cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jan, 2011 04:09 pm
@okie,
How can anyone convince you when you ignore facts and evidence are presented that you choose to ignore?

And how often has that happened? Let me count the ways...

okie
 
  0  
Reply Fri 7 Jan, 2011 04:21 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I feel the same way about the opposition, ci, which includes you. I have in fact posted numerous times all of the leftist beliefs and policies that Hitler and the Nazis had, but they are blithely ignored or passed over.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jan, 2011 04:24 pm
@okie,
No, Okie. People just were set to wondering, "Is Okie really as dumb as a whole sack of hoe handles or maybe just this one five footer?"
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  0  
Reply Fri 7 Jan, 2011 04:27 pm
@okie,
Okie, both you and C.I. constantly remind me of that great american character Babbitt, both of you remain consistent in your efforts to support your dimly-lighted machinations couched in a framework of reasoned ideology. Perhaps selling real-estate was your missed calling.
Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Reply Fri 7 Jan, 2011 04:30 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:

I feel the same way about the opposition, ci, which includes you. I have in fact posted numerous times all of the leftist beliefs and policies that Hitler and the Nazis had, but they are blithely ignored or passed over.


Yeah, but he also had lots of Nationalist and right-wing policies as well. This is because he used whatever policies he had to in order to take and hold power. You blithely ignore or pass over this obvious point over and over again. Which is why people don't take you seriously on this topic.

Once again, you would be well served to go back and look at George's post and think hard about it.

Cycloptichorn
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Fri 7 Jan, 2011 04:31 pm
@dyslexia,
dys, Is that so? And you're a worn out cowboy who's personality goes beyond the pale. Your insults should be backed up with challenges to what I've said, not global insults that can't be backed up. And BTW, you can go to hell!
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jan, 2011 04:36 pm
@dyslexia,
Hey dys, where have you been? Did you have a good holiday and all of that? Incidentally, I did not miss my calling to sell real estate. I am not a salesman, I just don't have the natural knack for it. I am a take or leave it sort of guy. What you see is what you get. If you don't believe the evidence, that is not my problem. It is up to me to know what I believe and why, but as to what somebody else thinks, they cannot be forced to think right.

I do however try to persuade a few people of the right political persuasion, because as a country, we do benefit from other people also doing the right thing and thinking the right way. And I would like to see the country remain as much as possible based upon personal liberty and responsibility, because I think it is only right that we should make most of our own decisions for our own lives, as long as we don't hurt or injure others and their property.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  2  
Reply Fri 7 Jan, 2011 04:41 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:

Come on george, can't you answer simple questions? .

Yes I can. However, I offered you such a question as a precondition of continued dialogue, and you have declined.

You have repeatedly demonstrated your unwillingness to answer such simple and direct questions yourself, and have again, repeated that evasion in this exercise. I don't have the interest or the patience to engage in an endless exercise in ever-changing semantical terms and circular logic.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jan, 2011 04:48 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Yeah, but he also had lots of Nationalist and right-wing policies as well. Cycloptichorn
Your points are important to discuss. First of all, how is nationalism a right wing policy? I realize that is one of the issues used by historians to label Hitler a rightee, but I simply do not buy it, primarily because leftist regimes can also be very nationalistic as well. I simply do not accept the idea that nationalism is exclusively a right wing policy.

Now, I am anxious for you to point out all the right wing policies that Hitler employed. I have asked for folks on this forum for them numerous times, but if you can seriously produce them, you would be one of the first to try it.
Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Reply Fri 7 Jan, 2011 04:55 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Yeah, but he also had lots of Nationalist and right-wing policies as well. Cycloptichorn
Your points are important to discuss. First of all, how is nationalism a right wing policy? I realize that is one of the issues used by historians to label Hitler a rightee, but I simply do not buy it, primarily because leftist regimes can also be very nationalistic as well. I simply do not accept the idea that nationalism is exclusively a right wing policy.

Now, I am anxious for you to point out all the right wing policies that Hitler employed. I have asked for folks on this forum for them numerous times, but if you can seriously produce them, you would be one of the first to try it.


You're simply wrong about that. You just ignore when people do point it out.

Since you asked, I'll post a lengthy piece that I found the other day. The author was unattributed but you ought to be able to judge the arguments on their merit.

