants over a leftist democratically elected president. Thank you for that enlightening answer, I already knew that of course, that's how you people are. The moment Chavez closes down a hatemongering television channel he's a murderous dictator, but you didn't speak out against murderous military coups, at least if they're on your side... Before we had ibrodsky on this forum who openly supported Pinochet. You have the right to express your opinion, but please cut the crap that you want democracy, free speech etc.

[takeo]

Anyways, our local European socialists apparently know very little about National Socialism. It basically tells us that the quality of European education is very speculative especially when it concerns European history itself. May be the Europeans are trying to forget about what they actually supported and what was in fact the basis for many of their own reforms?

There are tons of books available on what exactly was National Socialism describing its economic, social economic and ideological aspects. Are these books not available in Europe?

Listen dude, I posted a whole sery of articles proving that there was nothing socialist about Nazi-Germany, except the name and a few points which were quickly abandoned and never put into practice. In reality nazi-Germany was a capitalist society, and capitalist upperclass supported Hitler. That's reality. And it's not because this reality doesn't fit in your world view where socialism is evil and the US and capitalism is per definition good, that it's not true.
And secondly, most Europeans DIDN'T support nazism. In fact even in Germany it never got the majority of the votes. Let alone that most French, Russians, Serbs, etc. supported it. Millions of Europeans were killed fighting the nazi's, and you Americans only entered the war because Japan attacked you and never lost nearly as many people fighting the nazi's as many European countries.

Which books are you talking about? I proved here on this thread (and if you missed it I'm ready to repeat it) that Nazi-Germany was all but socialist, and that the socialist faction inside nazi-movement was defeated, crushed and literally destroyed.

[takeo]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eventually, the Nazi party developed strong relationships with big business [7] and abolished trade unions[8

Hitler's political beliefs drew heavily upon Social Darwinism – the view that natural selection applies as much to human society as it does to biological organisms.[22] Hitler's interpretations of this idea produced two separate conclusions: on the one hand, Hitler believed that history was shaped by a violent struggle between nations and races, and that a nation needed to be united under a strong, centralized state led by an heroic leader in order to succeed in this struggle. On the other hand, Hitler also believed that individuals within a nation battled with each other for survival, and that such ruthless competition was good for the health of the nation, because it promoted "superior individuals" to higher positions in society.[23]

As big business became increasingly organized, it developed an increasingly close partnership with the Nazi government. The government pursued economic policies that maximized the profits of its business allies, and, in exchange, business leaders supported the government's political and military goals.[7]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany

The general membership of the Nazi Party, known as the Parteimitglieder, mainly consisted of the urban and rural lower middle classes. 7% belonged to the upper class, another 7% were peasants, 35% were industrial workers and 51% were what can be described as middle class.


There are very few middle class representatives in the communist party, mainly consisting of industrial workers and intellectuals.


Hitler did not mention any of the planks of the National Socialist Program in his book, Mein Kampf, and only talked about it in passing as "the so-called program of the movement".[9] Henry A. Turner holds that many of the program's vague calls for economic reform and pro-labor legislation, as well as its endorsement of democratic politics, went directly contrary to Hitler's own social Darwinist views and dictatorial ambitions. Furthermore, he noted that the program's calls for land reform and anti-trust legislation threatened the interests of the big business tycoons whose support and funding Hitler was trying to acquire (though his efforts in this direction proved largely unsuccessful).[10] Since he could not abolish the program entirely without causing a stir among the party's voters, Hitler chose to ban all discussion of it instead and hoped it would be largely forgotten.[11]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Program

Unlike Drexler and other party members, Hitler was less interested in the "socialist" aspect of "national socialism" beyond moving Social Welfare administration from the Church to the State. Himself of provincial lower-middle-class origins, he disliked the mass working class of the big cities, and had no sympathy with the notions of attacking private property or the business class (which some early Nazis espoused).[citation needed] For Hitler the twin goals of the party were always German nationalist expansionism and Antisemitism. These two goals were fused in his mind by his belief that Germany's external enemies - Britain, France and the Soviet Union - were controlled by the Jews, and that Germany's future wars of national expansion would necessarily entail a war against the Jews.[13]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...rkers%27_Party

The areas of strongest Nazi support were in rural Protestant areas
The Nazis' strongest appeal was to the lower middle-class – farmers, public servants, teachers, small businessmen – who had suffered most from the inflation of the 1920s and who feared Bolshevism more than anything else. The small business class were receptive to Hitler's anti-Semitism, since they blamed Jewish big business for their economic problems.

Like the republicans, the nazi's stronghold were the religious (mostly protestant) rural and middle-class.

there was a socialist element in the nazi-system, but it was quickly rooted out by Hitler himself.


The SA under Röhm's leadership soon became a major problem for the party. Many of the 700,000 members of this well-armed working-class militia took the "socialist" element of "national socialism" seriously, and soon began to demand that the Nazi regime broaden its attack from SPD and KPD activists and Jews to include the capitalist system. In addition, Röhm and his associates saw the SA as the army of the new revolutionary Nazi state, replacing the old aristocratic officer corps. The army was still outside party control, and Hitler feared that it might stage a putsch if its leaders felt threatened with an SA take-over. The business community was also alarmed by the SA’s socialist rhetoric, with which, as noted earlier, Hitler had no sympathy beyond transferring power from Churches to the State.

In June 1934, Hitler, using the SS and Gestapo under Himmler's command, staged a coup against the SA, having Röhm and about 700 others killed. This Night of the Long Knives broke the power of the SA, while increasing the power of Himmler and the SS, who emerged as the real executive arm of the Nazi Party. The business community was reassured and largely reconciled to Nazi rule. The army leaders were so grateful that the Defence Minister, Werner von Blomberg, who was not a Nazi, on his own initiative had all army members swear a personal oath to Hitler as "führer" of the German state. These events marked a decisive turning point in the Nazi take-over of Germany. The borders between the party and the state became increasingly blurred, and Hitler's personal will increasingly had the force of law, although the independence of the state bureaucracy was never completely eclipsed.

The effect of the purge of the SA was to redirect the energies of the Nazi Party away from social issues and towards racial enemies, namely the Jews, whose civil, economic and political rights were steadily restricted, culminating in the passage of the Nuremberg Laws of September 1935, which stripped them of their citizenship and banned marriage and sexual relations between Jews and "Aryans".

[bararallu]

The Program of the German Workers’ Party is a program for our time. The leadership rejects the establishment of new aims after those set out in the Program have been achieved, for the sole purpose of making it possible for the Party to continue to exist as the result of the artificially stimulated dissatisfaction of the masses.

1. We demand the uniting of all Germans within one Greater Germany, on the basis of the right to self-determination of nations.

2. We demand equal rights for the German people (Volk) with respect to other nations, and the annulment of the peace treaty of Versailles and St. Germain.

3. We demand land and soil (Colonies) to feed our People and settle our excess population.

4. Only Nationals (Volksgenossen) can be Citizens of the State. Only persons of German blood can be Nationals, regardless of religious affiliation. No Jew can therefore be a German National.

5. Any person who is not a Citizen will be able to live in Germany only as a guest and must be subject to legislation for Aliens.

6. Only a Citizen is entitled to decide the leadership and laws of the State. We therefore demand that only Citizens may hold public office, regardless of whether it is a national, state or local office.

We oppose the corrupting parliamentary custom of making party considerations, and not character and ability, the criterion for appointments to official positions.

7. We demand that the State make it its duty to provide opportunities of employment first of all for its own Citizens. If it is not possible to maintain the entire population of the State, then foreign nationals (non-Citizens) are to be expelled from the Reich.

8. Any further immigration of non-Germans is to be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans who entered Germany after August 2, 1914, be forced to leave the Reich without delay.

9. All German Citizens must have equal rights and duties.

10. It must be the first duty of every Citizen to carry out intellectual or physical work. Individual activity must not be harmful to the public interest and must be pursued within the framework of the community and for the general good.

We therefore demand:

11. The abolition of all income obtained without labor or effort.

Breaking the Servitude of Interest.

12. In view of the tremendous sacrifices in property and blood demanded of the nation by every war, personal gain from the war must be termed a crime against the nation. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

13. We demand the nationalization of all enterprises (already) converted into corporations (trusts).

14. We demand profit-sharing in large enterprises.

15. We demand the large-scale development of old-age pension schemes.

16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle class; the immediate communalization of the large department stores, which are to be leased at low rates to small tradesmen. We demand the most careful consideration for the owners of small businesses in orders placed by national, state, or community authorities.

17. We demand land reform in accordance with our national needs and a law for expropriation without compensation of land for public purposes. Abolition of ground rent and prevention of all speculation in land.

18. We demand ruthless battle against those who harm the common good by their activities. Persons committing base crimes against the People, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished by death without regard to religion or race.

19. We demand the replacement of Roman Law, which serves a materialistic World Order, by German Law.

20. In order to make higher education – and thereby entry into leading positions – available to every able and industrious German, the State must provide a thorough restructuring of our entire public educational system. The courses of study at all educational institutions are to be adjusted to meet the requirements of practical life. Understanding of the concept of the State must be achieved through the schools (teaching of civics) at the earliest age at which it can be grasped. We demand the education at the public expense of specially gifted children of poor parents, without regard to the latters’ position or occupation.

21. The State must raise the level of national health by means of mother-and-child care, the banning of juvenile labor, achievements of physical fitness through legislation for compulsory gymnastics and sports, and maximum support for all organizations providing physical training for young people.

22. We demand the abolition of hireling troops and the creation of a national army.

23. We demand laws to fight against deliberate political lies and their dissemination by the press. In order to make it possible to create a German press, we demand:

a) all editors and editorial employees of newspapers appearing in the German language must be German by race;

b) non-German newspapers require express permission from the State for their publication. They may not be printed in the German language;

c) any financial participation in a German newspaper or influence on such a paper is to be forbidden by law to non-Germans and the penalty for any breach of this law will be the closing of the newspaper in question, as well as the immediate expulsion from the Reich of the non-Germans involved.

Newspapers which violate the public interest are to be banned. We demand laws against trends in art and literature which have a destructive effect on our national life, and the suppression of performances that offend against the above requirements.

24. We demand freedom for all religious denominations, provided that they do not endanger the existence of the State or offend the concepts of decency and morality of the Germanic race.

The Party as such stands for positive Christianity, without associating itself with any particular denomination. It fights against the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and around us, and is convinced that a permanent revival of our nation can be achieved only from within, on the basis of:

Public Interest before Private Interest.

25. To carry out all the above we demand: the creation of a strong central authority in the Reich. Unquestioned authority by the political central Parliament over the entire Reich and over its organizations in general. The establishment of trade and professional organizations to enforce the Reich basic laws in the individual states.

The Party leadership promises to take an uncompromising stand, at the cost of their own lives if need be, on the enforcement of the above points.

Munich, February 24, 1920.

Das Programm der NSDAP
("The Program of the National-Socialist German Workers’ Party"), Berlin [1933].

[takeo]

The Program of the German Workers’ Party is a program for our time. The leadership rejects the establishment of new aims after those set out in the Program have been achieved, for the sole purpose of making it possible for the Party to continue to exist as the result of the artificially stimulated dissatisfaction of the masses.

1. We demand the uniting of all Germans within one Greater Germany, on the basis of the right to self-determination of nations.

2. We demand equal rights for the German people (Volk) with respect to other nations, and the annulment of the peace treaty of Versailles and St. Germain.

3. We demand land and soil (Colonies) to feed our People and settle our excess population.

4. Only Nationals (Volksgenossen) can be Citizens of the State. Only persons of German blood can be Nationals, regardless of religious affiliation. No Jew can therefore be a German National.

5. Any person who is not a Citizen will be able to live in Germany only as a guest and must be subject to legislation for Aliens.

6. Only a Citizen is entitled to decide the leadership and laws of the State. We therefore demand that only Citizens may hold public office, regardless of whether it is a national, state or local office.

We oppose the corrupting parliamentary custom of making party considerations, and not character and ability, the criterion for appointments to official positions.

