Hitler advocated for "the destruction of Marxism in all its shapes and forms".

[109] According to Hitler, Marxism was a Jewish

strategy to subjugate Germany and the world and saw Marxism as a mental and political form of slavery. ”The German state is
gravely attacked by Marxism” Mein Kampf p.535 ”In the years 1913 and 1914 I expresssed the conviction that the question of the
future of the German nation was the question of destroying Marxism” Mein Kampf p. 155 ”Marxism itself systematically plans to
hand over the world to the Jews! Mein Kampf p.382 ”The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the principle of nature and replaces the
eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight. Mein Kampf. p.60 ”We stand for the
maintenance of private property... We shall protects free enterprise as the most expedient, or rather the sole possible economic order...
Adolf Hitler (Heiden, The Fuhrer, p.105. Men låt oss säga att dom har rätt. Att nazismen är en västerrörelse. Varför är dom då så
benägna att samarbeta med ett parti som är sprunget ur denna vänsterrörelse och vars företrädare gång efter annan visar sig ha
samröre med denna vänsterrörelse? Kan någon journalist någon gång ställa den frågan? Lenin said fascism was actually “capitalism
in decay” . What does that mean precisely? Well, as the internal conradictions of capitalism become more pronounced, throughout its
development, the ruling class makes considerable social concessions to the opportunists among the working class in order to preserve
capitalism as a whole. Fascism is a classic example of class collaborationism dominated by the bourgeoisie, not an example of
socialism, wherein the working class and oppressed peoples make up the dominant class in society. In fascism, the ruling class is left
largely intact, a few political enemies might be expropriated, some popular concessions made, but capital still runs the show without
a question. The Soviet Union went from perhaps the most backward nation in Europe at the time of revolution in 1917, to a world
superpower rivaling industrial giants such as the United States in 1945 [12]. Keep in mind that the first Five Year Plan began nearly
11 years after the revolution in 1928. The success of the socialist plan in developing the productive forces of society is absolutely
unprecedented even by standards of the early Industrial Revolution. Fascist Italy and Germany, on the other hand, were tin castles
which floated only on speculative war spending The Soviet Union established a formal body by which minority nationalities could
express their demands and achieve the recognition they deserved (although some would rightly argue that even these measures did
not go far enough); a progressive achievement far ahead of any Western nation certainly the ultra-nationalist and xenophobic fascists
of Europe. Women were also fully recognized members of Soviet society, equal in rights to their male counterparts, and able to
express themselves as ‘full humans’. And while Black people in the United States were being hosed down by riot police, segregated,
and thrown in jail, racial discrimination in the Soviet Union was completely abolished. Every man, woman, and child regardless of
race walked as equals in fellowship among the streets, something the United States today still struggles to achieve. He explores
avenues by which “Marxism has led to fascism” and all sorts of similarly unfounded claims [14]. His only strand of evidence lies in
the fact that many of the prominent Nazis and fascists of the period were previously socialists to some extent, as if this is some sort of
little known ‘gotcha’ moment. Clearly, many fascist leaders were previously associated with socialist movements. As stated earlier,
fascists are the cream of political opportunism; capitalizing on the energy of the masses for their own intentions at preserving the
status quo. In this sense, it’s no surprise that leaders like Benito Mussolini fancied themselves socialists for a period. However, any
close study of the same leaders (e.g. Mussolini) reveals a train of political opportunism, flopping sides, changing rhetoric, and
general appeasement. The fact many fascists considered themselves socialists is no indictment of socialism but rather an insight into
their own opportunist strategy made possible by class collaboration. Specifically in your conflation of socialism with state ownership,
then using that claim to argue any form of state ownership of industry is fascism. This ignores the fact that fascism is a form of class
collaborationism; whereby opportunistic members of the working class will cooperate with wealthy elites, or how wealthy elites will
collaborate with each other and with violent mobs to put down dissident elements of the working class. The result is that the system
of capital and ownership are largely untouched. However, it does mean that fascists can use their new power to remove what they
hold to be 'undesirable' elements of the population. Including; trade unionists, whom they either imprison or kill, and replace with
fascist pro-capitalist officers; socialists, communists, any political opponents, the disabled, LGBT people, people who don't fit the
desired in-group, etc. This means that Capital gets rid of things that would obstruct it's functioning at a horrific human cost "Den
grova lögnen att nazismen var ”vänster” har fått fäste i svensk höger och något måste göras åt problemet. När större delen av svensk
borgerlighet på sociala medier tagit till sig SD:s historieförfalskning är läget kritiskt. Där för kommer här en tråd på ämnet: NSDAP:s
socialism var ”socialism” i normal mening (dvs vänster) i samma bemärkelse som DDR var ”demokratiskt” i normal mening – m a o
INTE ALLS. Bara för att ordet förekommer i namnet betyder inte att vi förstår betydelsen eller att det ens är sant. Det har forskats
ENORMT mycket på det här, och det finns inte en enda seriös historiker med nazismen som specialitet som klassificerar NSDAP
som ”vänster”. Om du inte bryr dig om vad experterna säger så har DU problem, inte experterna. Men vad menade du Hitler med
NATIONALsocialism? För det första var inte detta något som Hitler ägnade mycket tid åt att definiera. Men när han gjorde det så
gjorde han det tautologiskt. Nationalism var socialism, och socialism var nationalism! Hur skall man då förstå det? Jo, Hitlers
”socialism” var en kollektivism som utgick från det ariska/tyska folket. En sann socialist var därför en sann nationalist och tvärtom:
allt man gjorde skulle göras för folket (das Volk). Det hade ingenting med ekonomisk politik eller organisation att göra. Hitler
förstatligade inte storföretagen eller något sådant. Faktum är att man till och med PRIVATISERADE flera banker som tidigare hade
nationaliserats under Weimar-tiden. Så länge företagen var villiga att tjäna nationen så hade regimen inga problem med dem. De krav
som man riktade mot ”storföretag” och ”truster” i partiprogrammet kan inte förstås om man inte väger in nazismens antisemitism.
Dessa termer var kodord för JUDISKA företag. Det var ENDAST dessa som skulle exproprieras. Märk väl att dessa judiska
egendomar inte förstatligades; tvärtom PRIVATISERADES de åter, men nu i händerna på ”ariska” affärsmän. Dessa kapitalister var
också sanna SOCIALISTER i NSDAP:s bemärkelse eftersom de tjänade nationen troget såsom judehatare. Kollektivismen i
Nazityskland var sprungen ur kravet på nationell lojalitet och samarbete, dvs i hyperNATIONALISMEN, inte i att Hitler hade läst
Marx (det hade med stor sannolikhet aldrig gjort – åtminstone inte i original). Men talade inte Hitler mycket om ”arbetare” och
raljerade han inte mot ”kapitalet” och ”storfinansen”? Jo, det gjorde han. Men återigen måste vi förstå nazismens ”kodspråk” och
eufemismer för att fatta vad han åsyftade. Låt oss ta ”antikapitalismen” först: dessa termer är även de helt och hållet antisemitiska
och enbart riktade mot judar. Det ”internationella finanskapitalet” var bara ett annat ord för ”judekapitalet” och anknöt till
konspirationsteorin om judar som ”kosmopoliter”, ”globalister” och som utländska parasiter som önskade störta Tyskland i fördärvet.
Det var också därför som Hitler kunde anse att judarna var ansvariga för BÅDE det internationella finanskapitalet OCH den
internationella bolsjevismen. Han såg dessa som två sidor av samma mynt. Det hela gick förstås inte ihop, men Hitler är inte känd för
sitt stora intellekt. Hatet mot ”globalister” har idag återkommit, även nu med tydliga antisemitiska förtecken – såsom i hatet av
George Soros ex. Men ”arbetar”-retoriken då? Visar inte det att Hitler trots allt var socialist? Nej, lika lite som M:s tal om sig som det
nya ”arbetarpartiet” gör M till socialister. Hitler hade dock en tanke om att nyckeln till makten låg i att att lyckas locka den breda
arbetarklassen till sig. Det lyckades aldrig. Socialdemokraterna och Kommunisterna hade mutat in dessa grupper redan. Istället
byggde NSDAP:s valframgångar på att man lyckades få lägre och högre medelklassen att rösta på dem. Man hade också framgångar
på landsbygden. Protestantiska väljare blev en särskild kärngrupp efter ombildningen av partiet 1925. Detta pga av partiets uttalade
antikatolicism. Denna fientlighet berodde inte på ett hat av kristendomen generellt, utan på katolicismens lojalitet till Påven och Rom
först, och nationen i andra hand. Katoliker ansågs som opålitliga nationalister helt enkelt. Men, det är sant, att det var många även på
20- och 30- talet som förvirrades av Hitlers ”antikapitalistiska” retorik. Hitler tvingades flera gånger bedyra att han INTE var Marxist
och socialist till diverse företagsledare som han försökte (till slut framgångsrikt) att stötta partiet. Det fanns också en ”vänsterflygel”
inom partiet, företrädd av Straßer-bröderna, som gick ännu längre i sin retorik. Men denna fraktion tillintetgjordes senare av Hitler, så
snart hans makt vuxit sig stark nog inom partiet. Anledningen till förvirringen var att dessa företagsledare ännu inte begripit att när
Hitler talade om ”storkapitalet” så åsyftade han JUDISKT kapital. Det fanns dock gott om framstående kapitalister som begripit detta
och som stödde NSDAP med miljoner innan 1933. Dåtidens förvirring till trots; IDAG finns inga skäl till varför någon enda
människa skulle leva under vanföreställningen att Hitler och nazisterna var vänster. Avslutningsvis: nazisterna ansåg sig vara
”socialister”, men denna term har inget att göra med det som normalt menas med den. Med ”socialist” menades att man
underordnade individens intressen under NATIONENS dito. M a o kan aldrig förstå innebörden utan föregående ledet NATIONAL-.
