Difference...Nazi Fascism .vs Liberalism

Click here to view our online shop!

Memberlist

Profile

The time now is Fri Dec 05, 2008 5:28 am
TheLiberalForums.com Forum Index

View unanswered posts

Liberal of the Month
Barack Obama

Sponsors

Submitted Articles
What is a Liberal? How Liberalism evolved?

Difference...Nazi Fascism .vs Liberalism
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

TheLiberalForums.com Forum Index -> History

Author

Message

TB
Congressional Page

Joined: 19 May 2007
Posts: 13

Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 10:41 am Post subject: Re: Difference...Nazi Fascism .vs Liberalism

deportliberals wrote:

If he wasn't under attack from communists or anarchists(liberals)

Hitler was a 100% lib by any standard you want to use. He hated conservative values....individual rights, small gov't, low taxes, free enterprize, free markets, big business, free speech, freedom of religion, etc.

Surely you cannot be telling me that anarchists believe in the state and want to set up a one party dictatorship. First of all you would need a party.

take a couple of your so called conservative values:
small government: anarchists believe in no government. Therefore anarchists are more libertarian.
Low taxes: anarchists don't believe in the state, therefore there would be no one to take your money off you.
Free speech: the reason anarchists are anarchists and not authoritarian communists is their belief in free speech.

deportliberals
Congressman

Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Posts: 704

Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 10:55 am Post subject: Re: Difference...Nazi Fascism .vs Liberalism

TB wrote:

Perhaps i did not mention it by name however, from what i said i would have thought it was obvious what i was talking about. The NSDAP existed during the Weimar period.

I know...I was the first one here to name and date(1925) it in making my comparison of Hitler to today's liberalism. I listed items from the NSDAP more than twice. However, we were NOT discussing the Weimer period nor was I making any comparison to that period.

Quote:

You realise that Weimar is a place and not a person right?

Good lord...of course I know it's a place. You want to discuss it???

Quote:

You are forgetting the Kapp putsch, Kapp has been described as a "rapid nationalist" and you know how he was defeated? Thats right, a strike, called for by the 'liberal' SPD carried out by the workers, in defence of democracy. and lets not forget how ex-members of the right wing Friekorp went around killing 'liberals'.

Yes...crippling strikes is what helped usher in Hitler and the nazis.

Quote:

Go on...

What does "go on" mean??? You want me to list which resources were denied???

Quote:

By the standard you use both anarchists and authoritarian communists are considered liberals. By any standard I, or any historian, would use anarchists are very different from authoritarian communists.

Anarchists and communists do share certain similar ideological traits...both deserve killing on a massive scale. What is this term of yours "authoritarian communists." Major redundancy!!! There is no such thing as non-authoritarian communism. All of it is practiced with the barrel of a gun and the rule of law has little meaning, if any, in such militarily controlled societies.

deportliberals
Congressman

Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Posts: 704

Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 11:04 am Post subject: Re: Difference...Nazi Fascism .vs Liberalism

TB wrote:

Find me a respected historian who argues that the NSDAP were a socialist party.

Sorry... I missed this one. My answer is I don't have to find you an historian.
Translation of the NSDAP party was "National SOCIALIST German Workers Parrty." You see that word SOCIALIST!! How about the term "German Workers Party."

Raw in-your-face socialism and the 25 point plan (or platform) made that abundantely clear.

TB
Congressional Page

Joined: 19 May 2007
Posts: 13

Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 11:08 am Post subject: Re: Difference...Nazi Fascism .vs Liberalism

deportliberals wrote:

I however, think that it is essential in discussing the NSDAP. You yourself state that what was happening in the period helped usher in the nazis, therefore it is relevant, and clearly you were making such comparisons to the Nazis when they were a relatively insignificant party in the politics of the republic.

Quote:

Yes...crippling strikes is what helped usher in Hitler and the nazis.

As i said it defeated Kapp's attempt at a right wing dictatorship, in favour of democracy, the NSDAP did not really begin to gain power until the depression, i would say that this payed a much bigger part in their rise to power.

Quote:

What does "go on" mean??? You want me to list which resources were denied???

