It is time to kill a whacko piece of historical revisionism.
Naming names is important here because in the recent past, more than one person here has implied that Hitler's National Socialism was a left wing (liberal) idea.

And that's just nonsense.

Taking on all comers, if you think Hitler and the Nazis were leftists, prepare to be embarrassed as your theory gets dissected and exposed as sham.

Go for it.
https://nationalvanguard.org/2016/10/national-socialism-a-left-wing-movement/
http://www.thecommentator.com/artic...ist_origins_of_national_socialism/page/1
https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/myth-busted-actually-yes-hitler-was-a-socialist-liberal/
https://mises.org/library/national-socialism
The last article was written by Ludwig von Mises who lived in in Austria before WWII.

Ummm, hello...that IS fascism. The Mises article plays fast and loose with terminology. Under Communism, the state OWNS (not controls - OWNS) production. If you produce hammers, you are an employee of the state, the hammers you make are government property. The store people buy those hammers AT is government owned and operated.

Pretending to ignore definitions by altering the meaning of words and saying "The German and Russian systems of socialism have in common the fact that the government has full control of the means of production" is windyfoggery.

The German government did not OWN IG Farben, AEG, AEC, Siemens, Bayer or Oskar Shindler's company. Shindler owned his company, Shindler took home the money he made, Shindler did not work as a government employee. He CONTRACTED WITH the government.

Words have actual meanings and Ludwig von Mises is not entitled to create his own lexicon.

Socialism/Communism and Fascism are all totalitarian governments. In Socialism/Communism the government does own the means of production. In Fascism the government lets people "own" their business but those businesses are so regulated by the government that all of the business decisions are made by the government. If business owners are not allowed to make any decisions about what the business can or cannot do, because of government regulations, do they really own it? No, they don't.

The National Vanguard?
Hatrack, do you even understand that you sourced a neo-Nazi publication?



Sorry, I will not dignify an article from a Nazi newspaper with a response. What next, are you going to source "The Dearborn Independent"?

The Nazis were originally called the German Workers Party, and the name change to incorporate the word "socialist" was partly designed to pull in working class voters by making the party seem more caring and respectable than it actually was, because "socialism" was a relatively "good" word to many idealistic people in the 1930s on both sides of the Atlantic.

But in any case, merely because a party calls itself by a name doesn't mean that this is what it stands for, and that is especially so given the low standards of honesty practiced by totalitarians.

Vladimir Zhirinovsky's Russian fascist group of the 1990s was ludicrously called the Liberal Democratic party although it was virulently anti-liberal and anti-democratic.

Why not? Who knows what Nazism is better than a Nazi? A weak argument must discredit the source because it cannot refute what the source says.

Not only did Hitler detest socialism, liberalism and communism, but he was appeased in Europe partly because powerful American industrialist and some of the European right saw him and Mussolini as valuable strong men against Stalin.

This foolish admiration was a major factor in appeasement and extended almost to the eve of war.
Here's George Orwell, reviewing an English translation of Hitler's "Mein Kampf" in March 1940, as German bombs are falling on Britain:


In America for some, the appeasement continued apace.
Prescott Bush was indicted under the "Trading With the Enemy Act" of 1942.

Fascism was also a good word back in the 1930's.
https://www.dineshdsouza.com/news/the-lefts-romance-with-fascism/

Again, you're entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts.
Oskar Schindler was not an employee of the state and his factories were not government property.

Hitler detested socialists because they opposed him not because of any ideological differences.
https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2003/oct/17/20031017-110534-8149r/
Prescott Bush was indicted but he was never convicted of trading with the enemy.

"Oskar Schindler was not an employee of the state and his factories were not government property." I did not say that Schindler's business was the property of the state. What said was that is so heavily regulated by the state that Schindler was owner in name only.

Sure it can!

And next, here's the verdict of an eminent expert researcher and one of the greatest experts on the Nazi phenomenon, the historian Alan Bullock:

Alan Bullock, "Hitler: A Study in Tyranny", abridged edition, (New York: HarperCollins, 1971).


