Hitler was left/left center economically, but yeah he hated actual communists.

Major these quotes have to be taken in the context of this period, I do not defend Che Guevara in many points, but these statements were made during very particular moments (Missil War Crisis when the US could have wiped out Cuba entirely), so there is no surprise to see these comments as a reaction.

Jon Lee Anderson's book is incredibly biased due to it being cowritten by the Castro Regime, it's useless to say that it's good at portraying him in a neutral light.

Incredibly biased when it defies your own views right? Stop being childish Major. Jon Lee Anderson is an American investigative reporter, war correspondent and staff writer for The New Yorker, and his work received a widespread acclaim, so if I had to choose between him and you to look for reliable and trustworthy informations about Che Guevara, there would be no question about it, Anderson's biography is a long term endeavor, whereas yours is just one daily thread where you only show your own biased views on some very selected and redundant topics.

Edited 4/21/2016 14:24:19

A rather easy shortcut. Hitler hated both socialism and communism so hard that he worked to destroy these ideologies.

Hitler hated both communism and capitalism, but for different reason. He hated Capitalism due to the aforementioned "nasty jews" using it to "create a republic and ruin germanies economy". He also hated Communism due to the whole rising up and overthrowing the elite thing, since this was kind of the basis of his power.

Socialism, being sort of a worst of both world solution, is something hitler actually got behind, and indeed he even described himself as a socialist by renaming the "German worker's party" to the "National Socialist German Workers' Party" when running for chancellor.

ALso, just take a look at some of these gems in their "25 point-plan", or party platform, which was adopted by hitler on the same day he renamed the party to include the description of "Socialist":

7. We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens. If it is impossible to sustain the total population of the State, then the members of foreign nations (non-citizens) are to be expelled from the Reich.

11. Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of debt (interest)-slavery.

13. We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries

14. We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.

15. We demand an expansion on a large scale of 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.

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.

20. The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. The plans of instruction of all educational institutions are to conform with the experiences of practical life. The comprehension of the concept of the State must be striven for by the school [Staatsbürgerkunde] as early as the beginning of understanding. We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.

____________________________________________________________

and in part to wipe out the "evil" commies.

As a defender of socialism yourself, I'd think you'd be familiar with the usual bullcrap that Socialism and communism are not the same, but I guess not.

Edited 4/21/2016 14:36:45

Nazism was a very "catch all" movement, purposely made to attract the most electors possible even if some ideologies were opposing or confronting themselves. So again you can find with Nazism a mishmash of policies (nationalism, socialism, conservatism, liberalism). As an example, Hitler said he did not have to nationalize industries (and he did not) because he had already nationalized the people. He did not follow any known economic models, so to assign a liberal/conservative label on him is only an attempt to associate libs or conservatives to Hitler - guilt by association. Old trick.
And Hitler like a lot of radical politicians at the time rejected all conventional politics (does it remind you someone?...) and was consciously attempting to create a movement which stood clearly outside the traditional frame of liberal-conservative. Hence, a party which could legitimately call itself "socialist" but which rejected international worker solidarity, and which could legitimately call itself "nationalist" but which rejected the forces of Hohenzolern monarchism which had created the German nation in the first place.

As a defender of socialism yourself, I'd think you'd be familiar with the usual bullcrap that Socialism and communism are not the same, but I guess not.

Did you read my post entirely or not? I clearly mentioned Hitler hated both Socialism AND Communism? Before posting learn how to read someone's post correctly.

Nazism was a very "catch all" movement, purposely made to attract the most electors possible even if some ideologies were opposing or confronting themselves

No, they were not a "catch-all" part in any sense; They were pretty much populists, which at the time meant kill all the jews, and also socialism.

You seem to be making erroneous assumptions about them. When I provide proof for my argument, you can't just say "No that's wrong because I have a fantasy in my head in which it is wrong". Again, here is their party platform:

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/25points.htm

Can you provide an official nazi document saying that they hated socialists?

No, they were not a "catch-all" part in any sense

Yes it was.

You seem to be making erroneous assumptions about them. When I provide proof for my argument, you can't just say "No that's wrong because I have a fantasy in my head in which it is wrong". Again, here is their party platform

I already read Hitler's program, and as I mentioned earlier they hated Socialists but also shared many similarities and policies with them (as you showed it earlier), but same can be told about Conservatists, and as you seem to be unable to read my posts entirely I will quote it again to you: "it was a party which could legitimately call itself "socialist" but which rejected international worker solidarity, and which could legitimately call itself "nationalist" but which rejected the forces of Hohenzolern monarchism which had created the German nation in the first place", hence the "catch-all" point I made.

They hated communists, not socialists.

Can you provide an official nazi document saying that they hated socialists?

And about whether Hitler hated or not socialists, when he came to power he attempted to dismantle trade unions and the shell that remained loyal to him, he supported the actions of leading industrialists, actions far removed from socialism which tends to want the opposite. Hitler used the fear of socialism and communism as a way of terrifying middle and upper class Germans into supporting him.

They hated communists, not socialists.

Explain your point.

I'm still waiting for my document.

I already read Hitler's program, and as I mentioned earlier they hated Socialists

I was correcting you.

NSDAP had a socialist wing until 1930. Then happened this:

http://www.ns-archiv.de/nsdap/sozialisten/sozialisten-verlassen-nsdap.php

It exactly describes that they left because the "Führer" would not let the 25 points come true.

Edited 4/21/2016 15:45:35

This is about the broader context:

http://www.h-ref.de/organisationen/nsdap/nazis-sozialisten.php

I was correcting you.