Quote:
The politics of Nazism

The political right is popularly associated with the following principles. Of course, it goes without saying that these are generalizations, and not every person on the far right believes in every principle, or disbelieves its opposite. Most people's political beliefs are complex, and cannot be neatly pigeonholed. This is as true of Hitler as anyone. But since the far right is trying peg Hitler as a leftist, it's worth reviewing the tenets popularly associated with the right. These include:

* Individualism over collectivism.
* Racism or racial segregation over racial tolerance.
* Eugenics over freedom of reproduction.
* Merit over equality.
* Competition over cooperation.
* Power politics and militarism over pacifism.
* One-person rule or self-rule over democracy.
* Capitalism over Marxism.
* Realism over idealism.
* Nationalism over internationalism.
* Exclusiveness over inclusiveness.
* Meat-eating over vegetarianism.
* Gun ownership over gun control
* Common sense over theory or science.
* Pragmatism over principle.
* Religion over secularism.

Let's review these spectrums one by one, and see where Hitler stood in his own words. Ultimately, Hitler's views are not monolithically conservative -- on a few issues, his views are complex and difficult to label. But as you will see, the vast majority of them belong on the far right:

Individualism over collectivism.

Many conservatives argue that Hitler was a leftist because he subjugated the individual to the state. However, this characterization is wrong, for several reasons.

The first error is in assuming that this is exclusively a liberal trait. Actually, U.S. conservatives take considerable pride in being patriotic Americans, and they deeply honor those who have sacrificed their lives for their country. The Marine Corps is a classic example: as every Marine knows, all sense of individuality is obliterated in the Marines Corps, and one is subject first, foremost and always to the group.

The second error is forgetting that all human beings subscribe to individualism and collectivism. If you believe that you are personally responsible for taking care of yourself, you are an individualist. If you freely belong and contribute to any group -- say, an employing business, church, club, family, nation, or cause -- then you are a collectivist as well. Neither of these traits makes a person inherently "liberal" or "conservative," and to claim that you are an "evil socialist" because you champion a particular group is not a serious argument.

Political scientists therefore do not label people "liberal" or "conservative" on the basis of their individualism or collectivism. Much more important is how they approach their individualism and collectivism. What groups does a person belong to? How is power distributed in the group? Does it practice one-person rule, minority rule, majority rule, or self-rule? Liberals believe in majority rule. Hitler practiced one-person rule. Thus, there is no comparison.

And on that score, conservatives might feel that they are off the hook, too, because they claim to prefer self-rule to one-person rule. But their actions say otherwise. Many of the institutions that conservatives favor are really quite dictatorial: the military, the church, the patriarchal family, the business firm.

Hitler himself downplayed all groups except for the state, which he raised to supreme significance in his writings. However, he did not identify the state as most people do, as a random collection of people in artificially drawn borders. Instead, he identified the German state as its racially pure stock of German or Aryan blood. In Mein Kampf, Hitler freely and interchangeably used the terms "Aryan race," "German culture" and "folkish state." To him they were synonyms, as the quotes below show. There were citizens inside Germany (like Jews) who were not part of Hitler's state, while there were Germans outside Germany (for example, in Austria) who were. But the main point is that Hitler's political philosophy was not really based on "statism" as we know it today. It was actually based on racism -- again, a subject that hits uncomfortably closer to home for conservatives, not liberals.

As Hitler himself wrote:

"The main plank in the Nationalist Socialist program is to abolish the liberalistic concept of the individual and the Marxist concept of humanity and to substitute for them the folk community, rooted in the soil and bound together by the bond of its common blood." (4)

"The state is a means to an end. Its end lies in the preservation and advancement of a community of physically and psychically homogenous creatures. This preservation itself comprises first of all existence as a race… Thus, the highest purpose of a folkish state is concern for the preservation of those original racial elements which bestow culture and create the beauty and dignity of a higher mankind. We, as Aryans, can conceive of the state only as the living organism of a nationality which… assures the preservation of this nationality…" (5)

"The German Reich as a state must embrace all Germans and has the task, not only of assembling and preserving the most valuable stocks of basic racial elements in this people, but slowly and surely of raising them to a dominant position." (6)

And it was in the service of this racial state that Hitler encourage individuals to sacrifice themselves:

"In [the Aryan], the instinct for self-preservation has reached its noblest form, since he willingly subordinates his own ego to the life of the community and, if the hour demands it, even sacrifices it." (7)

"This state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the ego to the conservation of the community, is really the first premise for every truly human culture." (8)

Racism or racial segregation over racial tolerance.

