Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I agree more people are familiar with Nazism and that relatively few are aware of what National Socialism is, you're also right in saying that I mean left-wing Nationalism.

Monster Rain wrote:
Snappy dressers, though.

Red and Black is the OG Black and Yellow.

corpsesarefun wrote:If so that's pretty much why we use the word Nazism to describe that specific strain of National Socialism.

While there may be national socialist parties that are composed socialists and nationalists, and based on socialism and nationalism, I don't know of any major ones (or any, for that matter), or even any major political theorist who espoused such a doctrine without also being what you're differentiating as a Nazi.

National socialism is basically just the long form of Nazi.

DeadlySquirrel wrote:

corpsesarefun wrote:Yes but communist ideology itself doesn't generally feature race or institutionalised mass homicide, it tends to be much more about "the workers uniting" and "all men being equal" and such airy crap.

Nazism is by default racist though.

And yet Nazism is considered far more abhorrent than Communism... I ain't even gonna go into Zionistic Conspiracies.

Wait, you're also surprised that an ideology that is necessarily racist is hated more than one that isn't?

You seem like someone who isn't especially worldly.

Dogma: So all of them espouse essentially reducing women back to the level of chattel, mass murder of homosexuals, eugenics and hatred of non-majority races, and so on and so forth?

Melissia wrote:

Hordini wrote:I think most people are familiar with Nazism. Quite a few probably wouldn't recognize the term national socialism, and I doubt those that did would draw much difference between the two.

That's exactly the point.

To most people in the US, national socialism would make them think "so like socialist Europe?"

While nazi party makes them think "Sieg heil! Heil Hitler!", the holocaust, and WWII. and etc.

Yes, I agree with you that most people would think that. Most people would be completely wrong about the first part though

corpsesarefun wrote:I agree more people are familiar with Nazism and that relatively few are aware of what National Socialism is, you're also right in saying that I mean left-wing Nationalism.

It might be better to use the term left-wing nationalism then. Then people who don't know what national socialism is won't think you're talking about "socialist Europe," and people who do know what it is won't think you're talking about the Nazis. In any case, National Socialism is a very loaded term and I would be pretty careful in its use. It's not the term you want to describe non-Nazi left-wing nationalism.

Melissia wrote:Dogma: So all of them espouse essentially reducing women back to the level of chattel, mass murder of homosexuals, eugenics and hatred of non-majority races, and so on and so forth?

If we're talking run of the mill partisans, probably not. Just as your average Democrat doesn't necessarily support everything Democrats make part of their platform, not all Nazis have a fervent hatred of Jews.

However, antisemitism is a component in all the authored works of theorists that call themselves national socialists, and it was a component of that body of work well before Hitler came along.

Very well, you agree that Nazi's by definition follow the doctrines and political ideology set out by Hitler though right?

corpsesarefun wrote:Very well, you agree that Nazi's by definition follow the doctrines and political ideology set out by Hitler though right?

No, because National Socialism predates Hitler.

No, but I will agree that Hitler is basically the most iconic Nazi.

This guy is a good one to look at if you want to see the roots of national socialism.

dogma wrote:

Melissia wrote:Dogma: So all of them espouse essentially reducing women back to the level of chattel, mass murder of homosexuals, eugenics and hatred of non-majority races, and so on and so forth?

If we're talking run of the mill partisans, probably not. Just as your average Democrat doesn't necessarily support everything Democrats make part of their platform, not all Nazis have a fervent hatred of Jews.

However, antisemitism is a component in all the authored works of theorists that call themselves national socialists, and it was a component of that body of work well before Hitler came along.

That is many levels of sad.

I would still distinguish between pre-Hitler National Socialists and post-Hitler Nazi's.

corpsesarefun wrote:I would still distinguish between pre-Hitler National Socialists and post-Hitler Nazi's.

Okay, you're really kind of splitting hairs there though, in terms of ideology. And you could say post-Hitler National Socialists and still be talking about the same thing as post-Hitler Nazis.


I'm curious to know how you think they were that different before Hitler, or what Hitler did to change the ideology of national socialism.

Myself as well, as Hitler, to my understanding, was just the most successful Nazi.

Before Hitler pretty much every National Socialist had his own flavour of National Socialism, After Hitler pretty much all National Socialism was Nazism and followed Hitler's beliefs.

