The Nazi thing

Big Don

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Sep 2, 2007
Messages
10,551
Reaction score
190
Location
Sanger CA
Many democrats in this country tend to throw out the Nazi label against conservatives, especially but, not limited to republicans.
I came across this, from Yale's Avalon Project
Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression Volume IV

Here are a few excerpts:
Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes.
Attack the rich, not really a republican thing...
We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare
What? Expand social security?
The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.
Free health care! Forced exercise!
These three could be DNC talking points, shoot, they HAVE been DNC talking points:
12. In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
13. We demand the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).
14. We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.
 
Don't miss point 7, the government owes you livelyhood...
 
Many democrats in this country tend to throw out the Nazi label against conservatives, especially but, not limited to republicans.
I came across this, from Yale's Avalon Project
Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression Volume IV


Ummm Don... the source for this is

Source:
Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression Volume IV
Office of the United States Chief Counsel for Prosecution of Axis Criminality
Washington, DC : United States Government Printing Office, 1946

And you might want to look here too
 
Which, with a couple of clicks takes you back to :http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/document/v4menu.htm
or, where I started...
;)

Which means Yale translated old documents.. this may come as some shock but many Universities do that sort of thing. If you go to any school that teaches Chinese you are likely to find a translation of Mao's red book too.. does that mean the school supported or agrees with Mao.. not likely. THere is an old saying from George Santayana "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." this just might be a study of history we should not forget too

But back to your original post.... your point of this is :idunno::confused:


You might want to also note

Nazi - A member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party, founded in Germany in 1919 and brought to power in 1933 under Adolf Hitler.

Nazism - The ideology and practice of the Nazis, especially the policy of racist nationalism, national expansion, and state control of the economy.

You might want to read this as well

It is not a label to be tossing aroung lightly
 
Which means Yale translated old documents.. this may come as some shock but many Universities do that sort of thing. If you go to any school that teaches Chinese you are likely to find a translation of Mao's red book too.. does that mean the school supported or agrees with Mao.. not likely. THere is an old saying from George Santayana "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." this just might be a study of history we should not forget too

But back to your original post.... your point of this is :idunno::confused:


You might want to also note

Nazi - A member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party, founded in Germany in 1919 and brought to power in 1933 under Adolf Hitler.

Nazism - The ideology and practice of the Nazis, especially the policy of racist nationalism, national expansion, and state control of the economy.

You might want to read this as well

It is not a label to be tossing aroung lightly
Not tossing it around lightly at all, merely pointing out that more than a few of the 1928 demands of Hitler are echoed by the Democratic party of today, i.e.,
We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare--
National Health Care?
The State is to care for the elevating national health
Earth, Hitler, 1928!
13. We demand the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).
Maxine Waters (D-CA) Threatens to nationalize oil
Nah, nothing alike[/sarcasm]
 
So what exactly is wrong with having a national health service? Why shouldn't good health care be available to all who need it? It's not a NAZI thing to want to take care of people's health. There's also nothing wrong with providing care for the elderly either.
It's more a moral argument than a political one, I believe providing quality healthcare for all is a moral imperative not a political one. No one should be unable to access good medical care because of lack of money, no one should be forced to the point of bankrupcy to pay for medical care. I would have said it's more the sign of a high minded moral caring society to provide both national healthcare and provision for the elderly than a sign of socialism or Nazism.
It may not be possible to provide this in all countries but surely it's a good thing to aspire to.
 
You mean like this well-known liberal?
jonah1.jpg
 
Not tossing it around lightly at all, merely pointing out that more than a few of the 1928 demands of Hitler are echoed by the Democratic party of today, i.e.,
We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare--
National Health Care? Earth, Hitler, 1928!

Maxine Waters (D-CA) Threatens to nationalize oil
Nah, nothing alike[/sarcasm]

National Health care = Nazism again :idunno::confused:


Then Canada and Great Britian have Nazi Governments again :idunno::confused:

And Nationalizing the Oil Industry again :idunno: :confused: that is not any one persons call as it would have been under a totalitarian Nazi Regime such as the one Hitler envisioned.

I do not think that any Republican or Democrat is suggestion World Domination here like Hitler and the Nazi party tried in a little thing called World War 2
 
Just because a government or person puts into place one principle that the Nazi government ALSO did, does not mean that the entire government is also Nazi. That's a big extension.

The Nazis also believed in Animal Welfare...that does not make anyone who loves Animals a Nazi. They also believed in preserving the environment....so by that logic, most of the world is heading down the road to Naziism!
 