Man kallade sig dock ALDRIG ”vänster”. Detta är en nutida uppfinning av högerpropagandister som vill svartmåla främst
socialdemokratin i dag. Socialdemokratin stod dock ALLTID som motståndare till nazismen och förföljdes också brutalt av
nazisterna pga detta. SD önskar också svartmåla andra för att flytta fokus från sin egen nazism. Ironin tycks inte gå fram vare sig till
SD:s anhängare eller till borgerliga som nu anammat SD:s historieförfalskning: ett parti som grundats av nazister som anklagar
sossarna gör att vara nazister." Han fortsätter i ett svar till en annan twittrare "Allt detta är helt nödvändigt att förstå i diskussionen
gällande om NSDAP var ”vänster” eller ”höger”. ”Vänstern”, såsom den såg och ser ut, utgår i grunden ifrån en historiematerialistisk
världsbild. Det är syn där klasskamp driver historien. Det har nazismen aldrig gjort. Nazismen drevs visserligen av föreställningen att
det var kraftmätningen mellan raser som drev historien, men det var i Hitlers föreställningsvärld INTE en materialistiskt grundad
kamp. Det var nämligen raserna IDEALISTISKA och ANDLIGA och SJÄLSLIGA kvalitéer som avgjorde kampens utgång i
slutändan. Det var således en i grunden idealistisk världsåskådning. Det må verka motsägelsefullt, men det är ändå sant. Detta
illustrerar återigen att dessa frågor inte är självklara och enkla ting; allt detta kräver forskning, och det HAR forskats på det. Hitlers
anti-materialistiska och idealistiska världsåskådning klargörs tusen gånger om i hans skrifter och tal. Materialet är tillgängligt på
originalspråk för den som behärskar tyska." Vem betalade och beväpnade Hitler? Visste du att Fritz Thyssen, Tysklands rikaste man
med kapital från stålindustrin, var den förste kapitalist som började betala Hitler? Han gav Hitler hundratusen guldmark 1923! Visste
du att den tyska kemiska industrin upptäckte och tillverkade konstgjord olja, sprängämnen och gummi som gjorde Hitler och
Nazityskland helt oberoende av importerade naturprodukter och fria att föra krig? Visste du att den tyska kemiska industrins
upptäckter gjordes med pengar delvis lånade från USA? Visste du att nazisterna förlorade 2 miljoner röster i det sista demokratiska
valet i Tyskland den 6 november 1932 och att kommunisterna hade stora valframgångar och blev det största partiet i Tysklands
huvudstad Berlin? Visste du att efter nazisternas stora tillbakagång i valet i november 1932 skrev 38 av Tysklands största kapitalister
en petition till president Hindenburg med krav på att utnämna Hitler till Rikskansler? Visste du att det tyska storkapitalet i ett hemligt
möte den 20 februari 1933 samlade 3 miljoner mark för att betala rikskansler Hitlers valkampanj inför valet 5 mars 1933? å Visste du
att IG Farben, Tysklands största företag, var Hitlers främsta medhjälpare i kriget och att IG Farben stal och gjorde till sin egendom
alla kemiska fabriker i det av nazisterna ockuperade Europa: Österrikes största kemiska koncern Skoda Werke Wetzler,
Tjeckoslovakiens största kemiföretag Aussiger Verein, Polens tre kemifabriker Boruta, Wola och Winnica, Frankrikes kemiska
koncern Kuhlmann. Visste du att IG Farben i Auschwitz hade två fabriker för tillverkning av syntetisk olja och gummi under namnet
IG Auschwitz, där man använde slavarbetskraft och att IG Auschwitz hade ett eget koncentrationsläger? Visste du att Storbritanniens
kung Edward VIII, som tvingades abdikera från tronen 1936, och hans amerikanska fru Wallis Simpson var nazister? Visste du att
USA:s största finansinstitutioner som Chase National Bank och National City Bank of New York fortsatte att investera i den tyska
rustningsindustrin efter att Hitler kom till makten och under hela andra världskriget? Visste du att USA:s största företag under andra
världskriget hade egna fabriker för tillverkning av krigsmaterial i Nazityskland och i de ockuperade länderna? T.ex. ITT, Ford,
General Motors, Standard Oil of New Jersey m.fl. Visste du att den största delen av denna krigsmateriel gick till östfronten mot
Sovjetunionen men att den också användes i kriget mot trupper från det egna landet USA? Visste du att denna USA-företagens
krigshjälp till Nazityskland förmodligen var mycket större än USA:s motsvarande försäljning till Sovjetunionen? "in Mussolini's 'The
Doctrine of Fascism', he explicitly rejects Marxism: 'Such a conception of life makes Fascism the resolute negation of the doctrine
underlying so called scientific and Marxian socialism, the doctrine of historic materialism which would explain the history of
mankind in terms of the class struggle and by changes in the processes and instruments resolute negation of the doctrine underlying
so called scientific and Marxian socialism, the doctrine" Mussolini in the same text has a section called, 'The Rejection of Marxism':
'Having denied historic materialism, which sees in men mere puppets on the surface of history, appearing and disappearing on the
crest of the waves while in the depths the real directing forces move and work, Fascism also denies the immutable and irreparable
character of the class struggle which is the natural outcome of this economic conception of history; above all it denies that the class
struggle is the preponderating agent in social transformations." Having thus struck a blow at socialism in the two main points of its
doctrine, all that remains of it is the sentimental aspiration, old as humanity itself-toward social relations in which the sufferings and
sorrows of the humbler folk will be alleviated' As the name suggests, fascism sought to bundle the folk together, like a bundle of
sticks, arguing every class had its proper place, gathering them together for war. To quote Musollini again; ”[The state] is not simply
a mechanism which limits the sphere of the supposed liberties of the individual... " Neither has the Fascist conception of authority
anything in common with that of a police ridden State... Far from crushing the individual, the Fascist State multiplies his energies,
just as in a regiment a soldier is not diminished but multiplied by the number of his fellow soldiers'" "This is NOWHERE NEAR
what Marx was writing about when he wrote of direct democracy in the commune, and the abolition of the state, money and classes."
se dessa videor: The Nazis were Right-Wing (Part 1 of 2) The Nazis were Right-Wing (Part 2 of 2) från Wikipedia: Hitler advocated
for "the destruction of Marxism in all its shapes and forms". According to Hitler, Marxism was a Jewish strategy to subjugate
Germany and the world and saw Marxism as a mental and political form of slavery. ”The German state is gravely attacked by
Marxism” Mein Kampf p.535 ”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” Mein Kampf p. 155 "Marxism itself systematically plans to hand over the world to
the Jews!" Mein Kampf p.382 ”The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the principle of nature and replaces the eternal privilege of
power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight.” Mein Kampf. p.60 ”We stand for the maintenance of private
property... We shall protects free enterprise as the most expedient, or rather the sole possible economic order..." Adolf Hitler (Heiden,
The Fuhrer, p.105. Nazis were not socialists in any way, shape or form. They were industrialist capitalists, like England and America.
