Discussion Random Discussion

[Pakenhamsaint]

Im up at the EJ whitten bar and someone asked me if I wanted to buy an Essendon Raffle ticket.
HOW ABOUT NO!

 

[Drake Huggins]

The Nazis regarded both capitalism and Marxism as Jewish conspiracies for world domination, which certainly isn't socialism. Furthermore, the Nazis didn't try to destroy capitalism in Germany; rather they used the classical fascist model of harnessing big business towards what they perceived the national interest., namely military build up. Private enterprise was not prohibited, unless it was Jewish private enterprise. it's essential to always remember they advocated competition in all forms, ultimately the competition between the races for survival. The Nazi critique of any political idea was always rooted in race and nationality.

They used private enterprise and ecouraged it wherever it suited their purpose. However in true socialist fashion, the state ultimately controlled everything, while creating the illusion of freedom and competition. If you didn't do as you were told, misfortune quickly descended upon you. That in essence is totalitarianism and part of any socialist regime as extreme as the national socialists. That is the lived experience of those who were there.

Of course social and biological Darwinism was the norm, if not the ultimate purpose. Throw in rampant nationalism and jingoism and there you have it.

Perhaps the general political terms to describe various systems are too opaque, or simplistic. In the end it's about power and control.

The more you examine political systems, like religions, the more they look, and act the same. As the old man said, every system moves towards oligarchy, which is in the end, is what it's all about. The roads are different, but they all lead to the same destination.

The first people the Nazis went after taking power was the left: the Social Democrats, KPD and trade unionists. They were the earliest inhabitants of the concentration camp system. Just because their party was named the National Socialists, we must be clear there was nothing socialist about the Nazis, and it's important to note that National is the first word in the party name. Socialism is by definition internationalist; the Nazi were ultra nationalist and Marxism (and the USSR in particular) was their nemesis. The USSR also called itself socialist and was no such thing, but that's another story. No socialist can base their views upon racial hierarchy and social Darwinism. National Socialism bore no relation at all to anything remotely left wing, despite the claims of some far right websites in recent years, which purposely misconstrue political theory.

Well, that was predictable. The left with all it's intellectual and moral superiority would never stoop to deliberately altering history, would they? They are beyond bias, distortion, lying, violence and deception. This is now descending towards Godwin's law.

Socialists have never been able to overcome the fact that Hitler was one of them. If we look beyond the false rhetoric and confirmation bias, it's clear many Nazi policies were socially progressive, and socialist in theory and practice. A different kind of socialism to what the left feels comfortable identifying with, but socialism nevertheless.

 

[StFly]

The first people the Nazis went after taking power was the left: the Social Democrats, KPD and trade unionists. They were the earliest inhabitants of the concentration camp system. Just because their party was named the National Socialists, we must be clear there was nothing socialist about the Nazis, and it's important to note that National is the first word in the party name. Socialism is by definition internationalist; the Nazi were ultra nationalist and Marxism (and the USSR in particular) was their nemesis. The USSR also called itself socialist and was no such thing, but that's another story. No socialist can base their views upon racial hierarchy and social Darwinism. National Socialism bore no relation at all to anything remotely left wing, despite the claims of some far right websites in recent years, which purposely misconstrue political theory.

The Russians were however Communist initially in so far that it was the populist movement to dispose the monarchy under the Bolshevik initially, which allowed the "formation" of a transient state to government from feudal designs. The "issue" is that once democratic process was initiated, they then immediately emulated those who find power and wish to maintain it by any means to lead to totalitarianism through force and fear.

I wonder how Russia would have gone had Lenin survived and Stalin never rose to prominence within, since there were quite a few policies early days that seemed like great ideas and a mixture showing understanding instead of what eventuated under Stalins reign with Siberian exiles, death trains, general consolidation through elimination to name a few, then being a very lucky man with strehced supply lines.

The USSR was largely a joke though, was never going to last.

 

[MUFKilda]

Socialists have never been able to overcome the fact that Hitler was one of them. If we look beyond the false rhetoric and confirmation bias, it's clear many Nazi policies were socially progressive, and socialist in theory and practice. A different kind of socialism to what the left feels comfortable identifying with, but socialism nevertheless.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Nazism is a far right ideology and the antithesis of socialism. We must be clear about what we mean we use terminology to describe ideologies, otherwise definitions become meaningless. The core tenets of socialism must include equality and internationalism, which were anathema to Nazism. I'm not sure where you've acquired such a warped view of Nazi ideology, but there was nothing socialist about it. It was discriminatory on the grounds of race, xenophobic, misogynistic, militaristic, expansionist; everything socialists oppose. It's no coincidence that the very first group Hitler repressed upon becoming chancellor in 1933 were the left wing political parties and the trade unions. Businesses were neither nationalised nor placed under worker control; the Nazi policy was to take German private enterprise out of what they believed was international Jewish control and to get it working in what they classed the German national interest. Classical fascism is the juxtaposition of authoritarian government with big business, in the furtherance of ultranationalist policies; thus Nazism was an archetypal fascist regime. Nothing about it was consistent with the socialist principles of equality, international solidarity and worker control of the economy.

One cannot simultaneously be both a socialist and a fascist any more than one can be a neoliberal and a socialist. That would be intractable paradox.