Hitler’s values: radical inequality, the fostering of a tiny elite, belief in ancestral notions of nationhood and racial purity – were values of the far right, not the egalitarian values of socialism or liberalism. Since when do leftists speak of racial purity?

The actual socialists who emerged after Marx wanted three things -

1. Removal of classes.
2. World socialism.
3. Distribution of capital.

There was a huge gap between rich & poor in Tsarist Russia. The Bolsheviks sought to eliminate this division (yes, by violent revolt). After they succeeded, the Bolsheviks wanted to take the Revolution worldwide. Heard of 'Comintern'? No race, no nations, only socialism.

Before attaining dictatorial power Hitler allied himself with political conservatives, he had a fan club of conservatives outside Germany, he was largely funded by union-hating big business (like Ford) that saw him as the man to smash the socialists, and he was appeased internationally in part because of misguided conservatives who thought him a worthwhile ally.

Himmler, well before the Wannsee Conference, and after the "Night of the Long Knives", which eventuated the disposal of any and all left-sympathizing party members, including Ernst Roehm, about 1938, enunciated to a mass meeting of the SchutzStaffel (S.S.):


Sure, the Nazis called themselves the 'National Socialists'.
It is however, a total misnomer.
It's like the World Series, or Democratic People's Republic of Korea, or 'ethics in gaming journalism'. The Nazis were fascists. Indisputably. They drew their ideology from Italy's fascists, who arose in reaction to the Left.
The Italian Right, still mired in 19th century thought, could not tackle the explosion in left-wing organization.
Mussolini gives us the first fascist platform - national/racial superiority, rearmament & expansion, and consolidation of capital.
The Italian Fascists appropriated, wholesale, Roman imagery, such as the 'fasces', to evoke renewed national pride & a sense of superiority.

The Italian Fascists sought to expand & reclaim historically Italian lands (mirroring a large portion of the old Roman Empire).
Fascist government formed corporate cartels, enriching the few.
Hitler and his Deutscher Arbeiter Partei buddies see this and decide that they need to steal support from actual socialists. So the DAP rebadged themselves as the NSDAP.
It's like adding the word "NEW!" to a product name.

As for redistribution of capital, do I really need to explain the difference between collectivization and cartels, Mr Tax Haven?

Now let's talk about Henry Ford, one of Hitler's greatest admirers in the United States.

Ford first voiced his anti-Semitic leanings in 1915, around the time of his "Peace Ship" episode.

Eventually, his belief that the "International Jew" was the source of the world's problems led him to conduct a campaign against them in the pages of his newspaper; The Dearborn Independent.

The articles in Ford's newspaper blamed the Jews for everything from the Bolshevik Revolution and the First World War to bootlegged liquor and cheap movies.
They also accused the Jews of conspiring to enslave Christianity and destroy the "Anglo-Saxon" way of life. The articles were later gathered into book form and published under the title: The International Jew: The World's Foremost Problem.

This book was translated into 16 languages, and was to have a profound influence upon the growing Nazi movement in Germany. Eventually, Ford publicly apologized for the articles in light of a legal suit. However; he continued to express his anti-Semitic beliefs in his private circles.

In the 1930's, he hired many fascist sympathizers, accepted an award from Hitler; and engaged in business ventures in Nazi Germany.

Do you know where Henry Ford got his source material for "The International Jew" ??

Here is a book by Alan Bullock you should read.
https://books.google.com/books/about/Hitler_and_Stalin.html?id=Sn3EfD8f3XAC

I own it.

It is interesting that you can see the American connection to the Nazi with Henry Ford but cannot see them when it comes to the American Eugenics movement. Could that inability to see the connection be due to the fact the eugenicists were Democrats? Or the connection of FDR to Fascism? FDR was definitely NOT a right winger!

Then you should be able see that they hatred of each other's ideology was due to the similarities of them not their differences.

To redistribute capital it has to be created first. When the government owns the means of production or regulates it so much that the government is the de facto owner the creation of capital is very difficult.

How interesting. You should probably try to help all those wealthy German industrialists who never made a dime while working with Hitler.