7. We demand that the State make it its duty to provide opportunities of employment first of all for its own Citizens. If it is not possible to maintain the entire population of the State, then foreign nationals (non-Citizens) are to be expelled from the Reich.

8. Any further immigration of non-Germans is to be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans who entered Germany after August 2, 1914, be forced to leave the Reich without delay.

9. All German Citizens must have equal rights and duties.

10. It must be the first duty of every Citizen to carry out intellectual or physical work. Individual activity must not be harmful to the public interest and must be pursued within the framework of the community and for the general good.

We therefore demand:

11. The abolition of all income obtained without labor or effort.

Breaking the Servitude of Interest.

12. In view of the tremendous sacrifices in property and blood demanded of the nation by every war, personal gain from the war must be termed a crime against the nation. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

13. We demand the nationalization of all enterprises (already) converted into corporations (trusts).

14. We demand profit-sharing in large enterprises.

15. We demand the large-scale development of old-age pension schemes.

16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle class; the immediate communalization of the large department stores, which are to be leased at low rates to small tradesmen. We demand the most careful consideration for the owners of small businesses in orders placed by national, state, or community authorities.

17. We demand land reform in accordance with our national needs and a law for expropriation without compensation of land for public purposes. Abolition of ground rent and prevention of all speculation in land.

18. We demand ruthless battle against those who harm the common good by their activities. Persons committing base crimes against the People, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished by death without regard to religion or race.

19. We demand the replacement of Roman Law, which serves a materialistic World Order, by German Law.

20. In order to make higher education – and thereby entry into leading positions – available to every able and industrious German, the State must provide a thorough restructuring of our entire public educational system. The courses of study at all educational institutions are to be adjusted to meet the requirements of practical life. Understanding of the concept of the State must be achieved through the schools (teaching of civics) at the earliest age at which it can be grasped. We demand the education at the public expense of specially gifted children of poor parents, without regard to the latters’ position or occupation.

21. The State must raise the level of national health by means of mother-and-child care, the banning of juvenile labor, achievements of physical fitness through legislation for compulsory gymnastics and sports, and maximum support for all organizations providing physical training for young people.

22. We demand the abolition of hireling troops and the creation of a national army.

23. We demand laws to fight against deliberate political lies and their dissemination by the press. In order to make it possible to create a German press, we demand:

a) all editors and editorial employees of newspapers appearing in the German language must be German by race;

b) non-German newspapers require express permission from the State for their publication. They may not be printed in the German language;

c) any financial participation in a German newspaper or influence on such a paper is to be forbidden by law to non-Germans and the penalty for any breach of this law will be the closing of the newspaper in question, as well as the immediate expulsion from the Reich of the non-Germans involved.

Newspapers which violate the public interest are to be banned. We demand laws against trends in art and literature which have a destructive effect on our national life, and the suppression of performances that offend against the above requirements.

24. We demand freedom for all religious denominations, provided that they do not endanger the existence of the State or offend the concepts of decency and morality of the Germanic race.

The Party as such stands for positive Christianity, without associating itself with any particular denomination. It fights against the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and around us, and is convinced that a permanent revival of our nation can be achieved only from within, on the basis of:

Public Interest before Private Interest.

25. To carry out all the above we demand: the creation of a strong central authority in the Reich. Unquestioned authority by the political central Parliament over the entire Reich and over its organizations in general. The establishment of trade and professional organizations to enforce the Reich basic laws in the individual states.

The Party leadership promises to take an uncompromising stand, at the cost of their own lives if need be, on the enforcement of the above points.

Munich, February 24, 1920.

Das Programm der NSDAP
("The Program of the National-Socialist German Workers’ Party"), Berlin [1933].


1) as I proved most of the "social" program points were ignored by the Nazi-leadership once they took power.

2) most are nationalistic (large majority which is normal because nazism is a nationalistic ideology) or populist ones, few really socialist ones. There are few good points as well of course, if not they would not have got any support among worker classes. (but these are not uniquely nazi but have been adopted by all center parties such as catholics, liberals, socialists, etc. : workers rights, no child labor, anti-trust, laws, etc. not only in Europe but in Israel as well)

3) Of course the explicit anti-foreign anti-communist anti-immigrant etc. program is NOT shared by socialists, catholics and other center-parties, but only shared with other ultra-right parties and conservatives in the US.

[bararallu]

Mil, you are quite right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_socialist)... but unlike you I don't think its a matter of ignorance but rather insipid propaganda, made to wear down morale. Fascism = Yellow Socialism = Socialism + National Chauvinism, per Lenin

Furthermore, were ignorance does exist, it cannot for instance distinguish between Capitalism (as penned by Adam Smith) and mercantilism and it's socialist evolved precept: Corporatism* (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism). But that's expected I think at this point.

*[The state] is not simply a mechanism which limits the sphere of the supposed liberties of the individual... Neither has the Fascist conception of authority anything in common with that of a police ridden State... Far from crushing the individual, the Fascist State multiplies his energies, just as in a regiment a soldier is not diminished but multiplied by the number of his fellow soldiers

-BENITO MUSSOLINI (http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/mussolini.htm)

[takeo]

Mil, you are quite right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_socialist)... but unlike you I don't think its a matter of ignorance but rather insipid propaganda, made to wear down morale. Fascism = Yellow Socialism = Socialism + National Chauvinism, per Lenin

Whatever proof is given, you will of course never concede you're wrong.
The ultra-right both in the US and nazi-Germany is against immigrants, against foreigners, against gays, against feminism, against abortion, against labour unions, ultra-nationalistic, very anti-communist, traditionalist, and supported by the big capitalist groups and some part of the middle classes in their own country, as was Hitler. You have so much in common.
By the way corporatism isn't communist or socialist.

On the other hand, Hitler also believed that individuals within a nation battled with each other for survival, and that such ruthless competition was good for the health of the nation, because it promoted "superior individuals" to higher positions in society.[23]

As big business became increasingly organized, it developed an increasingly close partnership with the Nazi government. The government pursued economic policies that maximized the profits of its business allies, and, in exchange, business leaders supported the government's political and military goals.[7]
Turner holds that many of the program's vague calls for economic reform and pro-labor legislation, as well as its endorsement of democratic politics, went directly contrary to Hitler's own social Darwinist views and dictatorial ambitions. Furthermore, he noted that the program's calls for land reform and anti-trust legislation threatened the interests of the big business tycoons whose support and funding Hitler was trying to acquire 10] Since he could not abolish the program entirely without causing a stir among the party's voters, Hitler chose to ban all discussion of it instead and hoped it would be largely forgotten.[11]
For Hitler the twin goals of the party were always German nationalist expansionism and Antisemitism. These two goals were fused in his mind by his belief that Germany's external enemies - Britain, France and the Soviet Union - were controlled by the Jews, and that Germany's future wars of national expansion would necessarily entail a war against the Jews.[13]

[Kachah]

The articles I posted prove that nazism was absolutely not socialist but very capitalistic, that labour unions were forbidden, the right of the strongest and competition between individuals was the official program, and that the capitalists supported the nazi party, which first of all persecuted communists and socialists, even before the Jews.

Your position has given in to irrefutable evidence but now you claim that Hitler has actually fought off socialist elements inside NSDAP. Lefties have very amusing habits of trying to turn their weaknesses into strengths.
Never quite achieved.
Anyway, from you beloved Wiki B.1. National Socialism recognizes the legitimacy of private property and protects it by law.

B.2. However, the welfare of the people demands limits to the concentration of wealth in the hands of individuals.

B.3. All Germans should be integrated into a community of endeavour for the advancement of the general welfare and culture.

B.4. In the context of a general obligation to work and the acknowledgement of private ownership, every individual German should enjoy the freedom to acquire property and dispose of the fruits of his own labour.

B.5. A beneficial mixture of small, medium and large concerns in all areas of the economy, including agriculture, should be maintained.

B.6. All heretofore incorporated concerns should be nationalized.

B.7. Usury, swindling, and profiteering at the expense of the people, should be punishable by death.

-- editor’s note: this was actually practiced in the USSR. Feder had a propensity to co-opt Bolshevik practices which were popular with German workers.

B.8. Introduction of a year of mandatory labour service for every German.

C. Our national financial policy: the currency should be controlled by the state. Plutocrats should not be allowed to form a state within a state. From this comes our determination to abolish debt slavery.

C.1. Emancipation of the state and the people, from interest indebtedness to big capital.

C.2. Nationalization of the Reichsbank and reserve banks.

C.3. Financing for large public projects such as hydroelectric dams, highways and so forth, without resorting to commercial loans, by issuance of interest free certificates which avoid cash transactions.
(http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Program_of_the_NSDAP)
Capitalist, eh?

[bararallu]

Right, so too like the the mythical manna eating Bedouin who collect dew in the deserts to drink everyday... the Fascist, or any Socialist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wartime_communism), will wholeheartedly preoccupy itself with industry and social services when there is a war on... How interesting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_people) that it has come to it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_nationalism_in_Russia)... socialist systems readily relegate to war economies to make things meet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Poland_(1939)).

[bararallu]

Right everything is theoretical, the fascists only made slogans (http://books.google.com/books?id=n6I_FFX0YFsC&pg=PA52&lpg=PA52&dq=implementation+of+Program+of+the+NSDAP&source=bl&ots=eQsrJ1C_6B&sig=Rs1Iq1iSP1nhskMkzymzyLfWpBQ&hl=en&ei=ntItSq3yDuHBtweY5qT-Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1), like Hamas... which is in actuality a Jew loving and admiring party.

1984, Russian National Socialists should be branded with it.

[Kachah]

So, you prefer rightist murderous tyrants over a leftist democratically elected president. .
You surely mean A. Hitler as he was
leftist
democratically elected
president.
Well, takeo, I know damn well what leftist democratically elected presidents can do. Do you?



The moment Chavez closes down a hatemongering television channel he's a murderous dictator, but you didn't speak out against murderous military coups, at least if they're on your side... Before we had ibrodsky on this forum who openly supported Pinochet. You have the right to express your opinion, but please cut the crap that you want democracy, free speech etc.I do want it ultimately but I want it coupled with responsibility and dignity. Without it free and democratic Arabs of the territories elect Hamas to power and free and democratic Russians elect KGB. I would swap any of them for Pinochet or Franco any time.

[takeo]

Your position has given in to irrefutable evidence but now you claim that Hitler has actually fought off socialist elements inside NSDAP. Lefties have very amusing habits of trying to turn their weaknesses into strengths.
Never quite achieved.
Anyway, from you beloved Wiki B.1. National Socialism recognizes the legitimacy of private property and protects it by law.

B.2. However, the welfare of the people demands limits to the concentration of wealth in the hands of individuals.

B.3. All Germans should be integrated into a community of endeavour for the advancement of the general welfare and culture.

B.4. In the context of a general obligation to work and the acknowledgement of private ownership, every individual German should enjoy the freedom to acquire property and dispose of the fruits of his own labour.

B.5. A beneficial mixture of small, medium and large concerns in all areas of the economy, including agriculture, should be maintained.

B.6. All heretofore incorporated concerns should be nationalized.

B.7. Usury, swindling, and profiteering at the expense of the people, should be punishable by death.

-- editor’s note: this was actually practiced in the USSR. Feder had a propensity to co-opt Bolshevik practices which were popular with German workers.

B.8. Introduction of a year of mandatory labour service for every German.

C. Our national financial policy: the currency should be controlled by the state. Plutocrats should not be allowed to form a state within a state. From this comes our determination to abolish debt slavery.

C.1. Emancipation of the state and the people, from interest indebtedness to big capital.

C.2. Nationalization of the Reichsbank and reserve banks.

C.3. Financing for large public projects such as hydroelectric dams, highways and so forth, without resorting to commercial loans, by issuance of interest free certificates which avoid cash transactions.
(http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Program_of_the_NSDAP)
Capitalist, eh?

none of this is specifically socialist or communist, but most have been adopted by other parties and ideologies as well, in Israel as well.
However in reality Hitler never touched the capitalist upperclass,which supported him, as I demonstrated. He also adopted a whole sery of nationalistic, ultra-rightist laws which are very similar to what today's conservative and ultra-rightists in the US, ISrael and Europe propose.