If you're interested in reading more on Nazism, I would recommend Richard J. Evans' three volume set: The Coming of the Third Reich, The Third Reich In Power, and The Third Reich At War. It's a lot to get through, but is an excellent journey through Nazism from its early beginnings post World War One, to 1945, is very well researched and written and is probably the best account I have yet come across.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

The Russians were however Communist initially in so far that it was the populist movement to dispose the monarchy under the Bolshevik initially, which allowed the "formation" of a transient state to government from feudal designs. The "issue" is that once democratic process was initiated, they then immediately emulated those who find power and wish to maintain it by any means to lead to totalitarianism through force and fear.

I wonder how Russia would have gone had Lenin survived and Stalin never rose to prominence within, since there were quite a few policies early days that seemed like great ideas and a mixture showing understanding instead of what eventuated under Stalins reign with Siberian exiles, death trains, general consolidation through elimination to name a few, then being a very lucky man with strehced supply lines.

The USSR was largely a joke though, was never going to last.

I wonder how Russia would have gone had Lenin, the guy who caused mass famine, and blamed it on a particular group of the population had survived.
"Red Terror" was no doubt a sculpture placed in Moscow , disliked by the public and moved to an obscure park in the suburbs.

 

[gringo2011]

The Russians were however Communist initially in so far that it was the populist movement to dispose the monarchy under the Bolshevik initially, which allowed the "formation" of a transient state to government from feudal designs. The "issue" is that once democratic process was initiated, they then immediately emulated those who find power and wish to maintain it by any means to lead to totalitarianism through force and fear.

I wonder how Russia would have gone had Lenin survived and Stalin never rose to prominence within, since there were quite a few policies early days that seemed like great ideas and a mixture showing understanding instead of what eventuated under Stalins reign with Siberian exiles, death trains, general consolidation through elimination to name a few, then being a very lucky man with strehced supply lines.

The USSR was largely a joke though, was never going to last.

And Trotsky who seemed like one of the decent ones too. The campaigners seem to rise to the top by any means possible. The autocratic monsters do what ever it takes I guess. If it takes killing to hold power they kill. Communism is a great idea on paper but doesn't suit humans who are naturally greedy by nature and power hungry. Democratic socialism is the best model because it allows the greedy to get lots but not oo much that it hurts others.

Norway should be a global ideal but for some reason we fetishise that US model of climbing over everyone else's broken bodies to get the most for ourselves. When I was young I worked at Myer and we had door buster sales....you would literally see little old ladies bowled over on escalators while people walked over them and people gouge each others faces for the one $1 TV they had. The US system reminds me of that. I remember one lady lost a finger the last year they had them.

 

[Drake Huggins]

Nothing could be further from the truth. Nazism is a far right ideology and the antithesis of socialism. We must be clear about what we mean we use terminology to describe ideologies, otherwise definitions become meaningless. The core tenets of socialism must include equality and internationalism, which were anathema to Nazism. I'm not sure where you've acquired such a warped view of Nazi ideology, but there was nothing socialist about it. It was discriminatory on the grounds of race, xenophobic, misogynistic, militaristic, expansionist; everything socialists oppose. It's no coincidence that the very first group Hitler repressed upon becoming chancellor in 1933 were the left wing political parties and the trade unions. Businesses were neither nationalised nor placed under worker control; the Nazi policy was to take German private enterprise out of what they believed was international Jewish control and to get it working in what they classed the German national interest. Classical fascism is the juxtaposition of authoritarian government with big business, in the furtherance of ultranationalist policies; thus Nazism was an archetypal fascist regime. Nothing about it was consistent with the socialist principles of equality, international solidarity and worker control of the economy.

One cannot simultaneously be both a socialist and a fascist any more than one can be a neoliberal and a socialist. That would be intractable paradox.


If you're interested in reading more on Nazism, I would recommend Richard J. Evans' three volume set: The Coming of the Third Reich, The Third Reich In Power, and The Third Reich At War. It's a lot to get through, but is an excellent journey through Nazism from its early beginnings post World War One, to 1945, is very well researched and written and is probably the best account I have yet come across.

I acquired it from eye witness accounts of those who lived it. My parents marinated me in the doctrine. My mother was an elementary schooteacher in the system. My father an officer in the Wehrmacht, who actively served from 1938 until his release from being POW in 1949. Both were party members, who carried these values all their lives, despite assimilating successfully here. I wish you could've met them. As peculiar as their views were, they were intelligent, educated and accomplished. I think you would've found them quite fascinating. Loved the poms and yanks, too.

An extensive network of others who actually lived it. Germans, Poles and Jews, who were in our circle as migrants. My dad worked with and for jews all his life, war service excepted. I bet he's one of very few Wehrmacht officers who had a large number of jews at his funeral, with one providing a windetfully generous eulogy.
Six years of studying it as well, including a couple of semesters in Freiburg. I'm familiar with some of the texts you quoted. Read many like them. Interesting, but hardly compleye. I've read Mein Kampf in the original German. A solid base for my beliefs.

My darling Ruth, a transplanted pom from Norwich, whose dad served in the RAF for 25 years had similar views on the subject to you. An Indian university academic, in a private dinner party setting, gave her a quick and quite brutal re education. He based his views on the British expertise in condescending revisionism. Not alone in that btw.

