Talk:Adolf Hitler

It has been suggested that this article be split into Adolf Hitler and Nazi Party.

!

Due to the controversial nature of this article, it has been locked by the Administrators to prevent edit wars or vandalism. Sysops, please do not unlock it without first consulting the protecting sysop.

Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive1 WARNING: 97 kilobytes!

Improvement Proposals

• Due to vandalism, please post MAJOR improvement proposals here, in this section.

---

Path to power

I see that the Hayek quote got back. So, the paragraph now explains in detail, but briefly, what van Papen did, what Hitler did, what Hindenburg did, all referring to actual events.

Then the article quotes Hayek out of context, and unrelated to the rest, to the effect that its is all just the socialists fault. I guess this means Conservapedia thinks that good ordinary Germans are and cannot not be blamed for what happened in the Third Reich. Is this true? User:Order 31 July, 8:40 (AEST)

It will be integrated. Hayek is the historical narrator here. Here's more regarding Roosevelt:

Whatever you do don't integrate it there. It is ruining the article. All paragraphs of the article except for the introduction contain historical facts and no significant interpretion. The paragraphs, The Beginning Of His Political Life, Beer Hall Putsch, Path to Power, Consolidation of Power, Holocaust, 1944 Assassination Attempt, Marriage, and Death all are fairly factual, and the Hayek quote is the only part of it offering a interpretation. If you want to discuss Hayek's contribution to the discussion on the causes of the Third Reich, do it somewhere else, but not in the factual account. Make an article, introduce a section at the end, whatever. And then, citing Hayek as only scholar with an opinion on this issue is also insufficient. Numerous history wars were fought about this one. User:Order 31 July, 11:30

"The system he (FDR) blundered us into is more like the managed and bureaucratized, state supported system of Germany before World War I than our own traditional order. Before his regime we lived in a system which depended for its expansion upon private investment in private enterprise. Today we live in a system which depends for its expansion and vitality upon the government. This is a pre­war European importation ­ imported at the moment when it had fallen into complete disintegration in Europe. ...Americans trapped in the economic disasters and the political quarrels of every nation on earth and a system of permanent militarism closely resembling that we beheld with horror in Europe for decades, bureaucrats swarming over every field of life and the President calling for more power, more price­fixing, more regulations and more billions. Does this look like the traditional American scene? Or does it not look rather like the system built by Bismarck in Germany in the last century and imitated by all the lesser Bismarcks in Europe? ...No, Roosevelt did not restore our economic system. He did not construct a new one. He substituted an old one which lives upon permanent crises and an armament economy."

Actually, we already had this discussion, how the real anti-Semites & racists came from the former territorries of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Franz Leopold Neumann of the Frankfurt School of critical thinking and Chief Nurmberg Prosecution Researcher said it clearly, and most would agree (exept brainwashed Americans who believed wartime Hollywood propaganda and still do), and that is, Germany was the last place in Europe that anyone ever expect the Holocaust to take place. And that is because nowhere in Europe had Jews been accepted and made as much social progress as in Germany. The real fact is, it is Germany's lack of development as a Democracy that would respect everybody's rights including minorities, and the lack of citizen participation and involvement, and not racism, is how a foreigner like Hitler could get in power, import his racist ideas from Austro-Hungary which were not commonly held in Imperial or Wiemar Germany, and carry out the program he did.

And as Hayek points out, it is the Socialist who snuffed out any feelings for, or movement toward, a liberal democracy prior to WWI. RobS 21:05, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

First, what has FDR to with this discussion? Other than Germany wasn't the only country with a planned economy during WWII.

Second, the Emperor and his political allies weren't to fond about liberal democracy either.

Third, we had the discussion that they were all Austrians, and is was already debunked, because many of the main centers of Nazi support were in the Lutheran North of Germany.

Fourth, don't hide all the time behind Hayek. His work is definitely interesting, especially because he was neither conservative nor socialist, but states in his work "Why I am not a conservative", that he is an (old-school) liberal, which exists in a different political dimension. Anyway, whatever Hayek might have said, the question is what you think about the matter. Hayek isn't a Conservapedia editor, you are, and you took his sentence out of context, and put it there. So, what is you opinion on this matter?

Finally, do you say that the Third Reich was Austrian Catholic Socialist venture, and the Germans had no part in it?

And as an aside, I'd like to ask you if you are by any chance of North German Lutheran National Conservative descent? User:Order 31 July, 11:26

So the fact Hayek stated he was not a conservative still does not place fascism at the polar end as an opposite of Communism and Socialism. We are writing historical narrative. We are using primary source, eyewitness accounts of educated and objective observers, not wartime propagandists. A lie that was told in 1933 or 1943, whether it was told by Josef Goebbels, the US Office of War Information, the Hollywood Screen Writers Guild or Franklin Roosevelt is as much a lie today as it was in 1933 or 1943. I'm sorry, I make no appologies for this. Facts are facts. We need to explain to the youth of the planet (a) what happened, and (b) why it happened. Sourcing, and the credibility of sourcing is paramount. Simply because a myth has been handed down by popular culture or proven liars means nothing. In fact, we have every obligation to correct the record. RobS 21:41, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

• What has FDR to do with this matter?