If someone was to identify as a Nazi today it's exceedingly likely that they follow the the ideology of Hitler rather than use the term as shorthand for general national socialism.

Honestly though I'm splitting hairs, I was initially trying to work out what the guy defending the Nazi's meant.

corpsesarefun wrote:Before Hitler pretty much every National Socialist had his own flavour of National Socialism, After Hitler pretty much all National Socialism was Nazism and followed Hitler's beliefs.

If someone was to identify as a Nazi today it's exceedingly likely that they follow the the ideology of Hitler rather than use the term as shorthand for general national socialism.

Honestly though I'm splitting hairs, I was initially trying to work out what the guy defending the Nazi's meant.

Okay. I think I get what you're saying, I just don't think it warrants as much differentiation as you seemed to be proposing before, but like you said: splitting hairs.


Although I'm pretty sure that the guy who's defending the Nazis doesn't even know what he means himself.

Melissia wrote:Hitler actually said the Nazi Party was neither left nor right wing and viciously attacked both, for the record.

From Mein Kampf:

Today our left-wing politicians in particular are constantly insisting that their craven-hearted and obsequious foreign policy necessarily results from the disarmament of Germany, whereas the truth is that this is the policy of traitors
[...]
But the politicians of the Right deserve exactly the same reproach. It was through their miserable cowardice that those ruffians of Jews who came into power in 1918 were able to rob the nation of its arms.

Every "new" movement sneers on both the left and the right, it's how they present themselves as being so new and original. Nazism wouldn't really have worked if Hitler had venerated Von Hindenburg.
A cursary examination of their economic and political policy shows an obvious right-wing social policy (shouldn't have to say that, really) and a quasi-corporate economic policy.
They were in politics at a time when Trade Unionism was strong in Germany, particularly around the Rheinland and large non-Bavarian cities. The Nazis were socialistic in name only, in order to try to incite the industrial working class (they were by and large unsuccessful).
Basically they were entirely right-wing regardless of your definition.

Hordini wrote:
Although I'm pretty sure that the guy who's defending the Nazis doesn't even know what he means himself.

Just like Hitler.

Truly, he is an authentic Nazi.

dogma wrote:

Hordini wrote:
Although I'm pretty sure that the guy who's defending the Nazis doesn't even know what he means himself.

Just like Hitler.

Truly, he is an authentic Nazi.

Hah, that's probably the best description of Hitler's contribution to national socialism in this thread so far. The amount of hypocrisy in both the theory and implementation of national socialist policies during the Third Reich is absolutely staggering. That's the problem with the idea some people present that National Socialism was simply whatever Hitler said or whatever policies that were implemented while he was in power: that could mean just about anything.

The NSDPA were hardly socialists... They just had it in their name.

Branding any socialist with nationalist tendencies a Nazi is wrong, completely and utterly. The NSDPA and national-socialism are completely different.

DeadlySquirrel wrote:The NSDPA were hardly socialists... They just had it in their name.

Branding any socialist with nationalist tendencies a Nazi is wrong, completely and utterly. The NSDPA and national-socialism are completely different.

Get off the internet and go serve your Führer.

DeadlySquirrel wrote:The NSDPA were hardly socialists... They just had it in their name.

Branding any socialist with nationalist tendencies a Nazi is wrong, completely and utterly. The NSDPA and national-socialism are completely different.

No one is saying the Nazis were socialists. I'm just saying they were National Socialists, which is not the same thing. I agree that calling a socialist with nationalist tendencies a Nazi is wrong, because a socialist with nationalist tendencies is not a National Socialist. National Socialism and NSDAP are not completely different. They're the same thing. I'm not trying to bust your balls, but your information is completely wrong.

If you're going to make ridiculous claims about the Nazi party, at least learn a bit about what it actually was first. If you'd done that already, maybe you wouldn't be tossing off about how much "good" they did.

DeadlySquirrel wrote:
Branding any socialist with nationalist tendencies a Nazi is wrong, completely and utterly. The NSDPA and national-socialism are completely different.

A socialist with nationalist tendencies is a nationalist, and a socialist, not a national socialist.

Not in common parlance anyway, or really even any academic parlance.

You are, however, correct that national socialism is distinct from the Nazi Party, as the Nazi Party is a political party and not a political ideology. They were, however, the most successful national socialist political party.

dogma wrote:
You are, however, correct that national socialism is distinct from the Nazi Party, as the Nazi Party is a political party and not a political ideology.