The Nazi war machine consisted of huge factories that were privately owned by giant corporations, like ThyssenKrupp. Germa Bel
skrev om tysklands privatisering av ekonomin, de var mer kapitalistiska än USA var under Roosevelt! Googla fram PDFen "Germà
Bel - Against the Mainstream: Nazi Privatization in 1930s Germany" SDare häver ut sig att nazisterna var vänster, men SD har ju
nazistiska röter, betyder det att SD är kommunister? Hynek Pallas skriver: ”Att syftet med det är att skrubba rent
Sverigedemokraterna för borgerligt bruk förstår man ju. Men blir inte deras fortfarande väldigt närvarande rötter då…
kommunistiska?” https://www.gp.se/kultur/kultur/befängda-tidsresormellan-vår-tid-och-nazityskland-1.41023753 Nazismen var lika
mycket vänster som Nordkorea är demokratiskt https://www.gp.se/debatt/nazismen-var-lika-mycket-vänster-som-nordkorea-är-
demokratiskt1.41005990

Den grova lögnen att nazismen var ”vänster” har fått fäste i svensk höger och något måste göras åt problemet. När större delen av
svensk borgerlighet på sociala medier tagit till sig SD:s historieförfalskning är läget kritiskt. NSDAP:s socialism var ”socialism” i
normal mening (dvs vänster) i samma bemärkelse som DDR var ”demokratiskt” i normal mening – m a o INTE ALLS. Bara för att
ordet förekommer i namnet betyder inte att vi förstår betydelsen eller att det ens är sant. Det har forskats ENORMT mycket på det
här, och det finns inte en enda seriös historiker med nazismen som specialitet som klassificerar NSDAP som ”vänster”. Om du inte
bryr dig om vad experterna säger så har DU problem, inte experterna. Men vad menade du Hitler med NATIONALsocialism? För det
första var inte detta något som Hitler ägnade mycket tid åt att definiera. Men när han gjorde det så gjorde han det tautologiskt.
Nationalism var socialism, och socialism var nationalism! Hur skall man då förstå det? Jo, Hitlers ”socialism” var en kollektivism
som utgick från det ariska/tyska folket. En sann socialist var därför en sann nationalist och tvärtom: allt man gjorde skulle göras för
folket (das Volk). Det hade ingenting med ekonomisk politik eller organisation att göra. Hitler förstatligade inte storföretagen eller
något sådant. Faktum är att man till och med PRIVATISERADE flera banker som tidigare hade nationaliserats under Weimar-tiden.
Så länge företagen var villiga att tjäna nationen så hade regimen inga problem med dem. De krav som man riktade mot ”storföretag”
och ”truster” i partiprogrammet kan inte förstås om man inte väger in nazismens antisemitism. Dessa termer var kodord för
JUDISKA företag. Det var ENDAST dessa som skulle exproprieras. Märk väl att dessa judiska egendomar inte förstatligades;
tvärtom PRIVATISERADES de åter, men nu i händerna på ”ariska” affärsmän. Dessa kapitalister var också sanna SOCIALISTER i
NSDAP:s bemärkelse eftersom de tjänade nationen troget såsom judehatare. Kollektivismen i Nazityskland var sprungen ur kravet på
nationell lojalitet och samarbete, dvs i hyperNATIONALISMEN, inte i att Hitler hade läst Marx (det hade med stor sannolikhet
aldrig gjort – åtminstone inte i original). Men talade inte Hitler mycket om ”arbetare” och raljerade han inte mot ”kapitalet” och
”storfinansen”? Jo, det gjorde han. Men återigen måste vi förstå nazismens ”kodspråk” och eufemismer för att fatta vad han åsyftade.
Låt oss ta ”antikapitalismen” först: dessa termer är även de helt och hållet antisemitiska och enbart riktade mot judar. Det
”internationella finanskapitalet” var bara ett annat ord för ”judekapitalet” och anknöt till konspirationsteorin om judar som
”kosmopoliter”, ”globalister” och som utländska parasiter som önskade störta Tyskland i fördärvet. Det var också därför som Hitler
kunde anse att judarna var ansvariga för BÅDE det internationella finanskapitalet OCH den internationella bolsjevismen. Han såg
dessa som två sidor av samma mynt. Det hela gick förstås inte ihop, men Hitler är inte känd för sitt stora intellekt. Hatet mot
”globalister” har idag återkommit, även nu med tydliga antisemitiska förtecken – såsom i hatet av George Soros ex. Men ”arbetar”-
retoriken då? Visar inte det att Hitler trots allt var socialist? Nej, lika lite som M:s tal om sig som det nya ”arbetarpartiet” gör M till
socialister. Hitler hade dock en tanke om att nyckeln till makten låg i att att lyckas locka den breda arbetarklassen till sig. Det
lyckades aldrig. Socialdemokraterna och Kommunisterna hade mutat in dessa grupper redan. Istället byggde NSDAP:s
valframgångar på att man lyckades få lägre och högre medelklassen att rösta på dem. Man hade också framgångar på landsbygden.
Protestantiska väljare blev en särskild kärngrupp efter ombildningen av partiet 1925. Detta pga av partiets uttalade antikatolicism.
Denna fientlighet berodde inte på ett hat av kristendomen generellt, utan på katolicismens lojalitet till Påven och Rom först, och
nationen i andra hand. Katoliker ansågs som opålitliga nationalister helt enkelt. Men, det är sant, att det var många även på 20- och
30-talet som förvirrades av Hitlers ”antikapitalistiska” retorik. Hitler tvingades flera gånger bedyra att han INTE var Marxist och
socialist till diverse företagsledare som han försökte (till slut framgångsrikt) att stötta partiet. Det fanns också en ”vänsterflygel”
inom partiet, företrädd av Straßer-bröderna, som gick ännu längre i sin retorik. Men denna fraktion tillintetgjordes senare av Hitler, så
snart hans makt vuxit sig stark nog inom partiet. Anledningen till förvirringen var att dessa företagsledare ännu inte begripit att när
Hitler talade om ”storkapitalet” så åsyftade han JUDISKT kapital. Det fanns dock gott om framstående kapitalister som begripit detta
och som stödde NSDAP med miljoner innan 1933. Dåtidens förvirring till trots; IDAG finns inga skäl till varför någon enda
människa skulle leva under vanföreställningen att Hitler och nazisterna var vänster. Avslutningsvis: nazisterna ansåg sig vara
”socialister”, men denna term har inget att göra med det som normalt menas med den. Med ”socialist” menades att man
underordnade individens intressen under NATIONENS dito. M a o kan aldrig förstå innebörden utan föregående ledet NATIONAL-.
Man kallade sig dock ALDRIG ”vänster”. Detta är en nutida uppfinning av högerpropagandister som vill svartmåla främst
socialdemokratin i dag. Socialdemokratin stod dock ALLTID som motståndare till nazismen och förföljdes också brutalt av
nazisterna pga detta. SD önskar också svartmåla andra för att flytta fokus från sin egen nazism. Ironin tycks inte gå fram vare sig till
SD:s anhängare eller till borgerliga som nu anammat SD:s historieförfalskning: ett parti som grundats av nazister som anklagar
sossarna gör att vara nazister." "Allt detta är helt nödvändigt att förstå i diskussionen gällande om NSDAP var ”vänster” eller
”höger”. ”Vänstern”, såsom den såg och ser ut, utgår i grunden ifrån en historiematerialistisk världsbild. Det är syn där klasskamp
driver historien. Det har nazismen aldrig gjort. Nazismen drevs visserligen av föreställningen att det var kraftmätningen mellan raser
som drev historien, men det var i Hitlers föreställningsvärld INTE en materialistiskt grundad kamp. Det var nämligen raserna
IDEALISTISKA och ANDLIGA och SJÄLSLIGA kvalitéer som avgjorde kampens utgång i slutändan. Det var således en i grunden
idealistisk världsåskådning. Det må verka motsägelsefullt, men det är ändå sant. Detta illustrerar återigen att dessa frågor inte är
självklara och enkla ting; allt detta kräver forskning, och det HAR forskats på det. Hitlers anti-materialistiska och idealistiska
världsåskådning klargörs tusen gånger om i hans skrifter och tal. Materialet är tillgängligt på originalspråk för den som behärskar
tyska. I USA har MAGA-propagandisten Dinesh D’Souza lett denna historierevisionistiska attack, bland annat i boken The Big Lie:
Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left (2017). Denna historieförfalskning har även anammats av SD:s anhängare i Sverige –
här omgjord till en hatkampanj mot socialdemokraterna vilka sägs ha varit ”de verkliga nazisterna”. Detta är ett led i SD:s försök att
maskera sin egen nazistiska historia. Uppseendeväckande nog har nu alltså en del framträdande röster inom både M och KD tillägnat
sig och spridit denna falska historiebeskrivning. NSDAP:s partiprogram – med tal om bland annat förstatligande av alla ”truster” ,
kommunalisering av ”stora varuhus” och så vidare. – måste tolkas mot bakgrund av NSDAP:s antisemitism. Dessa termer hade alla
en underförstådd antisemitisk innebörd och udd. Det gäller även punkt 18 och dess krav på dödsstraff för ”ockrare” och
”svartabörshajar”. Så kallade ”arier” hörde inte till dessa kategorier. Debunking ‘Hitler was a Socialist’ This is a short collection of
resources I have found debunking the widely cited claim that the Nazis were Socialists. Please send any other resources on the topic
at u/Albamc35 Putting The “Nazis Were Socialist” Nonsense To Rest - Current Affairs •When we think about the implications of
“socialism” being synonymous with “government control of production,” we realize instantly that this can’t be right. It would mean
that any government that was sufficiently powerful would automatically be “socialist” no matter who ruled it. The worst dictatorships
would all be socialism by definition, because socialism is defined as government control. A monarchy could be “socialism” if the
king was powerful enough. A feudal aristocracy could be “socialist” if those who “governed” also “controlled production.” This
would be ludicrous, though, because it would mean that an economy in which a giant caste of wage laborers served a tiny wealthy
aristocracy would be “socialist,” so that a society violating every single principle socialists endorse would be said to satisfy their
principles. •Nazis did not believe in the elimination of social class, but in a rigid caste system. They were not feminists and
antiracists, they practiced racist genocide. They were not against militarism and prisons and the death penalty; they were history’s
worst murderers. Did they believe, like Debs, that their own freedom depended on the elimination of prisons, that “while there is a
