You seem pretty closed off to any discussion on the matter but in case you are open to it, here would be the points of contention:
The National Socialist government ironically had less control over the economy than modern Western governments do today. Remember, there's War Economy and Non-War Economy. War economies are always more centrally planned and the American Economy during WWII was highly: Planned Central Government Control of Economy. I'm not suggesting the National Socialists didn't control the economy because they did but it wasn't extreme like the USSR. I'm also not suggesting it was good in the manner they did control things either because many of the socialist policies like deferring funds from single people to married couples to buy houses is not a good thing. However that policy is right out of the playbook in the USA where there's subsidies to married couples, Hungary and Poland also have similar policies. All Western governments today control the economy more than the National Socialists did.
Purges and war. Keep in mind the USA has engaged in significantly more wars than the National Socialists did and is responsible for far more "purges" than the National Socialists were. Of course, the National Socialists lost before their empire started so over the long-term, it's entirely 100% speculation.
It's quite arguable who instigated WWII. Did Russia or Ukraine start the Ukraine war? Putin claims it was the West and the West claims it was Putin. I tend to side with Putin and believe the West instigated it and the West instigated it much in the same manner as how the West instigated Hitler into war. If you want the full details though of why Hitler had to go to war, the short answer is that Hitler wanted to industrialize Germany which required excess food supply from rural people to support city people. Germany did not have enough food to support their growing city population because the West stopped trading with Germany because Germany stopped paying the reparations and interest on their debt which was arguably not something that was fair for them to be paying in the first place. So it really depends where you stand here. if the West traded food to Germany to sustain their industrial development, then Hitler wouldn't have felt forced into going to war to claim more agriculture land to boost his food supply for his industrialization. The Soviets had a similar issue but the Soviet solution was to kill all the rural Christians instead then steal their food. Less mouths to feed and free food.
Lastly, the only reason Hitler left ruin in his wake is because the West attacked him and caused ruin. The real villains of WWII are the Soviets, Britain and the Americans. France also but they were worthless anyhow. The allies are the bad guy not the good guys. Today you live under the Authoritarian Leftist Dictatorship of the West.
All leftists are bad. Socialism here does not excuse the socialism in Germany - which is what they should have discarded after ww2, but instead they discarded nationalism. FDR was a socialist, and a colossal faggot that set in motion the death of the US.
"The west attacked him". He invaded Poland. The first act of aggression was him. And he conspired with the commies to divvy up eastern europe because like all sociopath leftist dictators he was a power mad faggot.
I am not open to crypto-leftists trying to slide right wing websites by simping for an authoritarian leftist regime, claiming it is opposing communism. Nazis vs commies is just leftist infighting. Nazis are not right wing.
the socialism in Germany - which is what they should have discarded after ww2, but instead they discarded nationalism
So, the nationalist qualities of National Socialism were good but the socialist qualities were bad? That's what I said in my original post.
At its core everyone should be National Socialist to some degree. The socialist tenants and big government can be argued but the reality of race and nationalist economic policies can't be denied unless they're being denied by bad actors.
You're linking nationalism with socialism, implying that the two are connected "everyone should be national socialist to some degree" and that the nazis weren't just using it as cover. Nationalism is independent of socialism.
All strong nations have elements of nationalism. The original united states did. The current united states does. The soviets also did. The chinese do now.
Your post is trying to link nationalist sentiments to leftist ideologies as if leftist ideologies don't just use them to further their real cause of gaining power. Simping for socialism, essentially - playing cover for the fact that those faggots did nothing unique. My initial reply was telling you to stop playing propagandist for the wehraboos.
They are faggots, the conpro tourist brigade that doesn't belong here and has been steadily trying to slide the board are also faggots, their ideology is leftist garbage and this is a right wing forum on a right wing site.
I think you also do not understand what nationalism is. The nazi racial policies are not inherent to nationalism. Racial collectivism is not inherent to nationalism, either.
There seems to be some fundamental issues with your argument.
Nothing about socialism is incompatible with nationalism so linking nationalism with socialism is logically congruent.
You state "nationalism is independent of socialism" and you are 100% correct that they are independent. You can be nationalist and socialist or not nationalist and socialist. The National Socialists were Nationalist and Socialist.