1. We demand the union of all Germany in a Greater Germany on the basis of the right of national self-determination. (cfr. Great-Israel)

3. We demand land and territory (colonies) to feed our people and to settle our surplus population. (no comment needed I think...)

4. Only members of the nation may be citizens of the State. Only those of German blood, whatever be their creed, may be members of the nation. Accordingly, no Jew may be a member of the nation. (some israeli rightists propose that non-Jews should be revoked citizenship)

6. The right to vote on the State's government and legislation shall be enjoyed by the citizens of the State alone. We demand therefore that all official appointments, of whatever kind, whether in the Reich, in the states or in the smaller localities, shall be held by none but citizens.

many us conservatives are against Mexicans etc. being elected.

7. We demand that the State shall make it its primary duty to provide a livelihood for its citizens. If it should prove impossible to feed the entire population, foreign nationals (non-citizens) must be deported from the Reich.

some Israeli nationalists demand deportation of non-jews.

8. All non-German immigration must be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans who entered Germany after 2 August 1914 shall be required to leave the Reich forthwith.

US- and European rightwing parties are very anti-immigrant.

Most other points are mainstream and also adopted by most socialist, catholic, christian-democratic, liberal and other centrist parties in Europe and Israel.


http://www.hitler.org/writings/programme/

[takeo]

You surely mean A. Hitler as he was
leftist
democratically elected
president.
Well, takeo, I know damn well what leftist democratically elected presidents can do. Do you?


I do want it ultimately but I want it coupled with responsibility and dignity. Without it free and democratic Arabs of the territories elect Hamas to power and free and democratic Russians elect KGB. I would swap any of them for Pinochet or Franco any time.

Hitler was NOT a leftist by any standard. As I proved above he is ultra-right concerning nationalism and ethics and center-right concerning his socio-economic program.
And he wasn't really democratically elected either. By the time he formed a government his gangs already scared the out of other parties.
Besides he could only enter the government because rightwing parties let him. The only opposition came from socialists and communists, who were, like under Pinoshet, quickly banned and persecuted.

Allende was democratically elected, never killed any political opposer and replaced by a murderous tyrant who abolished democracy and free speech, and guess what, you support the murderous tyrant! (no surprise really, you rightists are only in favor of democracy as long as people vote for the parties YOU want)
Besides you mention Franco, Franco, as Pinochet(both were close allies), too defeated the democratically elected communists, he was heavily supported by Hitler and could only win the civil war he started because of nazi and fascist support (or do you deny that as well?) And I'm quite sure you only dislike Hitler because of his anti-semitism. Without that, there's not much difference with franco, Pinochet and other fascists you support.



I knew it, all these democracy and free speech is just window-dressing, in reality you only support it when it serves your interests. (as human rights, you are only for human rights in Russia or China, NOT in Guantanamo, Palestine or Iraq)

[Kachah]

Hitler was NOT a leftist by any standard.
'Course he was. Social means communal, common as opposed to individual, private. Hitler declared the superiority of "common" interest over the individual one and that's that. Socialist, guilty as charged.
What makes you, lefties, kick and scream is your undeniable association with him. After despicable horrors of the War and Nuremberg Tribunal hearings you just cannot afford to be recognized as the fruits of the same tree - hence much of your propaganda went into re-positioning Hitler to the right. I have no idea how you managed that but I admit that you did - after all, propaganda has always been lefties' strong point.
So far you don't mind sticking Stalin to the left ofpolitics - but mark my words, when the tribunal comes for the Soviet crimes against humanity you'll be dragging him to the right and preaching your total eternal opposition to the commies as you do to Nazis.
THing is, you cannot deceive everyone indefinitely.

[takeo]

Kachah


Course he was. Social means communal, common as opposed to individual, private. Hitler declared the superiority of "common" interest over the individual one and that's that. Socialist, guilty as charged.

Social and communal isn't necessarily socialist, you're only socialist if you represent and defend the working class, which Hitler certainly didn't. Religious organisations are social and communal as well, but not socialist, so are KKK, "christian majority", Kibbutzim, etc.
Anyway I already proved Hitler was no socialist, I'm not going to repeat it once again, believe what you want, but historians place him on the right, the ultra-right, and that happens to be the place where you belong as well.



What makes you, lefties, kick and scream is your undeniable association with him.

What makes you ultra-right nationalists, kick and scream is your undeniable association with him and his ultra-nationalistic ideas.



After despicable horrors of the War and Nuremberg Tribunal hearings you just cannot afford to be recognized as the fruits of the same tree - hence much of your propaganda went into re-positioning Hitler to the right.

Hitler has always been positioned on the ultra-right, even before Nurenberg. Yes, he's positioned next right to you! Do you want me to cite communist, Soviet and socialist newspapers from before the war, or even Mein Kampf, where Hitler himself places him on the right. The only people in the US sympathetic to him where industrialists like Ford. In Europe all the parties who incorporated former nazi's and nazi-ideas are ultra-right anti-immigration, anti-foreigner parties





I have no idea how you managed that but I admit that you did - after all, propaganda has always been lefties' strong point.

Because more than half of the program of the nazi's was ultra-nationalistic, anti-immigrant, anti-communist, anti-labor unions, anti-foreigner, etcetera, because nazi-Germany always continued to be a capitalist society, and his party drew the main support from middle classes and the capitalistic upper-class.



So far you don't mind sticking Stalin to the left ofpolitics

Stalin was a communist, that's undeniable, and I even defend many decisions stalin took (not everything). Stalin is also, untill today, very popular and highly regarded in Russia, his native Georgia and a few other countries as well. I don't know any place where Hitler is genrally highly regarded (except by some skinheads, fanatics, and other scùm.)




- but mark my words, when the tribunal comes for the Soviet crimes against humanity you'll be dragging him to the right and preaching your total eternal opposition to the commies as you do to Nazis.

nonsense, noone except a few ultra-right nuts like you claim Hitler's a socialist, no reputable historian places him on the left (as I demonstrated with links see above)



THing is, you cannot deceive everyone indefinitely.

I don't know many people who think of Hitler as a leftie, the idea is ridiculous, does it mean franco, Pinochet, etc. were lefties too? Was Bush a leftie? What's next? No, Hitler toroughly belongs to the ultra-right, as you do. Enjoy his company, and good luck with your anti-communist, anti-Arab, etc. ideas.

[Mil]

Posted by Takeo:

Listen dude, I posted a whole sery of articles proving that there was nothing socialist about Nazi-Germany, except the name and a few points which were quickly abandoned and never put into practice. In reality nazi-Germany was a capitalist society, and capitalist upperclass supported Hitler. That's reality. And it's not because this reality doesn't fit in your world view where socialism is evil and the US and capitalism is per definition good, that it's not true.

:) Like I said - you don't know anything about Nazi Germany. Do they teach about that in French schools? I am generally disappointed with your knowledge of this particular subject.


Which books are you talking about? I proved here on this thread (and if you missed it I'm ready to repeat it) that Nazi-Germany was all but socialist, and that the socialist faction inside nazi-movement was defeated, crushed and literally destroyed.

Nazi Germany was very socialist. Too socialist with many of its policies becoming backbone of many of the Western European socialist undertakings. Now - compared to you I actually READ BOOKS!!!! For starters:

1.
The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy by Adam Tooze

2.
Hitler's Beneficiaries: Plunder, Racial War, and the Nazi Welfare State by Gotz Aly

3.
The Third Reich in Power by Richard Evans

[Kachah]

you're only socialist if you represent and defend the working class, which Hitler certainly didn't. Wonderful. You don't even know what socialism
is and who the socialists are!



Stalin was a communist, that's undeniable, and I even defend many decisions stalin took (not everything).Say no more, takeo. I rest my case.

[takeo]

Mi



:) Like I said - you don't know anything about Nazi Germany. Do they teach about that in French schools? I am generally disappointed with your knowledge of this particular subject.

I know a lot about the subject, and that's exactly why I'm not accepting your view. Of course I know in some rightwing circles it's popular to compare nazi-Germany to socialism and communism. But it's simply nonsense. Do you honestly deny that nazi-Germany was a capitalist society and that Hitler was supported by the German bourgeoisie?





Nazi Germany was very socialist. Too socialist with many of its policies becoming backbone of many of the Western European socialist undertakings. Now - compared to you I actually READ BOOKS!!!! For starters:

So you're saying the Western European welfare society was initiated by Hitler? Yes, nazism also embraced keynesianism, but similarities end there. (besides kenyensianism is capitalism TOO). The backbone of nazism is pure undiluted nationalism, as I proved. And in reality, the capitalists had unlimited power and trade union banned, which is very different from any Western European welfare state. But which books do you read? All books trying to prove some ideological rightousness which happens to correspond to your views.


I have a book for you too: The "Hitler myth": image and reality in the Third Reich, Ian Kershaw.

About how anti-communism played a key role in the nazi rise to power and ideology.

[Mil]

Posted by Takeo:

I know a lot about the subject, and that's exactly why I'm not accepting your view.

I don't think you do.

Of course I know in some rightwing circles it's popular to compare nazi-Germany to socialism and communism.

I am not "right wing." However, Nazi Germany was a socialist state. I am not sure what your problem with that is. Saddam's Iraq was also a socialist state, as is Syria, as is Libya, as is France, Norway and even Israel. Socialism has absolutely NOTHING to do with nationalism or racial policies.

Do you honestly deny that nazi-Germany was a capitalist society and that Hitler was supported by the German bourgeoisie?

Norway is also a capitalist state which is supported by Norwegian bourgeoisie. I think you are really confusing communism and socialism - as usual.

Anyways, I recommend you actually READ UP on Hitler's social-economic platform.

So you're saying the Western European welfare society was initiated by Hitler?

I am saying that just like with Napoleon many of the changes initiated by Nazi Germany were inherited and built upon by Western Europe. Seriously - why don't you READ IT UP!!!!!


Yes, nazism also embraced keynesianism, but similarities end there. (besides kenyensianism is capitalism TOO).

Ah - so you know kenyensianism. That's good. But Keynes's theories, which in fact were very popular in the 30s with everyone, have nothing to do with Hitler's social-economic programs and policies; and especially nothing to do with Socialism either. Why don't you READ IT UP!


The backbone of nazism is pure undiluted nationalism, as I proved.

? You mean a socialist country which in its hymn had the following words was not nationalist?:

"Союз нерушимый республик свободных
Сплотила навеки Великая Русь!"

or in English:

"Unbreakable union of freeborn republics
Great Russia has welded forever to stand!"


dude - your favorite "socialist" country was overly nationalist! I was a pioneer with a Red tie giving solute to Soviet symbols. Did you?

And in reality, the capitalists had unlimited power and trade union banned, which is very different from any Western European welfare state.

Capitalists had "unlimited" power in Germany? :) dude, like I said apparently you know nothing about it. Before you embarrass yourself further why don't you open books written by people who actually did the research... you know it only happened just 70 years ago.

But which books do you read? All books trying to prove some ideological rightousness which happens to correspond to your views.

? I listed books above. These books have no ideological twist what-so-ever. These are written by professional historians - people who spent years researching this PARTICULAR subject.

I have a book for you too: The "Hitler myth": image and reality in the Third Reich, Ian Kershaw.

I own over a 100+ books on WWII written by many different authors, both in English and Russian, and believe me know about the subject a bit more then you. I would not recommend you read the likes of Kershaw.

About how anti-communism played a key role in the nazi rise to power and ideology.

As did anti-capitalism and the protection of the "common" men. The lower classes supported Hitler greatly. Hitler gave them:

1. Nationalized healthcare
2. Tax breaks of every sort and kind (it's a read of its own. I recommend you do but unfortunately wiki doesn't have much on this. Much of this served as a basis and was copied by many other Western European countries.)
3. Protection from creditors (nothing like what Germany implemented on this even existed in France, US or Britain till well after the war).
4. Universal Free education
5. Subsidized vocations
6. Enforced work hours
7. Unemployment benefits
8. Retirement benefits
9. Workers compensation
10. Very tough employer/employee code of conduct or rather worker's bill of rights!!!! (It greatly favored employee and nothing like this existed anywhere till well after the war).
11. Minimal wage requirements
12. Veteran benefits
13. Residence guarantee (all Germans had a roof over their heads).
14. Right to take employer to court



dude - I can go on and on. Labor Unions and nationalism have absolutely NOTHING to do with Socialism.