soul in prison, I am not free”? No, they built giant death camps! Did they believe in the principle of “from each according to their
ability, to each according to their need”? No, they massacred and enslaved the weak and disabled. Did they believe in worker
ownership? Did they think, as socialists do, that racism is an illusion used to divide workers and keep them from recognizing the
common interests of the working class? Everything socialists stand for was opposed by the Nazis, which is why they killed countless
Communists and members of the socialist German Social Democratic Party. •They want you to believe that if they can prove Nazi
Germany had a socialist economy, it shows that socialist economies are totalitarianism. But the reasoning is fallacious, for the same
reason that “Hitler was a vegetarian, therefore vegetarianism and Nazism are synonymous” is fallacious. Let us stipulate, for the sake
of argument, that (1) socialism means “state-controlled production” and (2) Nazis had state-controlled production. (1), as I have
pointed out, is false, and (2) can be the subject of historical critique over the extent of public versus private control in the Third
Reich. Were the Nazis Socialists? - Encyclopedia Britannica •Were the Nazis socialists? No, not in any meaningful way, and certainly
not after 1934 •In April 1933 communists, socialists, democrats, and Jews were purged from the German civil service, and trade
unions were outlawed the following month. •Prominent members of the German Communist Party and the Social Democratic Party
were arrested and imprisoned in concentration camps. Lest there be any remaining questions about the political character of the Nazi
revolution, Hitler ordered the murder of Gregor Strasser, an act that was carried out on June 30, 1934, during the Night of the Long
Knives. Any remaining traces of socialist thought in the Nazi Party had been extinguished. The Nazis were not socialists - Full Fact
•While their name did include the word “socialist”, their policies and treatment of left-wing opponents show they were not socialists
in any meaningful sense. •The consensus among historians is that the Nazis, and Hitler in particular, were not socialists in any
meaningful sense. •Hitler also suppressed trade unions and refused to give the homes of German princes to the people, as he felt this
would move the party towards communism. •Hitler was also vocally critical of the “November criminals”— those who led Germany
after the First World War and signed the Armistice and the Treaty of Versailles. These leaders were social democrats. Were the Nazis
Socialists? - Snopes •In his 2010 book Hitler: A Biography, British historian Ian Kershaw wrote that despite putting the interests of
the state above those of capitalism, he did so for reasons of nationalism and was never a true socialist by any common definition of
the term: [Hitler] was wholly ignorant of any formal understanding of the principles of economics. For him, as he stated to the
industrialists, economics was of secondary importance, entirely subordinated to politics. His crude social-Darwinism dictated his
approach to the economy, as it did his entire political “world-view.” Since struggle among nations would be decisive for future
survival, Germany’s economy had to be subordinated to the preparation, then carrying out, of this struggle. This meant that liberal
ideas of economic competition had to be replaced by the subjection of the economy to the dictates of the national interest. Similarly,
any “socialist” ideas in the Nazi programme had to follow the same dictates. Hitler was never a socialist. But although he upheld
private property, individual entrepreneurship, and economic competition, and disapproved of trade unions and workers’ interference
in the freedom of owners and managers to run their concerns, the state, not the market, would determine the shape of economic
development. Capitalism was, therefore, left in place. But in operation it was turned into an adjunct of the state. •For members of the
Nazi Party, in fact, defending socialism on its own terms was a risky activity which could result in ejection from the party, or worse.
Of party leader and dissenter Otto Strasser (whose similarly-minded brother, Gregor, would ultimately be assassinated by the Nazis),
William Shirer writes: Unfortunately for him, he had taken seriously not only the word “socialist” but the word “workers” in the
party’s official name of National Socialist German Workers’ Party. He had supported certain strikes of the socialist trade unions and
demanded that the party come out for nationalization of industry. This of course was heresy to Hitler, who accused Otto Strasser of
professing the cardinal sins of “democracy and liberalism.” On May 21 and 22, 1930, the Fuehrer had a showdown with his
rebellious subordinate and demanded complete submission. When Otto refused, he was booted out of the party. Adolf Hitler was not
a socialist - Vox • But despite joining what would be called the “National Socialist” German workers party, Adolf Hitler was not a
socialist. Far from it. In fact, in July 1921, Hitler briefly left the NSDAP because an affiliate of the party in Augsburg signed an
agreement with the German Socialist Party in that city, only returning when he had been largely given control of the party itself. •
And when Strasser calls for the return of 41 percent of private property to the state and dismisses the role of private property in an
industrialized economy, Hitler tells him that will not only ruin “the entire nation” but also “end all progress of humanity.” • In fact,
Hitler dismisses even the idea of challenging the status of capitalism, telling Strasser that his socialism is actually Marxism and
making the argument that powerful businessmen were powerful because they were evolutionarily superior to their employees. Thus,
Hitler argues, a “workers council” taking charge of a company would only get in the way •Strasser then asks him directly what he
would do with powerful steel and arms manufacturer Krupp, known today as ThyssenKrupp. Would Hitler permit the company to
stay as big and powerful as it was in 1930? • “Of course. Do you think I’m stupid enough to destroy the economy? The state will only
intervene if people do not act in the interest of the nation. There is no need for dispossession or participation in all the decisions. The
state will intervene strongly when it must, pushed by superior motives, without regards to particular interests.” • In this debate, Hitler
isn’t making the case for socialism, much to Strasser’s dismay. He is making the case for fascism — in his view, not just an ideal
system to organize government, but the only real option. “A system that rests on anything other than authority downwards and
responsibility upwards cannot really make decisions,” he tells Strasser. • Rather, Hitler viewed socialism as a political organizing
mechanism for the German people more broadly: a way of creating a “people’s community” — the volksgemeinschaft — that would
bring everyday Germans (and businesspeople) together not based on their class but on their race and ethnicity. Thus, he would use the
unifying aspects of “National Socialism” to get everyday Germans on board with the Nazi program while simultaneously negotiating
with powerful businesses and the Junkers, industrialists and nobility, who would ultimately help Hitler gain total power over the
German state. Man says Nazis were socialist, gets schooled by history writer - Indy100 • The Nazis were fascists. Indisputably. They
drew their ideology from Italy's fascists, who arose in reaction to the Left. • Mussolini gives us the first fascist platform -
national/racial superiority, rearmament & expansion, and consolidation of capital. • Hitler & his Deutcher Arbeiter Partei mates see
this and decide that they need to steal support from actual socialists, so the DAP rebadge themselves as the NSDAP... Socialism still
being a relatively new ideology. It's like adding 'e-' to a product name. Refuting "The Nazis Were Socialists" With Academic Sources
• Irrespective of a quite bad overall performance, an important characteristic of the economy of the Third Reich, and a big difference
from a centrally planned one, was the role private ownership of firms was playing - in practice as well as in theory. The ideal Nazi
economy would liberate the creativeness of a multitude of private entrepreneurs in a predominantly competitive framework gently
directed by the state to achieve the highest welfare of the Germanic people. • State-owned plants were to be avoided wherever
possible. Nevertheless, sometimes they were necessary when private industry was not prepared to realize a war-related investment on
its own. In these cases, the Reich often insisted on the inclusion in the contract of an option clause according to which the private
firm operating the plant was entitled to purchase it. Even the establishment of Reichswerke Hermann Goring in 1937 is no
contradiction to the rule that the Reich principally did not want public ownership of enterprises. The Reich in fact tried hard to win
the German industry over to engage in the project. 'My dad thinks that Nazism is a left wing ideology because it has socialism in the
name.' •Hitler- I absolutely insist on protecting private property. It is natural and salutary that the individual should be inspired by the
wish to devote a part of the income from his work to building up and expanding a family estate. Suppose the estate consists of a
factory. I regard it as axiomatic, in the ordinary way, that this factory will be better run by one of the members of the family that it
would be by a State functionary —providing, of course, that the family remains healthy. In this sense, we must encourage private
initiative. • The Nazi regime transferred public ownership and public services to the private sector. In doing so, they went against the
mainstream trends in the Western capitalist countries, none of which systematically reprivatized firms during the 1930s. Privatization
in Nazi Germany was also unique in transferring to private hands the delivery of public services previously provided by government.
