Gunboards Forums banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
6,846 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Have been looking at this, [6 hours long], and disregarding the propaganda, it's interesting to see the old films of WW1 and WW2 colorized. I was wondering what modern film was made , and used in the opening part that shows a young Hitler . Foolishly, it has a young Hitler with his classic Charlie Chaplin mustache . Unlike many people, I like to read or listen to, the other side and see what they have to say. Until watching this, I didn't realize that Hitler was such a victim of so many conspiracies and was forced into war , NOT !! B
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,366 Posts
Yes, I have found a lot of distorted truths out there lately. I was watching the documentary series on Hitler on the AHC. and was amazed how they keep wanting to refer to Nazi's as representing the political Right LOL. I figured it must be Hollywood trying to rewrite history again and trying to distance the liberal left from the Nazi's.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,944 Posts
Yes, I have found a lot of distorted truths out there lately. I was watching the documentary series on Hitler on the AHC. and was amazed how they keep wanting to refer to Nazi's as representing the political Right LOL. I figured it must be Hollywood trying to rewrite history again and trying to distance the liberal left from the Nazi's.
In fact, there WAS a lot of 'political right' ideas in their philosophy. Things like non-intrference with legal (in their eyes) businesses, and aspects about their focus on the family, and individual responsibility are all things that resound well with conservatives (and DEFINITELY not those on the political Left) today. You can also NOT deny that they abhorred Socialism and Communism.

On the other hand, their ruthlessness, their flat-out denial of human rights, their overwhelming desire to regiment and control all aspects of a German citizen's life, and their willingness (even eagerness) to lie to the people to mold public opinion and push through what they wanted, are basic hallmarks of what was commonly considered extreme leftist behavior in that era.

I tend to think that they were so far to the right, that they totally fell off the edge of the graph, went all the way around the back, and were sneaking up on the extreme left side from the far end.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,366 Posts
Ronbo....really? come on now. your quote of "You can also NOT deny that they abhorred Socialism and Communism." made me laugh. now think of what NAZI stands for? they have socialist in their name! LOL they also were against the Weimar Republic which was a constitutional form of Government! and they were against the imperialist. They ran the country in a fascist dictator fashion but their governmental ideas were purely socialistic. I will grant you that Communism is as far left as you can go, but then next comes socialist, then the imperialist and finally the Constitutionalism that they over threw. so they were far more left than they were right. I think that is what people try and hang their hat on. they were to the right of communists who they feared and fought as well. so people just like to say they were conservatives LOL.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,172 Posts
I'd say that the Nazis were for private property ownership while the Commies were for state ownership of everything. Otherwise they both were against personal freedom. They both killed anyone who disagreed with them, they stole whatever they wanted , and demanded absolute loyalty . No choices either place. P
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
197 Posts
As a German, I think it depends on how deep you look. The word "Socialist" has been misappropriated for so long... Social means "for the people". Which in itself, isnt bad. Just look at Bismarcks social reforms. Like State Pensions. Before that there was support for the poor. Those were true government hand-outs. People who depended on that, were regarded as loosers, no matter if it was their fault (Laziness) or not (inability to work due to illness etc.).
Then came the idea that if you pay a share of your income each month, the government will support you, if you lose your job or fall on hard times or get too old to work. Today that (sadly) includes people who put in their hours and make too little to survive. Of course a system like that can´t finance itself on what people paid into it alone. That is what we called the "generations contract". Which means the people working now support those that recieve an pension. In 50 years or so, when they reach pension age, the younger generation will pay.. etc. Unfortunately we have too many old people now and it doesnt really work, but scrapes by. In 30 years we will have a HUGE problem. Too few children.

Anyway that is, imho, a good deal, if it is thought out correctly, managed correctly and if it then works. Same with Health insurance. In germany, everyone who works, has to pay a percentage into the public system. For all that can´t work, the state pays, if they are sick or unable to work. For those who don´t want to work... well.. they have to live in poverty and get a bare minimum while being forced by the state to go to educational courses and to write job applications, otherwise no more money then basic living and healthcare. Our constitution says the state has to care for the health of the people and that is a good thing, too. For what else do you need a state, but to serve it´s people? That´s it´s basic function and thus i can´t understand why Americans, for example, are so against a public health system. I mean.. I only get help if I paid my fair share. If I didn´t, it´s because I was either to sick or disabled to work. Not wanting to work doesn´t really fly here. It´s a LOT more work dodging the job agencies then actually trying to get to work. If you want money from the government, you can´t fly under their radar for long.
The only thing you get health care wise is basic needs to keep you alive, if you don´t have insurance. That´s it. Which is fine, it´s basic human decency imho, to not let others die through neglect.