Maybe the Thyssen Family needs some counseling?
August Thyssen was worth the equivalent of $1.4 Bn by the time of his death and the widow of Fritz Thyssen, Amalie Zurhell, earned a billion dollars from the Thyssen-Krupp merger after the war.

Ahhhh, you may want to read the book again.
I say that because you seem to be blithely ignoring Bullock when he talks about Hitler:


Alan Bullock, "Hitler: A Study in Tyranny", New York: HarperCollins, 1971.


I posted it earlier in the thread and you ignored it because you cannot refute it.
Should I use a larger typeface?

Naah, probably won't help.
I thought you said that you're not always right.
Because you're not right on this, and your problem is the fact that you rely on conspiracy theorists, revisionists, neo-Nazis and convicted felons instead of critical thinking.

Not to mention, the whole reason "The Night of the Long Knives" even HAPPENED is because Hitler was bound and determined to PURGE the leftists from his party.

I posted it earlier in the thread and you ignored it because you cannot refute it.
Should I use a larger typeface?

Hahahaha, how cute, except that I didn't ignore it and did refute it, quite handily, in fact. I used Hitler's own words and the words of his closest associates.

Your WaTimes article by the way, says nothing about ideology whatsoever.
If Hitler had been a socialist, he would never, ever have been bankrolled, appeased and admired by centres of conservative power in the way that he was.

In "INSIDE THE THIRD REICH" Albert Speer, the Third Reich's last Armaments Minister, makes clear that he had great difficulty controlling the various private firms well into 1944, when the war was already going to pieces. He also notes the privatization of all the formerly state-owned arsenals, even the huge ones at Suhl, Spandau, and Amberg (13 in all!).

Thyssen ("I PAID HITLER") pointed out that the "marriage" of business and the National Socialist Party, despite Hitler's contempt for aristocracy and business in general, guaranteed high profits for businesses.
Ironically, his steel company was seized over what amounted to a personal hassle with the hierarchy, and handed over for administration and profit to Krupp/von Bohlen, rather than being "nationalized" in the pure sense, which is what would've happened in a left wing state.
Thyssen's widow wound up entrenched in the new merged conglomerate.
Also impossible had socialism nationalized the company, which it didn't.

Public education, of course, had been one of the key features of all organized states since Roman times. And National Public Health in Germany was enacted 1871-83, before Hitler was BORN, by the Bismarck government.
Hitler's state enacted NO new welfare programs, and eliminated many, sending former "loafers" to the death or work camps. Almost none qualified for military service, as the Weimar Republic had always claimed.
Hitler, of course, much like today's conservatives, attacked the Weimar government as "intrusive" and "socialist", and he HATED "Bolshevism" and "social democrats" (socialists), and proclaimed it loudly on almost every page of "MEIN KAMPF".

--Heinreich Himmer, speech to mass meeting of the SchutzStaffel (S.S.), which of course REPLACED the lefty Sturmabteilung.

By the way...you made mention of Russian hatred of Jews.

The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion

-The Protocols was a work that purported to be a transcription of plans concocted at an 1897 Zionist conclave. At this secret meeting, high ranking Jewish officials, the "Elders of Zion," came up with 24 Protocols which were designed to enslave the Christian world through various sinister means. The Tenth Protocol represents a typical excerpt, proclaiming that it was the duty of Jews "to wear everyone out by dissentions, animosities, feuds, famines, inoculation of diseases, want, until the Gentiles see no other way of escape except to appeal to our money and power."

If The Protocols appeared outlandish, it may have been because they were a Russian forgery plagiarized from a 1869 German novel which, itself, was plagiarized from a 1864 French political satire. The original French work, entitled Dialogue aux enfers entre Machiavelli et Montesquieu, was intended by its author; journalist Maurice Joly, to be a savage indictment of Napoleon III. The German novel, To Sedan by Herman Goedsche, replaced Joly's world domination plan of Napoleon III with one schemed by a group of Jews in Prague. Eventually, Czarist agent, Sergei Nilius incorporated this work into his 1905 effort entitled The Great in the Small. Nilius' work was designed to deflect the misery of Nicholas II's policies onto a scapegoat--the Jews of Russia.