"All the human culture, all the results of art, science, and technology that we see before us today, are almost exclusively the creative product of the Aryan." (9)

"Aryan races -- often absurdly small numerically -- subject foreign peoples, and then… develop the intellectual and organizational capacities dormant within them." (10)

"If beginning today all further Aryan influence on Japan should stop… Japan's present rise in science and technology might continue for a short time; but even in a few years the well would dry up… the present culture would freeze and sink back into the slumber from which it awakened seven decades ago by the wave of Aryan culture." (11)

"Every racial crossing leads inevitably sooner or later to the decline of the hybrid product…" (12)

"It is the function above all of the Germanic states first and foremost to call a fundamental halt to any further bastardization." (13)

"What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and reproduction of our race and our people, the sustenance of our children and the purity of our blood…" (14)

Eugenics over freedom of reproduction

"The folkish philosophy of life must succeed in bringing about that nobler age in which men no longer are concerned with breeding dogs, horses, and cats, but in elevating man himself…" (15)

"The folkish state must make up for what everyone else today has neglected in this field. It must set race in the center of all life. It must take care to keep it pure… It must see to it that only the healthy beget children; that there is only one disgrace: despite one's own sickness and deficiencies, to bring children into the world, and one highest honor: to renounce doing so. And conversely it must be considered reprehensible: to withhold healthy children from the nation. Here the state… must put the most modern medical means in the service of this knowledge. It must declare unfit for propagation all who are in any way visibly sick or who have inherited a disease and therefore pass it on…" (16)

Merit over equality.

"The best state constitution and state form is that which, with the most unquestioned certainty, raises the best minds in the national community to leading position and leading influence. But as in economic life, the able men cannot be appointed from above, but must struggle through for themselves…" (17)

"It must not be lamented if so many men set out on the road to arrive at the same goal: the most powerful and swiftest will in this way be recognized, and will be the victor." (p. 512.)

Competition over cooperation.

"Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live." (18)

"It must never be forgotten that nothing that is really great in this world has ever been achieved by coalitions, but that it has always been the success of a single victor. Coalition successes bear by the very nature of their origin the germ of future crumbling, in fact of the loss of what has already been achieved. Great, truly world-shaking revolutions of a spiritual nature are not even conceivable and realizable except as the titanic struggles of individual formations, never as enterprises of coalitions." (19)

"The idea of struggle is old as life itself, for life is only preserved because other living things perish through struggle… In this struggle, the stronger, the more able, win, while the less able, the weak, lose. Struggle is the father of all things… It is not by the principles of humanity that man lives or is able to preserve himself in the animal world, but solely by means of the most brutal struggle… If you do not fight for life, then life will never be won." (20)

Power politics and militarism over pacifism.

Allan Bullock, probably the world's greatest Hitler historian, sums up Hitler's political method in one sentence:

"Stripped of their romantic trimmings, all Hitler's ideas can be reduced to a simple claim for power which recognizes only one relationship, that of domination, and only one argument, that of force." (21)

The following quotes by Hitler portray his rather stunning contempt for pacifism:

"If the German people in its historic development had possessed that herd unity [defined here by Hitler as racial solidarity] which other peoples enjoyed, the German Reich today would doubtless be mistress of the globe. World history would have taken a different course, and no one can distinguish whether in this way we would not have obtained what so many blinded pacifists today hope to gain by begging, whining and whimpering: a peace, supported not by the palm branches of tearful, pacifist female mourners, but based on the victorious sword of a master people, putting the world into the service of a higher culture." (22)

"We must clearly recognize the fact that the recovery of the lost territories is not won through solemn appeals to the Lord or through pious hopes in a League of Nations, but only by force of arms." (23)

"In actual fact the pacifistic-humane idea is perfectly all right perhaps when the highest type of man has previously conquered and subjected the world to an extent that makes him the sole ruler of this earth… Therefore, first struggle and then perhaps pacifism." (24)

One-person rule or self-rule over democracy.

"The young [Nazi] movement is in its nature and inner organization anti-parliamentarian; that is, it rejects… a principle of majority rule in which the leader is degraded to the level of mere executant of other people's wills and opinion." (25)

"The [Nazi party] should not become a constable of public opinion, but must dominate it. It must not become a servant of the masses, but their master!" (26)

"By rejecting the authority of the individual and replacing it by the numbers of some momentary mob, the parliamentary principle of majority rule sins against the basic aristocratic principle of Nature…" (27)

"For there is one thing we must never forget… the majority can never replace the man. And no more than a hundred empty heads make one wise man will an heroic decision arise from a hundred cowards." (28)

"There must be no majority decisions, but only responsible persons, and the word 'council' must be restored to its original meaning. Surely every man will have advisers by his side, but the decision will be made by one man." (29)

"When I recognized the Jew as the leader of the Social Democracy, the scales dropped from my eyes." (30)

"The Western democracy of today is the forerunner of Marxism…" (31)

"Only a knowledge of the Jews provides the key with which to comprehend the inner, and consequently real, aims of Social Democracy." (32)

Capitalism over Marxism.