• I am not sure to which lie you refer? Can you be precise? Do you mean to say that it is a lie that a broad section of German society was bearing responsibility for the Third Reich, and not just a group of Austrian catholic crypto-socialists? Can you answer this please?

• I never said that because Nazism wasn't socialist, it must have been conservative. To the contrary. And I didn't say that Socialism was the anti-thesis of Nazism. And therefore good. I repeatedly said that it was neither socialist, nor conservative, and that communism and Nazism were both totalitarian. I said it repeatedly. Repeatedly. Repeatedly. Repeatedly. Repeatedly. So don't make stuff up. But just because they were both totalitarian doesn't mean that they are the same.

• The article was factual, until you added the Hayek quote giving an interpretation by Hayek. What you report isn't an eyewitness account, but the interpretation of a contemporary. I agree that should tell the youth first what happened. And that is exactly why the Hayek quote is at it a wrong place, because it not describing a factual event, it is interpretation. Feel free to add a section on the "history wars" that discussed the causes of the Third Reich. However, I see no need to single out Hayek as only scholar who had something to contribute to the discussion. Other scholars were contemporaries too, and have made equally credible contributions.

• And finally, I am still curious if are by any chance of North German Lutheran National Conservative descent? User:Order 31 July, 13:36

1. FDR & Hitler articles are part of the WWII series.
2. We're actually not that far off on the political spectrum theory aspects of National Socialism; the tradional telling is Communism & Fascism are polar opposites. This isn't what happened. Two extreme factions of an anti-God ideology got in a big dispute, and 55 million people--many not sympathetic to either side--got killed in the process. RobS 00:45, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

• What has FDR to do with which parts of the German society bears responsibility?

• Nazism wasn't anti-god. Sure, Hitler wasn't what you would a good Christian, and he was anti-clerical when it interfered with his business, but he was a theist, and Nazism as ideology was in favor of "positive Christianity". Unlike its socialist roots, this principle has never been been amended. Before you get all excited, I do know that the Nazi view of Christianity is fundamentally different from what the main Churches of today teach. I don't not say that all Christians are Nazis, but just that Nazism wasn't anti-God.

• I never said that they are polar opposites, and the article didn't say it either. But just because they are not polar opposites, doesn't means that they are the same. User:Order 31 July, 15:00

One of the very important aspects of National Socialism is, Nazi's were enlightend Socialists who got thier enlgihtened, athiestic doctrines from Socialsim. This enlightened, athiestic doctrine, i.e. to overthrow the existing order, or to promote "change" in social organization and institutions that challenged the power of the church, and exisitng Christian morality, such as the commandment to love thine enemies, the Nazi's got from their Socialist roots.

Socialism preached hate and envy, and destruction of alleged "oppressors;" Christianity, or the "old social order" preached tolerence and acceptance of all, Greek and Jew alike. This is where Jewish doctine and Christian doctrine separate--Jews adhered to the old Mosaic command to love thine friend and hate thine enemy. Christian doctrine, or the "established order" taught "love thine enemies", even those who oppose themselves. When God was rejected wholesale in the French Revolution, and Marx & Darwin substituted man having dominion over the earth (as in both Hebrew & Christian scriptures), with the doctrine of Natural Selection of Favored Races, class hate and class war, and the doctrine that man is an animal, these doctines were applied to those (whom it was percieved) promoted the doctrines. IOW, since man is an animal, if you can kill a dog, you can kill a man. And there is no consequences, final judgement, or higher power to answer to. It is the enlightened doctrine of Natural Selection of Favored Races being applied in its most logical, and rational, form. RobS 14:47, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

• First, it Nazi apologetic to say that Nazism is the most logical and rational. What essential say is that everybody who doesn't share your views must kill other people based on race. This is a call for genocide, as I see it. And excuses them. Because you say that there is only one logical conclusion, the Nazis had no choice. Which is not true, because they had a choice. You did put into quotes, so I don't know who said it, but since you post it without comment, I have to assume that it also your opinion.

• I didn't say this at all. I said Nazism is the natural consequence and outgrowth of enlighten Socialism. That is, more specifically, Naxism is the natural consequence of both the Enlightenment and Karl Marx, (and Darwinism, an enlightened subfield of 19th century thought). Let me put it quite specifically, it is a straight line of deductive reasoning from the Enlightenment which caused the overthrow of the Ancien Regime to the Holocaust. There are no divergent paths. It is the natural process and outgrowth of logical thought along that path. RobS 23:37, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

What you say is that Nazism was unavoidable, it was the logical consequence of the 19th century. This lets all the people of the hook who helped the Nazis to power in the 1930; this lets all the people of the hook who imprisoned, tortured, and killed people during the Third Reich, and it lets all the people off who invaded other countries an bombed and burned their population in WWII. Because it was inevitable in your reasoning. This a very extreme position withing the already disputed Sonderweg theory, and generally rejected, even by other adherents of the Sonderweg theory. It is generally accepted that some important people had the choice to act differently, but they didn't, and if they had acted different, history would be different as well. User:Order 2 August, 12:26

Not at all. What I am saying is worshipping at the altar of science, logic, and reason, in lieu of God, is what the progressive development of 19th century thought was all about. And yes, destruction is unavoidable when secularism rejected the Jewish God, that is to say, Jehovah - as a Jewish conspiracy, which is what led Marie Antoinette to the gallows.