Your views are widely held. They are quite orthodox, but they are far from complete. History is at best 50% accurate, as it is written from the perspective of winners, or those who enjoy popular exposure and influence at the time. I think it was a British academic (Tellinger?)who said that. It may have been Posh Spice. One of the two.

I don't have the time or space to debate you properly here, nor point out some of the fallacies in your beliefs. When the Ru and I are are in the UK next year, I'd love to catch up and discuss it.

Of course, we disagree on the nature of Nazi beliefs and if they were socialist or otherwise. The open vow to destroy Capitalism is a clue, even if it had strong roots in destroying the Jews. I know the orthodoxy tells us the Nazis preached Juadism was the Trojan Horse in the Marxist and Communist plot to take over Germany. A simple "Trumpfian" style message the general population could understand and support.

In truth, my father told me the jews were feared by the Nazis because of the influence , wealth, sophistication and high levels of education they held. The greatest factor in removing jews from the medical professions, were German doctors themselves, not the Partei. It created more jobs and opportunities for them. Simple. The "official" version they were a danger to the state. Pediatrics at the time was 80% made up of Jewish doctors when Hitler came to power. It soon became close to zero.

He further told me that the denigration of the jews, was a delibrate tactic to dehumanise them and therefore make it easier to destroy them. Classic psychopathy, a physical incarnation of Hitler's personal hatred of them.

As the old man told me, "You don't go into a war lauding and recognising the great Qualities of your enemy."

In the end, the true nature of Nazism lies in it's fundamental principle, which is utilitarianism. The greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people. Of course it didn't translate into reality.

I've never seen a political system of beliefs, nor religion that turned its lofty goals into reality. All are broad churches, with many versions. They differ more greatly internally than they do when comoared to others.

There are many versions of socialism, of which national socialism was one. Stained by rampant nationalism, jingoism, violence, oppression, propoganda and hypocrisy, though it was. Hold that thought. Doesn't that describe a lot of socialist regimes? All political and religious regimes? Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

I'll leave the last word to my Indian Academic colleague. "Revisionism is a necessary part of rewriting history, a privilege availabe to the winners and those who hold Power.

My "warped" views have been formed from personal experience, years of research and study, consultation with those who actually experienced life under the regime and remaining skeptical of those who opetate in academic echo chambers. Every view its biased. You can't reason people out of things they've never been reasoned into in the first place (Kyle Sandilands, 2015). If you are interested in getting some other perspectives, I'd be happy to provide some titles and authors.

On a more important point, how do you think we'll go in 2020?

 

[VDS66]

I acquired it from eye witness accounts of those who lived it. My parents marinated me in the doctrine. My mother was an elementary schooteacher in the system. My father an officer in the Wehrmacht, who actively served from 1938 until his release from being POW in 1949. Both were party members, who carried these values all their lives, despite assimilating successfully here. I wish you could've met them. As peculiar as their views were, they were intelligent, educated and accomplished. I think you would've found them quite fascinating. Loved the poms and yanks, too.

An extensive network of others who actually lived it. Germans, Poles and Jews, who were in our circle as migrants. My dad worked with and for jews all his life, war service excepted. I bet he's one of very few Wehrmacht officers who had a large number of jews at his funeral, with one providing a windetfully generous eulogy.
Six years of studying it as well, including a couple of semesters in Freiburg. I'm familiar with some of the texts you quoted. Read many like them. Interesting, but hardly compleye. I've read Mein Kampf in the original German. A solid base for my beliefs.

My darling Ruth, a transplanted pom from Norwich, whose dad served in the RAF for 25 years had similar views on the subject to you. An Indian university academic, in a private dinner party setting, gave her a quick and quite brutal re education. He based his views on the British expertise in condescending revisionism. Not alone in that btw.

Your views are widely held. They are quite orthodox, but they are far from complete. History is at best 50% accurate, as it is written from the perspective of winners, or those who enjoy popular exposure and influence at the time. I think it was a British academic (Tellinger?)who said that. It may have been Posh Spice. One of the two.

I don't have the time or space to debate you properly here, nor point out some of the fallacies in your beliefs. When the Ru and I are are in the UK next year, I'd love to catch up and discuss it.

Of course, we disagree on the nature of Nazi beliefs and if they were socialist or otherwise. The open vow to destroy Capitalism is a clue, even if it had strong roots in destroying the Jews. I know the orthodoxy tells us the Nazis preached Juadism was the Trojan Horse in the Marxist and Communist plot to take over Germany. A simple "Trumpfian" style message the general population could understand and support.

In truth, my father told me the jews were feared by the Nazis because of the influence , wealth, sophistication and high levels of education they held. The greatest factor in removing jews from the medical professions, were German doctors themselves, not the Partei. It created more jobs and opportunities for them. Simple. The "official" version they were a danger to the state. Pediatrics at the time was 80% made up of Jewish doctors when Hitler came to power. It soon became close to zero.

He further told me that the denigration of the jews, was a delibrate tactic to dehumanise them and therefore make it easier to destroy them. Classic psychopathy, a physical incarnation of Hitler's personal hatred of them.