Bullock writes of Hitler's views on Marxism:

"While Hitler's attitude towards liberalism was one of contempt, towards Marxism he showed an implacable hostility… Ignoring the profound differences between Communism and Social Democracy in practice and the bitter hostility between the rival working class parties, he saw in their common ideology the embodiment of all that he detested -- mass democracy and a leveling egalitarianism as opposed to the authoritarian state and the rule of an elite; equality and friendship among peoples as opposed to racial inequality and the domination of the strong; class solidarity versus national unity; internationalism versus nationalism." (33)

As Hitler himself would write:

"The German state is gravely attacked by Marxism." (34)

"In the years 1913 and 1914, I… expressed the conviction that the question of the future of the German nation was the question of destroying Marxism." (35)

"In the economic sphere Communism is analogous to democracy in the political sphere." (36)

"The Marxists will march with democracy until they succeed in indirectly obtaining for their criminal aims the support of even the national intellectual world, destined by them for extinction." (37)

"Marxism itself systematically plans to hand the world over to the Jews." (38)

"The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight." (39)

Realism over idealism.

Hitler was hardly an "idealist" in the sense that political scientists use the term. The standard definition of an idealist is someone who believes that cooperation and peaceful coexistence can occur among peoples. A realist, however, is someone who sees the world as an unstable and dangerous place, and prepares for war, if not to deter it, then to survive it. It goes without saying that Hitler was one of the greatest realists of all time. Nonetheless, Hitler had his own twisted utopia, which he described:

"We are not simple enough, either, to believe that it could ever be possible to bring about a perfect era. But this relieves no one of the obligation to combat recognized errors, to overcome weaknesses, and strive for the ideal. Harsh reality of its own accord will create only too many limitations. For that very reason, however, man must try to serve the ultimate goal, and failures must not deter him, any more than he can abandon a system of justice merely because mistakes creep into it…" (40)

"The same boy who feels like throwing up when he hears the tirades of a pacifist 'idealist' is ready to give up his life for the ideal of his nationality." (41)

Nationalism over internationalism.

"The nationalization of our masses will succeed only when… their international poisoners are exterminated." (42)

"The severest obstacle to the present-day worker's approach to the national community lies not in the defense of his class interests, but in his international leadership and attitude which are hostile to the people and the fatherland." (43)

"Thus, the reservoir from which the young [Nazi] movement must gather its supporters will primarily be the masses of our workers. Its work will be to tear these away from the international delusion… and lead them to the national community…" (44)

Exclusiveness over inclusiveness.

"Thus men without exception wander about in the garden of Nature; they imagine that they know practically everything and yet with few exceptions pass blindly by one of the most patent principles of Nature: the inner segregation of the species of all living beings on earth." (45)

"The greatness of every mighty organization embodying an idea in this world lies in the religious fanaticism and intolerance with which, fanatically convinced of its own right, it intolerantly imposes its will against all others." (46)

Meat-eating over vegetarianism.

It may seem ridiculous to include this issue in a review of Hitler's politics, but, believe it or not, conservatives on the Internet frequently equate Hitler's vegetarianism with the vegetarianism practised by liberals concerned about the environment and the ethical treatment of animals.

Hitler's vegetarianism had nothing to do with his political beliefs. He became a vegetarian shortly after the death of his girlfriend and half-niece, Geli Raubal. Their relationship was a stormy one, and it ended in her apparent suicide. There were rumors that Hitler had arranged her murder, but Hitler would remain deeply distraught over her loss for the rest of his life. As one historian writes:

"Curiously, shortly after her death, Hitler looked with disdain on a piece of ham being served during breakfast and refused to eat it, saying it was like eating a corpse. From that moment on, he refused to eat meat." (47)

Hitler's vegetarianism, then, was no more than a phobia, triggered by an association with his niece's death.