Now you presume the National Socialists were only Nationalist so they can gain power. This would imply that once they had power, they would stop being Nationalist. Do you have any examples of the National Socialists not being Nationalist? Or are you speculating that they lost the war too early but if they remained in power, they would have dropped Nationalism? That's possible but nearly all countries in modernity have dropped Nationalism, including the USA. NOTE: National Socialists were Racial Nationalists not Civic Nationalists and most countries in modernity if they have any nationalism left tend to be civic nationalists which is arguably not even nationalism at all.
I would argue the current USA has less nationalism than the National Socialists had.
Your definition of leftist ideology is merely socialism but there's a lot of elements regarding leftist ideology. Leftism is not so easily defined. There's a reason why a lot of leftists absolutely hate National Socialism and see it as their antithesis because the elements of leftism they hold dear are things the National Socialists did not agree with. I am not trying to link leftism to nationalism. I am merely pointing out Nationalism where Nationalism exists and you are trying to suggest there cannot be Nationalism despite there being evidence of Nationalism simply because Socialism also exists despite the fact you agreed socialism and nationalism are independent so Nationalism can in fact exist where Socialism exists.
I am not simping for socialism at all. As I keep linking to in my quote, I am saying the aspects of socialism were the weakest aspects of National Socialism. I am literally doing the opposite of simping for socialism.
Of course the National Socialists did nothing unique. There is nothing new under the sun.
Everyone here is pretty right-wing. I am so right-wing, leftists disintegrate when they hear me speak about politics. My point was simply that being nationalist is good and promoting your own race in your own country is good. That is why National Socialism lives on even today in places like Iran because many people who care about their race and about their nation which they view as being made up of a group of people of a specific race will be accused of being National Socialists because of the similarities with National Socialism. Many embrace the label themselves in protest because of how offensive National Socialism is to many people. They see it as a rebellion to accept the label. The label seems to have mystical properties over you as well because you're incredibly worked up over the label. That's why it's an effective label for some rebels anyhow. Regardless of the label you must agree that race matters and nationalism is good. Even if you disagree with the former, you probably agree with the latter. It's very hard to be right-wing and not nationalist.
You seem pretty closed off to any discussion on the matter but in case you are open to it, here would be the points of contention:
The National Socialist government ironically had less control over the economy than modern Western governments do today. Remember, there's War Economy and Non-War Economy. War economies are always more centrally planned and the American Economy during WWII was highly: Planned Central Government Control of Economy. I'm not suggesting the National Socialists didn't control the economy because they did but it wasn't extreme like the USSR. I'm also not suggesting it was good in the manner they did control things either because many of the socialist policies like deferring funds from single people to married couples to buy houses is not a good thing. However that policy is right out of the playbook in the USA where there's subsidies to married couples, Hungary and Poland also have similar policies. All Western governments today control the economy more than the National Socialists did.
Purges and war. Keep in mind the USA has engaged in significantly more wars than the National Socialists did and is responsible for far more "purges" than the National Socialists were. Of course, the National Socialists lost before their empire started so over the long-term, it's entirely 100% speculation.
It's quite arguable who instigated WWII. Did Russia or Ukraine start the Ukraine war? Putin claims it was the West and the West claims it was Putin. I tend to side with Putin and believe the West instigated it and the West instigated it much in the same manner as how the West instigated Hitler into war. If you want the full details though of why Hitler had to go to war, the short answer is that Hitler wanted to industrialize Germany which required excess food supply from rural people to support city people. Germany did not have enough food to support their growing city population because the West stopped trading with Germany because Germany stopped paying the reparations and interest on their debt which was arguably not something that was fair for them to be paying in the first place. So it really depends where you stand here. if the West traded food to Germany to sustain their industrial development, then Hitler wouldn't have felt forced into going to war to claim more agriculture land to boost his food supply for his industrialization. The Soviets had a similar issue but the Soviet solution was to kill all the rural Christians instead then steal their food. Less mouths to feed and free food.