You're right about this, dogma. Perhaps I should clarify my above post to say rather, that the NSDAP is the party of National Socialism, instead of them being synonymous, which isn't technically true for the reasons you've stated.

I think a lot of Americans don't really come from countries where segments of the political elite have had socialism as a guiding ideology.
Look back at the history of the labour party and you'll see plenty of people who'd as soon toast the union down the miner's welfare as they would pick up a Lee Enfield and fight for queen and country.

corpsesarefun wrote:Before Hitler pretty much every National Socialist had his own flavour of National Socialism, After Hitler pretty much all National Socialism was Nazism and followed Hitler's beliefs.

Well, in Nazi Germany.

Many American Nazis lionize Hitler, but their rhetoric, and espoused beliefs, are very different. Their usage of "Aryan", for example, is basically consistent with "White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant." rather than "Germanic." The treat him as a guy that had a lot of good fundamental ideas (Basically, that national socialism is cool), but don't necessarily emulate him.

That isn't to say that Hitler had a huge influence on national socialism, because he did, its just to say isn't definitive of it.

Hordini wrote:

DeadlySquirrel wrote:The NSDPA were hardly socialists... They just had it in their name.

Branding any socialist with nationalist tendencies a Nazi is wrong, completely and utterly. The NSDPA and national-socialism are completely different.

No one is saying the Nazis were socialists. I'm just saying they were National Socialists, which is not the same thing. I agree that calling a socialist with nationalist tendencies a Nazi is wrong, because a socialist with nationalist tendencies is not a National Socialist. National Socialism and NSDAP are not completely different. They're the same thing. I'm not trying to bust your balls, but your information is completely wrong.

If you're going to make ridiculous claims about the Nazi party, at least learn a bit about what it actually was first. If you'd done that already, maybe you wouldn't be tossing off about how much "good" they did.

Other than the holocaust, what wrong did they do?

They wanted to overthrow the rules set about in the unfair Treaty Of Versailles and liberate their people. They did. The re-taking of Alsas-Lorraine, the Ruhr industrial zone, the Rhineland, the Polish Corridor, North Czechoslovakia etc WERE ALL taken from them and had a lot of Germans in that were forced to live under foreign rule. The unification with Austria. Retaking their African Colonies.

Truth is, bro, the West feared the Third Reich. They didn't want them to have such power, that is why WE declared war on THEM. Remember that.

People claim we declared it because of a treaty with Poland. We had the same treaty with the Czechs... Why didn't we declare war then? Russia also invaded Poland... Why didn't we declare war on them?

If you want to go into conspiracies, I could mention the disputes Hitler had with Illuminate members and the Black Pope, I could mention the history of the Aryan race, I could mention Neue Schwabenland and Shangri La. But I'm not gonna, none of you seem to want to know the truth and are happy eating up all the anti-Nazi propaganda spread by the Zionist states we all live in.

Joey wrote:I think a lot of Americans don't really come from countries where segments of the political elite have had socialism as a guiding ideology.

Actually, in the early 20th century socialism had a massive influence on American local politics. Lots of cities had socialist mayors, and many states had contingents of socialists within their legislatures.

Indeed, up until the 70's, you would still find plenty of socialist (Rebranded "progressive" thanks to the Red Scare.) mayors in middle America.

Another good example is Minnesota's Democratic Farmer-Labor Party, which is based on a union between the national Democratic Party and the Farmer-Labor Party of Minnesota.

DeadlySquirrel wrote:

Hordini wrote:

DeadlySquirrel wrote:The NSDPA were hardly socialists... They just had it in their name.

Branding any socialist with nationalist tendencies a Nazi is wrong, completely and utterly. The NSDPA and national-socialism are completely different.

No one is saying the Nazis were socialists. I'm just saying they were National Socialists, which is not the same thing. I agree that calling a socialist with nationalist tendencies a Nazi is wrong, because a socialist with nationalist tendencies is not a National Socialist. National Socialism and NSDAP are not completely different. They're the same thing. I'm not trying to bust your balls, but your information is completely wrong.

If you're going to make ridiculous claims about the Nazi party, at least learn a bit about what it actually was first. If you'd done that already, maybe you wouldn't be tossing off about how much "good" they did.

Other than the holocaust, what wrong did they do?