Gun ownership over gun control

Perhaps one of the pro-gun lobby's favorite arguments is that if German citizens had had the right to keep and bear arms, Hitler would have never been able to tyrannize the country. And to this effect, pro-gun advocates often quote the following:

"1935 will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future." - Adolf Hitler

However, this quote is almost certainly a fraud. There is no reputable record of him ever making it: neither at the Nuremberg rallies, nor in any of his weekly radio addresses. Furthermore, there was no reason for him to even make such a statement; for Germany already had strict gun control as a term of surrender in the Treaty of Versailles. The Allies had wanted to make Germany as impotent as possible, and one of the ways they did that was to disarm its citizenry. Only a handful of local authorities were allowed arms at all, and the few German citizens who did possess weapons were already subject to full gun registration. Seen in this light, the above quote makes no sense whatsoever.

The Firearms Policy Journal (January 1997) writes:

"The Nazi Party did not ride to power confiscating guns. They rode to power on the inability of the Weimar Republic to confiscate their guns. They did not consolidate their power confiscating guns either. There is no historical evidence that Nazis ever went door to door in Germany confiscating guns. The Germans had a fetish about paperwork and documented everything. These searches and confiscations would have been carefully recorded. If the documents are there, let them be presented as evidence."

On April 12, 1928, five years before Hitler seized power, Germany passed the Law on Firearms and Ammunition. This law substantially tightened restrictions on gun ownership in an effort to curb street violence between Nazis and Communists. The law was ineffectual and poorly enforced. It was not until March 18, 1938 -- five years after Hitler came to power -- that the Nazis passed the German Weapons Law, their first known change in the firearm code. And this law actually relaxed restrictions on citizen firearms.

Common sense over theory or science.

Hitler was notorious for his anti-intellectualism:

"The youthful brain should in general not be burdened with things ninety-five percent of which it cannot use and hence forgets again… In many cases, the material to be learned in the various subjects is so swollen that only a fraction of it remains in the head of the individual pupil, and only a fraction of this abundance can find application, while on the other hand it is not adequate for the man working and earning his living in a definite field." (48)

"Knowledge above the average can be crammed into the average man, but it remains dead, and in the last analysis sterile knowledge. The result is a man who may be a living dictionary but nevertheless falls down miserably in all special situations and decisive moments in life." (49)

"The folkish state must not adjust its entire educational work primarily to the inoculation of mere knowledge, but to the breeding of absolutely healthy bodies. The training of mental abilities is only secondary. And here again, first place must be taken by the development of character, especially the promotion of will-power and determination, combined with the training of joy in responsibility, and only in last place comes scientific schooling." (50)

"A people of scholars, if they are physically degenerate, weak-willed and cowardly pacifists, will not storm the heavens, indeed, they will not be able to safeguard their existence on this earth." (51)

Pragmatism over principle.

"The question of the movement's inner organization is one of expediency and not of principle." (52)

Religion over secularism.

Hitler's views on religion were complex. Although ostensibly an atheist, he considered himself a cultural Catholic, and frequently evoked God, the Creator and Providence in his writings. Throughout his life he would remain an envious admirer of the Christian Church and its power over the masses. Here is but one example:

"We can learn by the example of the Catholic Church. Though its doctrinal edifice… comes into collision with exact science and research, it is none the less unwilling to sacrifice so much as one little syllable of its dogmas. It has recognized quite correctly that its power of resistance does not lie in its lesser or greater adaptation to the scientific findings of the moment, which in reality are always fluctuating, but rather in rigidly holding to dogmas once established, for it is only such dogmas which lend to the whole body the character of faith. And so it stands today more firmly than ever." (53)

Hitler also saw a useful purpose for the Church:

"The great masses of people do not consist of philosophers; precisely for the masses, [religious] faith is often the sole foundation of a moral attitude… For the political man, the value of a religion must be estimated less by its deficiencies than by the virtue of a visibly better substitute. As long as this appears to be lacking, what is present can be demolished only by fools or criminals." (54)

Hitler thus advocated freedom of religious belief. Although he would later press churches into the service of Nazism, often at the point of a gun, Hitler did not attempt to impose a state religion or mandate the basic philosophical content of German religions. As long as they did not interfere with his program, he allowed them to continue fuctioning. And this policy was foreshadowed in his writings:

"For the political leader the religious doctrines and institutions of his people must always remain inviolable; or else he has no right to be in politics…" (55)

"Political parties have nothing to do with religious problems, as long as these are not alien to the nation, undermining the morals and ethics of the race; just as religion cannot be amalgamated with the scheming of political parties." (56)

"Worst of all, however, is the devastation wrought by the misuse of religious conviction for political ends." (57)