This work was, in turn, further elaborated on in 1917 by a group of Czarist officers living in Berlin and re-titled The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.

Guess who gave the biggest and most resounding endorsement of "The Protocols" in the USA?
None other than the man regarded as history's greatest antisemite of his time, Henry Ford.

He made sure that The Protocols received wide distribution via The Dearborn Independent and he enlisted the help of Father Charles Coughlin.

Before attaining dictatorial power Hitler allied himself with political conservatives,... Would that include conservatives like FDR and his Brain Trust?
Father Charles Coughlin until 1936 was a strong supporter of FDR.
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/charles-e-coughlin
"National Union for Social Justice

In 1935, Coughlin created the National Union for Social Justice (NUSJ) as a political action group that would represent the interests of his listeners in Washington, DC. By the 1936 presidential election the NUSJ had over one million paying members.

In 1936, Coughlin founded a journal entitled Social Justice, providing another venue to promote his populist ideology. The NUSJ tabled 16 principles as guidelines for their program for the United States. These included:

liberty of conscience and education;
nationalization of resources too important to be held by individuals;
abolition of the Federal Reserve Board;
return to Congress the right to coin and regulate money;
rights of workers to organize unions;
requisition of wealth and conscription of men in times of war;
and the principle that human rights should outweigh property rights.

Coughlin was ahead of his time in splitting his ticket and supporting issues associated with the left (such as federal support to prop up the dollar), and issues associated with the right (“America First” foreign policy).
Antisemitism

Over the years Coughlin had managed to keep his antisemitism muted while he was on the air. After his split with Roosevelt and with the rise of National Socialism and Fascism in Europe, however, he attacked Jews explicitly in his broadcasts. Some historians attribute this change to Coughlin taking advantage of rising antisemitism around the world in order to keep himself relevant. Based on his speeches, writings, and associations, however, he appears to have had significant antisemitic sentiment throughout his career.

For years, Coughlin had publicly derided “international bankers,” a phrase that most of his listeners understood to mean Jewish bankers. In the days and weeks after Kristallnacht, Coughlin defended the state-sponsored violence of the Nazi regime, arguing that Kristallnacht was justified as retaliation for Jewish persecution of Christians. He explained to his listeners on November 20, 1938 that the “communistic government of Russia,” “the Lenins and Trotskys…atheistic Jews and Gentiles” had murdered more than 20 million Christians and had stolen “40 billion [dollars]…of Christian property.”

In a series of articles published in Social Justice during 1938, Coughlin lambasted “Jewish” financiers and their control over world politics, culminating with a story recounting his own version of the infamous 20th Century forgery, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which purported to be minutes of meetings of Jewish leaders as they plotted to take over the world."
Now days are social justice workers left or right wingers? They are and always have been left wingers.
https://www.pachamama.org/social-justice/what-is-social-justice

Only if you're a devoted follower of Father Coughlin.
Are you a devoted follower of Father Coughlin?

The fact that Rightwing political philosophy follows a top-down hierarchy can in no way include Socialism with is all about equality. Equality is horizontal.

Fascism, NAZIsm are both top-down hierarchies because the top people in these groups actually belive there are other people beneath them - literally.

It's not interesting because I addressed that about ten posts back.
I said that Margaret Sanger indeed was a eugenicist, and bigoted, but that she is also quite dead (like the parrot in the Monty Python sketch) these many years and PP staff today are most decidedly not.


Call it evolution.

So why ignore the fact that I addressed the issue head on?
I know why.

Because Margaret Sanger was only one of the American eugenicists who influenced the Nazis. The entire eugenicist movement did had a hell of lot more influence on the Nazis than Henry Ford did!
https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1796
"During the '20s, Carnegie Institution eugenic scientists cultivated deep personal and professional relationships with Germany's fascist eugenicists. In Mein Kampf, published in 1924, Hitler quoted American eugenic ideology and openly displayed a thorough knowledge of American eugenics. "There is today one state," wrote Hitler, "in which at least weak beginnings toward a better conception [of immigration] are noticeable. Of course, it is not our model German Republic, but the United States."