They wanted to overthrow the rules set about in the unfair Treaty Of Versailles and liberate their people. They did. The re-taking of Alsas-Lorraine, the Ruhr industrial zone, the Rhineland, the Polish Corridor, North Czechoslovakia etc WERE ALL taken from them and had a lot of Germans in that were forced to live under foreign rule. The unification with Austria. Retaking their African Colonies.

Truth is, bro, the West feared the Third Reich. They didn't want them to have such power, that is why WE declared war on THEM. Remember that.

People claim we declared it because of a treaty with Poland. We had the same treaty with the Czechs... Why didn't we declare war then? Russia also invaded Poland... Why didn't we declare war on them?

If you want to go into conspiracies, I could mention the disputes Hitler had with Illuminate members and the Black Pope, I could mention the history of the Aryan race, I could mention Neue Schwabenland and Shangri La. But I'm not gonna, none of you seem to want to know the truth and are happy eating up all the anti-Nazi propaganda spread by the Zionist states we all live in.

Do you have any understanding at all of the actual politics of the age?
1)It was well known that Hitler intended to take over eastern europe, which the western democracies wanted to stop
2)After the war the Western leaders feared the Soviet Union greatly. Nothing ever happened because the USA was too big for the soviets to go toe-to-toe with, and the Soviets weren't mad like Hitler
German public anger at the treaty of Versais is largely apolitical and has nothing to do with the racial politics of the nazi regime.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

Joey wrote:I think a lot of Americans don't really come from countries where segments of the political elite have had socialism as a guiding ideology.

Actually, in the early 20th century socialism had a massive influence on American local politics. Lots of cities had socialist mayors, and many states had contingents of socialists within their legislatures.

Indeed, up until the 70's, you would still find plenty of socialist (Rebranded "progressive" thanks to the Red Scare.) mayors in middle America.

Another good example is Minnesota's Democratic Farmer-Labor Party, which is based on a union between the national Democratic Party and the Farmer-Labor Party of Minnesota.

At one time about a third to half of our lower house would describe themselves as socialist, we had several heads of government who were socialists and virtually all labour cabinet posts occupied by socialists.
This is the case for many European countries, in America it was confined to industrial areas, but America being a much more rural country than Europe was less influenced by the cultural influence of these socialistic tendancies.

Joey wrote:

DeadlySquirrel wrote:

Hordini wrote:

DeadlySquirrel wrote:The NSDPA were hardly socialists... They just had it in their name.

Branding any socialist with nationalist tendencies a Nazi is wrong, completely and utterly. The NSDPA and national-socialism are completely different.

No one is saying the Nazis were socialists. I'm just saying they were National Socialists, which is not the same thing. I agree that calling a socialist with nationalist tendencies a Nazi is wrong, because a socialist with nationalist tendencies is not a National Socialist. National Socialism and NSDAP are not completely different. They're the same thing. I'm not trying to bust your balls, but your information is completely wrong.

If you're going to make ridiculous claims about the Nazi party, at least learn a bit about what it actually was first. If you'd done that already, maybe you wouldn't be tossing off about how much "good" they did.

Other than the holocaust, what wrong did they do?

They wanted to overthrow the rules set about in the unfair Treaty Of Versailles and liberate their people. They did. The re-taking of Alsas-Lorraine, the Ruhr industrial zone, the Rhineland, the Polish Corridor, North Czechoslovakia etc WERE ALL taken from them and had a lot of Germans in that were forced to live under foreign rule. The unification with Austria. Retaking their African Colonies.

Truth is, bro, the West feared the Third Reich. They didn't want them to have such power, that is why WE declared war on THEM. Remember that.

People claim we declared it because of a treaty with Poland. We had the same treaty with the Czechs... Why didn't we declare war then? Russia also invaded Poland... Why didn't we declare war on them?

If you want to go into conspiracies, I could mention the disputes Hitler had with Illuminate members and the Black Pope, I could mention the history of the Aryan race, I could mention Neue Schwabenland and Shangri La. But I'm not gonna, none of you seem to want to know the truth and are happy eating up all the anti-Nazi propaganda spread by the Zionist states we all live in.

Do you have any understanding at all of the actual politics of the age?
1)It was well known that Hitler intended to take over eastern europe, which the western democracies wanted to stop
2)After the war the Western leaders feared the Soviet Union greatly. Nothing ever happened because the USA was too big for the soviets to go toe-to-toe with, and the Soviets weren't mad like Hitler
German public anger at the treaty of Versais is largely apolitical and has nothing to do with the racial politics of the nazi regime.