[bararallu]

Why would he read up on anything? He has god like prescience at the moment. Whats 20:20 hindsight to us mere mortals is foresight to the Russian national socialist.

[takeo]

Mil



I don't think you do.

Well, I think you only read books from autors which you know will support your point of view.



I am not "right wing."

You esteem that ultra-right wing racists who are on the black list in the UK are right, but you don't think you're rightwing... :rolleyes:



However, Nazi Germany was a socialist state.

it wasn't.


I am not sure what your problem with that is.

My problem with that is that it's simply not true. And I don't say that because Hitler's a mass-murderer. Stalin too was a mass-murderer (as was Nixon etc.) but Stalin WAS a communist.




Saddam's Iraq was also a socialist state, as is Syria, as is Libya,

they incorporated some socialist elements but they are not really socialist.


as is France, Norway and even Israel.

All those are capitalist societies with some (or a lot in the case of Norway) social-democratic elements. (That's why generally there is less poverty than in the US, but that's off-topic)



Socialism has absolutely NOTHING to do with nationalism or racial policies.

and that's why it has nothing to do with nazism.



Norway is also a capitalist state which is supported by Norwegian bourgeoisie. I think you are really confusing communism and socialism - as usual.

But in Norway labour unions are omnipresent, in every possible way.
Nothing happens without to consent of the labour unions, and tHUS the working class. Socialism is social-democracy, which is totally opposite to nazism in many possible ways.



Anyways, I recommend you actually READ UP on Hitler's social-economic platform.

I did.




I am saying that just like with Napoleon many of the changes initiated by Nazi Germany were inherited and built upon by Western Europe. Seriously - why don't you READ IT UP!!!!!

Actually social security and worker's rights started after WWI, during the interbellum living standards rise dramatically in Western Europe. When social-democrats entered the governments in many European countries. It's not due to the nazi's (who only occupied most of Western Europe during a few years)
.



Ah - so you know kenyensianism. That's good.

what do you think about me?



But Keynes's theories, which in fact were very popular in the 30s with everyone, have nothing to do with Hitler's social-economic programs and policies; and especially nothing to do with Socialism either. Why don't you READ IT UP!

Well, I did, and I discovered that nazi socio-economic policy borrowed heavily from keynesianism (as did Wesytern welfare states after WWII, which might be the reason you made the comparison...).



? You mean a socialist country which in its hymn had the following words was not nationalist?:

"Союз нерушимый республик свободных
Сплотила навеки Великая Русь!"

There's a difference between patriotism and nationalism. The Soviet-Union was certainly patriotic and it honoured the Russian past, as the US or France do as well, but it didn't make laws persecuting non-Russian minorities or it didn't proclaim that Russian federation or the Soviet-Union were for the Russians only. It was always a multi-national state.



dude - your favorite "socialist" country was overly nationalist! I was a pioneer with a Red tie giving solute to Soviet symbols. Did you?

No, I didn't, but my parents did, and did you ever feel these Soviet symbols were directed against non-Russians?


Capitalists had "unlimited" power in Germany? :) dude, like I said apparently you know nothing about it. Before you embarrass yourself further why don't you open books written by people who actually did the research... you know it only happened just 70 years ago.

I did.
And altough they had to take into account government requirements, they didn't have to reckon with labour unions, etc. and they made billions of profit.


? I listed books above. These books have no ideological twist what-so-ever. These are written by professional historians - people who spent years researching this PARTICULAR subject.

Well, I'm going to read a few. But there are many books written about WWII, and yet I have to see any evidence that Nazi-Germany was a socialist state.
Actually I asked one of my friends who teaches contemporary European economic history at the university, and he told me this is a particular view among certain historians but certainly not a mainstream one.



I have a book for you too: The "Hitler myth": image and reality in the Third Reich, Ian Kershaw.


I own over a 100+ books on WWII written by many different authors, both in English and Russian, and believe me know about the subject a bit more then you. I would not recommend you read the likes of Kershaw.

Why not? You don't like autors which could undermine your view on the subject? See what I mean...




As did anti-capitalism and the protection of the "common" men. The lower classes supported Hitler greatly

In reality Hitler enjoyed most support from the middle classes and the bourgeoisie. In "red workers strongholds" he had little support and few votes.(as you can see in one of my links)
(don't forget that he never got more than 40% of the votes)



.
Hitler gave them:

1. Nationalized healthcare

Exists all over europe, not typically Nazi-German or even socialist.



2. Tax breaks of every sort and kind (it's a read of its own. I recommend you do but unfortunately wiki doesn't have much on this. Much of this served as a basis and was copied by many other Western European countries.)

so what's the link with socialism?



3. Protection from creditors (nothing like what Germany implemented on this even existed in France, US or Britain till well after the war).
4. Universal Free education
5. Subsidized vocations
6. Enforced work hours
7. Unemployment benefits
8. Retirement benefits
9. Workers compensation
10. Very tough employer/employee code of conduct or rather worker's bill of rights!!!! (It greatly favored employee and nothing like this existed anywhere till well after the war).
11. Minimal wage requirements
12. Veteran benefits
13. Residence guarantee (all Germans had a roof over their heads).
14. Right to take employer to court

That's why nazism remained popular for long time. But all this isn't exclusively socialist, as I said christian-democrats copied and implemented all this as well gradually since WWI (as a consequence of rerum novarum). And I don't think there's anything wrong with this.
But on the other hand you can't deny that nazi-Germany oppressed labor unions, and that many of those rights were only theoretical and never implemented.
Most importantly, big capitalists supported Hitler and continued to make hige profits, especially during the war.




dude - I can go on and on. Labor Unions and nationalism have absolutely NOTHING to do with Socialism.

And it's not because a nationalist party adopts a few social elements that it becomes a socialist party. As I demonstrated the socilaist element within the nazi movement was soon rooted out. All serious historians agree that nationalism was the core business of nazism and especially Hitler.

anyway, I don't understand what you're trying to prove... that workers' rights are wrong because the nazi's officially were in favor of that as well?

But there are a few program points which are specifically nazi and are not present in any left- or center-wing party program. Their anti-migration, anti-foreigner program for example, their call for colonisation of non-German lands, their call for a leading role for the bourgeoisie and the middle class over the workers, etc.

[Mil]

Posted by Takeo:

anyway, I don't understand what you're trying to prove...

:) Nazi Germany was a socialist state in every classical sense of the word!!!!! I am not sure what kind of historians your friends are but apparently they also don't read books.

I am just not sure what your problem accepting the fact that Nazi Germany was a socialist state? This has absolutely nothing to do with ideology or trying to lessen the value of socialism.... this is simply history.

My personal problem with socialism, having come from a "socialist" country, is that socialism takes away CHOICES and instead gives this power to the government - and then the government gives you the choices.


You esteem that ultra-right wing racists who are on the black list in the UK are right, but you don't think you're rightwing.

Provided that you don't even know the person or the subject whom you are talking about.... it really makes me laugh. By the way, in your particular opinion what makes a person "right-wing"? Are some of Israel's politicians "right-wing" - provided that most of them are socialist to the core (most of my relatives who live in Israel call that country a Soviet Union reborn)? Please give me a criteria......

[Mil]

Posted by Takeo:

That's why nazism remained popular for long time.

Yeah, Hitler created the first "nanny" state.

But all this isn't exclusively socialist, as I said christian-democrats copied and implemented all this as well gradually since WWI (as a consequence of rerum novarum).

In which country exactly? Definitely not in France.

And I don't think there's anything wrong with this.

I don't either. I am just saying that Nazi Germany was a socialist state.

But on the other hand you can't deny that nazi-Germany oppressed labor unions

Nazi Germany banned Labor Unions. However, existence of labor unions has absolutely nothing to do with socialism.

, and that many of those rights were only theoretical and never implemented.

What are you talking about?!!!!!! All those rights were implemented and followed through quite strictly!!!!! It took extreme demand at the front, full mobilization of German men of conscript-able age and the beginning of the allied bombing campaign somewhere in late 1942 - 1943 (right after Stalingrad and Al Alamein) that a reluctant Hitler was finally persuaded to start changing these rules. Much of these labor laws were in fact were responsible for creating massive labor shortages which were to be compensated from forced labor brought in to Germany by its millions from all over conquered lands.



Most importantly, big capitalists supported Hitler and continued to make hige profits, especially during the war.

The "big capitalists" pretty much made up the entire German industrial base.... you know those people who build tanks, guns, and ammunition. Hitler was not hostile to business but he also created strict and very sophisticated laws that kept this "BIG" capitalists accountable to the treatment of their employees and the community. In fact Nazi Germany is considered to be one of the first countries in the world to create and enforce corporate accountability legislation - everything from treatment of the workers, to the consumer, and to the environment.

I am very much aware of the behavior of many German firms, many of which exist today, and believe me it makes me want to puke. I will never buy a Mercedes or a BMW or laser disk from TDK, and if Siemons wasn't into everything I would never get anything from them either.... but his does not in any way change the fact that Nazi Germany was a socialist country.

I think you are implying that in socialism no private business will exist. Am I getting you correctly?

[Kachah]

The Soviet-Union was certainly patriotic and it honoured the Russian past, as the US or France do as well, but it didn't make laws persecuting non-Russian minorities... It was always a multi-national state.


Wow! You must be some Moscow Red Army order of Lenin cadet corp graduate of sorts! Who else would state this? After open Soviet genocide towards its own Crimea Tartars, the Volga Germans, the Kalmyks, the Chechens, the Karachay and a dozen of other "non-Russian minorities", after moving to Siberia hunderds of thousands of Latvians, Poles, Lithuanians, Ukrainians, after openly antisemitic outburst in 1953 and established practices afterwards - well said, takeo.
It was a multi-national state because this multitude of nations was held in it at the gun point. All who could ran away at the sniff of opportunity.
The USSR was one of teh most racist regimes in history.

[Mil]

Our local Russian nationalist knows very little about USSR - unfortunately. Though of course I am sure that Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, parts of Poland, Ukraine, Moldova, parts of southern republics ALL had to remember their "Russian" past.... not that any of them really asked to join.

Funny stuff.

[Sanket]

Stalin too was a mass-murderer (as was Nixon etc.) but Stalin WAS a communist.

FYI

NIXON averted a nuclear war between the USSR and the PRC....;)

[takeo]

Our local Russian nationalist knows very little about USSR - unfortunately. Though of course I am sure that Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, parts of Poland, Ukraine, Moldova, parts of southern republics ALL had to remember their "Russian" past.... not that any of them really asked to join.

Funny stuff.

If you say so. But you certainly don't know very good what's going on right now. It's simply a fact that the SU is still very popular in most ex-Soviet republics. In fact in Moldova communists have been elected for the third time during elections declared free and fair by western observers, and in Ukraine the pro-Russian parties are about to win the upcoming elections.

[takeo]

FYI

NIXON averted a nuclear war between the USSR and the PRC....;)

And he killed millions of Vietnamese, Laotians, etc.

[Kenneth]

How many people died in the Vietnam war? (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_people_died_in_the_vietnamese_war)

:unsure:

Perhaps Paul Hardcastle is having a laff? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byCCmBwRjGw)

[takeo]

Mil




:) Nazi Germany was a socialist state in every classical sense of the word!!!!! I am not sure what kind of historians your friends are but apparently they also don't read books.

I read books too, but apparently different books than you.
And what's the classical sense of socialism? I think we have to start with the definition of socialism, your definition is probably different from mine.



