20
   

What produces RUTHLESS DICTATORS?

 
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Aug, 2009 12:28 am
@okie,
okie wrote:

Now there is quite an admission, oe, you now admit the original intent or early days of the party as envisioned by at least some members of the party was a nationalist version of Marxian socialism! You have made quite an admission, and I think you are going to have to really stretch the limit to try to prove Hitler and the party did exactly the opposite.


Now finally we are at the DAP, what I noted some weeks ago already.
So do you believe, okie, that Hitler was member nr. 5 of the DAP?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Aug, 2009 12:31 am
@okie,
okie wrote:

Quote:
Add to that that you have ignored the fact that, as Hitler became more and more powerful within the party, the party elite openly derided the party program*.
That doesn't tell me anything. Derided what and how much of it, I doubt they threw the entire thing out and made an about face.


I'm sure that this doesn't tell you anything - you didn't read anything which was posted here about that.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Aug, 2009 12:34 am
@okie,
okie wrote:

I think the explanation is easy, the Reichstag incident was planned and executed as a means to seize power from those that stood in their way. Such a ploy is common for leftists to do, read Alinsky's rules for radicals, and it is eery how some of the same crap is advocated years later in different places. They will use it against the opposition, whether to the left or to the right.

Quote:


Sometimes, you're really funny.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Aug, 2009 12:38 am
@okie,
okie wrote:

Again, the argument that Hitler battled Marxism, sure I agree, but this is far from proving he is on the right side of the spectrum. One of the primary reasons he opposed Marxists I believe is because Hitler believed in nationalism, not an international practice of Marx, and he also opposed Jews because he thought they represented the evils of capitalists, etc.


Above, you referred to the DAP.

Now it could be a small chance that you get educated about the Thule Society and it's influence on the NSDAP and Hitler as well. Or that of the Deutschvölkischer Schutz und Trutzbund (German Nationalist Protection and Defiance Federation). Or ...
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Aug, 2009 09:39 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter, would you agree that to really get to the bottom of this question of what Hitler believed, do you agree that Mein Kampf would be perhaps the ultimate sketch of what the man believed and what motivated him as a person?

What I am in favor of is to clear away all of the obfuscations and muddying of the water in this debate and simplify the question into a simple answer. I think the best way to do that is to go back to the master document written by the man himself.
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Fri 28 Aug, 2009 09:40 am
@okie,
No.

His writings in 'Mein Kampf' are a kind of response to "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion", known to be a falsification at that time, even to Hitler.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Aug, 2009 09:42 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Okay then, we can never have a reasonable discourse if you are going to discount the one master document written by Hitler himself that explained his mindset and beliefs. I think this discussion is pretty much over.
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Aug, 2009 09:44 am
@okie,
Quote:
Okay then, we can never have a reasonable discourse
well okie you got that right.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Fri 28 Aug, 2009 09:45 am
@okie,
okie wrote:
I think this discussion is pretty much over.


Thanks.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Aug, 2009 09:46 am
@okie,
okie wrote:

What I am in favor of is to clear away all of the obfuscations and muddying of the water in this debate and simplify the question into a simple answer. I think the best way to do that is to go back to the master document written by the man himself.


I didn't see this when I answered: I'd thought that the 25-points were the master document for the NSDAP in your opinion?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Aug, 2009 09:48 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

No.

His writings in 'Mein Kampf' are a kind of response to "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion", known to be a falsification at that time, even to Hitler.

So Hitler lied about everything he thought in Mein Kampf? You are instead the interpreter of what Hitler really thought I suppose? This discussion is becoming even more bizarre than I thought possible.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Aug, 2009 09:50 am
@okie,
Conclusion by Walter, the Nazi 25 points mean nothing, and so does Mein Kampf, as the whole thing was a collection of lies, and even Hitler knew it.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Aug, 2009 09:53 am
@okie,
okie wrote:

So Hitler lied about everything he thought in Mein Kampf? You are instead the interpreter of what Hitler really thought I suppose? This discussion is becoming even more bizarre than I thought possible.


Where did I say/write such, you ignorant?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Fri 28 Aug, 2009 09:53 am
@okie,
okie wrote:

Conclusion by Walter, the Nazi 25 points mean nothing, and so does Mein Kampf, as the whole thing was a collection of lies, and even Hitler knew it.