"Therefore, let every man be active, each in his own denomination if you please, and let every man take it as his first and most sacred duty to oppose anyone who in his activity by word or deed steps outside the confines of his religious community and tries to butt into the other." (58)

Hitler was raised a Catholic, even going to school for two years at the monastery at Lambauch, Austria. As late as 24 he still called himself a Catholic, but somewhere along the way he became an atheist. It is highly doubtful that this was an intellectual decision, as a reading of his disordered thoughts in Mein Kampf will attest. The decision was most likely a pragmatic one, based on power and personal ambition. Bullock reveals an interesting anecdote showing how these considerations worked on the young Hitler. After five years of eking out a miserable existence in Vienna and four years of war, Hitler walked into his first German Worker's Party meeting:

"'Under the dim light shed by a grimy gas-lamp I could see four people sitting around a table…' As Hitler frankly acknowledges, this very obscurity was an attraction. It was only in a party which, like himself, was beginning at the bottom that he had any prospect of playing a leading part and imposing his ideas. In the established parties there was no room for him, he would be a nobody." (59)

Hitler probably realized that a frustrated artist and pipe-dreamer like himself would have no chance of achieving power in the world-wide, 2000-year old Christian Church. It was most likely for this reason that he rejected Christianity and pursued a political life instead. Yet, curiously enough, he never renounced his membership in the Catholic Church, and the Church never excommunicated him. Nor did the Church place his Mein Kampf on the Index of Prohibited Books, in spite of its knowledge of his atrocities. Later the Church would come under intense criticism for its friendly and cooperative relationship with Hitler. A brief review of this history is instructive.

In 1933, the Catholic Center Party cast its large and decisive vote in favor of Hitler's Enabling Bill. This bill essentially gave Chancellor Hitler the sweeping dictatorial powers he was seeking. Historian Guenter Lewy describes a meeting between Hitler and the German Catholic authorities shortly afterwards:

"On 26 April 1933 Hitler had a conversation with Bishop Berning and Monsignor Steinmann [the Catholic leadership in Germany]. The subject was the common fight against liberalism, Socialism and Bolshevism, discussed in the friendliest terms. In the course of the conversation Hitler said that he was only doing to the Jews what the church had done to them over the past fifteen hundred years. The prelates did not contradict him." (60)

As anyone familiar with Christian history knows, the Church has always been a primary source of anti-Semitism. Hitler's anti-Semitism therefore found a receptive audience among Catholic authorities. The Church also had an intense fear and hatred of Russian communism, and Hitler's attack on Russia was the best that could have happened. The Jesuit Michael Serafin wrote: "It cannot be denied that [Pope] Pius XII's closest advisors for some time regarded Hitler's armoured divisions as the right hand of God." (61) As Pope Pius himself would say after Germany conquered Poland: "Let us end this war between brothers and unite our forces against the common enemy of atheism" -- Russia. (62)

Once Hitler assumed power, he signed a Concordat, or agreement, with the Catholic Church. Eugenio Pacelli (the man who would eventually become Pope Pius XII) was the Vatican diplomat who drew up the Concordat, and he considered it a triumph. In return for promises which Hitler increasingly broke, the Church dissolved all Catholic organizations in Germany, including the Catholic Center Party. Bishops were to take an oath of loyalty to the Nazi regime. Clergy were to see to the pastoral care of Germany's armed forces (regardless of what those armed forces did). (63)

The Concordat eliminated all Catholic resistance to Hitler; after this, the German bishops gave Hitler their full and unqualified support. A bishops' conference at Fulda, 1933, resulted in agreement with Hitler's case for extending Lebensraum, or German territory. (64) Bishop Bornewasser told a congregation of Catholic young people at Trier: "With our heads high and with firm steps we have entered the new Reich and are ready to serve it body and soul." (65) Vicar-General Steinman greeted each Berlin mass with the shout, "Heil Hitler!" (66)

Hitler, on the other hand, kept up his attack on the Church. Nazi bands stormed into the few remaining Catholic institutions, beat up Catholic youths and arrested Catholic officials. The Vatican was dismayed, but it did not protest. (67) In some instances, it was hard to tell if the Church supported its own persecution. Hitler muzzled the independent Catholic press (about 400 daily papers in 1933) and subordinated it to Goebbels' Ministry of Propaganda and Enlightenment. Yet soon the Catholic Press was doing more than what the Nazis required of it -- for example, coordinating their Nazi propaganda to prepare the people for the 1940 offensive against the West. (68) Throughout the war, the Catholic press would remain one of the Third Reich's best disseminators of propaganda.

