Was Hitler good for the World in any way?

Of course! Where it takes and goes to is the future, where it has gone already is deplorable, not as much as the Nazis; but, the tactics and actions are much in similarity. Fortunately, there is still hope The ideology is definately the same.....

Don't be so vague, BillW, explain.

Hitler was not elected, he was appointed by Hindenberg.

I am unconcerned with morality, or anyone's view of it. Humanity in the aggregate--society--associates for the purpose of protecting iteself. The Germans stumbled very badly in the case of the National Socialists. Other societies took it upon themselves to put him out of business. What Hitler did was execrable because he destroyed such a broad range of humanity, from which so much good for all of us could have flowed. Furthermore, society has not simply the right, but the duty to a concept of association, to condemn those who would wantonly and capriciously destroy others, and to prevent them if possible, and destroy them when necessary.

Which ought to sum it up. I have no doubt, however, that Rex, relishing the attention he's getting, will attempt to string the discussion along.

That is a thesis not easily achieved in one post, or many- this but one:

These are the changing values of the Republicans over the past 50 years and why their extreme right has caused the US a shift toward unprecedented Fascism. This is why the sift back to the middle is essential.

The first of the DixiCrats to leave the Democrats in 1948 took place when the Democrats would not remove the plank for allowing an integrated military. We now have three planning to retired after a most ignoble career. Jesse Helms formed the DixiCrats and ran for President in that year. He later moved on to the Republicans who accepted him and all others of his ilk with open arms.

In the south they were called the ?'yellow dog' Democrats because it was said that if they ran an old yellow dog against any Republican, they would still vote for the dog. Now they're Republicans. Mostly made up of Neo-Nazi, KKK, White Supremacists, Para-Military and Conservative Religious Fanatics (usually a mixture), which joined up with the far right conservative wing of the Republicans slowly in the fifties, gaining speed in the 60's and going over in bunches in the 1970's. They, at best, could be described as social conservatives or, in my view, social misfits.

They, in effect, became the ?'Swing Vote' that started changing the face of Congress and the National Political scene. This is when the likes of Trent Lott and Phil Gramm went ?'over' - 1970's. The old conservative social Democrats would accept the traditional Republican adherence to Big Business and the bourgeoisie; while in return, the Republicans would accept them as the petty bourgeoisie with their social hatreds.

I explain this political movement not as a long journey from the politically extreme left to the extreme right; but as one short step. How? The politically dichotomies, in my view, are not explained as a continuum along a straight line left and right; instead as a circle where moderate or centrists are located at 6:00 and the extreme right/left wings converge at 12:00. With this schema in mind, it is easy to see that it is but a small step from totalitarian left to totalitarian right. There is not much difference in these extremes except their social standings.

Leon Trotsky called both of these enigmas of mankind ?'fascist'. The bourgeoisie right wing conservative made up of Big Business unites with the petty bourgeoisie left wing conservatives. He called these left wingers "social democrats" and "social fascists". They are of course the totalitarian Communists while the right wingers are the totalitarian Nazi.

Once the petty bourgeoisie were compelled to change their course and join sides with the bourgeoisie, they were employed to fight the street battles, to get bloody, and take the risks. Of course, the bourgeoisie was the aristocratic big businessman and few while the petty bourgeoisie were small businessman, proletariat, conservative socialists and the many. This is just what the right wing needed, an Army - not in this case to fight a war but to win the battle at the polls.

Trotsky wrote:
"the changes in this sphere ultimately play a minor role -- but it means first of all for the most part that the workers' organizations are annihilated; that the proletariat is reduced to an amorphous state; and that a system of administration is created which penetrates deeply into the masses and which serves to frustrate the independent crystallization of the proletariat. Therein precisely is the gist of fascism...."

Trotsky further wrote:
"After fascism is victorious, finance capital directly and immediately gathers into its hands, as in a vise of steel, all the organs and institutions of sovereignty, the executive administrative, and educational powers of the state: the entire state apparatus together with the army, the municipalities, the universities, the schools, the press, the trade unions, and the co-operatives."

And finally:
"And the fascist agency, by utilizing the petty bourgeoisie as a battering ram, by overwhelming all obstacles in its path, does a thorough job. After fascism is victorious, finance capital directly and immediately gathers into its hands, as in a vise of steel, all the organs and institutions of sovereignty, the executive administrative, and educational powers of the state: the entire state apparatus together with the army, the municipalities, the universities, the schools, the press, the trade unions, and the co-operatives. When a state turns fascist, it does not mean only that the forms and methods of government are changed."

In conclusion, I am not a Trotskite or Liberal or a Conservative; but, a centrist. However, this dissertation certainly illustrates a number of political actions that at the very lest has credence today. Even though Trotsky described a paradigm that developed enormously fast - Italy and Germany fascist control happened in 2 years - a modern paradigm could easily be describe as happening over a half century if the exploitation of military action is not used.

In what way do the neo-Cons oppose democracy, a special feature among fascism? Just to take the first question popping up in my head.

Fascism does not oppose Democracy. As with all political ideologies, it works withing the system and trys to control - absolute control if possible.