Hitler proudly told his comrades just how closely he followed the progress of the American eugenics movement. "I have studied with great interest," he told a fellow Nazi, "the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would, in all probability, be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock."

Hitler even wrote a fan letter to American eugenic leader Madison Grant calling his race-based eugenics book, The Passing of the Great Race his "bible."
You did not address this you ignored it.

The National Vanguard?
Hatrack, do you even understand that you sourced a neo-Nazi publication?



Here Jeffery J. Haas is rejecting an article, that proves him wrong, because it was written by a Nazi and published in a Nazi newspaper. What he is doing when he rejects this article is saying that he, Jeffery J. Haas, knows more about Nazism than a Nazi does.

I will address it right now for you as best I can.
Agreed. You're right.
It doesn't have anything to do with the fact that Herr Hitler implemented it via an autocratic right wing fascist authoritarian dictatorship.

The hierarchy in the Third Reich was, as Rick pointed out, top-down, not egalitarian, not horizontal.

You argued previously about the wealthy industrialists who were so tightly controlled by the Reich that the government "might as well have owned the industries".

This is hair splitting in comparison to the difference between the privatized wealth of industry under fascism and the barenaked cold reality of nationalized communist state control OWNERSHIP.

German cars, under both liberal left wing and authoritarian right wing administrations, were opulent, luxurious, well engineered.
Soviet cars (and Communist Eastern bloc cars in general) are cursed with being dour, grey, handicapped by tepid, almost sullen performance, and built of substandard materials fitted together with all the pride and flair of a mollusk laying eggs.

The difference is between regulated free market, fascist cartel, and state ownership. The first two allow at least for some entreprenurial craft and profit. The latter (communism) makes no such allowance.

Nope.
I reject the article because I know Shinola.



I am also good at detecting something else, which that National Vanguard article is full of.

Please, since you brought up that article, support what it says.
It's your bar of proof and your argument.

As stated elsewhere on Reader Rant, during Margaret Sangers time, there were a lot more white poor Americans than there were black Americans. Sanger was pointing out to poor white Americans that having more children made you even poorer as children cost money to rear, clothe, and feed and having more children was a vicious circle that kept you poor.

Sanger may have belonged to the KKK but that's an entirely different issue.

Was Margaret Sanger a racist?
National Institute of Health

The article speaks for itself. I do not need to prove that a person's knowledge and experience has greater validity than another person's opinion. The article was written by a Nazi and published in a Nazi newspaper. It is an article written from first hand experience and knowledge and approved by Nazis. It is your opinion that Nazis are right wingers. The article is a Nazis' experience and knowledge on what his political party is. So who should I believe? Someone's first hand knowledge and experience on the subject or the opinion of someone who is not and never was a Nazi? Experience and knowledge trump opinion everyday of the week!

OMG, my friend, use your brain! This is a propaganda piece in a propaganda publication! Was Goebbels a truth-teller? You don't have to get past the first paragraph to see it for what it is.

Yes, because the author of the article is a Nazi and it is in a Nazi publication it must be propaganda. Those damn Nazis never tell the truth they always lie.

Wait, what?? Is the Nazi Party a political party or not?
If it is, and I'm pretty sure of that, that means one can find politicians in that party, yes?

Are you implying that politicians never lie or create propaganda, or..."copious quantities of waxy brown liquid?"



By the way, I just noticed it's from Best Foods.

It's a shoe polish AND A DESSERT TOPPING!!
Of course, not the first time someone's invented a dual purpose product for extremists either.

NEW! Shimmer Floor Wax

Where in my comment did I state that the Nazis have never used propaganda? I never did say that! My comments was and is that with any political party, in order to be successful, it must tell the truth about what it stands for. Your reply is another cop out because you have a damn difficult time admitting you are wrong. The posting of the pictures of shoe polish do not add anything to your comments. In truth they show the weakness of you argument, an argument based on your opinion, not on facts.

"It is time to kill a whacko piece of historical revisionism.
Naming names is important here because in the recent past, more than one person here has implied that Hitler's National Socialism was a left wing (liberal) idea.

And that's just nonsense.