The firms and the services transferred to private ownership belonged to diverse sectors. • It's worth adding that the NAZI party
inherited a German nation with an already powerful and sweeping welfare state. The NAZI party pretty much never drafted new
welfare programs, but they did make sweeping welfare reforms; where they couldn't uproot welfare programs, they cut their capacity
or subjected them to racial requirements. Mothers only got government child support of they (and the offspring) were Aryan. Abstract
from Benito Mussolini - What is Fascism? • Fascism [is] the complete opposite of…Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of
history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the
change and development in the means and instruments of production Also check out Socialism Done Left's doc, which has a section
on this topic. Hitler wasn't a Socialist, or Left-wing No. Just no.
•https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum#:~:text=Reductio%20ad %20Hitlerum%20is%20a%20form%20of
%20association%20fallacy.,the %20original%20policy%20is%20undesirable. •The first thing that is probably very important to note
is the Reductio ad Hitlerum fallacy (/ˈhɪtlərəm/; Latin for "reduction to Hitler"), also known as playing the Nazi card. [1][2] It’s an
attempt to invalidate someone else's position on the basis that the same view was held by Adolf Hitler or the Nazi Party.[3] One
example would be that since Hitler was against smoking, this implies that someone who is against smoking is a Nazi.[4] Reductio ad
Hitlerum is a form of association fallacy. [6][7] The argument is that a policy leads to—or is the same as—one advocated or
implemented by Adolf Hitler or the Third Reich and so "proves" that the original policy is undesirable. •Another instance of reductio
ad Hitlerum is asking a question of the form "You know who else...?" with the deliberate intent of impugning a certain idea or action
by implying Hitler held that idea or performed such an action.[8] •This fallacy commonly manifests in the idea that “Hitler/The Nazi
Party believed X; this renders any belief in X invalid,” which is obviously a ridiculous line of logic as demonstrated by the smoking
example from earlier. This means that even if Nazis were full-on socialists, “socialism” is not invalid by association, similar to how
the belief that smoking is bad is not invalid by association. •Abstract from Benito Mussolini - What is Fascism? •“Fascism [is] the
complete opposite of…Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply
through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of
production” •https://quotecatalog.com/quote/adolf-hitler-if-the-marxist-ga4jb57 •“If the Marxist teaching were to be accepted as the
foundation of the life of the universe, it would lead to the disappearance of all order that is conceivable to the human mind. And thus
the adoption of such a law would provoke chaos in the structure of the greatest organism that we know, with the result that the
inhabitants of this earthly planet would finally disappear.” — Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf •Extracts From Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler
•“If, with the help of his Marxist creed, the Jew is victorious over the other peoples of the world, his crown will be the funeral wreath
of humanity and this planet will, as it did thousands of years ago, move through the ether devoid of men.” — Adolf Hitler, Mein
Kampf •Is Nazism right wing or left wing??: AskHistorians •“One of the reasons why it makes little sense to label the NSDAP as
socialist is that it makes little sense within the context of early twentiethcentury German politics. There was a clear socialist party in
Germany in the interwar period (the SPD and arguably the KPD) and a whole intellectual and political tradition associated with what
socialism meant.” •My dad thinks that Nazism is a left wing ideology because it has socialism in the name.: AskHistorians •Nazi
ideology, despite the name, was fundamentally anti-socialist in nature. In a 1923 interview with George Sylvester Viereck, Hitler
stated that Nazism “unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and
unlike Marxism, it is patriotic. We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists.”
In this quote, Hitler not only states that Nazism affirms the right to private property (thus automatically distinguishing it from
socialism), but admits that the term "National Socialism" was essentially arbitrary. This is far from the only anti-socialist statement
from Hitler; in a 1935 speech to the Reichstag, he said: •We National Socialists see in private property a higher level of human
economic development that according to the differences in performance controls the management of what has been accomplished
enabling and guaranteeing the advantage of a higher standard of living for everyone. Bolshevism destroys not only private property
but also private initiative and the readiness to shoulder responsibility. • •In addition, the book Hitler's Table Talk includes the
following statement: •I absolutely insist on protecting private property. It is natural and salutary that the individual should be inspired
by the wish to devote a part of the income from his work to building up and expanding a family estate. Suppose the estate consists of
a factory. I regard it as axiomatic, in the ordinary way, that this factory will be better run by one of the members of the family that it
would be by a State functionary—providing, of course, that the family remains healthy. In this sense, we must encourage private
initiative. •Nazism in Practice •According to a study in The Journal of Economic History, the Nazi economy was "basically
capitalist," retaining the role of private property and market forces. As the study puts it: •Irrespective of a quite bad overall
performance, an important characteristic of the economy of the Third Reich, and a big difference from a centrally planned one, was
the role private ownership of firms was playing - in practice as well as in theory. The ideal Nazi economy would liberate the
creativeness of a multitude of private entrepreneurs in a predominantly competitive framework gently directed by the state to achieve
the highest welfare of the Germanic people. •The Nazis favored privatization (the word was literally coined to describe their
policies), and opposed state ownership. According to the aforementioned study: •Available sources make perfectly clear that the Nazi
regime did not want at all a German economy with public ownership of many or all enterprises. Therefore it generally had no
intention whatsoever of nationalizing private firms or creating state firms. On the contrary the reprivatization of enterprises was
furthered wherever possible. •According to another study from the University of Barcelona: •The Nazi regime transferred public
ownership and public services to the private sector. In doing so, they went against the mainstream trends in the Western capitalist
countries, none of which systematically reprivatized firms during the 1930s. Privatization in Nazi Germany was also unique in
transferring to private hands the delivery of public services previously provided by government. The firms and the services
transferred to private ownership belonged to diverse sectors. •In other words, the Nazi government privatized numerous industries
and social services, and did their best to oppose any kind of public and state ownership. •Hitler saw many differences between his
ideology and the USSR's: https://books.google.com/books?id=r_- htwAACAAJ&dq=hitler+may+21+1935+speech •“National
Socialism is a doctrine that has reference exclusively to the German people. Bolshevism lays stress on international mission.”
“National Socialism fights for the reconciliation and consequent adjustment of the differences in life and the union of all for common
benefits. Bolshevism teaches the overcoming of an alleged class rule by the dictatorship of the power of a different class.” ”As
National Socialists, our hearts are full with admiration and respect for the great achievements of the past, not only in our own people
but also far beyond. We are happy to belong to an European cultural community that has so tremendously embossed today's world
with a stamp of its mind. Bolshevism rejects this cultural achievement of mankind, claiming that has found the beginning of the real
cultural and human history in the year of birth of Marxism.” ”We, National Socialists, do not want to be of the same opinion as our
church organizations in this or that organizational question. But we never want a lack of belief in religion or any faith, and do not
wish that our churches become clubhouses or cinemas. Bolshevism teaches the godlessness and acts accordingly.” ”We National
Socialists see in private property a higher level of human economic development that according to the differences in performance
controls the management of what has been accomplished enabling and guaranteeing the advantage of a higher standard of living for
everyone. Bolshevism destroys not only private property but also private initiative and the readiness to shoulder responsibility.”
•https://books.google.com/books?id=PxZoAAAAMAAJ&q=Our+adopted+term+ %27Socialist
%27+has+nothing+to+do+with+Marxian+Socialism. +Marxism+is+anti-property;+true+Socialism+is+not •“Socialist'' I define from
the word 'social'; meaning in the main social equity. A Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his
individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency. Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian
Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of
efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his
interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were
first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are
false.” •https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4kg34a/the_nazis_refered_t o_themselves_as_socialists_but/d3expxo/ •In
his "Why We Are Antisemites" speech delivered in 1920 and later much publicized after the Nazi seizure of power in 1933, Hitler
was already differentiating his own brand of socialism from its Marxistinfluenced contemporaries: •“Thus we can see the two great
differences between races: Aryanism means ethical perception of work and that which we today so often hear – socialism,
community spirit, common good before own good. Jewry means egoistic attitude to work and thereby mammonism and materialism,
the opposite of socialism. ... Socialism as the final concept of duty, the ethical duty of work, not just for oneself but also for one’s
fellow man’s sake, and above all the principle: Common good before own good, a struggle against all parasitism and especially
against easy and unearned income. And we were aware that in this fight we can rely on no one but our own people. We are convinced
that socialism in the right sense will only be possible in nations and races that are Aryan, and there in the first place we hope for our
own people and are convinced that socialism is inseparable from nationalism.” •This is difficult to interpret, but essentially, socialism
= extreme ethno-nationalism and devotion to the common good before your own good, which is just so far off from any sort of
traditional Marxist idea of socialism •Were Nazis socialists? (reddit) •here's Hitler's understanding of socialism from his 22.07.1922
speech "Freistaat oder Sklaventum" (translation from Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich): •“Whoever is prepared to make
the national cause his own to such an extent that he knows no higher ideal than the welfare of the nation; whoever has understood our
great national anthem, “Deutschland ueber Alles,” to mean that nothing in the wide world surpasses in his eyes this Germany, people
and land - that man is a Socialist.” •Essentially, socialism = extreme nationalism •This is just not what socialism is. •Early on there
was an actual socialist wing in the NSDAP led by the Strasser brothers (e. g. Goebbels initially belonged to that wing). •In the winter
of 1925/6 there was an internal debate in the party on the question of the compensation of the property expropriated from the former
ruling royal houses. The Strasserite wing wanted the party to jump on the expropriation without compensation bandwagon. Hitler
was strictly against this. At the Bamberg conference of 1926 Hitler's position as the absolute authority in the party was confirmed and
the socialist wing lost on this issue, and, consequently, their overall influence was significantly reduced. They continued their
activities for some time. • In Otto Strasser's Hitler and I (1940) he recounts a discussion with Hitler from 1930 (he published the
transcript shortly after the talk and republished it in later books): • “Adolf Hitler stiffened. ‘Do you deny that I am the creator of
National-Socialism?’ ‘I have no choice but to do so. National-Socialism is an idea born of the times in which we live. It is in the
hearts of millions of men, and it is incarnated in you. The simultaneity with which it arose in so many minds proves its historical
necessity, and proves, too, that the age of capitalism is over.’ At this Hitler launched into a long tirade in which he tried to prove to
me that capitalism did not exist, that the idea of Autarkie was nothing but madness, that the European Nordic race must organize
world commerce on a barter basis, and finally that nationalization, or in Hitler and I socialization, as I understood it, was nothing but
dilettantism, not to say Bolshevism. ‘Let us assume, Herr Hitler, that you came into power tomorrow. What would you do about
[powerful steel and arms manufacturer] Krupp’s? Would you leave it alone or not?’ ‘Of course I should leave it alone,’ cried Hitler.