I am just not sure what your problem accepting the fact that Nazi Germany was a socialist state? This has absolutely nothing to do with ideology or trying to lessen the value of socialism.... this is simply history.

it is false. Sorry to refer to wiki yet again (only source available on the net):

Hitler's variety of National Socialism was founded on a Weltanschauung, or translated "World View", in which history was reducible to a racial struggle in the Social Darwinian sense. National Socialism was thus a Messianic movement, centered in the Fuhrerprincip and anchored in the thesis that only through racial purity could Germany find her salvation. The movement was based on anti-Semitism, anti-Marxism and hyper-nationalism, manifesting itself through Pan-Germanism and the quest for Lebensraum.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialism

National-socialism is a nationalist ideology more than anything else.



My personal problem with socialism, having come from a "socialist" country, is that socialism takes away CHOICES and instead gives this power to the government - and then the government gives you the choices.

You know what my problem is with you, mill, you're an intelligent and polite guy but as many rightwing Americans you don't respect other opinions, you're so much convinced you're right that you dismiss anyone with different believes as uneducated or stupid.
You said yourself communism and socialism are not necessarily the same. Social-democrats for example give people choices, choises they wouldn't have if there was no social security system. In unreformed capitalist countries like the US, with no safety net, I think many people are slaves of their job and their employer, who can sack them anytime without even giving an explaination. Ad no job means poverty. Single mothers for example have a much harder time in the US, no subsidised children-care, discrimination on the labour-market, etc. So I wouldn't say the US is a more free society than Europe. I even think, for example, as a gay or or a person with an alternative lifestyle you're better off in most European countries than in most US-states.
And I think good healthcare affortable to everyone, affortable accomodation, good education, enough free time and vacation, good working conditions for everyone, the freedom to decide about one's own body (abortion for example) etc. are as much or even more basic human rights as freedom of expression.





I think we don't have the same definition of socialism.



Provided that you don't even know the person or the subject whom you are talking about.... it really makes me laugh.

Well, I've read some things he said... obviously racist things. He might be funny, and have interesting things to say, but so has dieudonné for example.
And you don't know Western Europe well, it doesn't refrain you from for example calling the entire Europe anti-semitic...






By the way, in your particular opinion what makes a person "right-wing"? Are some of Israel's politicians "right-wing" - provided that most of them are socialist to the core (most of my relatives who live in Israel call that country a Soviet Union reborn)? Please give me a criteria......

It depends on the definition of rightwing.
Let's quote wiki:

In politics, right-wing, political right, rightist and the Right are terms applied to positions that focus on restoring or upholding traditional values and customs which sometimes includes maintaining a form of social hierarchy.[1][2][3]
Today the term the Right is primarily used to refer to political groups that have a historical connection with the traditional right, including: conservatives, reactionaries, monarchists and certain types of nationalists. The right has also encompassed views supporting capitalism and free markets. [7]

In the aftermath of the Cold War, communism is no longer seen as a major force in world politics, and therefore most conservatives are far less concerned with anti-communism. Nevertheless, right-wing anti-communism resurfaces anywhere that communist political groups make significant advances, such as in Nepal in recent years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics

What is so socialist about Israel? Perhaps the fact that workers get social protection, that employers can't just sack someone without legitimate reason, that most israeli have acces to an affortable public health system? that there are strong labor unions defending the rights of the working people?
You think that's bad, I think that's good, indeed a major ideological difference.

[takeo]

Mil



Yeah, Hitler created the first "nanny" state.

it wasn't exactly a nanny-state in reality tough. Especially not for the many foreign workers who were used as cheap slaves by the big German corporations...



In which country exactly? Definitely not in France.

In Belgium for example.



I don't either. I am just saying that Nazi Germany was a socialist state.

It wasn't, it was a nationalist state ruled by the bourgeoisie and the middle classes. Socialism is internationalist, not nationalist. It unites workers of different ethnic background, nazism separates them.




Nazi Germany banned Labor Unions. However, existence of labor unions has absolutely nothing to do with socialism.

labor unions are crucial to socialism. Again, you don't know much about socialism and how it developped in the 19th century.




What are you talking about?!!!!!! All those rights were implemented and followed through quite strictly!!!!! It took extreme demand at the front, full mobilization of German men of conscript-able age and the beginning of the allied bombing campaign somewhere in late 1942 - 1943 (right after Stalingrad and Al Alamein) that a reluctant Hitler was finally persuaded to start changing these rules. Much of these labor laws were in fact were responsible for creating massive labor shortages which were to be compensated from forced labor brought in to Germany by its millions from all over conquered lands.

1) not every source agrees on that.
http://fitzharrys.oxon.digitalbrain.com/oxon/schools/fitzharrys/web/History/documents/Specimen%20Answers%202005-Nazi.pdf
2) any labor conditions were strictly restricted to Germans, only, labor conditions of non-Germans and especially Eastern Europeans working in Germany were horrendous.



The "big capitalists" pretty much made up the entire German industrial base.... you know those people who build tanks, guns, and ammunition.

Those were private capitalists, who made treendous profits during the war.



Hitler was not hostile to business but he also created strict and very sophisticated laws that kept this "BIG" capitalists accountable to the treatment of their employees and the community.

in theory, not in reality.


In fact Nazi Germany is considered to be one of the first countries in the world to create and enforce corporate accountability legislation - everything from treatment of the workers, to the consumer, and to the environment.

sounds nice, but reality was different, and of course once again strictly limited to Germans.




I am very much aware of the behavior of many German firms, many of which exist today, and believe me it makes me want to puke.

We agree on that. Those were and still are capitalists, and they specifically liked the strong anti-communist and anti-labor union stand of the nazi-regime. They also abused slave-labor and cooperated actively to the Endlosung. I think this aspect of nazi-history has all to often been ignored or omitted.






I will never buy a Mercedes or a BMW or laser disk from TDK, and if Siemons wasn't into everything I would never get anything from them either....

those people escaped justice after the war. (because of the cold war)





but his does not in any way change the fact that Nazi Germany was a socialist country.

of course it wasn't. You think Siemens, mercedes, etc. are or were socialist state-corporations? No, German economy was capitalist




I think you are implying that in socialism no private business will exist. Am I getting you correctly?

No, I'm not against free enterprise or free market. But I think that in a socialist state that government and not a handful of capitalists should at least control much of the economy, the main infrastructure and the crucial pillars of the economy. That's why I think China, Belarus, etc. are socialist countries while France, Germany, Israel, etc. are not.

[takeo]

Kachah


Wow! You must be some Moscow Red Army order of Lenin cadet corp graduate of sorts! Who else would state this? After open Soviet genocide towards its own Crimea Tartars, the Volga Germans, the Kalmyks, the Chechens, the Karachay and a dozen of other "non-Russian minorities",

those were collaborating or about to do it with the nazi's...
However you can't say non-Russian minorities (with a few exceptions) were discriminated. In fact Stalin himself was not a Russian (Georgian), nor were Khroutchov or Breznev (Ukrainians).




after moving to Siberia hunderds of thousands of Latvians, Poles, Lithuanians, Ukrainians, after openly antisemitic outburst in 1953 and established practices afterwards - well said, takeo.

Latvians generally are nazi-supporters, they still are. And only anti-communist Latvians, etc. were deported. In the 20's and 30's and even later many Jews were in leading positions in the Soviet-system, even the head of the secret service was a Jew, as were many famous musicians, writers, poets, etc. attached to the regime. And Latvians, etc. had their own republic in the Soviet-Union with lots of autonomy, with their own language the official language, etc. I think any comparison with nazi-Germany is simply deceptive.







It was a multi-national state because this multitude of nations was held in it at the gun point. All who could ran away at the sniff of opportunity.
The USSR was one of teh most racist regimes in history.

You know there was a referendum in 1990 and the majority in most republics (except the Baltics and a few others) decided to keep the union. Political events decided differently, but still there is great nostalgia for the SU, and not only in russia but equally in Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, tajikistan, etc.

[bararallu]

In the 20's and 30's and even later many Jews were in leading positions in the Soviet-system, even the head of the secret service was a Jew,

Ah... the relatives of the Russian National Socialist. So nice that most of these community destroying turncoats were liquidated by Stalin.

[Mil]

Posted by Takeo:

In the 20's and 30's and even later many Jews were in leading positions in the Soviet-system, even the head of the secret service was a Jew

Soviet Secret Service first known as ChK, GPU, OGPU and then as NKVD has a number of bosses in the 1920s and 1930... due to the repressions. It was first lead by Dzerzinsky (a Polak), Menzinsky (Polak), Yagoda (a Joo), Ezov (Russian) and finally Beria (Georgian). Yagoda's rain was only for two years 1934-1936.

I recommend you start reading!!!!!

[Kachah]

those were collaborating or about to do it with the nazi's....
Oh, but of course. Particularly the babies and the elderly as they died first when dumped on the frozen ground from the cattle cars somewhere in Siberia and Kazakhstan. Those were terrible collaborators.
As every proper leftie you would not hesitate to sacrifice human beings to your murderous socialist ideology under faulse pretence.


However you can't say non-Russian minorities (with a few exceptions) were discriminated. In fact Stalin himself was not a Russian (Georgian), nor were Khroutchov or Breznev (Ukrainians).....Khrouchev and Brezhnev were both ethnic Russians and Hitler was an Austrian. It is questionable whether Stalin was Georgian or Ossetian. This all has got no bearing on their policies and totally beyond the scope.
Non-Russian "minorities" were not only discriminated, they were ranked in this discrimination and the rank was religiously administered by the KGB in all its incarnations. Work permits, residential permits, uni enrolments - everything was tied up to the ethnicity according to this rank. You just happen to know jack shit about this.


Latvians generally are nazi-supporters, they still are. And only anti-communist Latvians, etc. were deported.

Now this is not what a proper leftie should have said, your local socialist parteigenosse will be disappointed. Latvians are people like any other and in 1940 they were annexed and persecuted by the USSR. So naturally they went in droves to support anybody who would fight Stalin. It happenned to be Hitler but might as well have been devil himself. Stalin was the devil they knew. Same goes for all other Western parts like Lithuania and Ukraine. Now explain to me why millions of ethnic Russians defected to the Germans? Were the Russians nazi supporters and collaborators as well?


You know there was a referendum in 1990 and the majority in most republics (except the Baltics and a few others) decided to keep the union. No, takeo, enlighten me. But before you start just bear in mind that I voted in that referendum. The "question" was heavily loaded (in fact it was formulated something like this: Do you want to live in the new, democratic and free USSR? Yes/No). The fact that the Baltic people still said "NO" just shows that the commies had failed to build the same level of gullibility in them over 40 years as they'd managed to achieve with the Russians and Kazakhs and all over 70 years.
But keep telling your stories,make even bigger mockery of yoruself.
You have no idea on the subject you are trying to present yourself as an expert on.
Denial, takeo, is not a river in Egypt. You with your socialist theories live in denial of the obvious fact that nazis were socialists i.e. your ideological twins. You condemn Hitler but openly support Stalin, you are against nationalist racial theories yet you brand the whole nations as "nazi supporters" and "collaborators".
You are true socialist i.e. a hypocrite and a nazi.

[takeo]

Kacha


Oh, but of course. Particularly the babies and the elderly as they died first when dumped on the frozen ground from the cattle cars somewhere in Siberia and Kazakhstan. Those were terrible collaborators.

I don't agree to mass deportation of an entire people or ethnic cleansing. That's why I said I don't agree to everything Stalin did. You know when Israel cleansed most palestinians in 1948 it cleansed children, elderly and women as well. I condamn that as well, do you?




As every proper leftie you would not hesitate to sacrifice human beings to your murderous socialist ideology under faulse pretence.

many rightwing israel-supporters wouldn't mind a palestinian less or more. But in the USSR the wrong decisions of Stalin were criticised by Khroutchev.
I have yet to see anyone in Israel denouncing Ben Gurion for what happened in 1948... or in the US there was never an official deouncing of the Vietnam war, which killed millions. The murdering Vietnamese babies and villagers wasn't a crime apparently, because these villages are believed to have supported communists... :rolleyes:





Khrouchev and Brezhnev were both ethnic Russians

Both born and raised in Ukraine.


and Hitler was an Austrian.