Can you point us to an atheist who reject all gods, because they think that it is all a jewish conspiracy? Russel? Dawkins? Or Sam Harris? I guess there is none. They reject gods, because they think that they are inconsistent with what they assume to know about the world. Just because you don't like them, and maybe disagree with their reasoning, doesn't mean that you have to vilify them and make up reasons for their atheism, that are not true. The "positive Christianity", advocated by the Nazis, didn't think that it was all a conspiracy, but they thought, that Christ original message, was corrupted by Jews and jewish thought. User:Order 3 august, 10:00

I think most of the Nazi's writers certainly make that case, and some point to earlier, 19th century writers to support their arguments. All of them, Hitler & Hess in Mien Kampf, Goebbels, several others all make this central agrument. In particular, read the outline of Hitler's unpublished second book, editied by Joachim Fest, tentative title was The Monumental History of Mankind. It's unmistakeable, "Judah" is responsible for all the planet's problems since time immemorial according to Hitler. Folks like Voltaire, Marx, and Darwin just paved the path for Hitler & Hess (actually Rudolf Hess did write most of Mein Kampf), Alfred Rosenberg, Houston Stuart Chamberlain, et al. Betrand Russell and Vladimir Lenin are simply first cousins of this line of "intellectual thought." Rob Smith 21:20, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

And I didn't deny that the Nazis and their "Positive Christianity" did blame Jews, to the contrary I 'did actually say it. Problem is "Positive Christianity" is theist, not atheist. User:Order 3 August, 11:35

You're going to have to prompt my memory with this one, I really have been away from most of these primary sources since the late 1970s. A link might help, too. Rob Smith 22:05, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

And just because secular athiesm has unavoidable consequence does not mean at all that that those consequences are justified. Rob Smith 18:50, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

I didn't mean to say that you justified the consequence, I meant to say that it was inevitable, such that in the end no p[erson is personally responsible for the committed crimes.User:Order 3 august, 10:00

• Second. Did you call Nazism enlightened? Just because they respected private property, and sold human beings as raw material to the companies to keep their production running?

• Yes. Nazi's were enlightened atheists who viewed Christianity, as it had been viewed since the time of Voltaire, as a Jewish conspiracy which the Jews themselves did not beleive in. RobS 23:37, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

(1) What has Voltaire to do with the matter? (2) As is said on this page already, Hitlers view was apparently that the true theistic faith that later became Christianity was corrupted by Jews, but he didn't reject the notion of a god. He wanted a religion that was cleansed from the jewish influences. But even if he wasn't an atheist, he still was a bad person. Bin Laden isn't an atheist either. Why are you hung up about proving that he is an atheist, if he said himself that he wasn't. User:Order 2 August 00:08 (AEST)

See above. Rob Smith 18:50, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

This really is a digression, some atheists who do not worship Jehovah worship self or Satan as their god. Rob Smith 18:50, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

• Third. Even if you keep repeating it, it is wrong to call a movement that had the inscription "Gott mit uns" on their belt when went out to war atheist, or even anti-God. And how do you explain the following sentence from their party program "Die Partei als solche vertritt den Standpunkt eines positiven Christentums, ohne sich konfessionell an ein bestimmtes Bekenntnis zu binden." Doesn't strike me as anti-God. And I repeat it again, in case you didn't get it, this I do not say that their view of Christianity is in any way compatible with your view on Christianity.

• The old "Gott mit uns" argument. Actually, that was the inscription on the Imperial German belts in the Erste Welt Krieg; the Nazi's substituted the swastika, and later brought back the old imperial inscription. Further, if you look, it is quotation from the Hebrew scriptures: "Take counsel together, and it shall come to nought; speak the word, and it shall not stand: for God is with us." [1] And there is a famous photograph of none other than Ernest Hemingway with a First World War (i.e. no swastika) "Gott mit uns" belt buckle in the 1930s. Do an internet search if you want to see it. Finally, if you're reaching for this argument, it means you're running out of gas. RobS 23:37, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

• It seem like you can buy those belt buckles of the internet. I don't want to post neo-nazi sites on this page, but google for "gott mit uns" hakenkreuz, and you will find where you can buy them.