‘Do you think me crazy enough to want to ruin Germany’s great industry?’ ‘If you wish to preserve the capitalist regime, Herr Hitler,
you have no right to talk of socialism. For our supporters are socialists, and your programme demands the socialization of private
enterprise.’ ‘That word “socialism” is the trouble,’ said Hitler. He shrugged his shoulders, appeared to reflect for a moment, and then
went on: ‘I have never said that all enterprises should be socialized. On the contrary, I have maintained that we might socialize
enterprises prejudicial to the interests of the nation. Unless they were so guilty, I should consider it a crime to destroy essential
elements in our economic life. Take Italian Fascism. Our NationalSocialist State, like the Fascist State, will safeguard both
employers’ and workers’ interests while reserving the right of arbitration in case of dispute.’ ‘But under Fascism the problem of
labour and capital remains unsolved. It has not even been tackled. It has merely been temporarily stifled. Capitalism has remained
intact, just as you yourself propose to leave it intact.’ ‘Herr Strasser,’ said Hitler, exasperated by my answers, ‘there is only one
economic system, and that is responsibility and authority on the part of directors and executives. I ask Herr Amann to be responsible
to me for the work of his subordinates and to exercise his authority over them. There Amann asks his office manager to be
responsible for his typists and to exercise his authority over them; and so on to the lowest rung of the ladder. That is how it has been
for thousands of years, and that is how it will always be.’ Shortly after this Otto Strasser left the party and published his manifesto
"The socialists are leaving the NSDAP": Die Sozialisten verlassen die NSDAP •Gregor remained in the party but continued losing
influence at a catastrophic rate, until he and the remaining part of the socialist wing were purged during the Night of the Long Knives
in 1934. From time to time the leading Nazis did use the word "socialist" after that, which however by that time was empty of
meaning, a zombie-word if you will •So, in the end, the NSDAP under Hitler neither abolished the private ownership of the means of
production, nor did it even plan to, which, by definition, made it a non-socialist party. •There's been one other argument, that since
the Nazi regime was a dictatorship, all the private property was de facto abolished. Let's ignore for the moment that it still wouldn't
make the party or the state socialist (since socialism doesn't imply only the abolition of the private means of production but also the
workers' direct or indirect control over it, which would be impossible here), the thesis is not even correct, since in the Nazi Germany,
with a few exceptions, • The private property of the German citizens was respected, the private firms had a choice whether to work
with the state and could dictate their conditions (the firm Topf und Söhne, the constructors of the crematoria and the gas chambers
come to mind, whose sometimes heated correspondence with the SS is available). On this see Christoph Buchheim and Jonas
Scherner, "The Role of Private Property in the Nazi Economy: The Case of Industry", The Journal of Economic History, 2006, vol.
66, issue 02, 390-416 •Nazi Germany: Capitalist Winners, Labor Losers •under Nazi Germany (deffo socialists btw), the capital share
of national income increased from .25 pre-depression to .325; under FDR (halfhearted social democrat) it decreased from .325 pre-
depression to . 225 https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/04/capitalism-and-nazism/ •under Nazi Germany (deffo socialists btw), the
top 1% share of fiscal income increased from 11% to 16% (1933-1938); under FDR (halfhearted social democrat) it remained at 16%
(1932-1938) or decreased to 12% (1932-1944): https://wid.world/country/germany/ •between 1932 and 1938, income from wages
and salaries grew 66% while income from capital grew 146% (220% faster) https://books.google.com/books?
id=fpFbuCKOLKwC&lpg=PP1&pg=PT451#v=onepage&f=false •between 1932 and 1944, nominal weekly wages increased just
44% in Germany compared to 63% in Britain and 160% in the USA: https://www.coll.mpg.de/pdf_dat/2009_18online.pdf •between
1932 and 1938, real wages barely moved in Germany and Britain; in the USA, real wages increased 50%:
https://www.nber.org/chapters/c2510.pdf hourly wages *declined* for both skilled and unskilled workers from the Great Depression
to the Nazi era •hourly wages *declined* for both skilled and unskilled workers from the Great Depression to the Nazi era:
https://books.google.com/books? id=fpFbuCKOLKwC&lpg=PP1&pg=PT451#v=onepage&f=false •even more than wages, take-
home pay declined under Nazi Germany: https://books.google.com/books?
id=fpFbuCKOLKwC&lpg=PP1&pg=PT451#v=onepage&f=false •Against the mainstream: Nazi privatization in 1930s Germany
•“The Great Depression spurred State ownership in Western capitalist countries. Germany was no exception; the last governments of
the Weimar Republic took over firms in diverse sectors. Later, the Nazi regime transferred public ownership and public services to
the private sector. In doing so, they went against the mainstream trends in the Western capitalist countries, none of which
systematically reprivatized firms during the 1930s. Privatization in Nazi Germany was also unique in transferring to private hands the
delivery of public services previously provided by government. The firms and the services transferred to private ownership belonged
to diverse sectors. Privatization was part of an intentional policy with multiple objectives and was not ideologically driven. As in
many recent privatizations, particularly within the European Union, strong financial restrictions were a central motivation. In
addition, privatization was used as a political tool to enhance support for the government and for the Nazi Party.” •“It is a fact that the
government of the Nazi Party sold off public ownership in several Stateowned firms in the mid-1930s. These firms belonged to a
wide range of sectors: steel, mining, banking, local public utilities, shipyards, ship-lines, railways, etc. In addition, the delivery of
some public services that were produced by government prior to the 1930s, especially social and labor-related services, was
transferred to the private sector, mainly to organizations within the party. In the 1930s and 1940s, many academic analyses of Nazi
economic policy discussed privatization in Germany (e.g. Poole, 1939; Guillebaud, 1939; Stolper, 1940; Sweezy, 1941; Merlin, 1943;
Neumann, 1942, 1944; Nathan, 1944a; Schweitzer, 1946; Lurie,1947).” •“Although modern economic literature usually ignores the
fact, the Nazi government in 1930s Germany undertook a wide scale privatization policy. The government sold public ownership in
several State-owned firms in different sectors. In addition, delivery of some public services previously produced by the public sector
was transferred to the private sector, mainly to organizations within the Nazi Party.” •Refuting "The Nazis Were Socialists" With
Academic Sources •Irrespective of a quite bad overall performance, an important characteristic of the economy of the Third Reich,
and a big difference from a centrally planned one, was the role private ownership of firms was playing - in practice as well as in
theory. The ideal Nazi economy would liberate the creativeness of a multitude of private entrepreneurs in a predominantly
competitive framework gently directed by the state to achieve the highest welfare of the Germanic people. •State-owned plants were
to be avoided wherever possible. Nevertheless, sometimes they were necessary when private industry was not prepared to realize a
war-related investment on its own. In these cases, the Reich often insisted on the inclusion in the contract of an option clause
according to which the private firm operating the plant was entitled to purchase it. Even the establishment of Reichswerke Hermann
Goring in 1937 is no contradiction to the rule that the Reich principally did not want public ownership of enterprises. The Reich in
fact tried hard to win the German industry over to engage in the project. •Were the Nazis Socialists? - Snopes •In his 2010 book
Hitler: A Biography, British historian Ian Kershaw wrote that despite putting the interests of the state above those of capitalism, he
did so for reasons of nationalism and was never a true socialist by any common definition of the term: [Hitler] was wholly ignorant
of any formal understanding of the principles of economics. For him, as he stated to the industrialists, economics was of secondary
importance, entirely subordinated to politics. His crude social-Darwinism dictated his approach to the economy, as it did his entire
political “world-view.” Since struggle among nations would be decisive for future survival, Germany’s economy had to be
subordinated to the preparation, then carrying out, of this struggle. This meant that liberal ideas of economic competition had to be
replaced by the subjection of the economy to the dictates of the national interest. Similarly, any “socialist” ideas in the Nazi
programme had to follow the same dictates. Hitler was never a socialist. But although he upheld private property, individual
entrepreneurship, and economic competition, and disapproved of trade unions and workers’ interference in the freedom of owners
and managers to run their concerns, the state, not the market, would determine the shape of economic development. Capitalism was,
therefore, left in place. But in operation it was turned into an adjunct of the state •For members of the Nazi Party, in fact, defending
socialism on its own terms was a risky activity which could result in ejection from the party, or worse. Of party leader and dissenter
Otto Strasser (whose similarlyminded brother, Gregor, would ultimately be assassinated by the Nazis), William Shirer writes:
Unfortunately for him, he had taken seriously not only the word “socialist” but the word “workers” in the party’s official name of
National Socialist German Workers’ Party. He had supported certain strikes of the socialist trade unions and demanded that the party
come out for nationalization of industry. This of course was heresy to Hitler, who accused Otto Strasser of professing the cardinal
sins of “democracy and liberalism.” On May 21 and 22, 1930, the Fuehrer had a showdown with his rebellious subordinate and
demanded complete submission. When Otto refused, he was booted out of the party. •The Nazis were not socialists •In Hitler’s
speeches, he established his idea of socialism as something only for select Germans the Nazi party deemed worthy. In his 1920
speech “Why We Are Anti-Semites” he claimed Judaism was the opposite of socialism by aligning it with capitalism at a time when
Germany’s workers were suffering. •In the same year, the party outlined their party programme, which included a number of points
which could be seen to align with socialist and anti-capitalist ideals. However, historian of the period Karl Dietrich Bracher has
referred to the programme as “propaganda” through which Hitler gained support and then discarded once he achieved power. •Hitler
worked closely with industrialists—in 1933 he held a meeting with a number of German industrial figures and gained their trust by
speaking of the communist threat. In return, they gave millions of Reichmarks to fund the Nazi party in the upcoming elections.