As the old man told me, "You don't go into a war lauding and recognising the great Qualities of your enemy."

In the end, the true nature of Nazism lies in it's fundamental principle, which is utilitarianism. The greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people. Of course it didn't translate into reality.

I've never seen a political system of beliefs, nor religion that turned its lofty goals into reality. All are broad churches, with many versions. They differ more greatly internally than they do when comoared to others.

There are many versions of socialism, of which national socialism was one. Stained by rampant nationalism, jingoism, violence, oppression, propoganda and hypocrisy, though it was. Hold that thought. Doesn't that describe a lot of socialist regimes? All political and religious regimes? Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

I'll leave the last word to my Indian Academic colleague. "Revisionism is a necessary part of rewriting history, a privilege availabe to the winners and those who hold Power.

My "warped" views have been formed from personal experience, years of research and study, consultation with those who actually experienced life under the regime and remaining skeptical of those who opetate in academic echo chambers. Every view its biased. You can't reason people out of things they've never been reasoned into in the first place (Kyle Sandilands, 2015). If you are interested in getting some other perspectives, I'd be happy to provide some titles and authors.

On a more important point, how do you think we'll go in 2020?

I'd say all ideaologies start with noble intentions. Eventually they succumb to power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely... And the need to oppress in order to maintain that power.

Ideologies are great in theory but they don't factor in the major obstacle... Humans.

 

[Moral Decay]

Just as all socialists and communists do, Gringo. Totalitarianism exists at both ends of the spectrum. The Nazis were socialists and very effective. Germany was a mess when they took over. Weimar, the Treaty of Versailles and world economic conditions condemned German society to an awful fate.

My old man recalled his dad coming home at midday from his job and giving his twice daily paid wages to his mum, so she could shop for food before prices pushed it out of reach by COB. People wallpapered their homes with banknotes because it was cheaper than buying actual wallpaper.

Hyperinflation was a nightmare, similar to what Venezuala is experiencing now. Massive unemployment. In thirties Germany, my parents told me people were too frightened to eat in public for fear of being robbed of their food. Cigarettes were snatched from people's mouths.

What a lot of people don't realise is that the communists nearly beat the Nazis into power in 1933. A cigarette paper in it. Pitched battles in the street, murder, and political mayhem were the norm.

From this emerged the socialists. I have read Mein Kampf in the original German. To say there has been a bit lost in translation is an understatement! A deliberate rewriting of history is a generous interpretation.

Here's food for thought. The Nazis introduced Arbeitsdienst, which was the mobilization of labour in the population. It created full employment and raised German Manufacturing to new levels.

The Nazis introduced the world's first national anti-smoking campaign. Hitler believed it was a degenerate habit. My dad being an athlete, never smoked. The trade-off and incentive in the military was that your cigarette allowance was paid to you as salary in lieu of the smokes.

Mothers were rewarded with free annual stays in health spas and cruises. "Erholungs" or recovery stints. Animal cruelty was heavily punished. The Nazis made today's PETA activists look like pussies when it came to animal rights activism. They had less difficulty killing people. Hitler closed many abattoirs, which he found disgusting. Auschwitz anyone?

Full employment soon returned. There were no homeless. Public Housing projects sprang up everywhere. The economic miracle saw Hitler awarded the title "Man of the Year" in 1938. This fact was removed from official records after the war and only re-emerged after reunification. The yanks, poms, and most of Europe beat a path to his door to learn his methods. Henry Ford, Walt Disney, the Royal Family, and senior British politicians were in the fan club. Rabid antisemites all of them. If not for the holdout, Churchill, we'd all be eating sauerkraut and sausages and speaking German.

The Russians were major trading partners until Hitler double-crossed them. Caucasus oil was too great a temptation. Sound familiar?

Dad always said it wasn't the Russian winter that destroyed Germany's chances of victory. It was Hitler breaking his pact with the Soviets. From being the major supplier of wheat, steel, and oil, they simply withdrew. Can't win a war without bullets, weapons, food or fuel. In many towns in the former Soviet Union, the Wehrmacht were greeted as heroes, the swastika and hammer and sickle side by side on public buildings. That changed in 1941.

He would know. He was there. Sure the freezing conditions played their part, but the lack of resources issue played a greater part.

In the end, the policies of the Nazis were true to their socialist roots. I run a training exercise in the corporate space, where I trot out their policies and ask people if they are left or right and if they would support these policies. Of course, I don't tell them the origin. It's amazing how many endorse and praise them until the big reveal. Jaws then hit tables.

In the end, who was the greater fascist or totalitarian? Stalin? Mao? Hitler? Same creatures, same fundamentals, different labels. Being in the "right side" of history helps as well. Remember Lech Walesa, Gringo? What did his Soviet masters do about his attempts to unionize the trades and docks? Mao? His record in human rights abuses speaks for itself. Unions? Start them at your peril, under a totalitarian regime.

It might be time to have that dinner, complete with copious amounts of red. It would be fascinating to learn more about your beliefs and how they were formed. Always willing to listen, brother.