• For the second time "Gott mit uns" is (a) from the Hebrew scriptures, and (b) from Imperial Germany. Using this logic, we should abandoned the Hebrew scriptures because the Nazi's ripped them off. RobS 00:56, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

I am not sure how long will take until it get through to you, but I still didn't say that Christianity is Nazism. And I also did not say that Christianity is using Nazi symbols. I said that Nazis used references to God. And that many Nazis, and among them quite likely Hitler himself, were theists. This means that they weren't atheists. You might know that "theist" is not the same as being a "Christian". And you might also know that not being a "Christian" following your particular interpretation of the scripture doesn't mean that you are an "atheist". The Nazis advocated "positive Christianity", something which should be different from your version of Christianity, but which is still decidedly theist. This is something different from saying that Christians are Nazis. What is so difficult to understand about that? you are barking up the wrong tree. For days. And I am telling you for days. User:Order 1 August, 23:58

Ok, this argument is difficult for obvious reason. Hitler certainly did not accept the existence or soveriegnty of the Jewish God, Jehovah. Neither did Hitler accept the old Nordic gods like Wotan, despite some rumors (Ludendorf perhaps did). Hitler may have believed in some sort of Providence, as Menachim Begin referred to, also. Who is this "Providence"? IMHO, it is was most likely Satan, however if Hitler were here, and if you asked him, he'd probably most certainly deny it and laugh, as most Hollywood movie producers would laugh also at the same question.

So, we're at the crossroads in examining where a person may actually be admitting to some divine supernatural being greater then themselves that they are in subservience to. Most spiritually decieved people never even get this far, laboring under the notion that they themselves are god, i.e. that their life purpose is to serve themself. Now, if a deluded soul arrives at the point where they recognize a supernatural power apart from themself, more powerful than themself, and to whom they owe some sort of debt even, and at the same time pointedly denying this supernatural power is Jehovah, for all intents and purposes we can conclude they are avowed Satanists. So the only remaining question is, when Hitler survived the July 20, 1944 assassination attempt, and Goebbels convinced Hitler Providence intervened, did he really believe it, or was he just going along with another propaganda scheme?

Whatever you conclude from all this, you're not going to find a very widely accepted doctrine, even among Nazi party members. The vast majority of Nazi party members, and even sympathetic non-party members, were simply garden variety athiestic socialists, who would laugh at the idea they worshipped and/or served Satan. Yes, there were occultists, like Himmler and many top Nazi's, but the vast majortiy of the public just looked on this behavior not very different from the seances Hillary Clinton used to hold on the White House roof. Rob Smith 00:40, 6 August 2007 (EDT)

• And what about point 24 in the progam of the NSDAP? About "positive christianity" User:Order

• Thanks for proving my point. I said: I do know that the Nazi view of Christianity is fundamentally different from what the main Churches of today teach, but you still could help giving me the spiel that Nazism and Christianity is different. Read my postings for a change, instead of making stuff. It seems that you can only argue against stuff I didn't say. User:Order 1 August, 11:23

• Wikipedia, believe it or not, has a good article on Hanns Kerrl. [2] This could be expanded upon, and I hope to do so here in CP. For now, here's a quote from Hitler in Tischgesprache, 14th December 1941 Midday,

• "Kerrl, with the noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself....Pure Christianity...is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics." [p. 145-146] RobS 23:38, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

• Nice quote. Of course there is a dispute about the "Tischgespraeche itself. whether they took place in the form Kerrl reported. But lets no go down this road. Lets take it at face value. It say that he doesn't like the Christian message of forgivenes and compassion. And guess what, that is what I told now already countable time myself. So why do you keep on hammering this point?
• Actually, a very nice quote. Because he actually says that he reject Bolshevism wholeheartedly. That the he sees a Bolshevistic aspect in Christianity, and that it is exactly this aspect that is incompatible with Nazism. This quote proves that the Fuehrer himself believed that bolshevism and Nazism were incompatible. You made my point, Rob. Thanks. User:Order 1 August 14:00

• Yes. Nazism simply replaced the word "bourgeois" in Marxist rhetoric, with "Jewish", but all the other rhetoric remained the same (incidentally, the DNC does this very same thing, instead of "rich Jew", they simply use "The Rich.") Rob Smith 23:30, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

You didn't answer one my questions, and I am still curious: Are you by any chance of Conservative Lutheran North German descent? Order 23:35, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

I am of mixed race: 50% German 50% Slavic. I was raised Catholic, but today am moreless a Dispensationalist Christian. Some roots come from Stetin (Szczecin) which was mixed German/Polish & defintiely devout Catholic when they arrived in America; others come from Slovakia. And there were "mixed marriages" in the US, i.e. my mothers father was Lutheran. Rob Smith 11:08, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

contemporaneous corroboration

Ok, returning to Hayek, whom we use a 1945 quote, let's look at a 1940 quote from a Socialist publication during the Phoney War which says virtually the same thing Hayek said after Hitler blew his brains out:

From 1905 to 1940

The downfall of bourgeois democracy in Europe did not begin with Hitler. Hitler is a result not a cause. The crisis of Europe first showed itself in the Russian revolution of 1905. That it was a world crisis and not a European crisis was proved by the course of the war in 1914. That war neither ended nor made the world safe for democracy. The characteristic feature of the period 1918-39 was the destruction of democracy in country after country, with or without the violent defeat of the socialist movement, and the steady preparation for the second imperialist war. Without socialism, the war of 1939, Hitler victory or no Hitler victory, must inevitably mean the complete destruction of democracy all over Europe, the development of the totalitarian state in America, and still further battles for the re-division of the world.