I would like your sources yes please.
Thank you for offering. Very Happy

Quote:

yes it is true that they share some similar traits, this does not mean that they are exactly the same. An alternative name for anarchists that i have heard is 'libertarian communist' whereas Stalin and the like have been identified as authoritarians. I would agree with you in the case of Stalin, along with Hitler, he needs to be killed 'deader' than anyone else in history

TB
Congressional Page

Joined: 19 May 2007
Posts: 13

Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 11:09 am Post subject: Re: Difference...Nazi Fascism .vs Liberalism

deportliberals wrote:

This sound very much like dodging the question.
I am assuming by your reluctance to name one that you cannot find one?

deportliberals
Congressman

Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Posts: 704

Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 11:17 am Post subject: Re: Difference...Nazi Fascism .vs Liberalism

[quote="TB"]

deportliberals wrote:

I'm not sure what all this crap about anarchists is about? You've seemed to go off the deep end about anarchists for some reason. I did mention that in pre-WWII Germany anarchists(another form of liberalism) was a problem for the Weimer Republic. They took over Munich for awhile. Anarchists do reject religion, morals, rule of law in a similar way that libs & socialist do. Anarchist do subscribe to mob rule just like most unions do and did back in the 1930s. My statement was the anarchists and libs/socialists share similar views, not necessarily the very same views.

Anarchists often lie down politically with libs & socialists but NOT conservatives!

TB
Congressional Page

Joined: 19 May 2007
Posts: 13

Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 11:22 am Post subject: Re: Difference...Nazi Fascism .vs Liberalism

deportliberals wrote:

I was merely providing some examples of how they differ with your definition of liberals sufficiently enough for them to be classed differently. I wouldn't really call it going off the deep end.

deportliberals
Congressman

Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Posts: 704

Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 11:26 am Post subject: Re: Difference...Nazi Fascism .vs Liberalism

TB wrote:

deportliberals wrote:

This sound very much like dodging the question.
I am assuming by your reluctance to name one that you cannot find one?

I'm not reluctant to name one...it just doesn't make any sense to search out one given that NSDAP's 1925 platform called for "no profits from war; a nat'l health program; a living wage guaranteed by gov't; confiscation of private land for gov't controlled communial use; environmental rights code; no income earned from investments or other such non-working sources, etc.

You'd have to be a blithering idiot to deny that NSDAP and Hitler's 25-point program was nothing but raw lib-socialism. For the past 40 years, I've watched U.S. liberals fight for these same (Hitler) programs and FDR was the first liberal to actuallly implement a virtual carbon-copy of Hitler's old age benefit program...we call it Social Security.

TB
Congressional Page

Joined: 19 May 2007
Posts: 13

Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 11:40 am Post subject: Re: Difference...Nazi Fascism .vs Liberalism

deportliberals wrote:

name one then. If you were to 'convert' me as it were to you view of the nazis i would like to have far greater justification than you are giving me.

Quote:

You'd have to be a blithering idiot to deny that NSDAP and Hitler's 25-point program was nothing but raw lib-socialism. For the past 40 years, I've watched U.S. liberals fight for these same (Hitler) programs and FDR was the first liberal to actuallly implement a virtual carbon-copy of Hitler's old age benefit program...we call it Social Security.

Theres no need for that. You realise of course that germany had a welfare system before this. You realise that the (British) Liberal Party (in the sense that they advocated free trade and minimal government) implement a welfare program that took some inspiration form this before the FIRST world war.

deportliberals
Congressman

Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Posts: 704

Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 11:46 am Post subject: Re: Difference...Nazi Fascism .vs Liberalism

TB wrote:

My only interest in even citing the NSDAP and the 25-point plan was to simply compare today's liberals to the nazi party platform, period. That's what's this entire thread has been about.

Quote:

There was a lot going on in addition to the depression. French behavior toward Germany because it couldn't afford to pay war repriations, the punishing WWI Treaty and major economic/social upheavals.

Quote:

An alternative name for anarchists that i have heard is 'libertarian communist'

I can agree with that definition!!

I would agree with you in the case of Stalin, along with Hitler, he needs to be killed 'deader' than anyone else in history[/quote]

Yes, Stalin made Hitler look like a boyscout when it came to slaughtering innocent unarmed civilians. It's always amazed how the hypocritical libs can piss, whine & moan 24/7 about Hitler but remain totally silent about Stalin and Soviet Communism. Let's see, Hitler killed at least 6 million innocents and Stalin and Soviet Communism has been repeatedly credited with slaughtering more than 50 million. Yet, libs love communism and hate nazism...go figure!

TB
Congressional Page

Joined: 19 May 2007
Posts: 13

Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 12:01 pm Post subject: Re: Difference...Nazi Fascism .vs Liberalism

Quote:

There was a lot going on in addition to the depression. French behavior toward Germany because it couldn't afford to pay war repriations, the punishing WWI Treaty and major economic/social upheavals.

So it would be unfair to label the trade unions as evil, for inadvertently ushering Hitler into power, when there were far bigger factors going on at the time. This is why i think the background is important

Quote:

I can agree with that definition!!