Pacelli became the new Pope Pius XII in 1939, and he immediately improved relations with Hitler. He broke protocol by personally signing a letter in German to Hitler expressing warm hopes of friendly relations. Shortly afterwards, the Church celebrated Hitler's birthday by ringing bells, flying swastika flags from church towers and holding thanksgiving services for the Fuhrer. (69) Ringing church bells to celebrate and affirm the bishops' allegiance to the Reich would become quite common throughout the war; after the German army conquered France, the church bells rang for an entire week, and swastikas flew over the churches for ten days.

But perhaps the greatest failure of Pope Pius XII was his silence over the Holocaust, even though he knew it was in progress. Although there are many heroic stories of Catholics helping Jews survive the Holocaust, they do not include Pope Pius, the Holy See, or the German Catholic authorities. When a reporter asked Pius why he did not protest the liquidation of the Jews, the Pope answered, "Dear friend, do not forget that millions of Catholics are serving in the German armies. Am I to involve them in a conflict of conscience?" (70) As perhaps the world's greatest moral leader, he was charged with precisely that responsibility.

The history of Hitler and the Church reveals a relationship built on mutual distrust and philosophical rejection, but also shared goals, benefits, admiration, envy, friendliness, and ultimate alliance.


Cycloptichorn
okie
 
  2  
Reply Fri 7 Jan, 2011 04:56 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:
okie wrote:
Come on george, can't you answer simple questions? .

Yes I can. However, I offered you such a question as a precondition of continued dialogue, and you have declined.
I apologize if I missed an obvious question as a precondition that I failed to answer. Try me again. I think I was asking you more questions to try to clarify what the argument is actually about. For example, I was trying to get you to tell us what your yardstick is for left vs right, such as is the European model of Democratic socialism, is that left, right, middle, what is it?

Quote:
You have repeatedly demonstrated your unwillingness to answer such simple and direct questions yourself, and have again, repeated that evasion in this exercise. I don't have the interest or the patience to engage in an endless exercise in ever-changing semantical terms and circular logic.
If I have repeatedly refused to answer questions, I was not purposely avoiding answering, george. It might have been a case of trying to bring the discussion back to the real point as I saw it, I don't know now which posts you might be referring to.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jan, 2011 04:58 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:

First of all, how is nationalism a right wing policy? I realize that is one of the issues used by historians to label Hitler a rightee, but I simply do not buy it, primarily because leftist regimes can also be very nationalistic as well. I simply do not accept the idea that nationalism is exclusively a right wing policy


Odd then that you don't also respond to the observable fact that not all socialistic systems are anti democratic or authoritarian.

Neither your use of key terms nor your logic are self-consistent. That makes rational dialogue impossible.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jan, 2011 05:07 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cyclops, I saw your article and I will give you credit, it looks interesting, but it doesn't take long to see that it supports my position instead of yours. However, I will need to read it more carefully. First of all, where did you get it? One point popped out already, the Nazis said Common Good over Individual Good, which is clearly leftist, and it shoots down your very first point that your list shows, that supposedly Hitler and the Nazis were pro - Individualism over collectivism (or Common Good). No way, cyclops, no way.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jan, 2011 05:18 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:
okie wrote:
First of all, how is nationalism a right wing policy? I realize that is one of the issues used by historians to label Hitler a rightee, but I simply do not buy it, primarily because leftist regimes can also be very nationalistic as well. I simply do not accept the idea that nationalism is exclusively a right wing policy
Odd then that you don't also respond to the observable fact that not all socialistic systems are anti democratic or authoritarian.
Neither your use of key terms nor your logic are self-consistent. That makes rational dialogue impossible.
I think I have always recognized the existence of democratic socialism, george. We've talked about that before. I do not at all accept the fact that I have thought that all socialistic systems were anti-democratic or authoritarian. If you can dredge up an old quote, be my guest, but I doubt it because I don't believe it, and I do not tend to post what I don't believe.

I do believe and freely argue however that as socialism becomes more extreme, or as it becomes ultra socialist, then a stronger state tends to evolve in order for that system to be enforced and governed. Ultimately, the ultra socialist form is communism, is it not, and aren't almost all of those governments totalitarian in nature? I think it is a matter of degree. To be accurate, I think we would both have to recognize the existence of a degree of socialism in this country, Social Security and Medicare being prime examples.