Heyup Drake, there are some pieces of history that need to be treat with kid gloves, and the understanding of how the Nazi's gained power in Germany after the Weimar Republic is one of them, the totemic call of the Treaty of Versailles, while deeply held as grievance by the German peoples was significantly less onerous that the Frankfurt Treaty after the Franco Prussian war and the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, imposed by Germany on the French and then the Russians. Versailles became a clarion call for dissatisfaction and the German claim of victim status, just as the social calls that insisted that the Army had been stabbed in the back by Bankers and Industrialist (code for Jews) at home while the soldiers at the front were heroes etc. While these ideas had enormous currency amongst the populace both high and low they have little basis in historic truth.

While it is easy to push blame back to the nationalist sentiment that Bismark milked to create a modern unified German state, the history of friction between Franco/German brothers can be functionally traced back to the partitions of the Carolingian Empire after the death of Charlemagne.

While I respect your father's experience and beliefs, I'll disagree with them.

 

[VDS66]

Im up at the EJ whitten bar and someone asked me if I wanted to buy an Essendon Raffle ticket.
HOW ABOUT NO!

Do you only go home for a shower and change of clothes?

 

[gringo2011]

I acquired it from eye witness accounts of those who lived it. My parents marinated me in the doctrine. My mother was an elementary schooteacher in the system. My father an officer in the Wehrmacht, who actively served from 1938 until his release from being POW in 1949. Both were party members, who carried these values all their lives, despite assimilating successfully here. I wish you could've met them. As peculiar as their views were, they were intelligent, educated and accomplished. I think you would've found them quite fascinating. Loved the poms and yanks, too.

An extensive network of others who actually lived it. Germans, Poles and Jews, who were in our circle as migrants. My dad worked with and for jews all his life, war service excepted. I bet he's one of very few Wehrmacht officers who had a large number of jews at his funeral, with one providing a windetfully generous eulogy.
Six years of studying it as well, including a couple of semesters in Freiburg. I'm familiar with some of the texts you quoted. Read many like them. Interesting, but hardly compleye. I've read Mein Kampf in the original German. A solid base for my beliefs.

My darling Ruth, a transplanted pom from Norwich, whose dad served in the RAF for 25 years had similar views on the subject to you. An Indian university academic, in a private dinner party setting, gave her a quick and quite brutal re education. He based his views on the British expertise in condescending revisionism. Not alone in that btw.

Your views are widely held. They are quite orthodox, but they are far from complete. History is at best 50% accurate, as it is written from the perspective of winners, or those who enjoy popular exposure and influence at the time. I think it was a British academic (Tellinger?)who said that. It may have been Posh Spice. One of the two.

I don't have the time or space to debate you properly here, nor point out some of the fallacies in your beliefs. When the Ru and I are are in the UK next year, I'd love to catch up and discuss it.

Of course, we disagree on the nature of Nazi beliefs and if they were socialist or otherwise. The open vow to destroy Capitalism is a clue, even if it had strong roots in destroying the Jews. I know the orthodoxy tells us the Nazis preached Juadism was the Trojan Horse in the Marxist and Communist plot to take over Germany. A simple "Trumpfian" style message the general population could understand and support.

In truth, my father told me the jews were feared by the Nazis because of the influence , wealth, sophistication and high levels of education they held. The greatest factor in removing jews from the medical professions, were German doctors themselves, not the Partei. It created more jobs and opportunities for them. Simple. The "official" version they were a danger to the state. Pediatrics at the time was 80% made up of Jewish doctors when Hitler came to power. It soon became close to zero.

He further told me that the denigration of the jews, was a delibrate tactic to dehumanise them and therefore make it easier to destroy them. Classic psychopathy, a physical incarnation of Hitler's personal hatred of them.

As the old man told me, "You don't go into a war lauding and recognising the great Qualities of your enemy."

In the end, the true nature of Nazism lies in it's fundamental principle, which is utilitarianism. The greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people. Of course it didn't translate into reality.

I've never seen a political system of beliefs, nor religion that turned its lofty goals into reality. All are broad churches, with many versions. They differ more greatly internally than they do when comoared to others.

There are many versions of socialism, of which national socialism was one. Stained by rampant nationalism, jingoism, violence, oppression, propoganda and hypocrisy, though it was. Hold that thought. Doesn't that describe a lot of socialist regimes? All political and religious regimes? Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

I'll leave the last word to my Indian Academic colleague. "Revisionism is a necessary part of rewriting history, a privilege availabe to the winners and those who hold Power.

My "warped" views have been formed from personal experience, years of research and study, consultation with those who actually experienced life under the regime and remaining skeptical of those who opetate in academic echo chambers. Every view its biased. You can't reason people out of things they've never been reasoned into in the first place (Kyle Sandilands, 2015). If you are interested in getting some other perspectives, I'd be happy to provide some titles and authors.

On a more important point, how do you think we'll go in 2020?

I know it sounds crazy to argue with lived history but it's also very unreliable. Hitler was 100% on the rhetoric of Socialism with pointing out the wealth of Capitalists but then swung it to Jews as a political tool. He took the businesses and assets of jews but he let private wealth flourish. He basically scape coated to take money for his plans for international empire. That alone is the antithesis to socialism. He was letting private enterprise flourish while some of his stunts looked socialist like starting Volkswagens planning as a people's car but at the end of the day hundreds of big German companies were built under the Nazis and not as a people's company.