Taking on all comers, if you think Hitler and the Nazis were leftists, prepare to be embarrassed as your theory gets dissected and exposed as sham."
This is a statement of your opinion Jeffery about Nazis. An opinion that has been shown to be wrong.

If I thought you actually understood that, I'd be relieved, but instead I am genuinely alarmed.

No, friend, Jeff is not wrong. We've provided historical records that refute your assertion, yet you cling to something that is utterly, categorically, and decidedly wrong as if it were a security blanket. I am confident that were I to provide evidence from Hitler's own pen you would discount it. That is profoundly concerning to me. Conspiracy theories and pure propaganda distort and corrupt the thinking process, as it has done to you, here. In the interest of all that is decent I ask you to reconsider the dark path you are on. Come back to the light of reason and skepticism, and turn away from the dark side of deception and deviance, for that way madness lies. I'm deadly serious here. This is not conservative thought, it is something else entirely.

Could you have made a more condescending arrogant comment, NW Ponderer? I have quoted over sources besides the article by a Nazi. Who, because he is a Nazi and you are your historical sources are not, has more credibility than you and your sources do. The lie that the Nazis are not Socialists was started by Josef Stalin. It is a lie that Socialist repeat to make Nazis the epitome of evil, mainly because of the Holocaust, so that the mass murders committed by the Communist/Socialist regimes are ignored. By getting the mass murders committed by those regimes makes Communism/Socialism acceptable. Communism/Socialism is the epitome of evil, the Nazis are not. The Communists/Socialists murdered people because they were members of the wrong class. The Nazis murdered people because of their religion or nationality. Genocide, for whatever reason, is evil. The biggest perpetrators of genocide in human history are the Communists/Socialists. Because they are Communism/Socialism is the epitome of evil! But if people don't know that then Communism/Socialism is an acceptable ideology and Nazism is not. That is why Communists/Socialists must reinforce the lie that Nazis are not Socialists.

Nowhere, you didn't say that they never used propaganda.
But moving on, here is where you have a problem (BELOW):


--This is absolute utter hogwash.
Republicans are against debt until it's their turn in power, then debts are inconsequential and "deficits don't matter."
But you say that in order for a party to be successful they must tell the truth about what it stands for?
Sometimes, maybe even most of the time, that is the worst thing a party can do.
And you know it!


FACT:
The very last vestiges of socialism were viciously purged from the NSDAP on The Night of the Long Knives.

FACT:
An entire security apparatus, the SA (Sturmabteilung) was outright ELIMINATED and REPLACED by the SS (Schutzstaffel).


FACT:
Gregor Strasser was assassinated and his brother Otto, the leading light of the leftist faction of the party, was exiled, first to Austria, then to Prague, Switzerland and France.

And when it was clear to him that Hitler's SS still intended to quench their thirst for his blood as well, (to the tune of a $500 thousand dollar bounty on his head) he went to Bermuda by way of Portugal, leaving a wife and two children behind in Switzerland.

In 1941, he emigrated to Canada, where he was the famed "Prisoner of Ottawa". He never stopped looking over his shoulder for agents of doom.

FACT:
Himmler, speaking to a mass meeting of the SchutzStaffel (S.S.): "We are of the right and of order. We shall sweep away Jews, Bolsheviks, and liberal democracies as one sweeps away flies."

But I'm wrong...
Yeah, sure.

Nowhere, you didn't say that they never used propaganda.
But moving on, here is where you have a problem (BELOW):


What a political party stands for and what it does are, sadly. most of the time two different things. Why do the Republicans say they are against the deficit? Because the party stands fiscal responsibility. Why are the Republicans not fiscally responsible and working to reduce the deficit once they are in office? Because politicians, in both parties, are elected and reelected on promises to bring home the bacon, to spend money.



Here is what the Night of the Long Knives was all about, POWER, not ideology!
https://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/nazi-germany/the-night-of-the-long-knives/
The SA was controlled by Ernst Röhm. Himmler and company had convinced Hitler that Röhm was a threat to Hitler, who disliked anyone who disagreed with him or might challenge him.
Gregor Strasser, like Leon Trotsky, ran because he was deathly afraid of a dictator.
Here Himmler was using the word right in the political sense but in the sense that "we are of the right" because what we are doing is the right thing to do for Germany. So, yes you are wrong.