According to Hitler Austrians are Germans. Stalin never said that Georgians are Russians.



It is questionable whether Stalin was Georgian or Ossetian.

Not at all, Soso or Dyougashvili are as Georgian as it gets. Ossetians have different family names. He was born in Gori, a Georgian town, where there's still the Stalin-museum, a large Stalin statue where new couples come to marry. .




This all has got no bearing on their policies and totally beyond the scope.

It is not, a non-Russian ruled the Soviet-Union for decades, the Soviet-Union wasn't only for Russians.



Non-Russian "minorities" were not only discriminated, they were ranked in this discrimination and the rank was religiously administered by the KGB in all its incarnations. Work permits, residential permits, uni enrolments - everything was tied up to the ethnicity according to this rank. You just happen to know jack shit about this.

People had their nationality on their pasports, but the USSR leadership was always multi-ethnic. In every republic the local ethnicity, not Russians were in the majority on every level, (except perhaps Kasakhstan due to the fact that Russians at a certain time outnumbered kasakhs) and the language of every republic was the local language, except Kasakhstan, Ukraine or Belarus, because a large part of the population in those republics spoke Russian, altough Kasakh, Ukrainian or Belarussian too were official languages. In Armenia everything was in Armenian, in georgia in Georgian, in Azerbaidjan in Azeri, in Tajikistan in Tajik, in Latvia in Latvian, etc.
Non-Russians were also well represented in the supreme leadership of party and state, especially Georgians, Ukrainians and Armenians (and untill the 40's Jews as well). Central-Asians were a bit underrepresented, most likely due to the fact that this region was less developped.


Now this is not what a proper leftie should have said, your local socialist parteigenosse will be disappointed. Latvians are people like any other and in 1940 they were annexed and persecuted by the USSR. So naturally they went in droves to support anybody who would fight Stalin. It happenned to be Hitler but might as well have been devil himself. Stalin was the devil they knew.

les excuses sont faites pour s'en servir... and noone forced them to be at the forefront of the Holocaust.
Baltics untill today are proud of their nazi past. (altough not all Baltics, there were courageous exceptions)




Same goes for all other Western parts like Lithuania and Ukraine.

In Western-Ukraine you had a Jewish resistence, a Polish one, a conservative Ukrainian one, and a communist one, all fought eachother and the nazi's. The communists only had this area for a few months, and there was still some anti-communism. The worst crimes against Jews were not only committed by the nazi's but by the Ukrainian anti-communist nationalists as well.


Now explain to me why millions of ethnic Russians defected to the Germans?

Among ethnic Russians there was relatively little collaboration.(except some groups like Kossakhs who identified with the tsarist regime). Actually most Russian civilians fought a heroic battle against the occupiers with contempt of their own life. You think the siege of Leningrad would have failed without civilians supporting the defense efforts? Even behind ennemy lines civilian resistence was fierce, which caused Germans to massacre whole villages.
But not only among ethnic Russians, many Georgians, Ukrainians, Jews, etc. also joined the red army and fought like heroes for the right cause.
Unlike in the West the civilian population participated on a large scale in the resistence. I'm sure you know that.




Were the Russians nazi supporters and collaborators as well?
Those who defected to the Germans were, and I can assure you after the war their punishment was tantamount to their treason.




No, takeo, enlighten me. But before you start just bear in mind that I voted in that referendum. The "question" was heavily loaded (in fact it was formulated something like this: Do you want to live in the new, democratic and free USSR? Yes/No). The fact that the Baltic people still said "NO" just shows that the commies had failed to build the same level of gullibility in them over 40 years as they'd managed to achieve with the Russians and Kazakhs and all over 70 years.

The majority of Kasakhs and Russians voted yes, as did many others, you can't deny that. It means they didn't think the Soviet-Union was such a bad thing, and they still don't think so today, after 20 years of capitalism their living standards are in many cases worse.





But keep telling your stories,make even bigger mockery of yoruself.
You have no idea on the subject you are trying to present yourself as an expert on.
Denial, takeo, is not a river in Egypt. You with your socialist theories live in denial of the obvious fact that nazis were socialists i.e. your ideological twins. You condemn Hitler but openly support Stalin, you are against nationalist racial theories yet you brand the whole nations as "nazi supporters" and "collaborators".
You are true socialist i.e. a hypocrite and a nazi

I don't know why many Soviet Jews turned into the worst haters of Russia, the Soviet-Union and communism, perhaps to show that they are true and trustworthy citizens of their new country? All I can say is that your opinion isn't the representative one, especially not in the former Soviet-Union.
Nazi-ideology is nationalist, and i know that to people who are nationalist as well themselves, that's disturbing, and that's why they prefere to deny reality. I provided enough proof that nazism is generally considered a nationalist ideology, not a socialist one.
And yes many Baltics are nazi-supporters and russian-haters, untill today, you can't deny that, not all. But i never said Baltics should be oppressed, occupied or have no right to their own republic or state, unlike what many Jews say about the Palestinians.

[takeo]

Posted by Takeo:

In the 20's and 30's and even later many Jews were in leading positions in the Soviet-system, even the head of the secret service was a Jew

Soviet Secret Service first known as ChK, GPU, OGPU and then as NKVD has a number of bosses in the 1920s and 1930... due to the repressions. It was first lead by Dzerzinsky (a Polak), Menzinsky (Polak), Yagoda (a Joo), Ezov (Russian) and finally Beria (Georgian). Yagoda's rain was only for two years 1934-1936.

I recommend you start reading!!!!!

I know all this, no need to lecture me.

[Mil]

I am sure your knowledge of Soviet History is not better then your knowledge of Nazi Germany.

[Kachah]

I don't agree to mass deportation of an entire people or ethnic cleansing. .
Hang on. Just a couple of messages ago you explained to me that
those were collaborating or about to do it with the nazi's.
apparently justifying their genocide (N.B. for what they were "ABOUT TO DO"). Now when you are cornered you voice your "disagreement". Quite lame even for the seasoned socialist, don't you think?


You know when Israel cleansed most palestinians in 1948 it cleansed children, elderly and women as well. I condamn that as well, do you?. No, I don't know about cleansing of "most palestinians" in 1948. Again, you are about to flop miserably as
*there were no "palestinians" in 1948, in fact until 1967
*there were no "cleansing of most Arabs (I will use the proper term)" by Israel in any year
*there is almost 2 million Arabs living in Israel, holding her citizenship and enjoying their rights after your alleged "cleansing".
* I condemn all the atrocities and I am aware of the ones on the side of Irgun and other Israeli formations. THey were not many and certainly did not involve "most" of the Arabs. No do you agree that the Arabs committed much worse crimes against the Jews and Israelis before and after 1948?



Both born and raised in Ukraine.
Soso or Dyougashvili are as Georgian as it gets. Ossetians have different family names. He was born in Gori, a Georgian town, where there's still the Stalin-museum, a large Stalin statue where new couples come to marry. .. THe level of your ignorance, takeo is really disarming. Why are you making such a mockery out of yoruself?
You claimed that Brezhnev and Khrochev were both ethnic Ukrainians. No, they were both ethnic Russians.
Now you are saying they were born in Ukraine. You've screwed up again - Khrouchev was born near Kursk in Russia proper.
By this time we are so far away from the original point that you think you can safely claim victory. No, takeo. The point was that they were non-Russians to rule over Russia while they were quintessential Russians through and through. A non-Russian was only Stalin - but if you know absolute basics about him, he was known to say with his thick Georgian accent that he belonged to "Russian culture". In fact as with most ethnics at power he exhibited more Russian nationalism than the Russians themselves.
As for his name, Djugashvili, there is an Ossetian equivalent Djugaev, which was quite likely his original name which he changed later.
I will omit your rant about friendship of nations and how everything was in a local vernacular. THere is not one single word of truth there, it's complete bullshit and propaganda straight from Radio Moscow or whatever poisonous sources you've been exposed to. Apparently those commie slogans worked, I keep bumping into people who beleived them, but then again, gullibility level among the lefties defies imagination. Amazing. Can't even judge which one you got more wrong - this one or the ideas about WW2. Both are totally faulse and the product of socialist lobotomy.
Russians collaborated in millions, there was the whole Russian Army fighting for Hitler. The number of policemen and ancillary troops was astounding.
Why don't you read books?





The majority of Kasakhs and Russians voted yes, as did many others, you can't deny that. It means they didn't think the Soviet-Union was such a bad thing,.
Again, totally wrong. It means that the question was heavily loaded and that the people were (are) gullible and credulous about it - and pretty desperate too. But it's pointless to discuss this with you, you just don't know anything about it.

[takeo]

Kachah


Hang on. Just a couple of messages ago you explained to me that
apparently justifying their genocide (N.B. for what they were "ABOUT TO DO"). Now when you are cornered you voice your "disagreement". Quite lame even for the seasoned socialist, don't you think?

Yes they were collaborating or would certainly collaborate (Volga Germans) but NO I don't think you have to expell entire peoples, just punish the ones who collaborated, I'm against collective punishments, you too?





No, I don't know about cleansing of "most palestinians" in 1948. Again, you are about to flop miserably as
*there were no "palestinians" in 1948, in fact until 1967
*there were no "cleansing of most Arabs (I will use the proper term)" by Israel in any year
*there is almost 2 million Arabs living in Israel, holding her citizenship and enjoying their rights after your alleged "cleansing".
* I condemn all the atrocities and I am aware of the ones on the side of Irgun and other Israeli formations. THey were not many and certainly did not involve "most" of the Arabs. No do you agree that the Arabs committed much worse crimes against the Jews and Israelis before and after 1948?

Ethnic cleansing doesn't only mean killing but expelling as well. According to Benny Morris and others Israel expelled the majority of palestinians from Israel. By the way Stalin never expelled all Chechens either, and later most returned to Chechnya. (on the contrary to the palestinians who could never return) You see you have a double standard, one for the Soviets and one for Israel.




THe level of your ignorance, takeo is really disarming. Why are you making such a mockery out of yoruself?
You claimed that Brezhnev and Khrochev were both ethnic Ukrainians. No, they were both ethnic Russians.

I didn't say ethnic Ukrainians, I said Ukrainians. Breznev was born in Dnyeprodjerjinsk near Dnyepropetrovsk, Khroutchev lived a long part of his life in Ukraine, from 14 to 35 years, so maybe not born (I tought he was born in Ukraine) but certainly raised there and he started his political career in Ukraine.




By this time we are so far away from the original point that you think you can safely claim victory. No, takeo. The point was that they were non-Russians to rule over Russia while they were quintessential Russians through and through.

Stalin wasn't, nor was Shevarnadze, Mikoyan, etc.


A non-Russian was only Stalin - but if you know absolute basics about him, he was known to say with his thick Georgian accent that he belonged to "Russian culture".

people still make jokes about his accent. He is certainly not an Ossetian, I've been to Yugo-Ossetia, Ossetians are very russified.


In fact as with most ethnics at power he exhibited more Russian nationalism than the Russians themselves.

But he remained Georgian and appointed fellow Georgians at the highest level. (most infamous: Beria)


As for his name, Djugashvili, there is an Ossetian equivalent Djugaev, which was quite likely his original name which he changed later.

i don't think it is true, probably there was this rumour because Gori is close to Ossetia. Besides many Ossetians have Georgian ancestors, it might be that Djugaev derives from Dyugashvili. What is certain is that both his parents were Georgian and he also looks very Georgian rather than Ossetian. Also, Stalin is incredibly popular in Georgia, untill today.




I will omit your rant about friendship of nations and how everything was in a local vernacular. THere is not one single word of truth there, it's complete bullshit and propaganda straight from Radio Moscow or whatever poisonous sources you've been exposed to. Apparently those commie slogans worked, I keep bumping into people who beleived them, but then again, gullibility level among the lefties defies imagination. Amazing.

Today in Russia, etc. people can see for themselves the difference between communism and capitalism, and many prefere communism.



Can't even judge which one you got more wrong - this one or the ideas about WW2. Both are totally faulse and the product of socialist lobotomy.

You are a product of anti-communist anti-Russian hatred.