I already know you tried to "correct" me, but you still did not explained how he hated communists and not socialists.

I'm still waiting for my document.

Before asking something you are unable yourself to provide, you should be yourself able to read my answers correctly, since you skip part of what you dislike, this is not a proper way to argue or to debate. Try better.

I will provide some more arguments showing his blatant hatred towards (real) socialistm through History: Hitler began suppressing the trade unions (along with Communists and Social Democrats) in Feb 33 as part of his rise to power. They would attack and ransack offices, steal equipment, beat up and imprison members (usually those in leadership roles).
Towards May of 1933 the trade unions began to distance themselves from the Social Democrats to preserve themselves as an entity but on May 2nd the brownshirts and SS men occupied every trade union office affiliated with the Social Democrats, took control of the newspapers and periodicals of the trade unions and seized their banks.
Later, trade union officials in leadership roles were either sent to concentration camps or killed outright.
The Nazi's effectively destroyed any power the trade unions had and subjugated it for their own.

To conclude, Hitler liked National Socialists not (Democrat) Socialists, this is a big nuance you seem to not get at all.

I gave you the needed documents. If Google translate is not enough, ask me for translation.

NSDAP had a socialist wing until 1930. Then happened this:

http://www.ns-archiv.de/nsdap/sozialisten/sozialisten-verlassen-nsdap.php

It exactly describes that they left because the "Führer" would not let the 25 points come true.

I can't actually read the stuff you linked to since it's in german and translates pretty poorly with google translate. However, it's my understanding that strasserites were kicked of of the NSDAP for sympathizing too much with the USSR (or at least that's how most descriptions of the event describe it):

Otto’s association with Gregor did not bode well for his future within the party. Hitler called him a “parlourBolshevik” and labelled anyone who followed the Strasser’s as “doctrinaire fools”. Hitler claimed that Otto was the victim of “democracy and liberalism”.

(http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/modern-world-history-1918-to-1980/weimar-germany/otto-strasser/)

Before asking something you are unable yourself to provide, you should be yourself able to read my answers correctly, since you skip part of what you dislike, this is not a proper way to argue or to debate. Try better.

I'm not interested in hearing your messed up fantasies about Nazis (who even fantasizes about something like that?); At least link a wikipedia article to back them up.

At least link a wikipedia article to back them up.

So now recalling historical events are less worth than just quoting some questionable mere Wikipedia articles? Poor Imperator, I told you and will tell you it again: try better.
You are yourself unable to give relevant documents/link to illustrate your point, Kreto already proved it to you Hitler did not respected his own program. I even myself proved it earlier (if you only bothered to read, but you certainly wont since what is against your views is not worth reading right?) as he destroyed labour unions or even supported actions of leading industrialists against common workers.

Bolsheviks didn't make a stateless commune, but they are still communists, yes?

So now recalling historical events are less worth than just quoting some questionable mere Wikipedia articles? Poor Imperator, I told you and will tell you it again: try better.
You are yourself unable to give relevant documents/link to illustrate your point, Kreto already proved it to you Hitler did not respected his own program. I even myself proved it earlier (if you only bothered to read, but you certainly wont since what is against your views is not worth reading right?) as he destroyed labour unions or even supported actions of leading industrialists against common workers.

Kretoma provided a document I can't actually read, and I provided a counter argument to his point.

Also, I very clearly linked to hitlers platform for the nazi party (http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/25points.htm). This is a concept you seem to have a lot of trouble with, it's called sourcing. You can't simply claim whatever you'd like about historical events, you have to actually provide a reason that you believe that the events played out that way.

I suggested that you link a wikipedia article backing up your claims, but really anything would do; It's just that wikipedia is normally the quickest way to find information online.

I didn't wanted to leave a comment here because I knew it was gonna fuel a huge ammount of unecessary dispute, but in face of such ignorance, I must intervene.


First of all, people seem not to know what the fuck is socialism and what is communism. That is a poor idea when you're trying to debate on it, it makes it really funny and pathetic to read everytime. So let me give you the definition of both, for it appear no conservative/libertarian has spent more then a few minutes discussing the issue before identifying it to a satanist thing.


What is socialism?
=> Socialism is a kind of government that works runned by the proletariat as a dictatorship. Government will own all means of production (such as farms, factories, mines,...). The wealth is then shared in an equal way for everyone. The main goal of socialism is to prepare a shift into communism. During socialism, there will be a reeducation of the human being, teaching him not to be greedy, to share the product of his labour, and understand that no one should be exploited by another one.

What is communism?
=> Communism is the upgrade from the previous system. After many generations of reeducation, government will no longer be needed and will be abolished. The means of production will be then owned by every worker of such a mean, and the concept of ownership is totally replaced with the one of usership.

To sum it up, the first is a kind of huge state present everywhere in order to change mankind. The second one is an anarchy system where everyone has learned to work for the good of all instead of the good of one.


Now, on a second time, knowing this definition, you can all know/deduct:
- The URSS wasn't a communist state (such a thing is impossible for real), but a socialist state. Gosh, even the name of the country is USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics).
- Hitler didn't hated the URSS for being communist, for that is a non-sense, but for being socialist.
- Most socialist states in the world call themselves communists in order to try and make them look "better" for the population, which fun fact, know the definition of those words. #PurePropaganda


I won't go further and explain why I think socialism/communism doesn't work, but now that this ignorance problem appears to be solved, you can continue your discussion.