The question that faces us, therefore, as Marxian socialists, is to estimate soberly, at this critical moment, what are the possibilities for the socialist revolution, the only force that can check the descent into the abyss and reverse the process of disintegration. The possibility of an early Hitler victory, the tremendous power displayed by the German military machine, the inevitable demoralization of the anti-Hitler forces in Germany by his uninterrupted march of success – these things undoubtedly have altered the former perspective of a long drawn-out war ending in immediate revolution. Let us, however, before we speculate on the future, examine the past.

• Source:Blitzkrieg and Revolution, An Editorial, From New International, Vol.6 No.4, May 1940, pp.83-87.

And here is the Hayek quote:

"By the time Hitler came to power, liberalism was dead in Germany. And it was socialism that had killed it."

Analysis of comparison; while Hayek uses the term "liberalism", the New International editorial uses "democracy." In both, they are talking about the same thing, and they both make reference to the fact that Socialism survived the destruction of liberal democracy. Rob Smith 18:50, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

I guess the highlighting is by you and not by the New International. Where in the text by the socialist publication do they say that they destroyed liberalism or democracy? To the contrary, the article even suggests that without socialism democracy will be destroyed, and the writer even argues that socialists are the only movement capable of saving democracy. Take for example: Without socialism, the war of 1939 must inevitably mean the complete destruction of democracy. No Socialism, no democracy. According the the New International. The fragment that you quoted tell that democracy got destroyed, and then even claims that the Marxist Socialist are the only force that can reverse the process of disintegration. This quote shows clearly that even the Socialist disagree with your interpretation of the Hayek quote. I am not sure why you like to quote material that proves my point. User:Order 2 august 10:00 (AET)

The question simply is over blame. Hayek says socialism destroyed liberalism; the Socialist publication says "The characteristic feature of the period 1918-39 was the destruction of democracy in country after country, with or without the violent defeat of the socialist movement." Of course they are not going to take the same position as Hayek, i.e. that they caused it. But they are observing the same phenomenea, that liberal democracy faded, and socialism survived. Rob Smith 20:11, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

So all you wanted to say it that democracies in 1920/30s democracies in Europe failed. I don't need Hayek or the New International to tell that. In Italy, Germany, Spain, Russia, and even in Poland and Austria, democracy wasn't going too well. If this is what you want to say both quotes aren't that great to make that point. Given that the other paragraphs in the article are referring to actual events, and not to interpretations from 30 years later, or from a contemporary opinion pieces, you should refer to events in the other countries to make your point. User:Order 2 august 18:00

A reading of both documents is illuminating (and other materials could support it, too). We extracted just one sentence from Hayek, but the whole paragraph sheds even more light, and other quotes, too. Hayek says something to the effect of "fascism is the result when people realize Communism does not work" (to put it another way, Socialism, which evolves into Communism, does not bring democracy, it brings fascism). The New International quote above says the same thing, "Hitler is a result not a cause." Rob Smith 12:58, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

It is agreed that, if not the idea of fascism, then at least the rise of fascism in Europe was a reaction to communism, especially to the rise of Bolshevism in the Soviet Union. But even for that their are better quotes to find that support this.

Anyway, what we have now are eight sections on Hitlers life. Look at them one by one:

• The Beginning Of His Political Life: 2 paragraphs, both on fact and events.
• Beer Hall Putsch: 2 paragraphs on facts and events.
• Path to Power 2 paragaphs on fact and events. And one sentence of interpretation, the Hayek quote.
• Consolidation of Power: 4 paragraphs on fact and events.
• Holocaust: 2 paragraphs on facts and events.
• 1944 Assassination Attempt: 1 paragraph on facts and events.
• Marriage : 1 paragraph on facts and events.
• Death :: 1 paragraph on facts and events.

Altogether 15 paragraphs on facts and events, and one single unrelated sentence that says only indirectly what you actually want to say, namely that fascism was a reaction to Bolshevism. This is not the way to go. The right thing to do would be to remove the Hayek quote from where it is, and if you insist on discussing the causes, a separate section on what scholars said about the causes. And Hayek isn't the only scholar you should mention. Taylor, Turner, Dawidowicz and even Goldhagen come to mind, and there are numerous others. But an isolated blurb, whose meaning isn't obvious after first reading, isn't the way to go. User:Order 6 august 10:20

Actually, to say fascism is a "reaction" can be somewhat misleading. What we know is, that communism and fascism do not represent polar opposites; fasism is the end result of a process who's original aim is that socialist utopia called 'communism'. The process goes something like this: a liberal society embraces socialism; socialism smothers liberalism (the socialist ideal of the collective being greater than the individual stamps out progress on the road to the Rights of Man); socialism's ultimate goal is communism, but when the people realize communism is only a dream, fascism is the end result.