Back to the point, these are all things that are "social" and are for the people, by the people. Managed by it´s servant, the state. People lose sight of that too quickly. But corporations, the rich, the real money, they don´t want that. Since it would mean they would have to pay their fair share. The founder of MacDonalds once said "If you take a lot of money out of a community, you have to give something else back". But the super rich of today are sociopaths and don´t want that. They want all for themselves. Thus they blather on about "it will trickle down".. which means nothing more then "Breadcrumbs from my feast will trickle down to the hungry masses." Let them eat cake.
I am sorry to say, but Trump is just one more of the same. He is so deeply mired in russian mob business (look it up. More then one russian mobster lived in his trump tower. And not far down from his private home...) And he thinks like them. All he does is laugh. I mean he is a billionaire selling the illusion he is "one of the people". Helping joe the plumber against the fat-cats. Of which he is one. One of the worst. I bet you anything he is laughing each night before thinking about how to use the presidency to gain more money. Even if it is just by deregulating all the businesses he has a finger in, like finance.

Don´t worry, I´ll come around what that has to do with Nazis soon. ;)

And don´t get me wrong. The left today aren´t much better. Most of them are what I call fighting sheep. People who want someone else to run their lives, who don´t want to take responsibility. Who want a nanny state that makes it so that they don´t have to think. The only difference between the far left and the average people and masses out there (because most people are sheep that want that), is that they are idealistic too and want to fight for reaching that communistic nanny state.

Socialism as the americans seem to understand it today is the corrupted version of itself that Stalin instituded and called communism and socialism. But it never was. Maybe for a few years or while Lenin was still alive. After that it was just another totalitarian dictatorship, hiding behind the slogan of socialism. Nothing was social about that state, especially early on when stalin purged anyone that could have been dangerous to his dictatorship.

So. The Nazis early on had two major enemies. The social democrats (of which hitler thought they were undermined by the jews) and the stalinistic bolsheviks (more jews, too.). That´s why they took the socialism into their name, in my opinion. And they had actually as much right to do so, as did the social democrats. (russian communists didn´t. They weren´t social. They were autokrats (like trump is, like putin is, like erdogan in turkey, etc. btw.)). Nazis kept up with those systems that were useful. They went at it another way though. If you were out of work, you went into the RAD, instead of getting financial support. Hitler was a staunch anti-parlamentarian, since he (rightly imho) suspected many people in parliament to be there for only their personal gain. Which hasn´t changed, in many cases, till today. In my opinion.

To call the russian communists leftwing or socialists is as wrong as calling the Nazis rightwing. Both were both, the latter even more so then the former. Nationalism and race theories are right wing and conservative view points. Social medicine and work programs are left ideas.

You can make of that what you will, but demonizing one over the other or even thinking that our modern society is so much better is a fallacy. Representative Democracy has more or less as many faults as Communism and Nazism. We are not truly free. Which we will never be, as long as we are not one man or woman alone on the planet.

There are so many better ideas. How about the Ancient greek system of voting out one Parlamentarian every year, that was the least popular? That guy had to go into exile for 10 years. Imagine our Politicians scrambling to please the voters. And not before they are voted in, but actually through the work they are doing _while_ in office?
Or direct democracy. The Internet would be technology enough to let every citizen vote on every issue that concerns them. No need to give power to representatives that then can abuse it. The swiss have a similar system, though a little more basic. Okay, that would be a bad idea insofar as most people out there are cowardly idiots (still my opinion) that just want to be left alone. Just look at voter turnout numbers in every country that has votes, even on the most important of issues. At least 30 % stay home and don´t care, as if their lives weren´t influenced by what happens after the votes.

