She's wrong about Hitler having the same brand as Trump. Hitler, arguably, had better marketing than Trump ever did. Furthermore, as she said, Hitler had significant support form establishment figures. It was a progressive ideology that suggested a "third way" that could save Germany from the fall of Capitalism (which was just a few years away), that appealed to a return to the socialism that Germans thought they enjoyed, that promised an end to political infighting, and combined the modern progressive ideas on how to run a society while not simply accepting communist revolutionary culture.
Hitler almost played himself as a kind of Modern Socialist for Modern Times that could save Germany from the violence of a Marxist revolution, while still enjoying all the assumed benefits of Socialism. We'd almost think of him as a "Social Democrat" if he actually believed in Democracy. But Democracy was an anti-Socialist structure as far as basically everyone on the Left was concerned at the time.
Hitler didn't play on a return to socialism. The socialism aspects of the party and his campaign were rather minor, in fact. The big issues he forced were economics (socialism as an aspect, but moreso building a state where children weren't whoring themselves on street corners,) German pride, and a return to power.
Both the upper and lower echelons of German power still fondly remembered the days of Prussia and before. They desperately wanted those days of the "noble German" to return. Many of the high-ranking cabinet and SS members Hitler would recruit were born and raised under that system whereby it was a common thing for duels to blood to occur without any armor and real swords.
The Germans prided themselves on their martial prowess and their society was built around a fascination for war. History books today will tell you that they were brutal butchers with no regard for honor or care for human life, but that's not true in the slightest. Germany offered Britain and France incredibly favorable surrender terms many, many times. Neither Hitler nor the German people wanted to stay in a protracted brother war.
As for economics, do remember that it was Hitler PERSONALLY who reinvented the factory system. He knew what he was doing and was responsible for production methods still used today.
Wage controls, price controls, mandatory unionization, nationalization of industries, make-work programs, fiat currency, protectionism, universal healthcare, universal public education, autarky, shrinking markets theory, application of Marxist theory to economics, the rescinding of private property rights.
Hitler wasn't just promoting socialism, he was a socialist. He was die-hard socialist. He radical socialism. National Socialism was the socialization of the race.
but moreso building a state where children weren't whoring themselves on street corners
I can guess why the Alt-Right try to harp on this, but this was not really a thing that the National Socialists were focusing on.
The Germans prided themselves on their martial prowess and their society was built around a fascination for war.
No. This is the thing with most socialists. They destroy their own people's history in order to impart their own. The Prussian Militarist Aristocracy was like this. Germanic peoples were not. Most Germanic people were not Prussian, and most Germanic people were desperately wishing to avoid further wars that utterly ravaged central Europe several times. German immigrants are known the world over for their peacefulness, their trade, their industriousness, and their integrity in trade. Not their combat ability.
Germany offered Britain and France incredibly favorable surrender terms many, many times.
LOL. Favorable terms for their puppet state. How about, "fuck off back to Berlin"?
As for economics, do remember that it was Hitler PERSONALLY who reinvented the factory system. He knew what he was doing and was responsible for production methods still used today.
I doubt that considering the man had never managed a factory in his life, and was a socialist. Which means, by definition, he knows nothing of economics.
So, the black lady has a point.
She's wrong about Hitler having the same brand as Trump. Hitler, arguably, had better marketing than Trump ever did. Furthermore, as she said, Hitler had significant support form establishment figures. It was a progressive ideology that suggested a "third way" that could save Germany from the fall of Capitalism (which was just a few years away), that appealed to a return to the socialism that Germans thought they enjoyed, that promised an end to political infighting, and combined the modern progressive ideas on how to run a society while not simply accepting communist revolutionary culture.
Hitler almost played himself as a kind of Modern Socialist for Modern Times that could save Germany from the violence of a Marxist revolution, while still enjoying all the assumed benefits of Socialism. We'd almost think of him as a "Social Democrat" if he actually believed in Democracy. But Democracy was an anti-Socialist structure as far as basically everyone on the Left was concerned at the time.
Yes, but he was more overt about destroying the German constitution.
You're also a bit off.
Hitler didn't play on a return to socialism. The socialism aspects of the party and his campaign were rather minor, in fact. The big issues he forced were economics (socialism as an aspect, but moreso building a state where children weren't whoring themselves on street corners,) German pride, and a return to power.
Both the upper and lower echelons of German power still fondly remembered the days of Prussia and before. They desperately wanted those days of the "noble German" to return. Many of the high-ranking cabinet and SS members Hitler would recruit were born and raised under that system whereby it was a common thing for duels to blood to occur without any armor and real swords.
The Germans prided themselves on their martial prowess and their society was built around a fascination for war. History books today will tell you that they were brutal butchers with no regard for honor or care for human life, but that's not true in the slightest. Germany offered Britain and France incredibly favorable surrender terms many, many times. Neither Hitler nor the German people wanted to stay in a protracted brother war.
As for economics, do remember that it was Hitler PERSONALLY who reinvented the factory system. He knew what he was doing and was responsible for production methods still used today.
Utter lunacy.
Wage controls, price controls, mandatory unionization, nationalization of industries, make-work programs, fiat currency, protectionism, universal healthcare, universal public education, autarky, shrinking markets theory, application of Marxist theory to economics, the rescinding of private property rights.
Hitler wasn't just promoting socialism, he was a socialist. He was die-hard socialist. He radical socialism. National Socialism was the socialization of the race.
I can guess why the Alt-Right try to harp on this, but this was not really a thing that the National Socialists were focusing on.
No. This is the thing with most socialists. They destroy their own people's history in order to impart their own. The Prussian Militarist Aristocracy was like this. Germanic peoples were not. Most Germanic people were not Prussian, and most Germanic people were desperately wishing to avoid further wars that utterly ravaged central Europe several times. German immigrants are known the world over for their peacefulness, their trade, their industriousness, and their integrity in trade. Not their combat ability.
LOL. Favorable terms for their puppet state. How about, "fuck off back to Berlin"?
I doubt that considering the man had never managed a factory in his life, and was a socialist. Which means, by definition, he knows nothing of economics.