Where does 'reaction' implies polar opposites? Where? Every person in his right mind knows that both were totalitarian. User:Order

The problem with this one is the usual misinformation taught at the junior high school level in definition of "reactionary;" while on one level, fascim indeed was a "reaction" to communism, it was actually part of a progressive process, not a reactionary polar opposite. Rob Smith 22:05, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

There are no polar opposites, liberalism devolves into socialism, socialism evolves into communism, and communism ultimately evolves into fascism. I have another eyewitness source who uses the phrase "Red fascism." Rob Smith 21:20, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

You are applying the cold-war and 1980's US definition of "Liberal", because actual Liberals of that time, and Hayek is a prime example, would strongly disagree with you. They would probably hit you with a stick. Liberals like Hayek were firmly the opposed to both socialism and fascism, because both were totalitarian. Also it is provably wrong to say that people first embraced socialism, before they became fascists. Many embraced fascism right away, from being national conservative, or monarchist, or whatever other -ism you had in that time. Often out of fear of Bolshevism. User:Order 6 august 11:30

I agree the contemporary, popular use of the term "liberal" is a misnomer, particularly in the United States. The correct term is "socialist," even with its US shading to mean "treasonous," which is becoming more apparant as time goes by. It is unfortunate, Ronald Reagan, Milton Friedman, and Boris Yeltsin, all classical liberals, did somewhat rehabitilate the term in the 1980s & early 90s, but the old perjoritives all came back to stick (most probably through Rush Limbaugh and the lifting of the Fairness Doctrine, which is very well explained in CP's entry). FWIW, it looks like we're stuck with the pejoritive, contemporary American meaning of the term liberal. Of course, the MSM and the DNC have been of little help in clarifing its real meaning. Rob Smith 22:05, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

I see that the Hayek quote is still in there. I also saw that you portrayed the period of imperial Germany as one in which it was a socialist paradise. And also there you quote Hayek. Hayek would hit you with a stick for this, because he knew perfectly well that this is plain ridiculous. Imperial Germany was Bismarck, Kulturkampf, Nationalismus, Demokratiedefizit, Sozialistenerlaesse, Sozialversicherung, Flottenausbau, Wilhelm Zwo.

And when it comes to the beginnings of the Third Reich you might want check which party van Papen belonged to, which parties did vote, under pressure but they did, in favour of his empowerment laws, which party the rest of Hitlers first cabinet belong too, which parties were part of the Harzburg front, the political background of Hugenberg, Schacht, and others who actually helped Hitler to power. You can impossibly claim that it was all just a socialist endeavor. But it seems that fact don't count here, while I had hope that we could keep spin out of the a subject as important as Hitler. Peace be upon you. Order 20:08, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

Interesting premise; one of the charges against von Papen at Nuremberg was he was part of the Nazi conspiracy, but as you just pointed out, he was never a member of the Nazi Party. Why can't these things ever be discussed dispassionately? Rob Smith 21:32, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

Exactly, my point. He wasn't a member of the Nazi party, he was a prominent member of the Zentrum party, a Catholic Party, and he still helped Hitler into power. Order 22:06, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

So, dare I ask the question, is it unfair to refer to him as a "Nazi War Criminal"? Rob Smith 23:26, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

It might be unfair, not sure what the Nuremberg Trial decided. Did I call him "Nazi War Criminal"? To the contrary, the point is that he probably isn't, but that he was a fairly normal German centrist politician, who still helped Hitler into power. Order 23:38, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

Truth is, he really had a disdain for Hitler, and Hitler didn't care much for von Papen either. And their mutual distrust and resentment had little to do with politics. It was a class difference. Von Papen regarded Hitler as an ill-mannered low-life, and Hitler thought von Papen an artistocratic snob. Rob Smith 00:21, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

There is famous newsreel footage with no audio of Treaty of Munich that reveals the difference between the two. Von Papen and Hitler are leading the guests which include Ciano & Chamberlain into a room. Hitler plops himself down in a chair, while von Papen observes the diplomatic nicities of remaining standing until all the guests are in the room and seated. Hitler clearly is embarassed the moment he sits down and sees von Papen remaining standing, and its all caught on film. He knows he looks crude, rude, selfish, and inexperienced in just simple manners, let alone protocol, or "high class" manners. And it's almost as if he feels deliberately tricked by von Papen into making himself look bad. Very revealing, if uyou ever get a chance to see it. Rob Smith 00:30, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

So, van Papen didn't even like this guy, and still helped him to get to power, and worked for him until Munich. So, we found already one person who wasn't an ideologue but was still working for the third Reich. Order 00:36, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

So the Foreign Minster of the Third Riech wasn't even a Nazi, was not one of the 22 Nazi War Criminals at Nuremberg (although history remembers him that way), was found innocent at Nuremberg of being part of the Nazi conspiracy to (a) sieze power (b) make aggresive war (c) etc., although you persist in making that charge. Rob Smith 01:03, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

Did the Nuremberg trail say that it was a conspiracy? I doubt so. And indeed, van Papen helped Hitler to power, I guess there is little discussion about it. One might argue about his motivation, but seems to not much of a mystery either. Order 04:21, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

Yes it did. The Treaty of Munich was a "conspiracy against Peace", as well as all the other events (re-occupation of Rhineland, Invasion of Poland, etc.) Then there was "conspiracy to wage aggressive war", etc.

