His party affiliation was with the National Socialist German workers Party. During his reign as Reich Chancellor and as Furher he set into motion many programs that centralized government,redistributed wealth,nationalized banks and industry,regulated pay,controlled media,controlled firearms,youth indoctrination programs and had cabinet members who were concidered "radicals" by many. Sound familiar? Definitely left wing!
Is breaking the unions,in the best interest of the workers?Well I guess this question has two sides.Depending on who you work for,but you had to work for less as slaves were competing for your job.Sound familiar?
It was only called 'Socialist'! Hitler piggybacked his own brutal regime on the NSDAP (National Socialist German Workers' Party) when he joined the organization after infiltrating it while serving in the Weimar Republic's Army in the 1920s. After he put his own people in place and rose to power, he and his cohorts (like Ernst Rohm, for example) kept the name to attract people who wanted to be with the people of power in a time of crippling depression. 'Socialist' was like a lure, but it was really a trap!
Hitler only used the term socialism because he thought that it was a right-wing ideology and also was equal to aryan/german nationalism:
'NATIONAL' AND 'SOCIAL' ARE TWO IDENTICAL CONCEPTIONS. It was only the Jew who succeeded, through falsifying the social idea and turning it into Marxism, not only in divorcing the social idea from the national, but in actually representing them as utterly contradictory. That aim he has in fact achieved. At the founding of this Movement we formed the decision that we would give expression to this idea of ours of the identity of the two conceptions: despite all warnings, on the basis of what we had come to believe, on the basis of the sincerity of our will, we christened it ''National Socialist.
Hitler only used the term socialism because he thought that it was a right-wing ideology and also was equal to aryan/german nationalism:
'NATIONAL' AND 'SOCIAL' ARE TWO IDENTICAL CONCEPTIONS. It was only the Jew who succeeded, through falsifying the social idea and turning it into Marxism, not only in divorcing the social idea from the national, but in actually representing them as utterly contradictory. That aim he has in fact achieved. At the founding of this Movement we formed the decision that we would give expression to this idea of ours of the identity of the two conceptions: despite all warnings, on the basis of what we had come to believe, on the basis of the sincerity of our will, we christened it ''National Socialist.
Mussolini was head of the REPUBLICAN fascist party and Allatoya Khomeini founded the Islamic REPUBLICAN party. See the problem with your argument....the Nazis were certainly Rightwing.
BTW: The founders of Hugo Boss, Puma, Adias etc. were all members of the National Socialist party.....were they socialists too?
There were right-wing elements to Hitler and some fairly conservative sorts of people among his followers, but on the whole, I cannot see how anyone can call Hitler a right-wing guy. From his background, political testament and the state he created I do not see how the man can be considered, on the whole, to be of anything other than the political left. He was no friend of monarchy, wanted all class differences abolished, legalized abortion (for non-Aryans), banned smoking, instituted gun control, was a fervent environmentalist, a vegetarian and hated organized religion in favor of a nature-based spiritualism.
Classified guns for "sporting purposes".
All citizens who wished to purchase firearms had to register with the Nazi officials and have a background check.
Presumed German citizens were hostile and thereby exempted Nazis from the gun control law.
Gave Nazis unrestricted power to decide what kinds of firearms could, or could not be owned by private persons.
The types of ammunition that were legal were subject to control by bureaucrats.
Juveniles under 18 years could not buy firearms and ammunition.
With the lefties forcing gov't run healthcare, you can be assured that in time, 6 million people will die as a result of inferior genes. So, Hitler was Left-wing.
How is that circular reasoning? Why do the people I know personally who live in countries with UHC have horrible issues with the smallest of ailments? Canadians have the same life expectancy as Americans because Canadians come here for their healthcare. As for Europe, the difference in life expectancy can be attributed to the difference in the number of obese people. Americans are fatter, so logically we would be unhealthier thus having the lower life expectancy. That has nothing to do with the healthcare, just the personal care. Did you really write 'Gotcha!'?
'Circular reasoning' in that assuming that 6 million Americans will die from bad healthcare will logically indicate that from that, Hitler must have been left-wing! One has nothing to do with the other!
For what it's worth, I DO like your avatar, from 'Monty Python's Holy Grail', am I right?
:) Yeah, that's the movie. I was being semi-sarcastic. I don't actually consider our current gov't to be like Hitler. More like 1/16 Hitler. Obviously they aren't going to directly kill millions of people. However, my friends tell me of the healthcare in their countries, and I feel I can safely say that as a result of UHC, eventually (it may take a while) millions will die as a result of this new legislation. People who are genetically predisposed to certain ailments will in a sense die of inferior genetics. When people can't see their doctor for months after the symptoms start, one has to assume that in a lot of cases, people will die waiting to be seen, then treated and medicated, etc.
A dictatorship is a dictatorship. The difference of so called right wing and left wing is whether the industry is state owned or socalled privately owned. What most fail to realize is the Nazi's operated on National Socialism not National Capitalism. The reason in all fascist states is simple private ownership is more efficient than any government run operation. You also must remember that the Nazi's cooperated with the communists in bringing the German republic down and when they came to power went after the communists.
"National Capitalism"......name me a political party with the word CAPITALIST in it......your argument fails badly.