Russians collaborated in millions, there was the whole Russian Army fighting for Hitler. The number of policemen and ancillary troops was astounding.
Why don't you read books?

I do. And nowhere else (except perhaps Serbia) the level of civilians joining the resistence was so high as in Russia. Collaboration was generally less compared to countries like France, The Netherlands not to mention Latvia, etc.

The Germans underestimated the Soviet people as well. The German High Command viewed Soviet soldiers as incompetent and considered the average citizen as an inferior human being. German soldiers were stunned by the ferocity with which the Red Army fought. German planners were amazed at the level of suffering the Soviet citizens could endure and still work and fight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa



Again, totally wrong. It means that the question was heavily loaded and that the people were (are) gullible and credulous about it - and pretty desperate too. But it's pointless to discuss this with you, you just don't know anything about it.

I see people with another opinion as you are guillible, credulous and desperate. I think these people (the majority) voted according to their beliefs, which was that the Soviet-Union should remain. and not surprisingly, many if not most regret the demise of the Soviet-Union, you can also see that in opinion polls in Russia and other ex-Soviet countries.

[Kachah]

Yes they were collaborating or would certainly collaborate (Volga Germans) but NO I don't think you have to expell entire peoples, just punish the ones who collaborated, I'm against collective punishments, you too?.
First of all I am against hypocrites like you. I am against Minority Reports and punishments for what people "certainly would have done" but have in fact not. Then I am against illegal hear hearings and sentencing people in groups. Now if you retract your stubborn blame of the whole people in collaboration we can talk further.
But no, pre-empting your next point, I don't and won't see any similarities between murderous Stalinist or Hitlerist regimes (which were both equally socialist, racist and aggressive) and the Israelis' actions against Arabs. No similarity exists.


According to Benny Morris and others Israel expelled the majority of palestinians from Israel. .
According to my own eyes there are thousands and thousands of Arabs living in Israel - after yours and Benny's alleged expulsion of some "majority". According to any document you can find no mentioning of "palestinians" as Arabs only had occured before 1967 (I challenge you to find one).
Now, how do you like this paradox?


By the way Stalin never expelled all Chechens either, and later most returned to Chechnya. (on the contrary to the palestinians who could never return) You see you have a double standard, one for the Soviets and one for Israel..No, of course not, the ugly Americans did it. I keep forgetting, you support MANY of Stalin's decisions, but not all, and the selection criteria is being re-defined on the basis of the current need of socialist and anti-semitic Leftie European propaganda.
Sorry, takeo, I don't have any standard for this crap. There are facts and events of history and there are your typical euro-deliberations about "everybody being equally guilty and let's live happily ever after". The Chechens were persecuted and the Arabs were not as a people.


I didn't say ethnic Ukrainians, I said Ukrainians. .
You're kidding me, right? Or you are a 13-y. old and I am talking to a dumb teenager.

nowhere else (except perhaps Serbia) the level of civilians joining the resistence was so high as in Russia. Collaboration was generally less compared to countries like France, The Netherlands not to mention Latvia, etc..
takeo, again, you know jack shit about it and characteristically for very ignorant people you are very proud of your ignorance.
The "resistance fighters" were uniformly hated by all locals and that is just another reason why the collaboration level was so high. All this "resistance" was instigated from Moscow, a lot of it was at a gun point, and it had very little to do with the German invasion - it was to terrorise the population in the occupied lands first and foremost. The contribution to the war effort was really minimal, but the allienation between the same people reached the required level for the Soviets to divide and conquer.


and not surprisingly, many if not most regret the demise of the Soviet-Union, you can also see that in opinion polls in Russia and other ex-Soviet countries.
For the 15th time - people are gullible and brainwashed. Same as the Arabs supporting Hamas, the Iranians supporting crazy Ahmad, same as you are. Nothing new. Level of education and general common sense let alone political culture and recognition and responsible use of their rights is very low if not zero.
But you are worse as you are gullible by choice.

[bararallu]

The Chechens, the Crimean Tatars and others "returned" only after the fall of the Soviet Union... in the interlude when Russia was not 100% autocratic, as it is at this moment, and totalitarian as it was under Stalin. And what indeed happened to said Chechens, how about a little carpet bombing... how about driving them into the hands of the Wahabbis since no one else could give a damn about them.

As for the collaborators... if the Germans were the same Germans of WW1 (that is to say they weren't racist genociders) 90% of the ethnic Russians, Jews and everyone else would have backed them against the Communists.

[Kachah]

The Chechens, the Crimean Tatars and others "returned" only after the fall of the Soviet Union... in the interlude when Russia was not 100% autocratic, as it is at this moment, and totalitarian as it was under Stalin. And what indeed happened to said Chechens, how about a little carpet bombing... how about driving them into the hands of the Wahabbis since no one else could give a damn about them.

As for the collaborators... if the Germans were the same Germans of WW1 (that is to say they weren't racist genociders) 90% of the ethnic Russians, Jews and everyone else would have backed them against the Communists.Oh, absolutely. One of the reasons people were not rushing away from the advancing Nazis was they'd been expecting the cultured Kaiser's army of 1915. Surely, they would ditch Stalin together with his international crime squad.
Unfortunately, the Nazis were no 1915 Germams at all.
Yet, according to some sources every 7th soldier fighting for the Nazis was ex-Soviet citizen and by 1945 almost a quarter of all German forces was from the USSR.

[bararallu]

Oh, absolutely. One of the reasons people were not rushing away from the advancing Nazis was they'd been expecting the cultured Kaiser's army of 1915.

Yes this is exactly what happened to half my family.



Surely, they would ditch Stalin together with his international crime squad.

Given the ability, many did. The problem was... most were stuck between the rock and a hard place, especially the Jews and the Gypsies. And of course the Poles literally being divided.


Unfortunately, the Nazis were no 1915 Germams at all.
Yet, according to some sources every 7th soldier fighting for the Nazis was ex-Soviet citizen and by 1945 almost a quarter of all German forces was from the USSR.

Not suprising, but that sounds like a high number. The Ukrainians initially backed them pretty strongly, but then got disenchanted as the losses mounted and the Germans used them like chaff. Ditto the Romanians. German theories on Slavic "50% humanity" also didn't go unnoticed. Most of the Balts were in it with their hearts though. They wanted to kill every Russian and Jew they could get their hands on. I'm not sure how much of the regimental strength they comprised at the end, it had to be substantial. Maybe Mil knows... hes a WW2 buff.

[Kachah]

Not suprising, but that sounds like a high number. The Ukrainians initially backed them pretty strongly, but then got disenchanted as the losses mounted and the Germans used them like chaff. Ditto the Romanians. German theories on Slavic "50% humanity" also didn't go unnoticed. Most of the Balts were in it with their hearts though. They wanted to kill every Russian and Jew they could get their hands on. I'm not sure how much of the regimental strength they comprised at the end, it had to be substantial. Maybe Mil knows... hes a WW2 buff.Well, nobody knows for sure, that's the problem with the Soviet statistics in the first place. The losses and defections were of such tremendous quantities that coupled with the pathetic ID tags(the medallions of death) and obvious effort to conseal the true state of affairs it makes the counting task simply impossible.
That's why I've said "some sources". But I would believe anything between 1/10 and 1/7.
Another thing is that they count collaboration on per capita Russian population as opposed to Tartar for example. While ALL Crimean Tartars used to live in Crimea (which was occupied in its entirety) Russians live over vast territoriy of which only part fell to the Nazis. Obviously the Russians in the Urals could not collaborate physically while in the occupied lands the level was probably higher than among the Tartars or the Kalmyks.
Another interesting moment was that the Russians believed en masse that Hitler started the war "because of the Jews" i.e. alleged Stalin's providing safe heaven for the Jews from Poland and Eastern Europe. Threatening and in fact killing of fellow soldiers Jews was not uncommon in the Red Army particularly in its detachments formed out of paroled jail inmates.

[bararallu]

Well, the cosmopolitan Russians, which were at some point under German control (=major population centers) where probably given more readily to defecting, given that they were more educated. Thats an assumption. People in the East, in the Urals and Siberia are just simpler folk and pretty nationalist in a folksy sort of way (not communist). They also suffered a tad less during collectivization than the Ukranians and everyone else in the breadbasket. So I think they probably would mostly remain loyal. The Central Asians and the Caucasians are a completely different story. Given the opportunity, many defected. And if the Germans actually acted like human beings (well frankly they wouldn't be there if they acted like human beings) they would quickly have these people staunchly support them. I don't want to get into any fantasy history though, I was merely making a point that is generally, as you point out, is historically valid and easily undermines the local Russian Nationalist Socialist's propaganda to the contrary.


Another interesting moment was that the Russians believed en masse that Hitler started the war "because of the Jews" i.e. alleged Stalin's providing safe heaven for the Jews from Poland and Eastern Europe. Threatening and in fact killing of fellow soldiers Jews was not uncommon in the Red Army particularly in its detachments formed out of paroled jail inmates.

This is what you hear in the Ukraine and other places. Yes it definitely happened but how often? I have no idea. In my grandfathers unit, it was almost half Jews.

[Kachah]

Well, the cosmopolitan Russians, which were at some point under German control (=major population centers) where probably given more readily to defecting, given that they were more educated. Thats an assumption. People in the East, in the Urals and Siberia are just simpler folk and pretty nationalist in a folksy sort of way (not communist). They also suffered a tad less during collectivization than the Ukranians and everyone else in the breadbasket. So I think they probably would mostly remain loyal. The Central Asians and the Caucasians are a completely different story. Given the opportunity, many defected. And if the Germans actually acted like human beings (well frankly they wouldn't be there if they acted like human beings) they would quickly have these people staunchly support them. I don't want to get into any fantasy history though, I was merely making a point that is generally, as you point out, is historically valid and easily undermines the local Russian Nationalist Socialist's propaganda to the contrary..
This is all correct and probably another thousand conditions would need to be factored in. It's simply strange that the takeos of today judge people simply on the basis "were they collaborating or weren't they" - that's precisely what the Soviet commies did. In fact the indication of the number of collaborators was a field in a typical Soviet questionnaire which had to be filled out any time a person had to communicate to the government (employment, education, getting any permit etc): Were you or ANY of your relatives resident of the occupied territories during the war? - thus suggesting that ANYONE was likely to collaborate given the chance.


This is what you hear in the Ukraine and other places. Yes it definitely happened but how often? I have no idea. In my grandfathers unit, it was almost half Jews.Hard to say, the official stats is not very descriptive as you might imagine. I guess it depended on the orgin of most of the troops in the detachment, the simple peasant Russians from far away Siberian villages were known to be terrified of Jews without ever seeing a single one - while the shrewd Moscovites would probably laugh this suggestions off. Anti-semitism among Russians is at the root level of the culture and behaviour. Naturally, the more educated are ashamed of outrageous claims like "Jews use Christian blood" which only means they suspect Jews of more sophisticated conspiracies against them. The simple ones are generally allowed to express their barbaric proclivities if no foreign dignitary's visit is being expected.

[takeo]

bararallu


The Chechens, the Crimean Tatars and others "returned" only after the fall of the Soviet Union...

A big lie. Chechens were allowed to return and most did return in 1956. They also got their autonomous republic within the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist republic together with Ingushetians.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chechnya





in the interlude when Russia was not 100% autocratic, as it is at this moment, and totalitarian as it was under Stalin.

Yeltsin was at least as dictatorial as Putin(goddamn who ordered tanks to destroy the parliament because it refused to endorse his ukazes...), and during his years in power the economy contracted with an average of 5 to10% per year... but in the West he was more popular because he and his corrupted cronies squandered all Russian interests for next to nothing.





And what indeed happened to said Chechens, how about a little carpet bombing... how about driving them into the hands of the Wahabbis since no one else could give a damn about them.

Why don't you look at what happened in Iraq before starting to criticise Russia? Besides Russia won the war in Chechnya, the fundamentalists lost; in Iraq it's still going.