Basically socialism is about the state confiscating assets and business to operate for the people. (It's different from democratic socialism that I championed).
Hitler was a political opportunist that had the workers and unions help get him power then became an autocratic dictator. There was nothing socialist about where he ended up going and by his plans for expansion of his Nazi power into Africa, Russia and Europe that was never his real intention.

 

[gringo2011]

I'd say all ideaologies start with noble intentions. Eventually they succumb to power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely... And the need to oppress in order to maintain that power.

Ideologies are great in theory but they don't factor in the major obstacle... Humans.

That's the thing though, I doubt people like Trump, Il Duce or Hitler had good intentions, these were power hungry lunatics with sociopathic inabilities to sympathise with other humans and an ability to suspend their morality to gain power by any means necessary. Socialism was tool to manipulate not his personal ideology.

 

[Drake Huggins]

I know it sounds crazy to argue with lived history but it's also very unreliable. Hitler was 100% on the rhetoric of Socialism with pointing out the wealth of Capitalists but then swung it to Jews as a political tool. He took the businesses and assets of jews but he let private wealth flourish. He basically scape coated to take money for his plans for international empire. That alone is the antithesis to socialism. He was letting private enterprise flourish while some of his stunts looked socialist like starting Volkswagens planning as a people's car but at the end of the day hundreds of big German companies were built under the Nazis and not as a people's company.

Basically socialism is about the state confiscating assets and business to operate for the people. (It's different from democratic socialism that I championed).
Hitler was a political opportunist that had the workers and unions help get him power then became an autocratic dictator. There was nothing socialist about where he ended up going and by his plans for expansion of his Nazi power into Africa, Russia and Europe that was never his real intention.

My experience of academia, social "sciences" and extensive research by historians has helped form my view that of the two methods of recording history (actual experience lived and recalled, or academic research), the former, as flawed as it can be, is far more reliable and superior to the latter.

Flawed research based on previously flawed research is called History. Even verified "facts" are overturned by time, as we see every day. The german word for history is Geschichte, literally story. His - story the author.

The Bible is a classic example. An accurate record of history? In part maybe. Heavily edited, redacted and beset by ommissions and deliberate distortion. Chinese whispers? Council of Nicea anyone?

Did Christians believe in reincarnation, no celibacy for clergy, suicide and masturbation not being mortal sins? At one stage they did. What happened to the gnostic gospels? The gospels of Judas, Mary Magdelene and up to sixteen other authors?

As Henry Ford famously told us, "History is bunk!" I tend to agree.

Remember when doctors endorsed smoking as healthy in commercials for Camel cigarettes? First nation to send a rocket into space? Germany at Peermunde in 1942.

Werner Von Braun, the father of the Apollo program. A brave and brilliant scientist forced to develop deadly rocketry for the Nazis? Nope. A Colonel in the SS and the favourite scientist of both Himmler and Hitler? You bet.

You no doubt have your own examples of Revisionism. Japanese history of WW2. Britain's version of its apalling behaviour in taking and maintaining its rapacious and murderous empire. Soviet lies about its atrocities perpetrated on its own people and blamed on the Nazis. We could go on and on.

Trust your experiences before the propoganda and self interest of those who control our beliefs and therefore behaviours, arguably now more than ever. As Voltaire , told us, "It is not sufficient to see a work of beauty, or be told about it. We must feel and be affected by it." (the value of experience.) Maybe it was Andrew O'Keeffe. Great discussion, nevertheless.

 

[Pakenhamsaint]

Do you only go home for a shower and change of clothes?

It do more than that!

 

[gringo2011]

My experience of academia, social "sciences" and extensive research by historians has helped form my view that of the two methods of recording history (actual experience lived and recalled, or academic research), the former, as flawed as it can be, is far more reliable and superior to the latter.

Flawed research based on previously flawed research is called History. Even verified "facts" are overturned by time, as we see every day. The german word for history is Geschichte, literally story. His - story the author.

The Bible is a classic example. An accurate record of history? In part maybe. Heavily edited, redacted and beset by ommissions and deliberate distortion. Chinese whispers? Council of Nicea anyone?

Did Christians believe in reincarnation, no celibacy for clergy, suicide and masturbation not being mortal sins? At one stage they did. What happened to the gnostic gospels? The gospels of Judas, Mary Magdelene and up to sixteen other authors?

As Henry Ford famously told us, "History is bunk!" I tend to agree.

Remember when doctors endorsed smoking as healthy in commercials for Camel cigarettes? First nation to send a rocket into space? Germany at Peermunde in 1942.

Werner Von Braun, the father of the Apollo program. A brave and brilliant scientist forced to develop deadly rocketry for the Nazis? Nope. A Colonel in the SS and the favourite scientist of both Himmler and Hitler? You bet.

You no doubt have your own examples of Revisionism. Japanese history of WW2. Britain's version of its apalling behaviour in taking and maintaining its rapacious and murderous empire. Soviet lies about its atrocities perpetrated on its own people and blamed on the Nazis. We could go on and on.

Trust your experiences before the propoganda and self interest of those who control our beliefs and therefore behaviours, arguably now more than ever. As Voltaire , told us, "It is not sufficient to see a work of beauty, or be told about it. We must feel and be affected by it." (the value of experience.) Maybe it was Andrew O'Keeffe. Great discussion, nevertheless.