I suppose we should all learn to live with trains and other conveyances being late, since trains running on time was supposedly a "Nazi thing" as well.......
.....though you'd have more luck using their writings on gun control....
 
Hitler also loved American Movies, often taped his speeches (and thought it was essential to his oratory skills), had a photo album (stolen by a member of Easy Company, 101st Airborne), was a great speach giver/writer, hated astronomy (he thougt it was a load of crap), and hated smoking. However, we're not about to do the opposite of everything Hitler did, just because Hitler did it.

Hay, how about mandatory smoking laws, Hitler would have hated it!
 
I suppose we should all learn to live with trains and other conveyances being late, since trains running on time was supposedly a "Nazi thing" as well.......
.....though you'd have more luck using their writings on gun control....
The trains on time thing was Italian fascism under the direct orders of Mussolini, Il Duce, had his Blackshirts take over the railroads when the employees went on strike, since many of the Blackshirts were veterans, they operated with a militaristic command structure.

Hitler was also violently opposed to drinking, smoking and an avid and LOUD about it, vegetarian.
 
I don't have time right now to post all that I think about this ... jibe at liberalism but I'll pause long enough to say there is a distinct difference between socialism and fascism or totalitarianism.

To confuse them or mish-mash them into some absolutist comparison is misguided and antagonistic ... bullying even ... quite typical of the tactics the right used to gain popularity ... the persistence in which has lost them popularity as well.
 
I don't have time right now to post all that I think about this ... jibe at liberalism but I'll pause long enough to say there is a distinct difference between socialism and fascism or totalitarianism.

To confuse them or mish-mash them into some absolutist comparison is misguided and antagonistic ... bullying even ... quite typical of the tactics the right used to gain popularity ... the persistence in which has lost them popularity as well.
Tis no jibe, and no jive either. Merely an honest comparison of the stated goals of 1928 Nazism and 2008 DNC brand Liberalism, and ain't it amazing how many of their stated goals are identical...
 
You do a lot of these type of posts, some good, some bad, some inflammatory and some just plain silly and this one is at best the last two with a bit of gross misunderstanding of history thrown in.

Look at any political policy today with an unbiased eye be it conservative or liberal and compare it to totalitarian regimes of the past or dictatorships or any other group we consider bad or evil today and you will see some similarity. And no I am not going to waste my time pointing you in the direction of any of these you are competent enough to find the ones you post I am sure you can just as easily find the others… assuming you can approach this in an unbiased manor.
 
I disagree Xue

the goals of the national socialist part in 1928 in Germany and the goals of the DNC today are very close to each other.

It cant really be denied.

liberals love to get all huffy and puffy about it, but it IS true. The motivation may well be different, but the desired results are the same.

just like saying 'the right has ties to fundamental christian groups" IS true, conservatives might not like it being pointed out, but it IS true to some extent.
 
I disagree Xue

the goals of the national socialist part in 1928 in Germany and the goals of the DNC today are very close to each other.

It cant really be denied.

liberals love to get all huffy and puffy about it, but it IS true. The motivation may well be different, but the desired results are the same.

just like saying 'the right has ties to fundamental christian groups" IS true, conservatives might not like it being pointed out, but it IS true to some extent.

I'm neither a liberal nor huffy nor am I saying there are not similarities. I am saying singling out anyone group such as this post has done by comparing it to another group from that past can be done for any group today and it is not proof of anything. Especially if you are using a partial comparison and making that out to be the whole. Gee I am tall blond and of Germanic (grater than 50%)decent and I did at one time take German therefore based on that I must be a Nazi supporter of Hitler if I am to take the stuff of this post seriously. And I am not a Nazi nor do I support Hitler. Oh and I am married to a woman form Beijing that grew up during the Cultural Revolution so I must be a communist and think Mao was an ok guy.. and I'm not and I don't. And here is a bit of a shock, based on the post in question… neither is my wife nor does she think that either.

OK liberals have similar things that they say does the fact that they support national health care mean they are a racist regime that wants to round up a particular group for purposes of genocide?

Does the fact that they want to give money to the elderly mean they are about to circumvent the Maginot Line and invade France or blitzkrieg Poland

Does anything that they say mean they are also considering themselves a master race and about to practice social Darwinism on a global scale?

There was a lot more to Hitler and the Nazi’s that is not being said by liberals and since you can compare totalitarian and evil regimes of the past to things the conservative side has said and done does that mean that is what they are or that they are about to kill thousands and try and take over the world?

It is a gross lack of historical understanding at best or an out right omission of facts in order to inflame and make a point IMO which makes the whole thing, to me, inflammatory and silly.
 
Back
Top