We'll have to agree to disagree. I personally find it more helpful than calling them liberals.

Quote:

Yes, Stalin made Hitler look like a boyscout when it came to slaughtering innocent unarmed civilians. It's always amazed how the hypocritical libs can piss, whine & moan 24/7 about Hitler but remain totally silent about Stalin and Soviet Communism. Let's see, Hitler killed at least 6 million innocents and Stalin and Soviet Communism has been repeatedly credited with slaughtering more than 50 million. Yet, libs love communism and hate nazism...go figure!

Im not denying that Stalin killed many people but i haven't heard numbers that big approached all that often.

Furthermore, Hitler killed at least 12 million, including communists, Jehovah's witnesses and Gypsies. he killed 6 million Jews.
I don't think thats a mistake you want to make. You will be accused of being a nazi appologist.

deportliberals
Congressman

Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Posts: 704

Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 5:50 am Post subject: Re: Difference...Nazi Fascism .vs Liberalism

TB wrote:

No one labeled the trade unions "evil." Where did you see that word? The trade unions were but one mechanism that ushered Hitler to power. I simply pointed out that other factors were at play like French taking german territory post WWI as punishment for germany not paying war reparations. Don't try to put words in mouth.

Quote:

We'll have to agree to disagree. I personally find it more helpful than calling them liberals.

What is your point?

Quote:

Im not denying that Stalin killed many people but i haven't heard numbers that big approached all that often.

O.K...let me try again! I gave you the latest source covering the 70 years of soviet communsim. It's entitled "The Black Book of Communism." It is well researched by notable historians. If you don't want to read all of it(1000 pages), then check for the summary. You'll see the numbers I'm citing quoted in this research.

Quote:

Furthermore, Hitler killed at least 12 million, including communists, Jehovah's witnesses and Gypsies. he killed 6 million Jews.
I don't think thats a mistake you want to make. You will be accused of being a nazi appologist.

The only apologist here for mass genocide and human slaughter is you and your ho-hum attitude and light responses about the 50 million souls who perished at the hands of communism. Interesting that you can cite numbers for nazi killings but suddenly become ignorant and dumb when faced with the historically researched numbers for communist slaughter.

deportliberals
Congressman

Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Posts: 704

Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 5:58 am Post subject: Re: Difference...Nazi Fascism .vs Liberalism

TB wrote:

This sound very much like dodging the question.
I am assuming by your reluctance to name one that you cannot find one?

Wrong assumption! My point is that I'm not going to take time to find one since everyone knows(or should know) that Hitler & Nazis were a nationalist-socialist party. In similar fashion, I would not take time to find your a mathametics professor who supports the fact that one plus one equals two.

Anyone who doesn't know that Hitler & NSDAP were socialists and practiced raw socialsim, abeit with a gun, is not worth the effort.

Last edited by deportliberals on Tue May 22, 2007 7:35 am; edited 1 time in total

deportliberals
Congressman

Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Posts: 704

Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 6:03 am Post subject: Re: Difference...Nazi Fascism .vs Liberalism

TB wrote:

Yes...I know that but those so-called welfare systems were patch-work at best and woefully inadequate. What Hitler proposed was vastly different and covered the cradle-to-grave concepts that today's liberals slobber over.

deportliberals
Congressman

Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Posts: 704

Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 6:19 am Post subject: Re: Difference...Nazi Fascism .vs Liberalism

TB wrote:

Quote:

What does "go on" mean??? You want me to list which resources were denied???

I would like your sources yes please.
Thank you for offering. Very Happy

Hitler never did capture, politically, Berlin. In 1932, Berlin rejected Hitler by, for the first time, going communist in an upset election against Hitler. He never forgave them for that. Here's a Time Magazine writeup on Nov 14, 1932:

www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,847049,00.html

Hitler did O.K. in areas surrounding Berlin but the majority of Berlin rejected him. However, there were some peculiar returns on his pleblscite for expanded powers. For example, in certain Berlin districts marxists-communists gave him a majority. Here's a N.Y. Times 1934 article:

www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/61/198.html

But, it was the first election above I mentioned that really pissed off Hitler because it was a political a setback at the worst possible time. Hitler made sections of Berlin pay for that. Although I can't readily find a link detailing exactly what Hitler did, the History Channel did an excellent workup on this issue. Resources like fuel, food stuff, etc were cut off. I'll take another look at this later.

Display posts from previous:

	TheLiberalForums.com Forum Index -> History	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next
Page 2 of 3


	You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Sponsors

Political News