- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Hitler's Speeches With Subtitles... An Incredible Leader and Horrible Man.
Posted on 1/12/14 at 9:53 am to Iona Fan Man
Posted on 1/12/14 at 9:53 am to Iona Fan Man
quote:
Was Hitler's Germany better than what he inherited?
I will leave it to others to answer this question. I don't want to "hog up" the thread.
0
Posted on 1/12/14 at 12:01 pm to sugar71
quote:
No .Maybe you should do some reading . Hitler & the Nazis won an overwhelming majority in the last 2 Federal elections( Nearly 40% of the vote despite not having a'run-off to dwindle down the 6 or more candidates)
Due to no 'run-offs' among the top 2 candidates he & the Nazis never reached 50% of the vote ,but they won an increasing overwhelming majority at the ballots.
This is simply false. Hitler's highest showing was around 40% of the vote, and this was *after* a campaign of terror against his rivals. It was also after the Reichstag fire, when he was given a blank check to forbid his two biggest opponents, political party wise, from even running in the election.
The final federal election in Hitler's Germany was a sham. His greatest showing in any legitimate election was a finishing a distant second to Hindenburg.
Posted on 1/12/14 at 12:05 pm to Volvagia
quote:
So if someone took Greece from its shitty state today to a power that was able to take on all of Europe, Russia, and America combined within 10 or so years, that wouldn't be an act of leadership of note?
He fricked up towards the end.
(Thankfully)
That doesn't diminish what he did.
There is no valid comparison between modern Greece and 20th century Germany. Germany was a European power before Hitler and became one again after the country was rebuilt.
Posted on 1/12/14 at 2:54 pm to Champagne
quote:
You are "decidedly" clueless, ignorant and uninformed.
National SOCIALISM was a leftist/collectivist ideology. Not only was the word "socialist" in the name of the party, but, the very speeches featured in the OP make it clear that Hitler's message was socialist/collectivist/leftist.
Was Hitler's Nazi Party to the Right of Marxist Leninism? Sure, I'll give you that. But it was still Leftist.
So, if Hitler was a Lefty, WHO WERE THE RIGHT WING in Germany of those days? The Monarchists and those who wanted to restore the monarchy and the German/Prussian nobility to positions of political power were the Right Wing.
It is true that, in order to consolidate political power by encouraging the support of German industry and banking, Hitler tempered the extreme left of his party, but, this was later on, and, this political accommodation did not fundamentally alter the basic nature of the ideology, which was Leftist.
It never fails to amaze me how some dingbats with no real knowledge of which they speak have the audacity to call anyone else clueless or ignorant.
No matter what you personally think, and I have no doubt you'll never change your cognitive dissonance laced mind, the Nazi's were a far-right organization. Fascist racist nationalism is about as far right as you can get. Just because you yourself don't know the real history behind these terms and their usage does not change the facts. 'Socialist' does not automatically equate to leftist, no matter how much you protest to the contrary. It all comes down to the application.
The use of the name “National Socialism” arose out of earlier attempts by German right-wing figures to create a nationalist redefinition of “socialism”, as a reactionary alternative to both internationalist Marxist socialism and free market capitalism, both of which they saw as being too closely aligned with Jewishness.
Posted on 1/12/14 at 3:30 pm to Sayre
quote:
the Nazi's were a far-right organization. Fascist racist nationalism is about as far right as you can get.
Oh yes, you are right. Since right wing = individual freedom and lack of totalitarian govt then Nazism is certainly a good example of the far right. Yes, we get it.
Posted on 1/12/14 at 5:43 pm to Zach
quote:
Oh yes, you are right. Since right wing = individual freedom and lack of totalitarian govt then Nazism is certainly a good example of the far right. Yes, we get it.
The Nazi's were far-right, which means much more than your simplistic definition of what being to the right states.
Contrary to the far-left liberal or the usual catch-all boogeymen 'communist', they were FOR social inequality and social hierarchy They were opposed to almost every form of liberalism. They persecuted gays and anyone else they considered degenerate. They were contemptuous of modern art forms. Hitler spoke in Mein Kampf about how societies that let the insane and crippled live were inherently weak, and they pursued a policy of extermination on those types of people well before the war. They rejected fundamental human equality. They were anti-immigration and anti-integration. They were the definition of authoritarian hyper-nationalist fascist, which is a term used for the far-right, not far-left.
Posted on 1/13/14 at 2:17 am to FT
I know you said don't bring up Bush but there's a point to it...
