You seem to have been defending the left wing from being associated with Hitler throughout this thread.

There's absolutely no evidence that guns would actual help prevent persecution of Jews. Several historians have repeatedly discredited the idea as a counterfactual because they were an extremely small proportion of the German population. And the franchise of gun ownership was made easier for the majority of the population. And their permits lasted 3 times as long. And less guns required permits.

Because history agrees with me.

I don't know what we're talking about but I'd like to chime in and note that I'm always correct, which seems to be related to the current discussion.

@TrPrado Having guns is a sort of deterrent, like nuclear bombs on a smaller scale. I would create repercussions for pushing a group too far.

@Valis Anyone who agrees constantly with me is constantly right.

"Anyone who agrees constantly with me is constantly right."

You missed the word "wing" from that sentence.

I cannot resist giving my own opinion on this topic. First of all, that soviet-socialism and fascism in the thierties and fourties share common traits can be explained, in my opinion, by the shared antagony to liberalism and capitalism. Hitler was anticapitalistic, but not from a socialist point of view, but from a - in german it is called - "völkisch" one, a word related to "Volk", meaning people. Were leftist wanted to achieve World Revolution, Solidarity amongst the proletariat of the world and finally communism, fascist and especially Nazis thought of a "Volksgemeinschaft" meaning the sacred community of the - in this case german - people.
Seemingly leftist parts of Hitlers policies like the "Reichsarbeitsdiensf" (Reichs Labour Service), in which every male from 18 - 25 years had to serve for 6 Months reduced unemployment drastically, but were also an instrument of militarization and indoctrination, and not an instrument to help the people really, but for cheap labour and good looking statistics, no long term thing.
What I am trying to say, Hitlers policies might seem leftist, but they served no leftist cause. Its goals were to establish the Volksgemeinschaft, which has nothing of the emancipatory traits commonly associated with socialism or leftism (theory, that is, not soviet pracitce).

Anyway, I love how the topic in this thread changed from "Why I like this community" to "Was Churchill a good man" to "Was Hitler an left-winged or right-winged politician"

That's why we love webDiplomacy.net , Bandoose.

Point of Order.

would Hitler have been a brony?

Bandoose, Soviet-socialism is as leftist as it gets. Antagonism to capitalism is typically what creates desire for socialism. In TrPrado's words, it is "reactionary". That doesn't make it less leftist. Capitalism is inherently rightist; therefore, antagonism to capitalism is inherently leftist. The USSR was at the forefront of liberalism-- how anyone could say it was antagonistic towards it is beyond me. Hitler's socialism was indeed populist at nature-- so were the communist uprisings of Russia and China. Grassroots socialism is still socialist. That they were less to the left of the Soviets does not make them not still leftist.

"but were also an instrument of militarization and indoctrination, and not an instrument to help the people really, but for cheap labour and good looking statistics, no long term thing."

Roosevelt's New Deal likewise expanded the federal government's reach and received cheap labor and good statistics. Workers in Communist China had a poor standard of living, so you could say they were cheap labor too.

What I am saying is Hitler and the Nazis were undeniably leftist, and leftists argue about it only because they want to disassociate with the name of such a heinous dictator.

If they were "undeniably" leftist, why did the NSDAP why did the regime transfer industries like German Railways and major banks like Deutsche Bank back to private hands? Why did conservatives in Germany partake in the Hitler cabinet while the KPD were ruthlessly suppressed as was the SPD? Why were strikes outlawed (indeed it was one of the first things that was done)? Why were wages suppressed? Why did industrialists support the regime financially? Why did the Catholic church sign a concordat with the regime? Why did the Lutheran church back it enthusiastically?

There was nothing leftist about the policies of the government. It was a capitalist backed government put in power to thwart and suppress communists in Germany as capital was in crisis. The left leaning Nazis were violently purged, like Strasser.

I agree with Bandoose. I haven't studied "recent" history for years because I switched to Ancient History and Anthropology years ago, but it seems to me that Hitler did use at least the appearance of communism to gain power before he shifted way to the right.

btw, brainbomb, wasn't hitler the original brony?.....

Socialism isn't a reaction to capitalism, neofeudalism is a reaction to capitalism.

Also I would like to add, Ludwig von Mises, an ideological kindred spirit to neoliberals like leon1122 here, worked for the Il Duce inspired Dollfuss government in Austria. It's quite strange that Mises would do such a thing, unless we're to believe that Mussolini's economic policies were mysteriously rightwing but Germany's were not.

To put socialism in one End of the spectre and liberal capotalism on the other is not the whole picture, i think. I think you all know the triangle scheme, werde liberalism as practised in in angloamerican countries is in one corner, fascism in the second and soviet communism in the third. What i was trying to say, even if Hitler ha used leftist policies, they were not used for a leftist cause. Nazism was anti-democratic, anti-unionistic (Hitler destroyed all workers unions on may the 2nd 1933, three months after he came to power), militaristic, racist, anti-internationalistic,...in short, opposed to everything socialistic ideologists if that time thought of

And that antagonism to capitalism is not per se the way to socialism can be Seen in Europe even today. After (vor During) a financial crisis, while invreasing parts of the middle Class of the Past fear to drift into poornes, i See no radical socialist Party emerge in Europe, even though people grow increasingly suspicous of capitalism. Instead, it is the Front National, the Alternative für Deutschland, UKIP, the Party of geert wiilders, the Sweden demokrats, the Osterreichische Freiheitspartei, rightwing populist to in some Cases rightwing extremists parties

lick lick lick my balls!

Grandpa Rick is drunk. Again. Always.

"After (vor During) a financial crisis, while invreasing parts of the middle Class of the Past fear to drift into poornes, i See no radical socialist Party emerge in Europe, even though people grow increasingly suspicous of capitalism."

Indeed. Part of that is due to the strategic choices of radical left parties in Europe. The few that have survived did so, I would argue, because they never abandoned their principles - e.g. KKE (Greece) and the KSCM (Czech). The rest adopted social democracy or liquidationism and paid the price for it. Also, the rightwing parties speak more directly to the dissatisfaction with the European project which capitalism in Europe seems to be closely associated with. The leftwing parties, being more internationalist in outlook, cannot rely on "nationalism" as a means of mobilizing voters.

I support a dissolution of the federal reserve.

Good Point, Putin. German socialdemocrats are trying to win elections in the center, but by that are becoming much like their "conservative" counterparts, at least economically. That results in Them becoming third vor even fourth parties in elections.