The actual deal was he wanted to split the world in half with Britain. Germany gets mainland Europe and we get the rest. He wanted an Empire and certain places were of... certain value to Hitler. Churchill stopped it using blackmail alone. Can't remember his name, but a German General flew over to Scotland (Weiss I think) with the documents of the deal. He was killed. The man in prison is an imposter, HIS WIFE EVEN SAYS SO.

DeadlySquirrel wrote:
Other than the holocaust, what wrong did they do?

Declare war on the Western world?

DeadlySquirrel wrote:
They wanted to overthrow the rules set about in the unfair Treaty Of Versailles and liberate their people. They did. The re-taking of Alsas-Lorraine, the Ruhr industrial zone, the Rhineland, the Polish Corridor, North Czechoslovakia etc WERE ALL taken from them and had a lot of Germans in that were forced to live under foreign rule. The unification with Austria. Retaking their African Colonies.

It is infinitely more complicated than that, especially in the case of Alsace-Lorraine, Poland, and Czechoslovakia.

DeadlySquirrel wrote:
Truth is, bro, the West feared the Third Reich.

Probably because, you know, they took a bunch of hostile actions in contravention to a treaty signed by a German state.

DeadlySquirrel wrote:
People claim we declared it because of a treaty with Poland. We had the same treaty with the Czechs... Why didn't we declare war then? Russia also invaded Poland... Why didn't we declare war on them?

Probably because war was extremely unpopular, politically, at the time.

DeadlySquirrel wrote:
But I'm not gonna, none of you seem to want to know the truth and are happy eating up all the anti-Nazi propaganda spread by the Zionist states we all live in.

I've not encountered a real Nazi in a long time, thank you for reminding how much fun they are.

DeadlySquirrel wrote:

Hordini wrote:

DeadlySquirrel wrote:The NSDPA were hardly socialists... They just had it in their name.

Branding any socialist with nationalist tendencies a Nazi is wrong, completely and utterly. The NSDPA and national-socialism are completely different.

No one is saying the Nazis were socialists. I'm just saying they were National Socialists, which is not the same thing. I agree that calling a socialist with nationalist tendencies a Nazi is wrong, because a socialist with nationalist tendencies is not a National Socialist. National Socialism and NSDAP are not completely different. They're the same thing. I'm not trying to bust your balls, but your information is completely wrong.

If you're going to make ridiculous claims about the Nazi party, at least learn a bit about what it actually was first. If you'd done that already, maybe you wouldn't be tossing off about how much "good" they did.

Other than the holocaust, what wrong did they do?

They wanted to overthrow the rules set about in the unfair Treaty Of Versailles and liberate their people. They did. The re-taking of Alsas-Lorraine, the Ruhr industrial zone, the Rhineland, the Polish Corridor, North Czechoslovakia etc WERE ALL taken from them and had a lot of Germans in that were forced to live under foreign rule. The unification with Austria. Retaking their African Colonies.

Truth is, bro, the West feared the Third Reich. They didn't want them to have such power, that is why WE declared war on THEM. Remember that.

People claim we declared it because of a treaty with Poland. We had the same treaty with the Czechs... Why didn't we declare war then? Russia also invaded Poland... Why didn't we declare war on them?

If you want to go into conspiracies, I could mention the disputes Hitler had with Illuminate members and the Black Pope, I could mention the history of the Aryan race, I could mention Neue Schwabenland and Shangri La. But I'm not gonna, none of you seem to want to know the truth and are happy eating up all the anti-Nazi propaganda spread by the Zionist states we all live in.

As if the Holocaust wasn't bad enough on its own? Any time you have to start a sentence with "Other than the Holocaust...." you're probably not heading in a good direction. And questionable decision making on the part of the allies doesn't magically absolve the Nazis from all other wrongdoing "other than the Holocaust."

But you're right though. Other than the Holocaust, oppressing and killing Jews, Roma, Slavs, homosexuals, political dissidents, and tons of others, brainwashing their own youth and pressing them into military service, invading the Soviet Union and prosecuting campaigns in the east that killed millions of soldiers and civilians, and countless other crimes against humanity and war crimes, they didn't do anything wrong.