Prior to 9/11 I asked these same questions. How did Hitler do it? How did Japanese leaders do it? Italian? How do you work up the populace in such a frenzy that they forego common sense and decency and replace with jingoistic and blind following. It was inconceivable to me.
Then I saw post 9/11 and I remember Powell's UN speech and mentioning to my friend that I finally understand blind jingoistic enthusiasm. The press, with the NY Times, a willing participant. Politicians, entertainers, media afraid to stand up and say plans for war, esp in Iraq, is wrong. Selling their souls so as to not be Dixie-chicked.
Now I realize the two wars are vastly different but in a way, the actions of the players in leading their countries into war, in gaining support from the people are very much alike. For the first time in my life I was ashamed of the US and for the first time I saw first hand and understood how completely gullible the general public is.
Prior to 9/11 I asked these same questions. How did Hitler do it? How did Japanese leaders do it? Italian? How do you work up the populace in such a frenzy that they forego common sense and decency and replace with jingoistic and blind following. It was inconceivable to me.
Then I saw post 9/11 and I remember Powell's UN speech and mentioning to my friend that I finally understand blind jingoistic enthusiasm. The press, with the NY Times, a willing participant. Politicians, entertainers, media afraid to stand up and say plans for war, esp in Iraq, is wrong. Selling their souls so as to not be Dixie-chicked.
Now I realize the two wars are vastly different but in a way, the actions of the players in leading their countries into war, in gaining support from the people are very much alike. For the first time in my life I was ashamed of the US and for the first time I saw first hand and understood how completely gullible the general public is.
Posted on 1/13/14 at 4:34 am to gthog61
quote:
horse shite
They have the money to spend on socialism because we have protected their asses for 70 years.
No one will ever discuss the 800 pound canary in the room but this is the only way that Europe and Asia are both in any sort of position to have any sort of social safety net. I have made this argument so long with so many people who will simply refuse to consider it that I have reached the point where I will debate European issues with them on their terms. You are dead on accurate though...neither Europe or Asia or the rest of the world for that would have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of if it weren't for US Military spending.....
Posted on 1/13/14 at 4:40 am to Champagne
quote:
What is well documented is your ignorance.
I watched Hitler's youtube speeches and I read the words coming directly from his mouth. His message is one of pure socialism/collectivism/leftism. That's documented in the youtube speeches from the OP.
I too have watched many, many, many hours of Hitler speeches and I have spent many, many, many hours reading and listening to scholars hold forth on this subject and you are simply wrong. Hitler rose to power by being opposed to socialsim. He did, in fact, begin his rise to power as a infiltrator into socialist organizations in Munchen and was financed by wealthy German industrialists who feared a soviet style revolution taking place in Germany....not an unfound fear at the time.
Germans, especially those of Bavaria and Franconia, were very much influenced by Rhetoric from the Left after the first world war. Hitler convinced a group of wealthy political leaders in Munchen that he could infiltrate these groups, identify the leaders and sway the rhetoric to a more nationalistic, pro-German, anti communist one, which he most assuredly proved capable of doing.
Posted on 1/13/14 at 4:43 am to Volvagia
quote:
Germany:
~90% European
France:
~85% European
The citizenry of Germany and France are 100% European my friend...nice try though...
Posted on 1/13/14 at 4:53 am to Iona Fan Man
quote:
Was Hitler's Germany better than what he inherited?
No...not at any time during his reign was Germany measurably better off than it was when he rose to power. the economy was much more stable but forced labor and copious of amounts of public spending with no intention of ever paying the bill will do that for an economy. But the people of Germany were in fact much worse off during the rise of the third reich than they were before and after...especially after. If you talk to Germans who were alive at the time (not many left) or listen to their stories from the time they were fricking horrified of what was going to happen next. They wanted to believe in the Reich and Hitler but they saw neighbors and co-workers dissapeearing and being imprisoned for the most curious of reasons and soon their sons were being sent off to war. The Post WW2 Germany was in much worse shape and was much more defeated than the post WW1 Germany was.....The one thing that Hitler did for Germany, and it was completley unintentional, was clear the path for the implementation of the Marshall plan which has lead to Germany nearly achieving its goals of leading all of Europe. This time it is being done economically instead of militarily as Germans, always a quick study, have seen how the US is strong because of her trading prowess backed up by a strong military. Germany has taken over Europe for all intents and purposes and some Germans, now that they have Portugal and Ireland and Austria and Greece are like car chasing dogs....they don't know what to do with them and dont even know if they really want them...
Posted on 1/13/14 at 7:44 am to Sayre
quote:
It never fails to amaze me how some dingbats with no real knowledge of which they speak have the audacity to call anyone else clueless or ignorant.