I don't disagree that written history isn't accurate either, people who are aboriginal would have a very different experience of the 20th century in Australia as an extreme example though, I doubt people on the ground know our current history as they live it either. People tend to develop a memory and can't see beyond it, it's not always reliable though. It's just that nothing about Hitler suggests that socialism was anything but a tool. He's one of histories greatest dictators with little to suggest his principals were aimed towards building the sociailst system up. He gained power then destroyed those who help get him to power.

 

[Drake Huggins]

I don't disagree that written history isn't accurate either, people who are aboriginal would have a very different experience of the 20th century in Australia as an extreme example though, I doubt people on the ground know our current history as they live it either. People tend to develop a memory and can't see beyond it, it's not always reliable though. It's just that nothing about Hitler suggests that socialism was anything but a tool. He's one of histories greatest dictators with little to suggest his principals were aimed towards building the sociailst system up. He gained power then destroyed those who help get him to power.

I think we're in furious agreement. Socialist manifesto, Socialist policies that benefited the general population and had broad appeal. Get power. Reveal your true nature and purpose. Mission accomplished. Politicians, despots, dictators, Psychopaths et al. It has ever been thus and sadly, ever will be.

 

[MUFKilda]

My experience of academia, social "sciences" and extensive research by historians has helped form my view that of the two methods of recording history (actual experience lived and recalled, or academic research), the former, as flawed as it can be, is far more reliable and superior to the latter.

Flawed research based on previously flawed research is called History. Even verified "facts" are overturned by time, as we see every day. The german word for history is Geschichte, literally story. His - story the author.

The Bible is a classic example. An accurate record of history? In part maybe. Heavily edited, redacted and beset by ommissions and deliberate distortion. Chinese whispers? Council of Nicea anyone?

Did Christians believe in reincarnation, no celibacy for clergy, suicide and masturbation not being mortal sins? At one stage they did. What happened to the gnostic gospels? The gospels of Judas, Mary Magdelene and up to sixteen other authors?

As Henry Ford famously told us, "History is bunk!" I tend to agree.

Remember when doctors endorsed smoking as healthy in commercials for Camel cigarettes? First nation to send a rocket into space? Germany at Peermunde in 1942.

Werner Von Braun, the father of the Apollo program. A brave and brilliant scientist forced to develop deadly rocketry for the Nazis? Nope. A Colonel in the SS and the favourite scientist of both Himmler and Hitler? You bet.

You no doubt have your own examples of Revisionism. Japanese history of WW2. Britain's version of its apalling behaviour in taking and maintaining its rapacious and murderous empire. Soviet lies about its atrocities perpetrated on its own people and blamed on the Nazis. We could go on and on.

Trust your experiences before the propoganda and self interest of those who control our beliefs and therefore behaviours, arguably now more than ever. As Voltaire , told us, "It is not sufficient to see a work of beauty, or be told about it. We must feel and be affected by it." (the value of experience.) Maybe it was Andrew O'Keeffe. Great discussion, nevertheless.

I don't think anything constructive can emerge from a debate about whether Hitler was left wing. It's only possible by turning upside down the definitions of political science, with aim of muddying the waters, and debate is impossible on such shifting ground. It's the kind of claim I imagine is put forward on right wing websites, amongst the crazy conspiracy theories and gross mis-representations.

The Nazis were not socialist by any accepted definition of the word. I'm all for debate in History - that's what keeps the subject alive - but it has to be grounded in agreed terminology, otherwise clarity is sacrificed and anything can mean what the individual wants it to mean.

 

[Drake Huggins]

I don't think anything constructive can emerge from a debate about whether Hitler was left wing. It's only possible by turning upside down the definitions of political science, with aim of muddying the waters, and debate is impossible on such shifting ground. It's the kind of claim I imagine is put forward on right wing websites, amongst the crazy conspiracy theories and gross mis-representations.

The Nazis were not socialist by any accepted definition of the word. I'm all for debate in History - that's what keeps the subject alive - but it has to be grounded in agreed terminology, otherwise clarity is sacrificed and anything can mean what the individual wants it to mean.

Fair call, MUF. The left-right argument is now passe. The old linear continuum has been replaced by the political circle.

Hitler was a self described socialist. There's no point denying that. The evidence of him describing himself and his cronies that way is overwhelming and voluminous. And I know just because he described himself as such, doesn't necessarily make it so.

Is he a classic left winger? Nope. His politics were opportunistic, pragmatic and populist. A bit like Trumpf. Still, a raft of public policy, actions and Programs could not be described as anything but socialist in foundation.

The circle describes the various systems of the time much more accurately. At the starting point there is fascism. It arcs up to moderate democracy at the zenith and returns down to the bottom, where totalitarianism touches facism.

Your last sentence sums it up nicely. Those who protect the status quo, and those hubristic enough to believe only their definitions are strictly correct, prevent debate and eschew the sort of dissent that drives us forward.

The facts matter far more than the semantics and self serving parameters.

 

[MUFKilda]

Fair call, MUF. The left-right argument is now passe. The old linear continuum has been replaced by the political circle.