No. Fascism 'uses' democracy.

"use" and "control" are synonymous in this instance

And it's not the same as 'approve of'.

As Bush said, "You don't get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier."

Active thread

First, I'd like to thank you all for taking replying correct and elaborate as ever. It's very stimulating.

Agreed. It's a rebellion either way, just not a very successful one. And I suppose by 'the big boys' you mean yourself and a few others. Well, I await your arguments with caution(although my youthfull mindset might prevent me from replying with equally great caution )

Not just politics. But politics is indeed a VERY illustrative example.

I will refer him to this thread, altough I doubt he has the patience to read it all.

He did what any führer* would have done in my hardly fully documented opinion, except he killed more jews.

By all means skip this paragraph. I made the mistake of bringing up the wrong example because I hoped I could keep it short. But I'm far too tired to come up with a decent reply on the particular matter, and I'm afraid the reply is not very agreeable to read. I personally plan on never reading it, EVER. I was wrong to bring it up. The paragraph is filled with even bigger mistakes.
Surely the Romans have slaughtered and annihalited many different little cultures. They just didn't have camps to put them in. The tribes which consisted out of mainly warriors could very well have been complete murdered if they were too rebellious to follow the workings of the roman empire. I brought up the romans because I wanted an example of something that was so long ago, we have no way of knowing, not that we knowanything to date(today) but we can be fairly sure whether or not Stalin put 200 or 2000 (or who knows maybe more...*coughs*) in the goelag. I brought the romans up as an example of how history can be simplified after many years and the death of (proportianially speaking perhaps, population of the know world didn't really explode back then) a million is justified and wrote of the history books as 'He came, he saw, he conquered'. Yes yes, great empire, they made the foundation for the code juris civilis. Nevertheless, it was a poor argument and deserves no further attention for I cannot back it up. I just figured it'd be easier than to start describing the year 5000 in which our views of WO 1-15 are comparable to the crusades, because just like Bush in WO 3, they decided to attack all of islam which lead to a conflict all over the known world. This fictional situation would be even more so unsubstanciated and I therefor hoped to flee in history and it's simplification on the matter of our objectivity due to our distant perspective on the moral values which were then uphold.


He rebuilt the infrasturcture of Germany, and improved the economy, which could only be done by breaking the treaties imposed on germany and which inevitably lead to war. The factories, the roads, the infrastructure really, all was preperation for war. It served no other goal and was financed by what would upset the 'victors who didn't win'.
Motivating the people is also an important part of being a succesfull politician, you can't do that without creating an enemy, the people have to unite. He built germany from the ruble of humiliation through frustration to a superiour race(state of mind, not agreeing with him, just explaining how nationalism works)

As for the statement "If you want to kill, but can't, you're one of the good guys" that makes no sense.
That's why the statement was:
moral system which is absurd(if you want to kill, but can't: you're one of the good guys)
Seems like my friend isn't the only one who should learn how to read...
(I promise, in time, I'll learn how to write )

well d'uh

There's one thing ReX said and I surely DID agree with: you can't judge someone on his or her age. It is a common misconception, mostly made by people who are around the age of 33.

As one of my teachers once said: If I had the chance, I would kill all 12 and 13 year olds. Though I do not think she ever will.

Rick, you wound me with your heartless words. I never judge anyone by their age, just by their opinions/arguments.

Hitler was not elected, he was appointed by Hindenberg.
Bush was appointed by judges of his own party. What's your point?
If you state that Bush was elected and a lot of people voted for him, same can be said for hitler. But I disgress...luckily I have an excuse, BillW too feels the strong parallels.
Hitler starts a little fire. The northswood documents prove that the USA knew of the attack on pearl harbor. 9/11 is touchy, I'll let you all discuss this on another thread.

I agree that after the first few pages of this thread, it would have been wisest to stop reading. The important stuff has been said and not repeating it degrades the content of the discussion. It would therefor be best to cease all of this. Don't worry. I agree with all of you on the vital issues, you have cured any ignorance you felt compelled to fight. No need to continue for my sake. Please.

Not caring about morality and still feeling the urge to condemn brings you down to my level.

Which ought to sum it up. I have no doubt, however, that Rex, relishing the attention he's getting, will attempt to string the discussion along
I resent that.

I do think this says something about your views on youth.

Anyway, I'm out for now. It's getting late here.

Interesting point I hadn't noted before. And, Hindenberg appointed Hitler after some backroom arm twisting and finagling. Setanta would be good here for some insight.

There was also a great deal of backroom arm twisting and finagling for the Bush camp in Florida.

Wow, the parallels They just keep growing!

hehe.
Now now, there's no need for that
btw cavfancier, looking at your sig. I would have thought you were much older, I was wrong here and you are simply wiser.
All in good fun

Anyway, I'm glad you fought my explanations so vigorously. But there's no need to agree to disagree; if you can think of any essential points in which our opinion differs. Please bring them up. I was merely exploring. Don't take any of it personally or think that I believe in it. I don't believe in beliefs. But I digress...