You are about as clueless and ignorant as it is possible for a human being to be. What's worse is that you are arrogant in your ignorance.
Your own post contradicts your premise that the Nazis were "far right" because you yourself state that National Socialism was a reaction to the far right.
Now, once again, for stupid people like you, I'm going to repeat my two main points.
First, listen to the speeches of the leader of the party. His message is leftist/collectivist/socialist. The policies were socialist.
Second, the political Right in Germany at the time were those who wanted to restore the monarchy and the Prussian Junkers to their former positions of political power.
You've been brainwashed by academia into believing that the odious aspects of Nazism are the traits of a fascist right wing government. Not so. The Bolsheviks also instituted a heirarchy, and they also suppressed some art and freedom of speech.
The Bolsheviks were also nationalistic. The Bolsheviks also believed, as did the Nazis, in the total subjugation of the Individual to the State.
The NSDAP began as a leftist/socialist/collectivist movement. In order to consolidate political power and garner support from German industry and other institutions, the NSDAP positioned itself as the anti-dote to the internationalist socialists. This political shift, however, did not fundamentally change the party from a leftist organization to a fascist, far-right organization -- it remained more to the leftist side.
Hitler himself repeatedly stated that his party was not a right wing party. He also stated that it was not left wing. As such, I find it very puzzling why our current Lefty LibIdiots here in the USA have spent the last 60 years trying to brainwash everybody into believing the notion that Hitler's party was an extreme right wing party, when, by it's very name, it was not.
I strongly suspect that this effort from academia to re-define Hitler's socialist German worker's party as a "far right" organization is rooted in the effort to wage political warfare against the Conservative movement in the USA. What I mean is, in order to associate Republicans/Conservatives with Hitler, Hitler's party had to be re-defined as right wing. And so, after about 60 years of re-defining throughout media and academia, we have the majority of Americans believing something that is wrong.
Hitler was a leftist/socialist. He was not a Bolshevik/internationalist. Being a collectivist/socialist doesn't mean that one must be a Bolshevik/internationalist.
This post was edited on 1/13/14 at 8:05 am
Posted on 1/13/14 at 7:56 am to EmperorGout
quote:
He has been completely rejected by his own people, his cult of personality kept alive by fringe morons who are almost entirely from places other than Germany.
When I lived in West Germany in the early 80s, I had a landlord who was generally a cool guy except if he ever got to talking about WWII. He once said, "Hitler made many mistakes during the War, but what he did to the Jews was correct."
Dayum! What do you say to that? You have to wonder if you're standing too close and the resulting lightning bolt from the heavens is going to fry you as collateral damage.Posted on 1/13/14 at 8:21 am to Sayre
quote:
They were the definition of authoritarian hyper-nationalist
All of the odious traits of Hitler's Germany that you listed in this post were shared by Bolshevik/Soviet Russia.
Hitler's Germany and Soviet Russia were BOTH totalitarian dictatorships. These two governments had much in common. Why? Because both were politically aligned with the Left Wing.
Your view that two governments, Hitler's and Stalin's, that shared so many totalitarian traits, were on opposite ends of the political spectrum, is incoherent and illogical.
What's logical is to conclude that two governments that are almost exactly alike are both on the same end of the political spectrum.
Posted on 1/13/14 at 8:33 am to FT
He was probably one of the greatest public speakers of all time, unfortunately.
Posted on 1/13/14 at 9:59 am to Sayre
quote:
They persecuted gays and anyone else they considered degenerate. They were contemptuous of modern art forms. Hitler spoke in Mein Kampf about how societies that let the insane and crippled live were inherently weak, and they pursued a policy of extermination on those types of people
So, the right is characterized as political philosophy that hates gays, art, the insane and promotes extermination?
Right and Left are based on the oppressive power of the state vs. individual liberty. The NAZIs were leftists.
Posted on 1/13/14 at 10:43 am to Champagne
quote:
Champagne
quote:
Your own post contradicts your premise that the Nazis were "far right" because you yourself state that National Socialism was a reaction to the far right.
Your reading comprehension ability is failing you. What I actually stated was that
quote:. You can try and twist that to fit your narrative if you wish, but any honest person can see your assertion as to what I said is at best quite mistaken.
The use of the name “National Socialism” arose out of earlier attempts by German right-wing figures to create a nationalist redefinition of “socialism”, as a reactionary alternative to both internationalist Marxist socialism and free market capitalism, both of which they saw as being too closely aligned with Jewishness.
quote:
Your view that two governments, Hitler's and Stalin's, that shared so many totalitarian traits, were on opposite ends of the political spectrum, is incoherent and illogical.