One should read the Nuremberg Indictment in its entirety [3]. It really is not that long. And it sets out all the major issues to be dealt with prior and afterwards. (One writer has explained why the charge of "conspiracy", Britian needed it to CYA for thier policy of appeasement, i.e. Britian couldn't live up to treaty obligations because it was a victim of a conspiracy--and von Papen's aquittal addresses that argument).

You will see, for example, the Katyn massacre. Peculiar, isn't it, that while the Western Powers knew this Soviet charge was false, and that indeed one of the Administators of Justice in this case himself was guilty of the charge, allowed it to become part of the historical record (this record, which then was resurrected in the mid 1990's as the model of Administering International Justice for War Crimes); also, after reading the horrors that the Soviet's present, we almost get comic relief at France's idea of Crimes Against Humanity, like plunder of property [4]

Wine..................................................................7,647,000 hectolitres.

Champagne...................................................87,000,000 bottles

Beer...................................................................3,821,520 hectolitres

Various kinds of alcohol.................................1,830,000 hectolitres

The myth of France as a "Great Power" (or for that matter, a "victim" when France provided more manpower, and more GDP to the Nazi cause than it did to defend, or liberate, itself, is something that at some point needs to clarified in the English language.

Another point, the various charges of "mass deportation of populations", while Germans were being deported east of the Oder-Niese, the Keelhaul Agreement, the Crimean Taters, the Volga Germans etc. etc. etc. were occuring, has never been addressed (outside of Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipeligo), or "systematic malnutrition", which Lenin & Stalin perfected long before Hitler adopted Bolshevik methods. Rob Smith 11:42, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

The Treaty of Munich happened after the seizure of power. And saying the this treaty was "a conspiracy against peace", is also something slightly different than claiming that "Nazism is a conspiracy". And the rest are tangents. The question was still about who helped Hitler to power, not what happened afterwards or elsewhere. And von Papen was still one of the people who brought Hitler into power. Order 19:04, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

Unfortunately, all we have is the historical record. And the Nuremberg trial rendered its verdict. You are arguing the case that everyone deficient in psychic powers in 1933 is complicit in genocide.

It's not unlike the recent book on IBM; because Nazi's purchased IBM equipment, all the shareholders, employees, and Board of Directors past and present who "did business with the Nazi's" are complicit in genocide. By this line of argument, if Nazi's purchased Crest Toothpaste and Charmin Toilet Paper, Crest Toothpaste and Charmin Toiler Paper likewise "did business with the Nazi's." Don't forget Hitler's shoeshine boy, he must have been involved, too. Rob Smith 16:25, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

Did I somewhere say that van Papen is responsible for genocide? I agreed that the Nuremberg trial is probably the instance that had to decide on this. So but what you say that that van Papen is as responsible for Hitlers rise to power as Hitler shoe shine boy. Did the shoe shine boy go to Hindenburg and convince him to make Hitler chancellor? I doubt it. What I see that you go on all kinds tangents, just because you are unable to accept the historical fact that there were centrist and conservative politicians who helped Hitler to power. Order 18:44, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

Here's the probelm: Hitler was legally came to power under the then Wiemar Constitution. He overwhelmingly won a popular election as well. The Wiemar Constitution wasn't even indigenous, it was imposed as a "liberal reform."

Now, if you are to allege that Hitler, a common scum, came to power outside of some secret Masonic Illuminati cabal that really controls things, and therefore Hitler and the Nazis claim on power was illigimate, we have a problem there. As it is, Hitler was never invited by the French government to visit Paris anytime from the day he came to power. Why is this? Because he was illigitmate? Because he was outside of a clique of insiders who determine who should hold power? Do you see where this line of rhetoric is going to lead you? Rob Smith 21:31, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

You try to get the discussion on all kinds of tangents, like whether the constitution was indigenous, Masonic Illuminati, French inviting Hitler for supper, IBM, Crest tooth paste. Rob, you are alleging all kinds of things that I never said, and that frankly do not even matter. Fact is Hitler came to power under the Weimar constitution. Did I say otherwise? I don't think so. Fact is also that he didn't win a majority of seats, so he needed the help of others. And van Papen was one of then who helped. And Hugenberg another. BTW: While van Papen wasn't found guilty in the Nuremberg trial to be one of the main criminals, he was sentenced to 8 years in prison during denazification for his role as collaborator and enabler. Why is it so hard for you to admit the fact that there were conservative politicians who helped Hitler into power. No, you rather talk about Illuminati to not to have admit this simple fact. Order 21:56, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

So, welfare queens & labor unions help Bill Clinton get into power, despite the fact he sold them down the river with NAFTA & Welfare Reform. Do you think they might have voted any different if they knew they'd be "stabbed in the back"? Rob Smith 22:00, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

For discussing Bill Clinton, go to the entry Bill Clinton. We are discussing Hitler's path to power. Order 22:02, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

OK. What's wrong with this text:

• After a series of minority cabinets former Chancellor van Papen convinced President Hindenburg to appoint Hitler to become Chancellor in a coalition government with the national conservative party. Van Papen expected the nation would recognize Hitler to be a fraud within a few months in government.