It's no different than your own conclusion, that NONE of the actions Hitler or his party took mean anything, and ONLY his writing shows what he believes. You are engaging in the same sort of blindness and cherry-picking that you accuse others of.

Cycloptichorn
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Aug, 2009 10:02 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Yes, I plead guilty, I do tend to cherry pick the master documents and party platforms as being perhaps the most important.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Aug, 2009 10:11 am
@okie,
okie wrote:

Yes, I plead guilty, I do tend to cherry pick the master documents and party platforms as being perhaps the most important.


Never mind the fact that, once in power, they acted in a completely opposite fashion. Since when are someone's words a more determinative mark of their character than their actions, Okie?

Cycloptichorn
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Aug, 2009 10:14 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:

Yes, I plead guilty, I do tend to cherry pick the master documents and party platforms as being perhaps the most important.


Never mind the fact that, once in power, they acted in a completely opposite fashion.

Cycloptichorn

Uh huh, yes, sure, cyclops, I believe that, like I believe Obama is doing the exact opposite of what he has written and what the party platform said too. As McGentrix said, you actually write some of your posts, that is amazing.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Aug, 2009 10:23 am
@okie,
okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:

Yes, I plead guilty, I do tend to cherry pick the master documents and party platforms as being perhaps the most important.


Never mind the fact that, once in power, they acted in a completely opposite fashion.

Cycloptichorn

Uh huh, yes, sure, cyclops, I believe that, like I believe Obama is doing the exact opposite of what he has written and what the party platform said too. As McGentrix said, you actually write some of your posts, that is amazing.


Um. I mean, that isn't an opinion of mine. Once the Nazis were in power, they undertook a wide variety of actions which directly conflicted their 'party goals.' Because the true goal was power, and nothing else.

It's almost as if you haven't done any actual research into this topic at all, I mean, it's quite bizzare.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  4  
Reply Fri 28 Aug, 2009 10:24 am
@okie,
okie wrote:

Walter, would you agree that to really get to the bottom of this question of what Hitler believed, do you agree that Mein Kampf would be perhaps the ultimate sketch of what the man believed and what motivated him as a person?

What I am in favor of is to clear away all of the obfuscations and muddying of the water in this debate and simplify the question into a simple answer. I think the best way to do that is to go back to the master document written by the man himself.


You are engaging in an exercise of useless pedantry. We can't possibly know what Hitler really thought. However, we do know a great deal about what he actually did, during his ascent to political power and while he exercised it. As others here have noted - at great length - Hitler was, above all, a tyrant bent on the expansion and solitification of his personal power and that of a reformed Germany that never quite lived up to his strange illusions about it.

The fact is that when he had the absolute power to do so, Hitler never took action to "socialize" or take government ownership of the means of production. On the contrary he used, and exploited the favor of the merchant and industrial princes who were themselves the archenemies of German socialists. Up close the facts of his rule indicate mostly the many contradictions of a half-baked, contradictory ideology and the gangster rule of his generally jealous and predatory associates, and not at all any penchant for left wing socialism.

Hitler's rule of Germany was about the expansion of his personal power in support of his illusions of Teutonic mastery and revenge for the wrongs of Versailles. He borrowed the rhetoric of both capitalism and socialism in seeking his aims, but his actions show clearly that his interests and focus lay elsewhere. He was an authoritarian tyrant with little real interest in the doctrines of either economic model.

You persistently refuse to recognize the very real distinction here between authoritarianism vs democracy and the competing econmomic models used by both. It is true that extreme socialism generally involves more centralization of authority than its economic alternatives. However, that is not a sufficient discriminator. The world has seen capitalist tyrannies of the worst sort as well as very democratic socialist systems.

All of this has been patiently and repeatedly pointed out to you by others here. However, you simply ignore them and continue on.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Aug, 2009 10:27 am
@georgeob1,
George, without wading in on this now repetitive argument, do you truly believe that what a person writes of his own thoughts and beliefs and opinions can give us no clue about what the person really thinks?

I would be the first to say that people can write and say all sorts of things to divert attention from their true convictions or to curry favor and good press.

But do you honestly believe Hitler was doing that with Mein Kamf?
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/06/2022 at 01:12:04