I think we are having rational dialogue here, perhaps you do not. Maybe some of what you consider irrational is merely a lack of understanding what I believe. Perhaps you have some misconceptions?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jan, 2011 05:24 pm
@okie,
okie, That was worth a good big laugh; appreciate that you provided the best laugh of the day.

You wrote:
Quote:
If you can dredge up an old quote, be my guest, but I doubt it because I don't believe it, and I do not tend to post what I don't believe.


I've lost count of how often this has been done in the past with no change in your SOP.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Reply Fri 7 Jan, 2011 06:33 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:

Cyclops, I saw your article and I will give you credit, it looks interesting, but it doesn't take long to see that it supports my position instead of yours. However, I will need to read it more carefully. First of all, where did you get it? One point popped out already, the Nazis said Common Good over Individual Good, which is clearly leftist, and it shoots down your very first point that your list shows, that supposedly Hitler and the Nazis were pro - Individualism over collectivism (or Common Good). No way, cyclops, no way.


Bullshit. The Nazis weren't pro-common good OR pro-Individualism. They were pro-Nazi power. And they would say or do anything they had to in order to get and keep that power.

It's sad that you believe their propaganda. Sad.

Cycloptichorn
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Fri 7 Jan, 2011 06:36 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
You must remember that okie believes in Hitler's 25 points of Nazism regardless of what he actually did during his control of Germany.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jan, 2011 09:22 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
okie wrote:
Cyclops, I saw your article and I will give you credit, it looks interesting, but it doesn't take long to see that it supports my position instead of yours. However, I will need to read it more carefully. First of all, where did you get it? One point popped out already, the Nazis said Common Good over Individual Good, which is clearly leftist, and it shoots down your very first point that your list shows, that supposedly Hitler and the Nazis were pro - Individualism over collectivism (or Common Good). No way, cyclops, no way.
Bullshit. The Nazis weren't pro-common good OR pro-Individualism. They were pro-Nazi power. And they would say or do anything they had to in order to get and keep that power.

It's sad that you believe their propaganda. Sad.
Cycloptichorn
What is sad is your failure to see the truth of history.
Okay, let us look at the argument where it seems to be now. You claim the Nazi 25 points mean nothing, which included the idea of "COMMON GOOD OVER INDIVIDUAL GOOD." You claim instead that what Hitler did was apparently the opposite of all of those leftist goals in the Nazi 25 points. Yet you also ignore what Hitler did that was clearly leftist. If you could actually provide evidence that he governed conservatively, you would have a point, but you don't, you don't even come close, because you can't, because he didn't.

Here is what Hitler did, cyclops. I have made some of it big and red so that hopefully you can read it.

"Hitler was named "Man of the Year" in 1938 by Time Magazine. They noted Hitler's anti-capitalistic economic policies:
"Most cruel joke of all, however, has been played by Hitler & Co. on those German capitalists and small businessmen who once backed National Socialism as a means of saving Germany's bourgeois economic structure from radicalism. The Nazi credo that the individual belongs to the state also applies to business. Some businesses have been confiscated outright, on other what amounts to a capital tax has been levied. Profits have been strictly controlled. Some idea of the increasing Governmental control and interference in business could be deduced from the fact that 80% of all building and 50% of all industrial orders in Germany originated last year with the Government. Hard-pressed for food- stuffs as well as funds, the Nazi regime has taken over large estates and in many instances collectivized agriculture, a procedure fundamentally similar to Russian Communism."

(Source: Time Magazine; Jaunuary 2, 1939.)"


http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id10.html
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Fri 7 Jan, 2011 09:49 pm
@okie,
You call that individual freedoms? Wow, you have no common sense or logic.

Quote:
They noted Hitler's anti-capitalistic economic policies:
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jan, 2011 10:24 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
The Nazis weren't pro-common good OR pro-Individualism. They were pro-Nazi power. And they would say or do anything they had to in order to get and keep that power.
This point of yours needs to be answered. Do you think Stalin, Pol Pot, or Castro, just 3 examples, do you think they were about much besides their power either? Of course leftists are about power, but obviously they use class warfare and the promise of some utopian view of "social justice" to con the people into supporting them. Perhaps they even believe their own misguided visions, I am not sure.

The primary point I want to make here though is that for you to suggest that Hitler's lust for power negated the idea that he could be a leftist is pure nonsense. Do you really think all leftists by definition have the peoples best interest in mind over their own? If you do, then I can understand why you might have more sympathy toward the left than you should, but I would suggest you are very misguided in your thinking.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 08/16/2022 at 11:02:51