Those on the far-left (communist) and the far-right (Nazis) have more in common with each other as extremist than they do as towards the moderate centrist.
quote:
Zach
quote:
So, the right is characterized as political philosophy that hates gays, art, the insane and promotes extermination?
quote:
Right and Left are based on the oppressive power of the state vs. individual liberty. The NAZIs were leftists.
Neither of you have a good understanding of the basic attributes of what is commonly associated with those on the extreme far-right. You act like because the Nazis were far-right that that somehow puts some kind of stink on anyone who says they are right leaning, which in no way is what it means. But as how so many people today are on the lookout for any perceived slight to their world view and how everyone has a chip on their shoulder, the fact some here will see it that way is not surprising at all.
quote:
Champagne
You in particular are utterly lacking in character and common decency and you seem to show all the usual personality defects of the kind of vile extremist individual who attacks the intelligence and motives of anyone who disagrees with you. You say things to people here with venom, insolence, and contempt in a way in which you would not discourse with them in real life, face to face. But in doing so you are not alone here by any means.
This post was edited on 1/13/14 at 11:05 am
Posted on 1/13/14 at 11:09 am to Sayre
first of all these speeches need to be put into context, often the speeches would follow a large event like Chrystal Night, Christmas etc etc, it was all planned to play on the emotions of the people , Hitler did not give a shite what he was, he is a megalomaniac he does not care about others he just wanted global domination, the German resurrection after WW1 gave him the impetus to do so, sure he can say he is anti monarchy, well so was every other commoner and WW1 vet in Germany. These speeches are fake, they are to capture, they are not belief they are tools of propaganda. Dont for once think Hitlers public actions in the early days were not choreographed.
Posted on 1/13/14 at 11:11 am to Vegas Bengal
If anyone is to be compared to Hitler it is Obama's lying azz with his propaganda arm ( media ) intact.
JFK great thinker via the economy, dumb for bucking the mafia.
Johnson was a dumb buffoon.
Nixon was a brilliant man who made bad choices ( by Obama's santards he'd be a saint )
Carter was a weak buffoon.
Reagan, great man great thinker great leader.
Bush 1, trapped by a lying media, but weak.
Clinton, a liar, cheater, cocaine sniffing leftist.
GWB, a great leader in a dire time, a plain speaking man.
Obama = Carter + Clinton + Chamberlin + Hitler + Marx = A dumb, lying, cheating, pacifist, maniacal, self absorbed dumb azz.
JFK great thinker via the economy, dumb for bucking the mafia.
Johnson was a dumb buffoon.
Nixon was a brilliant man who made bad choices ( by Obama's santards he'd be a saint )
Carter was a weak buffoon.
Reagan, great man great thinker great leader.
Bush 1, trapped by a lying media, but weak.
Clinton, a liar, cheater, cocaine sniffing leftist.
GWB, a great leader in a dire time, a plain speaking man.
Obama = Carter + Clinton + Chamberlin + Hitler + Marx = A dumb, lying, cheating, pacifist, maniacal, self absorbed dumb azz.
This post was edited on 1/13/14 at 11:15 am
Posted on 1/13/14 at 11:29 am to Sayre
quote:
You in particular are utterly lacking in character and common decency and you seem to show all the usual personality defects of the kind of vile extremist individual who attacks the intelligence and motives of anyone who disagrees with you. You say things to people here with venom, insolence, and contempt in a way in which you would not discourse with them in real life, face to face. But in doing so you are not alone here by any means.
You in particular have the mental agility of a block of granite.
All of my arguments stand. You've refuted none of them.
The far rightists in Germany at that time were the monarchists who wanted to restore the Prussian Junkers to political prominence. The far left were the international marxist-leninists who wanted to create Workers Soviets in Germany. The NSDAP were not that far left, but, not only did they self-identify as socialists, but their policies were also socialist.
Hitler himself said that his party was neither pure leftist nor rightist. But, the facts are that, in the political environment of Germany in the 1930s, the NSDAP was more to the left.
As for my own extremist views, I am a Constitutional Conservative. My view is that our Founders and Framers got it right and that FedGov needs to get back on the path of being limited in authority and function.
Don't be all catty and bitchy just because you can't refute my arguments about the Nazis being Leftists. I know that it's tough for you to admit that you've been brainwashed into believing otherwise, but, try thinking for yourself sometime instead of simply believing without analysis what someone in academia told you to believe.
No matter how much you stomp your little feet and call people names, it won't change the fact that the NSDAP was not a far-right political movement in Germany in the 1930s.
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News