Lastly, the only reason Hitler left ruin in his wake is because the West attacked him and caused ruin. The real villains of WWII are the Soviets, Britain and the Americans. France also but they were worthless anyhow. The allies are the bad guy not the good guys. Today you live under the Authoritarian Leftist Dictatorship of the West.
All leftists are bad. Socialism here does not excuse the socialism in Germany - which is what they should have discarded after ww2, but instead they discarded nationalism. FDR was a socialist, and a colossal faggot that set in motion the death of the US.
"The west attacked him". He invaded Poland. The first act of aggression was him. And he conspired with the commies to divvy up eastern europe because like all sociopath leftist dictators he was a power mad faggot.
I am not open to crypto-leftists trying to slide right wing websites by simping for an authoritarian leftist regime, claiming it is opposing communism. Nazis vs commies is just leftist infighting. Nazis are not right wing.
So you agree with me?
So, the nationalist qualities of National Socialism were good but the socialist qualities were bad? That's what I said in my original post.
You're linking nationalism with socialism, implying that the two are connected "everyone should be national socialist to some degree" and that the nazis weren't just using it as cover. Nationalism is independent of socialism.
All strong nations have elements of nationalism. The original united states did. The current united states does. The soviets also did. The chinese do now.
Your post is trying to link nationalist sentiments to leftist ideologies as if leftist ideologies don't just use them to further their real cause of gaining power. Simping for socialism, essentially - playing cover for the fact that those faggots did nothing unique. My initial reply was telling you to stop playing propagandist for the wehraboos.
They are faggots, the conpro tourist brigade that doesn't belong here and has been steadily trying to slide the board are also faggots, their ideology is leftist garbage and this is a right wing forum on a right wing site.
I think you also do not understand what nationalism is. The nazi racial policies are not inherent to nationalism. Racial collectivism is not inherent to nationalism, either.
There seems to be some fundamental issues with your argument.
Nothing about socialism is incompatible with nationalism so linking nationalism with socialism is logically congruent.
You state "nationalism is independent of socialism" and you are 100% correct that they are independent. You can be nationalist and socialist or not nationalist and socialist. The National Socialists were Nationalist and Socialist.
Now you presume the National Socialists were only Nationalist so they can gain power. This would imply that once they had power, they would stop being Nationalist. Do you have any examples of the National Socialists not being Nationalist? Or are you speculating that they lost the war too early but if they remained in power, they would have dropped Nationalism? That's possible but nearly all countries in modernity have dropped Nationalism, including the USA. NOTE: National Socialists were Racial Nationalists not Civic Nationalists and most countries in modernity if they have any nationalism left tend to be civic nationalists which is arguably not even nationalism at all.
I would argue the current USA has less nationalism than the National Socialists had.
Your definition of leftist ideology is merely socialism but there's a lot of elements regarding leftist ideology. Leftism is not so easily defined. There's a reason why a lot of leftists absolutely hate National Socialism and see it as their antithesis because the elements of leftism they hold dear are things the National Socialists did not agree with. I am not trying to link leftism to nationalism. I am merely pointing out Nationalism where Nationalism exists and you are trying to suggest there cannot be Nationalism despite there being evidence of Nationalism simply because Socialism also exists despite the fact you agreed socialism and nationalism are independent so Nationalism can in fact exist where Socialism exists.
I am not simping for socialism at all. As I keep linking to in my quote, I am saying the aspects of socialism were the weakest aspects of National Socialism. I am literally doing the opposite of simping for socialism.
Of course the National Socialists did nothing unique. There is nothing new under the sun.
Everyone here is pretty right-wing. I am so right-wing, leftists disintegrate when they hear me speak about politics. My point was simply that being nationalist is good and promoting your own race in your own country is good. That is why National Socialism lives on even today in places like Iran because many people who care about their race and about their nation which they view as being made up of a group of people of a specific race will be accused of being National Socialists because of the similarities with National Socialism. Many embrace the label themselves in protest because of how offensive National Socialism is to many people. They see it as a rebellion to accept the label. The label seems to have mystical properties over you as well because you're incredibly worked up over the label. That's why it's an effective label for some rebels anyhow. Regardless of the label you must agree that race matters and nationalism is good. Even if you disagree with the former, you probably agree with the latter. It's very hard to be right-wing and not nationalist.