So. Choose your preferred system and fight for it. Or stay quiet, accept what is there or just abstain and take what is thrown at you. There aren´t much more choices. There never were.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,944 Posts
Ronbo....really? come on now. your quote of "You can also NOT deny that they abhorred Socialism and Communism." made me laugh. now think of what NAZI stands for? they have socialist in their name! LOL they also were against the Weimar Republic which was a constitutional form of Government! and they were against the imperialist. They ran the country in a fascist dictator fashion but their governmental ideas were purely socialistic. I will grant you that Communism is as far left as you can go, but then next comes socialist, then the imperialist and finally the Constitutionalism that they over threw. so they were far more left than they were right. I think that is what people try and hang their hat on. they were to the right of communists who they feared and fought as well. so people just like to say they were conservatives LOL.
And if you read the research, the word 'socialist' as used by the Nazis in that term was just that. A word. It was used in a fairly feeble attempt to link the political movement to 'the people'. The word was used to help attract the 'undecided voters' during the turmoil of the 20's and 30's.

I actually read Mein Kampf once (a long time ago, in high school), and I recall clearly the explanation of how the name was derived.

ANY club, or political organization, is 'social' at its most basic level.

"National Socialism" had nothing in common with the other 'Socialist' movements. The "National" part gives it ALL away. The term 'Socialist' was only there as an enhancer to the primary word 'National' which declared that the country, Germany, was the main entity due loyalty, and it was the NATION, and NOT 'the people' or 'the government', was what loyalty was to be pledged to.

The other Socialist movements in Germany operated by putting the people's supposed interests ahead of those of the country.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
10,115 Posts
National Socialistisches Deutsches Arbeits Partei...National Socialist German Workers Party: Talk about SPIN....amd why it was shortened to "NAZI Party"....
Doc AV
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
197 Posts
National Socialistisches Deutsches Arbeits Partei...National Socialist German Workers Party: Talk about SPIN....amd why it was shortened to "NAZI Party"....
Doc AV
In my opinion, Nazi just sounds better. For a german, anyways. The logical abbreviation would be "Naso" or "Nasi", of course. But since "Nase" is the german word for engl. "Nose", both those abb. could be seen as a diminuitive Form, like "little Nose-y". Just sounds too "cute" in german.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,366 Posts
Doc...actually, I do not think Germans actually referred to themselves as "Nazis" I think that shortened phrase was English just like English referred to japanese as "Japs" as far I ever heard they always said it out National Socialistisches Deutsches Arbeits Partei. and Hawk....your points that you drew out as to what gemrnay is today is exactly what we would call Leftist or Socialist attitudes. the fact of the Government taking care of you for any reason is socialist. Here in the US the Right or conservative is associated with Capitalism. and yes, capitalism is referred to as being narcissistic. that is the whole idea. if one works hard they get to make something of themselves and make wealth. Not be handed to them. while the US does have "social" programs they were all installed by Democrats. the two largest being Social Security and then Welfare and now the last one being our health system and Obamacare.
I truly think however the majority of people are more "moderates" here in the States. trying to be a balance of the two. where you recognize the need for social programs however, not to the point where it should be a way a life.

I personally think that was the appeal of Hitler at the time. he appealed to masses and their needs and was against the elitist establishment that was the old Germany and the wealthy bankers who controlled so much of the wealth. bring in the hard war reprimands of WW1 the Government couldnt pay back it's debt plus take care of its people and then the hatred of the Jews which were in power it was a perfect storm. but clearly, the ideals you just laid out are indeed socialistic in description which aligns itself with the left more so than the right. I did however admit that they weren't as left as Communism. so when you compare yourself to them you would think of yourself as being right or conservative comparatively.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,944 Posts
National Socialistisches Deutsches Arbeits Partei...National Socialist German Workers Party: Talk about SPIN....amd why it was shortened to "NAZI Party"....
Doc AV
Another reason is in German, the phonemes "TI" and "ZI" sound very, very similar.