Hitler was a self described socialist. There's no point denying that. The evidence of him describing himself and his cronies that way is overwhelming and voluminous. And I know just because he described himself as such, doesn't necessarily make it so.

Is he a classic left winger? Nope. His politics were opportunistic, pragmatic and populist. A bit like Trumpf. Still, a raft of public policy, actions and Programs could not be described as anything but socialist in foundation.

The circle describes the various systems of the time much more accurately. At the starting point there is fascism. It arcs up to moderate democracy at the zenith and returns down to the bottom, where totalitarianism touches facism.

Your last sentence sums it up nicely. Those who protect the status quo, and those hubristic enough to believe only their definitions are strictly correct, prevent debate and eschew the sort of dissent that drives us forward.

The facts matter far more than the semantics and self serving parameters.

Hitler was a self-described National Socialist, which is completely different. He was a classical fascist, and the terms socialist and fascist are not interchangeable: they believe in completely different societies. It isn't only socialists who are critical of capitalism; it is also critiqued from the far right, but for very different reasons.

 

[VDS66]

Hitler was a douche bag of the highest calibre...

Otherwise thanks for the different perspectives. I'm not well read on history, so all views are interesting.

 

[Drake Huggins]

One thing we can all agree on, Hitler was a psychopath (classical) who used fear and force to realise his "dreams", which ended in nightmares and vast destruction, death and devastation in Europe. A ruthless butcher.

The Enabling Law allowed him free reign and he simply removed all opposition. Communists, Jews, homosexuals, Slavs, dissident academics, political opponents, Gypsies and 500,000 ordinary Germans who opposed Nazi ideology found their way into concentration camps and slave labour programs.

Even the SA, his collaborators, didn't escape as they represented competition Night of the Long Knives.

I'd hate to think you believe i am an apologist for National Socialism, or am trying to rewrite history. Those *ers destroyed my family. Somewhat paradoxically, my old man worked for Jews pre-Wehrmacht days. He spent his entire working life in Australia, 22 years, working for a jewish owned company and later when self-employed, with an exclusively Jewish clientele. The majority of our inner circle of friends were jews. They even reslonsible for us being exposed to the bloody saints, as his first boss took him to the Junction Oval in 1961. It coukd only be the saints after that!

The german/jewish connection suprises many. My yiddish is still passable. It is not uncommon. There is an entire community of survivors'/perpetrators' kids who have married. My business partner for 14 years, great friend (sainter) and Psychology supervisor is also Jewish.

I would never disrespect the survivors' horrific experiences by throwing doubt upon them. I am now recording the experiences of my family and it's unexpected jewish connections. I hope to publish and share them with you.

In the end, the orthodox view of what National Socialism was is largely true, but by no means complete. There are still many gaps in the other side of the story. PM if you would like to know more. Don't PM Joffaboy!

Heyup Drake, there are some pieces of history that need to be treat with kid gloves, and the understanding of how the Nazi's gained power in Germany after the Weimar Republic is one of them, the totemic call of the Treaty of Versailles, while deeply held as grievance by the German peoples was significantly less onerous that the Frankfurt Treaty after the Franco Prussian war and the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, imposed by Germany on the French and then the Russians. Versailles became a clarion call for dissatisfaction and the German claim of victim status, just as the social calls that insisted that the Army had been stabbed in the back by Bankers and Industrialist (code for Jews) at home while the soldiers at the front were heroes etc. While these ideas had enormous currency amongst the populace both high and low they have little basis in historic truth.

While it is easy to push blame back to the nationalist sentiment that Bismark milked to create a modern unified German state, the history of friction between Franco/German brothers can be functionally traced back to the partitions of the Carolingian Empire after the death of Charlemagne.

While I respect your father's experience and beliefs, I'll disagree with them.

That's a fair cop, guv. Can't ask for more than that.

 

[Drake Huggins]

One thing we can all agree on, Hitler was a psychopath (classical) who used fear and force to realise his "dreams", which ended in nightmares and vast destruction, death and devastation in Europe. A ruthless butcher.

The Enabling Law allowed him free reign and he simply removed all opposition. Communists, Jews, homosexuals, Slavs, dissident academics, political opponents, Gypsies and 500,000 ordinary Germans who opposed Nazi ideology found their way into concentration camps and slave labour programs. Not many had a return ticket.

Even the SA, his collaborators, didn't escape as they represented competition and support, at the same time. The "Night of the Long Knives", was their reward.

That's the thing though, I doubt people like Trump, Il Duce or Hitler had good intentions, these were power hungry lunatics with sociopathic inabilities to sympathise with other humans and an ability to suspend their morality to gain power by any means necessary. Socialism was tool to manipulate not his personal ideology.

It's like my experience of corrupt coppers, Gringo. Like bananas, they start off green, hard and full of promise. They end up yellow, black, rotten and soft.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Is it illegal to travel on public transport without a Myki?
If it is, its still illegal when the inspectors are on strike.
Bad for the Unions and Media to encourage breaking the law.
If the cops were on strike is it ok if i get pissed and go driving?

Strange attitude we seem to have in this country.

 

[Pardon me]

Have I missed something? Why isn’t the cricket on 9?

 

[Mowman]

Have I missed something? Why isn’t the cricket on 9?

on 9 Gem