Many developed close relationships with the Nazi regime and flourished under the ideology—the Krupp family supplied Germany
with arms during World War Two, readily dismissed Jewish employees, and it's then head Alfried Krupp joined the Nazi party in
1938. •Hitler also suppressed trade unions and refused to give the homes of German princes to the people, as he felt this would move
the party towards communism. •Were the Nazis Socialists? - Encyclopedia Britannica •In April 1933 communists, socialists,
democrats, and Jews were purged from the German civil service, and trade unions were outlawed the following month. •Prominent
members of the German Communist Party and the Social Democratic Party were arrested and imprisoned in concentration camps.
Lest there be any remaining questions about the political character of the Nazi revolution, Hitler ordered the murder of Gregor
Strasser, an act that was carried out on June 30, 1934, during the Night of the Long Knives. Any remaining traces of socialist thought
in the Nazi Party had been extinguished. •Putting The “Nazis Were Socialist” Nonsense To Rest - Current Affairs •When we think
about the implications of “socialism” being synonymous with “government control of production,” we realize instantly that this can’t
be right. It would mean that any government that was sufficiently powerful would automatically be “socialist” no matter who ruled it.
The worst dictatorships would all be socialism by definition, because socialism is defined as government control. A monarchy could
be “socialism” if the king was powerful enough. A feudal aristocracy could be “socialist” if those who “governed” also “controlled
production.” This would be ludicrous, though, because it would mean that an economy in which a giant caste of wage laborers served
a tiny wealthy aristocracy would be “socialist,” so that a society violating every single principle socialists endorse would be said to
satisfy their principles. •Was Hitler a Socialist? - A Response to Steven Crowder and Others A great youtube video by three arrows
that debunks several claims made by this Steven Crowder article •Employment for all •Claim 1: “With innovative public works
schemes such as the building of autobahns, Hitler put every German back to work.” •"The Battle for Work", The Third Reich in
Power, and The myth of Hitler's role in building the autobahn •The autobahns •“In 1934, he spoke of the "work battle" that lay ahead,
and promised that it would reduce the high number of unemployed. Autobahn construction works were supposed to create at least
600,000 jobs. In fact, even when construction was at its height there were never more than 120,000 people at work.” •“Unemployed
people were sent to build autobahns, but this didn't significantly reduce unemployment” •“There were strikes, and the strike leaders
were sent to concentration camps.” •“In 1933, the government announced two Laws for the Reduction of Unemployment, devoting
millions of marks to encouraging the creation of new businesses and funding publicworks construction projects, such as the highway
system.” •First of all, socialism isn't when the government does stuff. Second, this is the ONE public policy that was used to increase
employment. The drop in unemployment can be contributed to SEVERAL factors. •For example: •“a variety of economic programs
begun under previous chancellors were finally starting to put more Germans back to work by the time of Hitler’s appointment.”
•Although specific policies aren't mentioned, we can see that unemployment was partially resolved by non-Nazis •“Another policy
encouraged working women to leave their jobs and stay home, lessening competition for jobs and improving unemployment
statistics” •“To some extent, of course, worldwide economic recovery was already under way, though slowly; in Germany it was
helped by rapidly growing business confidence... the unemployment problem of the Depression years from 1929 to 1931 had been
made worse by the fact that the large birth- cohorts of the years immediately before the First World War were flooding onto the
labour market after leaving school, the situation was reversed from 1932 onwards, as the small birthcohorts of the war years entered
adulthood. Indeed, over two million births expected according to observable statistical trends did not take place in 1914-18, while the
death-rate amongst children in the war years, strongly affected by food shortages during the war, was 40 per cent above normal. So
the labour market benefited from the consequent fall in people’s overall demand for jobs as well.” •“By 27 April 1933... the number
of jobless had fallen by over half a million. Some of this was doubtless the result of seasonal factors as employment picked up after
the winter slump. The beginnings of economic recovery that had already made themselves noticeable in the last months of 1932 also
played a role. Hitler’s government was lucky in its timing.” •Just straight up lying about employment: “...previously unregistered
family and other effectively unpaid farm helpers, most of whom were women, were now counted as employed. None of these people
could be considered as active participants in the labour market; none of them received a regular wage with which they could support
themselves, let alone support a family. On this reckoning there were at least one and a half million ‘invisible unemployed’ in
Germany at this time, and the total number of unemployed, which Nazi statisticians put at just over two million, was in fact much
nearer four.” •“The final step in the reduction of the unemployment figures was taken by the introduction of compulsory military
service.” •Additionally, Nazis labeled rearmament as job creation so they could have an excuse to build their military - rearmament
created thousands of jobs within private firms Claim 2: “He also advocated schemes such as KdF – Strength Through Joy – which
gave workers increased benefits for increased levels of production. This policy was popular and increasingly with the proletariat”
•The Nazis abolished trade unions and simply used this as a replacement •“The purpose of the KdF was to support the Führer and
thank him and to keep everyone happy after abolishing the trade unions.” •This is true, but it's important to add more information
onto this to contextualize the program, and to recognize one anti-jew public program for geran laborers is not an indication of
leftwing ideals •Hitler's Happy People: Kraft durch Freude's Everyday Production of Joy in the Third Reich By Julia Timpe MA,
Brown University •Let me preface the following with this quote: “the Nazis accused the bourgeoisie and Marxists at the same time of
being responsible for the inadequate living situations, both physically and mentally, of the German working class; meanwhile,
‘bourgeois’ (guilty of wealth or perhaps political liberalism) could often simply be translated as ‘Jewish’ (and, of course, Marxism
was also ‘Jewish’ philosophy.)” •“In KdF’s view, Marxists ignored the value of culture, the bourgeoisie 53 trapped that to itself; only
KdF freed it for those for whom it truly mattered. KdF propaganda proclaimed that the bourgeoisie and Marxists had “shut the
worker out from the blessings of culture, suppressed his creative potential, stole from him all joy in life and honor in work, denied his
intellectual and mental value” and thus established a “gulf between the everyday world of work and the world of the intellectual, the
beautiful, the sublime.” •“The leisure organization claimed that the Marxists were responsible for the filthy and derelict states of both
– and that its “cleaning up” campaigns would change this situation.” •“The earlier “unclean” situation of worker and factory was
blamed on the Marxist ideology that had caused and maintained such a state, purposefully, according to Nazi propaganda, as
‘advertisement for the infamous lie of class struggle.’” •“Some KdF publications used a “beforeand-after” scheme to discredit the
Marxist and Social democratic movement and boast about Nazi innovations at the same time.” •According to Baranowski, the now
through KdF cleaned bodies of workers “indicated decontamination; the eradication of the plague of class conflict from the social
body. Thus a clean and ordered body like a clean and ordered shop floor would incline individual dispositions toward a comradeship
that would dissipate the potential for “Marxist” disorder and upheaval.” •The KdF was literally anti-marxist and suppressed class
consciousness •“At the core of KdF’s work was building the Nazi “national” or “racial community” – that is, to unite all “Aryan”
Germans beyond any class boundaries and social differences” •To summarize much of this document, the main goal was to get
behind the idea of community based on ethnicity/race rather than class Claim 3: “By putting people back to work and making huge
public spending, inflation was bound to happen. However, Hitler kept this under control by not allowing wages to rise with prices.”