By the way, Rightwing Hitler was in a political alliance with the DVNP...Germany's conservative party! Only the leftwing social democrats stood against him.
Not really Capitalist is a Marxist term.derived from Das Capital.. Fascism or Nazism used corporations because they are far more efficient as the Russians learned the hard way.in producing things. Workers in either Russia or Germany were members of the party. Healthcare and paid vacations to the Baltic by the state are not given in a pure Capitalist state but a socialist state.
I am the embodiment of the far left, liberal Democrat. That being said, I am really tired of the name calling and accusations on both sides. The Democrats are not Nazis just because we want health care that all of our citizens can afford. As of 02/3/09, he United States ranks last among 19 industrialized nations when it comes to preventable mortality rates. On the other hand, the Republicans are not Nazis for opposing it. I believe they are wrong, but I also believe that, for the most part, their motives are honest.
Thanks for your American opinion on this issue......all this flake, back & forth is not only childish, but down-right detremental to the tasks at hand. I am an independant leaning to conservative, but Labels are just that.........labels; they can be useful or harmful to discussion.
Republicans want to keep America strong, protect Americans from harm, and let them enjoy personal liberty and prosperity. Liberals want to hand us over to the enemy and tell us what we can and cannot do,what we can and cannot have, and what we can and cannot say. Sounds a lot like Communism to me. You want to live in a world like that? Are you Liberals nuts? Either that or you are sitting in the dark. Wake Up!
That is your point of view. Simply because others has another point of view does not mean they are sitting in that dark. One could argue that Democrats want to eep America strong, protect Americans from harm, and let them enjoy personal liberty and prosperity. Conservatives want to hand allow corporations to control us, pollute and take advantage of the poor with no restrictions.
The truth is that they are different points of view. Liberals wish to protect people as opposed to letting people fend for themselves. They want people to feel safe.
are you pro choice?
are you pro gay marriage?
are you pro separation of church and state?
are you against wire tapping civilians without a warrant?
If you are against choice, gay marriage, separation of church and state, then you are pro government intervention and government telling people how to live their lives. If you think it was okay for Bush to wire tap civilians without warrent, then you are for government spying on there citizens, which in my opinion is very much like a Dictator and very republican. You can't have it both ways.
The greatest hits of both wings. You can cherry pick all you want. That he was both a Socialist and anti-Communist alone will leave most people's heads spinning in cognitive dissonance.
He was defenately Left Wing "SOCALIST"
'NATIONAL' AND 'SOCIAL' ARE TWO IDENTICAL CONCEPTIONS. It was only the Jew who succeeded, through falsifying the social idea and turning it into Marxism, not only in divorcing the social idea from the national, but in actually representing them as utterly contradictory. That aim he has in fact achieved. At the founding of this Movement we formed the decision that we would give expression to this idea of ours of the identity of the two conceptions: despite all warnings, on the basis of what we had come to believe, on the basis of the sincerity of our will, we christened it ''National Socialist.
'NATIONAL' AND 'SOCIAL' ARE TWO IDENTICAL CONCEPTIONS. It was only the Jew who succeeded, through falsifying the social idea and turning it into Marxism, not only in divorcing the social idea from the national, but in actually representing them as utterly contradictory. That aim he has in fact achieved. At the founding of this Movement we formed the decision that we would give expression to this idea of ours of the identity of the two conceptions: despite all warnings, on the basis of what we had come to believe, on the basis of the sincerity of our will, we christened it ''National Socialist.
BTW: The founders of Hugo Boss, Puma, Adias etc. were all members of the National Socialist party.....were they socialists too?
Classified guns for "sporting purposes".
All citizens who wished to purchase firearms had to register with the Nazi officials and have a background check.
Presumed German citizens were hostile and thereby exempted Nazis from the gun control law.
Gave Nazis unrestricted power to decide what kinds of firearms could, or could not be owned by private persons.
The types of ammunition that were legal were subject to control by bureaucrats.
Juveniles under 18 years could not buy firearms and ammunition.
http://constitutionalistnc.tr...
If what you say is true, tell me, why do people who live in Canada and Europe have longer lifespans?
Gotcha!
For what it's worth, I DO like your avatar, from 'Monty Python's Holy Grail', am I right?
This is the opposite of our Jefferson Republic and at some point, we would have had to fight him.
Our fight would have been to reduce the scope of government, and moderate the religious-fanatic level of nationalist fervor in the government.
So, we would have been the liberals.
By the way, Rightwing Hitler was in a political alliance with the DVNP...Germany's conservative party! Only the leftwing social democrats stood against him.
Nazi Germany was indeed a capitalist state.
One could argue that Democrats want to eep America strong, protect Americans from harm, and let them enjoy personal liberty and prosperity. Conservatives want to hand allow corporations to control us, pollute and take advantage of the poor with no restrictions.
The truth is that they are different points of view.
Liberals wish to protect people as opposed to letting people fend for themselves. They want people to feel safe.
are you pro gay marriage?
are you pro separation of church and state?
are you against wire tapping civilians without a warrant?
If you are against choice, gay marriage, separation of church and state, then you are pro government intervention and government telling people how to live their lives. If you think it was okay for Bush to wire tap civilians without warrent, then you are for government spying on there citizens, which in my opinion is very much like a Dictator and very republican. You can't have it both ways.