As for the collaborators... if the Germans were the same Germans of WW1 (that is to say they weren't racist genociders) 90% of the ethnic Russians, Jews and everyone else would have backed them against the Communists.

the communists won the civil war against the reactionary forces and western imperialist forces because they were supported by the majority of the population. It wasn't any different in the 1940's, except in the Baltics and some other places like Chechnya.

[bararallu]

blah... lie.. blah... hypocricy...blah... lie

[Kachah]

He is just reciting whole paragraphs from some 1970s Young Bolshevik's Giuide to History (recommended by the Ministry of Truth for years 4 to 7).
Obviously knows nothing about it which is consistent with the Left wing ideology in Europe in particular.

[takeo]

Kachah


First of all I am against hypocrites like you.

I will return the favor.


I am against Minority Reports and punishments for what people "certainly would have done" but have in fact not.

Life is not always fair, the US TOO put Japanese and Germans in camps, eventough Japanese and German armies were 1000's of miles away, unlike the Volga region.




Then I am against illegal hear hearings and sentencing people in groups. Now if you retract your stubborn blame of the whole people in collaboration we can talk further.

I never said I support sentensing people because of what their family members did. But I agree to executing collaborators, no pity for traitors.


But no, pre-empting your next point, I don't and won't see any similarities between murderous Stalinist or Hitlerist regimes (which were both equally socialist, racist and aggressive) and the Israelis' actions against Arabs. No similarity exists.

Because you don't want to see it. And no Hitler-regime wasn't socialist, even Israel is more socialist as I proved above.




According to my own eyes there are thousands and thousands of Arabs living in Israel - after yours and Benny's alleged expulsion of some "majority".

there are 1000's and 1000's of Chechens living in Chechnya. And even today there are 1000's of Jews living in Germany. What's your point? Does it mean the expulsion or Holocaust never happened? :rolleyes: Not all Arabs were ethnically cleansed, but most;






According to any document you can find no mentioning of "palestinians" as Arabs only had occured before 1967 (I challenge you to find one).
Now, how do you like this paradox?

Yes there is but it doesn't even matter if you want to call them Arabs so be it. Noone can deny that there was an Arabspeaking majority in what is now Israel. And since 1948, after the ethnic cleansing, no longer. So before you start criticising the Soviets, why not look in the mirror first?



No, of course not, the ugly Americans did it. I keep forgetting, you support MANY of Stalin's decisions, but not all, and the selection criteria is being re-defined on the basis of the current need of socialist and anti-semitic Leftie European propaganda.

No, it isn't. It's very unfashionable and not politically correct in socialist and leftie European circles these days to support Stalin, openly admitting so could destroy even your carreer. (on the contrary to Russia, Georgia, etc. where it's become very fashionable, and not only among communists). Still I think he took many right decisions, but also some very bad ones.



Sorry, takeo, I don't have any standard for this crap. There are facts and events of history and there are your typical euro-deliberations about "everybody being equally guilty and let's live happily ever after". The Chechens were persecuted and the Arabs were not as a people.

of course they were, even many Israeli historians admit that. Some don't, but there are also Russians, Georgians, etc. who think Stalin didn't order the gulags or mass-purifications.



takeo, again, you know jack shit about it and characteristically for very ignorant people you are very proud of your ignorance.

No, you're just so very much blinded by your hatred against communism and Russia that you're unable to see reality as it is.




The "resistance fighters" were uniformly hated by all locals and that is just another reason why the collaboration level was so high.

absolute BS, especially in Russia propper.(maybe in Western Ukraine)
What you are doing is rewriting history you just ignore the heroic defense of Leningrad and the millions of civilians who sacrificed their lifes in the war against the occupier.
I just read the history of some 100 Georgian soldiers captured by the nazi's and sent to the dutch island of Texel. These Georgians revolted against the Germans and managed to briefly conquer the island in 1944, the first part of Holland liberated, before they were slaughtered by the nazi's who were much more numerous. Pure heroism. Just to show the incredible resilience of these people. Of course you know all that, but you refuse to ignore it since it doesn't fit in your mindset of "bad Russians, bad Soviets" and since you can't accept those damned Soviets saved the lifes of millions of Jews.


Most important ethnic Russian collaboration was Kosack, the Kaminski-brigade (involved in the Holocaust) and the so-called Russian Liberation army. However, the last one, sent to Czechia, turned against the Germans and joined the Czech anti-nazi uprising. Compared to Western and central Europe the level of collaboration was small and the civilian resistence very developped, while resistence enjoyed whidespread popular support, particularly in Russia, less so in Ukraine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaboration_during_World_War_II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistance_during_World_War_II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_partisan



All this "resistance" was instigated from Moscow, a lot of it was at a gun point, and it had very little to do with the German invasion - it was to terrorise the population in the occupied lands first and foremost. The contribution to the war effort was really minimal, but the allienation between the same people reached the required level for the Soviets to divide and conquer.

BS, the resistence took away many German forces and even liberated parts of Russia before the arrival of the red army. According to some sources the resistence killed 550000 German soldiers in Belarus in 1943 alone.
I almost have the impression that you rather sympathise with the Nazi's than with the Soviets... if only they didn't kill so many Jews, if not you would fully support their anti-communist quest, as many rightwing fanatics did during that time.


For the 15th time - people are gullible and brainwashed.

You are brainwashed. I would rather believe the majority in Russian polls and the referendum (as well as in other republics), and the many people who I talked to during my travels there, than a very bitter ultra-anti-communist immigrant like you.


Same as the Arabs supporting Hamas, the Iranians supporting crazy Ahmad, same as you are.

actually most Iranians don't support the regime, as you can see today in the news. But many Russians, Georgians, etc. have a favorable view of their communist past. They experienced communism and they experienced capitalism, and the majority in many ex-soviet countries now live worse, that's a proven fact. It may seem unlikely in the US, where people are absolutely brainwashed against anything socialist or communist, but here it seems very unlikely that the majority of Americans voted twice for someone like Bush jr. ... you know people are not the same all over the world, people are not waiting for the US to save them or lecture them, and Americans should learn to respect that.
And you can say Russia is a totalitarian country and media is not free, you might have a point there, but what people certainly don't want is Soros and Murdoch, etc. monopolising the press. You know in Georgia there is even an "anti-Soros party" (unbelievable but true, so much people are upset by those foreigners mingling in their politics).






Nothing new. Level of education and general common sense let alone political culture and recognition and responsible use of their rights is very low if not zero.

On the contrary most Russians, Kyrgyz, etc. are very aware what's going on in the world. They saw how Gorbachov and Yeltsin "f*****" them (to use the most commonly utilised word) with full support of the US and how the demise of the Soviet-Union also meant the demise of the Soviet-economy and living standards, as well as the demise of their country as a superpower, as well as wars erupting.
According to polls the US is the least popular country in the former Soviet-Union, and that was BEFORE the US instigated its puppet in Georgia to start another war in what used to be part of the former USSR. Putin on the contrary is popular, despite continuing corruption, because most people see him as a real leader not taking orders from Washington. And if the West thinks that Western puppets like Kasparov, Nemtsov, supported by Uber-crook and maffioso Beresovsky, probably the most hated person in contemporary Russia, are ever going to win the elections they're wrong.




But you are worse as you are gullible by choice.

I have my own opinion, as you have.

[takeo]

blah... lie.. blah... hypocricy...blah... lie

You claim that Chechens were not allowed to return untill the fall of the Soviet-Union and you call me a liar? :rolleyes:

[takeo]

He is just reciting whole paragraphs from some 1970s Young Bolshevik's Giuide to History (recommended by the Ministry of Truth for years 4 to 7).
Obviously knows nothing about it which is consistent with the Left wing ideology in Europe in particular.

You are speading anti-Russian and anti-communist hatred and propaganda, and you are repeating the typical cold war propaganda. You people (together with Rumsfeld, etc.) don't realise the cold war is over. Fortunately the new administration is Washington is far more pragmatic it seems, wants to restore good relations with Russia, and is less eager to support puppet-dictators and warmongerers like Saakashvili. Europe too wants good relations with Russia, Kasakhstan, etc. and cooperation on the economic field is steadily increasing.

[takeo]

Kachah



This is all correct and probably another thousand conditions would need to be factored in. It's simply strange that the takeos of today judge people simply on the basis "were they collaborating or weren't they" - that's precisely what the Soviet commies did. In fact the indication of the number of collaborators was a field in a typical Soviet questionnaire which had to be filled out any time a person had to communicate to the government (employment, education, getting any permit etc): Were you or ANY of your relatives resident of the occupied territories during the war? - thus suggesting that ANYONE was likely to collaborate given the chance.

Again, compared to Western and Central Europe very few people collaborated. In countries like Latvia but equally The Netherlands or Southern France, it's fair to say that the majority of police officers, state officers, etc. collaborated, and there was no city or countryside guerilla war as in Russia or the Ukraine. Most Russians sent to labour camps or executed after the war were Russian soldiers in German custody, as Stalin ordered them not to surrender.




Hard to say, the official stats is not very descriptive as you might imagine. I guess it depended on the orgin of most of the troops in the detachment, the simple peasant Russians from far away Siberian villages were known to be terrified of Jews without ever seeing a single one - while the shrewd Moscovites would probably laugh this suggestions off. Anti-semitism among Russians is at the root level of the culture and behaviour. Naturally, the more educated are ashamed of outrageous claims like "Jews use Christian blood" which only means they suspect Jews of more sophisticated conspiracies against them. The simple ones are generally allowed to express their barbaric proclivities if no foreign dignitary's visit is being expected.

Jews and Russians fought alongside eachother during WWII. No need to rewrite history. And I read antisemitism was traditionally much higher in Ukraine, Belarus and Poland compared to Russia. Most pogroms happened in these regions, not in Russia propper. And most Jews who didn't perish at the hands of the nazi's and their collaborators perished as a result of antisemitic actions by the Polish and Ukrainian nationalist resistence.(who also fought eachother, as well as the nazi's and the partisans)

[Kachah]

What a display of credulous gullilbility combined with profound ignorance and sheer idiocy! The Jews were not allowed into Russia proper because of the Pale, cretin, hence the pogroms took place where the Jews lived i.e. beyond the Pale!. The pogroms were inspired by the Okhranka which was the Russian imperial secret police at a time.
The rest of your spurious braindump is too low to be dignified with an answer. As usual, not a single word of truth, overwhelming amount of propaganda and conclusions on the opposite side of sanity. Ignorance, ignorance and more ignorance - with a lot of brainwashing fertilizer from the Young Stalinists League.
You only prove that the modern Lefties are ignorant socialist bigots very much in line with the socialist policies of the Nazis and the Soviets and direct descendants of Dr Goebbels.

[takeo]

Kachah


What a display of credulous gullilbility combined with profound ignorance and sheer idiocy! The Jews were not allowed into Russia proper because of the Pale, cretin

ah here we have the insults, always a sign of weakness.



, hence the pogroms took place where the Jews lived i.e. beyond the Pale!. The pogroms were inspired by the Okhranka which was the Russian imperial secret police at a time.

of course I know all this. And that's also the reason why antisemitism was higher in those places obviously... And I don't think you can equate the tsarist regime with the Russian people...





The rest of your spurious braindump is too low to be dignified with an answer.

good I think everything has been said, and you didn't bring a single drop of evidence to support your claims.


As usual, not a single word of truth, overwhelming amount of propaganda and conclusions on the opposite side of sanity. Ignorance, ignorance and more ignorance - with a lot of brainwashing fertilizer from the Young Stalinists League.
You only prove that the modern Lefties are ignorant socialist bigots very much in line with the socialist policies of the Nazis and the Soviets and direct descendants of Dr Goebbels.

yes everyone not agreeing to you is a nazi, I got it.
And you don't know sh è t about the modern left.

[Kachah]

No, you didn't get it.
It is the classic Biblical story about 40 years wandering in the desert to exterminate slavery.
You haven't even started, you are still a slave. This is what the Egyptians wanted you to be - unless of course you are sent and paid by the Egyptians (what you are posting here is really waaay too naive and party-comliant even for the Leftie lunatics).
The waters had been parted, it's up to you to pass or to drown, I can't be bothered.

[takeo]

whatever