Trump supporters are the same way. Trump said that neo-NAZIs, Alt-Righters, Fascists, Klansmen at the Chancellorsville 2017 rally were "good people."

His base says that us non-Trumpers "misunderstood" Trump.

You're going to have to brush up on your editing skills because you are attributing quotes in a cattywampus way.
I'm going to go after that last post piecemeal so that I don't do the same thing by mistake...

You were essentially saying that Nazis always tell the truth about what Nazism is all about, and you were defending a Nazi publication that is pretending that they're really leftists.

Your last quote (above) is in direct contradiction to what you said earlier about parties having to tell the truth about what they stand for.

Sanitizing to remove any reference to the leftist attributes of Ernst Roehm, and the Strassers, does not change anything.
They were the LEFT faction of the party and Hitler eliminated the Left faction entirely.

Resorting to using your personal opinion to argue against facts?
So in essence you're saying Alan Bullock, William L. Shirer and almost every other historian are all wrong.

You appear to lean heavily on cherry picking, misdirection and disinformation. I am not going to waste a lot of time going into a detailed analysis here, since so many other worthy commentators have already done so.

Mussolini and even Gentile tried to copy one or two left leaning elements but failed to retain leftist support once it became clear that egalitarian principles of fascism were in name only. Hitler also drew upon many other influences, including Christianity; does this make fascism a Christian movement?
It's apparent that some Christians are fooled by fascism in much the same way socialists were fooled by the name Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei.

Fascism is of the Right.
All through the 20th century its supporters were from social groups that supported right-wing parties.
Its allies, both domestically and internationally, were from the Right.
Fascists rose to power fighting leftists and abetted by conservative allies.
Mussolini called his fascist journal "Hierarchy". (Hello PDX Rick!)
The Italian manifesto "The Doctrine of Fascism" proclaimed, “we are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the ‘right,’ a fascist century.”

ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITTANICA:


By the way:
Politics has nothing to do with what is, it is what you've been convinced it is. Politics is the art of the possible.

I suppose I could have quoted you....

I had just read some of this thread, then read something my wife posted on FB.

Thought I’d share here...

——————————————————

When Nelson Mandela was studying law at the University, a white professor, whose last name was Peters, disliked him intensely.

One day, Mr. Peters was having lunch at the dining room when Mandela came along with his tray & sat next to the professor.

The professor said,
"Mr Mandela, you do not understand, a pig & a bird do not sit together to eat"

Mandela looked at him as a parent would a rude child & calmly replied,
*"You do not worry professor. I'll fly away,"*
& he went & sat at another table.

Mr. Peters, reddened with rage, decided to take revenge.

The next day in class he posed the following question:
"Mr. Mandela, if you were walking down the street & found a package, & within was a bag of wisdom & another bag with money, which one would you take ?"

Without hesitating, Mandela responded, "The one with the money, of course."

Mr. Peters , smiling sarcastically said,
"I, in your place, would have taken the wisdom."

Nelson Mandela shrugged & responded, *"Each one takes what he doesn't have."*

Mr. Peters, by this time was about to throw a fit, seething with fury. So great was his anger that he wrote on Nelson Mandela's exam sheet the word *"IDIOT"*
& gave it to the future struggle icon.

Mandela took the exam sheet & sat down at his desk trying very hard to remain calm while he contemplated his next move.

A few minutes later, Nelson Mandela got up, walked up to the professor & told him in a dignified polite tone,

"Mr. Peters, *you signed your name on the sheet*, but you forgot to give me my grade."

————————————————-

Don't mess with intelligent people....

Wonderful!

Jeez, Bob... where the heck have you been all this time?

Just following life’s plan...wonder,wander,blunder,ponder...repeat.

I keep laughing at the Mandela story. Well done, sir.

Sounds like a true Conservative.

Remember good Patriots - it"s the Conservative stock-piling AR-15s. Be careful out there.

Also, if you know an angry white male Conservative, notify the FBI immediately.