Seems to say what you want it to say. Rob Smith 22:05, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

No surprise. I wrote it.

Problem is still the Hayek quote that you took out of context. It suggests that the path to power was purely a socialist endeavor. However, and I cite you citing me:

• After a series of minority cabinets former Chancellor van Papen convinced President Hindenburg to appoint Hitler to become Chancellor in a coalition government with the national conservative party. Van Papen expected the nation would recognize Hitler to be a fraud within a few months in government.

See, it wasn't just the socialists who brought Weimar down. Order 22:11, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

What Hayek is saying is liberalism, in the classic sense, was weakened to non-existent to oppose Nazism. And your use of conservative here likewise is problematic; the titled nobility of Germany, or for that matter all of Europe, is "conservative" in the European sense. As we've had this discussion elsewhere, the US Constitution expressly prohibits the government from conferring titles. So the express meaning of the term here, "conservative" to refer to von Papen and others is wholely out of context in attempt to draw a parallel to contemporary American conservativism.

Shame on you, Order, I have more respect for you and your skills than this feeble reasoning your pushing. Rob Smith 22:19, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

Classic liberalism was indeed weakened, and the permanent attacks from both sides of the spectrum didn't help. But where did the liberals go? Some went left, other went right. My use of "conservative" is fairly consistent with the use by the people in question themselves. The DNVP, the German National People Party, was for example the legitimate successor of the pre-WWI Konservative Partei, the Conservative Party. This is the party that helped Hitler to a majority of seats in parliament. Same holds for von Papen, he was from the conservative wing of the Zentrum party. I said it a few times in this thread already that contemporary US interpretations of 'left' and 'right' don't apply to the 1930s in Germany, so I am not sure what you are complaining about. And there is no shame in pushing the fact that there were also conservative politicians in Germany who made didn't mind that Weimar failed, who didn't shed a tear when Hitler came to power. One of the lesson of the Third Reich is that if you fail to fix an imperfect democracy for short term political gain, you might end up with something worse in the long run. Order 23:32, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

This is an interesting discussion. Truth is, its been many years since I've reviewed any of these source materials in detail. Likewise I did read von Papen's memoirs many many years ago, and am familiar with his case. Seems much of this discussion only grabs tidbits from this or that source, usually out of context, so let's make some effort to set the materials before us (incidentally, von Papen was sentenced to 8 years, yet served less than two; and this is not the place to go into why he was tried a second time after being aquited the first time).

OK, let's look at the original indictment, and then the Judgement. Von Papen is indeed charged with all the same things you are charging him with here: "Von Papen Used His Personal Influence To Promote The Accession Of The Nazis To Power. " et seqq [5]

Let's look at the Judgement: "Von Papen was active in 1932 and 1933, in helping Hitler to form the Coalition Cabinet and aided in his appointment as Chancellor on 30th January;" Wikipedia reports "The central role that Papen played in Hitler's appointment as Chancellor in January 1933 was reflected by Papen's indictment at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trial, though he was acquitted on formal reasons, the tribunal deciding that his "political immoralities" were not under its jurisdiction." This of course, is totally false, as the Nuremberg Judgement clearly, clearly states: "The evidence leaves no doubt that von Papen's primary purpose as Minister to Austria was to undermine the Schuschnigg regime and strengthen the Austrian Nazis for the purpose of bringing about Anschluss. To carry through this plan he engaged in both intrigue and bullying. But the Charter does not make criminal such offenses against political morality, however bad these may be. " [6]

Conlcusion: (a) von Papen's "political immortality" (singular), as rendered by the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, related to the Anschluss, and not the Nazi's regimes rise to power in Germany. Further, the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal fails to make any mention whatsoever about any sort of complicity in conspiracy or for that matter anything about his role in helping Hitler gained power. All the Tribunal found, as cited above, is "active in ...helping Hitler to form the Coalition Cabinet and aided in his appointment as Chancellor," with the final verdict, "The Tribunal finds that von Papen is not guilty under this Indictment, and directs that he shall be discharged."

So lets get the facts in order before we even discuss making generalizations. Rob Smith 00:03, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

new img

Actually that man in the new img may not be Hitler. Hitler, as Stalin & Saddam Hussein likewise, were all known to use doubles for some public appearances, the man in that photo may actually be one of Hitler's doubles. Rob Smith 14:54, 6 August 2007 (EDT)

The evolution of the Hitler article

It used to be a fairly factual article. Now it turns into something like an opinion piece, pointing to everybody CP disagrees with as causes for Hitler. This isn't encyclopedic anymore, and the really bad thing about it is, that one of the main message of the Third Reich gets lost, namely that fairly decent people from all backgrounds can under the influence of a bad ideology, commit heinous crimes. Peace be upon you. Order 19:54, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

Hitler's wax effigy

It might interest the primary editors of this article to note that the wax effigy of Adolf Hitler, in a glass case built into a wall, guards the entrance to the Chamber of Horrors at Madame Tussaud's Wax Works in London, England. Or at least it did in 1988 when I toured London with my family.--TerryH^Talk 21:15, 20 August 2007 (EDT)