•This is only part of the story, the main tool in combating inflation were the Mefo bills (another source i used is this) •“A Mefo bill
(sometimes written as MEFO bill), named after the company Metallurgische Forschungsgesellschaft (Metallurgical Research
Corporation), was a promissory note used for a system of deferred payment to finance the Nazi German government's programme of
rearmament, devised by the German Central Bank President, Hjalmar Schacht, in 1934. Mefo bills followed the scheme for which the
Öffa bills were the blueprint. As Germany was rearming against the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, they needed a way to fund
rearming without leaving a paper trail; Schacht created this system as a temporary method to fund rearming with only one million
Reichsmarks in capital.” •“Hjalmar Schacht formed the limited liability company Metallurgische Forschungsgesellschaft, m.b.H., or
"MEFO" for short. The company's "Mefo bills" served as bills of exchange, convertible into Reichsmark upon demand. MEFO had
no actual existence or operations and was solely a balance sheet entity. The bills were mainly issued as payment to armaments
manufacturers...Essentially, Mefo bills enabled the German Reich to run a greater deficit than it would normally have been able to.
By 1938, there were 12 billion Reichsmark of Mefo bills, compared to 19 billion of normal government bonds...This enabled the
German government to re-inflate their economy, which culminated in its eventual rearmament.” •In summary: Nazis used a dummy
company as a front for purchases from four German armament manufacturers without other countries finding out, and in order to pay
for the Mefo bills, well, the Nazis expected to cover their debt by plundering the wealth of conquered nations during and after the
war. •I'm not exactly sure what part of this is considered “left wing” Claim 4: essentially: Nazis had public education •German public
education doesnt have much to do with the Nazis, I don't think. And “public education for children” is hardly very left-wing at all. •A
History of Compulsory Education •“In 1717, William I inaugurated the Prussian compulsory school system, Europe’s first national
education system. All children were compelled

to attend the State schools.” •Germany - History Background - Education, School, Schools, and University •“In 1920 Germany
introduced the four-year unified public elementary school that provided the same instruction to all children. School attendance until
age 18 became compulsory.” Claim 5: Hitler socialized healthcare and then doctors were paid by the government •It’s worth
mentioning Kitty Werthmann’s anecdotal evidence, where this is likely sourced from, seemingly always echoes republican ideas
about the Nazi regime and current liberal ideas. •The Nazis just straight up did not socialize healthcare, Otto von Bismark introduced
this in 1881 •Social Security History •“Germany became the first nation in the world to adopt an old-age social insurance program in
1889, designed by Germany's Chancellor, Otto von Bismarck. The idea was first put forward, at Bismarck's behest, in 1881 by
Germany's Emperor, William the First, in a ground-breaking letter to the German Parliament. William wrote: ‘. . .those who are
disabled from work by age and invalidity have a well-grounded claim to care from the state.’” •I cant find a specfic source on the
way doctor’s are payed under the nazi regime, though currently “doctors are salaried [by] salaries [that] are [a] part of hospital
budgets that are negotiated each year between hospitals and "sickness funds" — the 240 nonprofit insurance companies” (source)
Claim 6: Germany had Gun control ?￰ﾟﾘﾱ ? •Gun regulation in the Third Reich •To first address the following quote “The most
foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjugated races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors
who have allowed their subjugated races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to
say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native
militia or native police.” •See this fact check •The 1938 German Weapons Act, the precursor of the current weapons law, superseded
the 1928 law. As under the 1928 law, citizens were required to have a permit to carry a firearm and a separate permit to acquire a
firearm. But under the new law: •Gun restriction laws applied only to handguns, not to long guns or ammunition. The 1938 revisions
completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, and the possession of ammunition.[8] •The legal age at
which guns could be purchased was lowered from 20 to 18. [9][10] •Permits were valid for three years, rather than one year.[9]
•Holders of annual hunting permits, government workers, and NSDAP (the National Socialist German Workers' Party) members were
no longer subject to gun ownership restrictions. Prior to the 1938 law, only officials of the central government, the states, and
employees of the German Reichsbahn Railways were exempted. [8] •Manufacture of arms and ammunition continued to require a
permit, with the proviso that such permits would no longer be issued to any company even partly owned by Jews; Jews could not
manufacture or deal in firearms or ammunition.[8] •In 1938, gun restrictions were LOOSENED????? •This quote pretty much sums
everything up perfectly •“The 1938 Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons, which came into force the day after
Kristallnacht, [11][12] effectively deprived all Jews living under the Third Reich within the occupied Sudetenland and Austria of the
right to possess any form of weapons, including truncheons, knives, firearms and ammunition. Exceptions were made for Jews and
Poles who were foreign nationals under §3 of the act. [13] Before that, some police forces used the pre-existing "trustworthiness"
clause to disarm Jews on the basis that "the Jewish population 'cannot be regarded as trustworthy'".[8] Gun laws in Nazi Germany
have been the subject of debate in the United States over gun regulations, with various opponents of gun regulation arguing that gun
regulations in Nazi Germany helped the Nazis to cement power or to implement the Holocaust. Fact-checkers have described these
claims or theories as "false" or "debunked". [14] [15] [16][10] While Jews were subject to having their guns seized, the gun registry
was so incomplete that many Jews retained their guns.[15] On the whole, gun laws were actually made less stringent for German
citizens who were loyal to Nazi rule.[10] [14]” •A systematic effort to disarm political dissidents is not equivalent to modern day
policies intenended to reduce gun deaths - not to mention “ PolitiFact also writes, "a lack of guns was not the issue" in the rise of the
Nazis and the Holocaust[14]” anyway. Claim 7: Hitler was pro choice •Doctors, pregnancy, childbirth and abortion during the Third
Reich •“Utilizing abortion as a subject I will show how science and medicine in general, and abortion in particular, were used as
weapons of mass destruction by Nazi physicians in their zeal to comply with the political climate of the time. Nazi policy on abortion
and childbirth was just one of the methods devised and designed to ensure the extermination of those whom the Nazis deemed had
‘lives not worth living.’ Physicians implemented these policies, not with the fate of their patients in mind, but rather in the name of
the ‘state.’” •“During World War II, anti-abortion laws were increased again, and it became a capital offense. In 1943, a law was
passed making it punishable by death to provide a German woman with an abortion. [5] Non-Aryan women meanwhile were often
"encouraged" to utilize contraception and abortion in order to reduce their populations.” •This is SO far disconnected from the
modern understanding of what it means to be pro choice. Hitler wasn't pro choice, he was proextermination-of-those-deemed-inferior.
Claim 8: The Nazis set offical wages •Wage Policy in Nazi Germany •Yes and no. Prior to the Nazis, the Weimar Republic (under
socialist influence) created collective wage agreements across industries in hopes of preventing "cut-throat" competition for labor. In
contrast, the Nazi official wage rates were far lower than Weimar wage rates, could be overruled (allowing lower pay) for individual
companies by the DAF's "labor trustees", and disallowed the possibility of collective bargaining by the workers. Claim 9: Didn't the
Nazis create the labor front •https://books.google.com/books? id=fpFbuCKOLKwC&lpg=PP1&pg=PT449#v=onepage& f=false,
https://www.teachers.org.uk/files/trade-unionistsleaflet.pdf •Yes. The Nazis established the German Labour Front (Deutsche
Arbeitsfront, DAF). To establish the DAF, the Nazis destroyed non-DAF trade unions as "leftist" and seized their funds. In name, the
DAF was intended to mediate conflicts between business owners and workers. In practice, the Nazis used the DAF to decrease the
worker power and to trap workers in their current place of employment, as William Shirer notes: here and here
•http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv2ch07.html fun note on poster colors •"We chose red for our posters after particular
and careful deliberation, our intention being to irritate the Left, so as to arouse their attention and tempt them to come to our meetings
-- if only in order to break them up -- so that in this way we got a chance of talking to the people."