This, combined with the consideration mentioned in Hawkmoon79's post makes great sense to me.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,172 Posts
I have heard NAAZI, NATZI and maybe another. I believe it was the english way to describe them .It was ,in other words, slang .I can't imagine The NSDAP calling themselves, NAAZI's . P
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
197 Posts
yoebuff: But that´s just what I don´t understand. Social security and healthcare insurances are NOT hand-outs. While you can, you pay into them, to make sure you have something, when hard times hit you (which they always can). I understand egotistical capitalism, but what that philosophy doesn´t recognize is, that sometimes all the cleverness and hard work still are not enough. Sometimes a bad turn is just not your fault. Lightning can always strike.
So what the german idea was and is, is protection against the forces you can do nothing about, like illness, for example. It is a socialist idea, true. But then again, to stress my point, that is just common sense. The communists let their people starve and imprisoned them, because they were actually anti-social, elitist autokrats, hiding behind a mask of communism. Luckily these days one can read up on that quite easily. During the 80ies and earlier it was another story. But that is the time most of our minds about communism was formed.
I grew up in west germany in the late 80ies (as my name implies). I literally learned to fear the "dark, unknown east". There was this fence and a wall and all you knew were that those over there were the bad guys. One of my earliest memories is when Tchernobyl happend and we suddenly weren´t allowed to go to our playgrounds no more. No more picking mushrooms with my parents in our forests. All was fear and uncertainty.

Today I know so many russians , I worked with them, I partied and celebrated with them. And still I struggle with my old habits of thinking. Maybe I always will.

Anyway so I read up on the expression Nazi meanwhile. It was seen as a derogatory term, but as early as 1903, for the first National Socialist movements, long before the NSDAP. Actually the first use of "National socialist" was back in 1887 in a peerage newspaper calling Bismarck a national socialist. It seems though that even the NSDAP later on used the term here and there, but it was frowned upon later on. Goebbels himself gave out a pamphlet in 1927 with "Nazi-Sozi" in the title (Sozi being the much older term for socialist).
Back to the point, the Nazis made a point of always calling themself "Nationalsozialisten", e.g. using the full term, always.
Funnily enough, the origin of the term is a slang call of the name "Ignaz" which was common in bavaria and austria back then, like "Toni" for "Anthony" or "Bill" for "William".
German Wikipedia even states that very early on, the Abb. "Naso" was used here and there. It petered out when an outspoken german (and later american) journalist, Konrad Heiden, used to write about the "Nazis" in 1920ies Munich and other cities as an determined enemy of Nazism.

Though it seems there is still some debate and no actual, general rule. I am quite convinced the normal population used the term, when they grumbled about "those guys up there", if they weren´t themselves a party member. One needs to never forget that at the most, the NSDAP had about 8 Million members. Which was just over 10% of the population. The vast majority never entered. And actually also didn´t vote for them. They never got near the 50%, but then, the rest is history, as they say.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,366 Posts
Hawkmoon....I agree. It has got to the point that only the far right conservatives tend to think as Social Security as a Handout. The middle conservatives such as myself feel that I paid into it and therefore am entitled to it. sort of like a retirement plan. if you place money back in a bank and they say its going to build and earn interest you expect it to be there when you retire. Then our Social Security system did have built into it a Disability program. so if you became disabled before retirement age you could collect your full retirement that you had already earned up to retirement or until such time you got better and were able to work again. The system was then set up like your system in Germany. that the younger people today were paying into the system for the people collecting benefits today.
The biggest problem with our system was when back in the middle 1960's the leftist Democrat Kyndon Johnson also decided to implement a welfare system to pay for the poor. to provide for those less fortunate who couldn't find work or for other reason could obtain work or sustainable wages. the problem was built in. there was no end date. so once on there was no incentive to get off and two, they couldn't afford to pay for it. so they decided to pay for it out of the Social Security system which had a huge surplus. so today, in the US the line between providing a national retirement system and welfare has been blurred. Then to complicate matters you have the immigration issue which entitles immigrants (whether legally entering or illegally entering) immediate access to these benefits which further drains the system. Its for this reason that has set up the current environment of division among the left and the right in the US. I find it similar to the divisions in Germany during the Weimar era. You have one side (communism) saying the Government should be providing everything for the people and the people shpuld be giving everything to government and everyone shares equally and then you had the NASDAP, which wanted to promote nationalism and taking care of its public and then finally the right which was a constitutional government which said we are here only for the protection of the state and our sovereignty and people have to make due the best they can.
The US is at that same cross roads today. The Government can no longer continue to hand out to everyone. however its difficult to take away something once they had it. A governments only choice is either raise taxes to pay for it or cut services. while everyone says cut services it is always "cut the other guy not me" hence the current animosity towards illegals. the attitude is why should an illegal get free handouts and hamper our stability? Its very similar to amosphere of that lead to the hatred of the Jews who had money and were in power in the Weimar Republic. But its that exact sentiment which is more about 'I" than more about the collective as a whole is why The NSDAP should be considered left of Capitalism. honestly it wasn't until the 1930's when President Roosevelt ( Democrat and on the left) decided to come up with the idea of Social Security to help the poor. (almost identical to Hitlers ideas of the Government taking care of the people) so really, the far right Conservatives today sort of the same way which is make people responsible for their own lives. If that means poverty so be it. the fact is the idea should be everyone has the same opportunities to make something of themselves, that is what the Government should be ensuring. The same opportunity for all. But the Government should be guaranteeing everyone the same life style.

Fascinating when you get down and really think about it. It really makes sense as to what the mindset was and How it allowed something like the Nazi's to come to power and do what they did.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
197 Posts
Yoebuff,
and therein lies the danger, I agree. luckily you voted a rather stumbling incompetent into Power (Sorry, but that´s my opinion), rather then a really dangerous one. Well, he might still turn out dangerous yet. I followed the campaign -well it ain´t a season anymore, more like a year- very closely. And always thought Hillary was the same type of corrupt power hungry capitalist like our Merkel is. In other words: A devil you know. And then came Trump und I kept saying, he has got to have Mein Kampf on his nightstand. The rhetoric, the studied gestures while speaking... I honestly believe he took some time to study whole Mussolini or Hitler speeches. He even showed the same rythm from time to time.
It´s eerie, honestly. Thing is, perception is warped. The media only showed small passages of Trumps speeches, things where he stumbled (from the left media) or where he was really good (right). Same with Hitler. What we always get to see is him screaming and sweating and gesturing wildly. I can honestly say: Try and find a complete speech. That man was a genius when speaking. My great Uncle told me that once. He was Infantry (and I believe Sniper, but he never told. Only that he could hit exceptionally well. He was still proud of that. He had kept his K98 over all those years and even secretly went out in the early mornings every week to shoot one or two blackbirds, which he hated, when he was in his seventies). What he told me was, that politically, Hitler wasnt really his thing. He was interested in other things then politics back then as a young man. He hadnt been Hitler youth, but he said that later on, when he had seen and heard a couple of speeches, you couldnt help but believe the man.
(Oh man remembering all this.. it´s a shame I was so young back then. He freely talked about the war to me, even bad and funny stuff. I am really sad I never got to record or write down any of it. He fought on both fronts, too.)
What we always get to see from Hitler is the big crescendo. Usually he had been slowly gaining speed, making some perfect pauses, playing with the crowd and firing them up for a while, till he gets to that point. So now we wonder how he got to seduce so many people. Watch a whole speech, you dont even need to know german to recognize what he´s doing and you will wonder a little less.

Same with Trump and his rallies. He´s stage producing himself.. We have a word for that, called "inszenieren", roughly "to put himself in a scene". Meaning he shows exactly what he needs to bring over a certain picture of himself. And that has and always will work with the (often dumb) masses.

You are right in that you need a certain mindset for that. Hitler recognized the time as right and so did trump. People are uncertain, afraid and feel left alone. And it´s always the fear of the unknown. You might have heard that in Europe, and especially in Germany, right wing and nationalist movements have flared up lately, following the refugee crisis. For me it is funny that those movements are the strongest in those cities, where you have the least immigrants, the least muslims. Dresden for example is a stronghold of those neo nationalists, Saxony as a whole being the most outspoken anti-islamists and anti-immigrant... while having the lowest percentages of both.

In a time of fear, those agitators and demagogues rise and gain traction. Especially with extreme positions. Even if they are just extremely novel.

Matt
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
1,172 Posts
This is not a political forum, it is for German collectibles. I am sick of hearing about politics and this is one of the places I go to avoid it. If you want to complain about Trump, go somewhere else. If you want to discuss politics go to a section that is more appropriate for that.
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top