View Poll Results: What do you think of Hitler and old German NS?

Voters
1084. You may not vote on this poll
  • Completely admire/support Hitler and old German NS

    354 32.66%
  • Admire some of the positive points of Hitler and old German NS but condemn negative points

    451 41.61%
  • Completelty condemn Hitler and old German NS

    182 16.79%
  • Do not care about Hitler and Old German NS

    97 8.95%
Page 7 of 70 FirstFirst ... 234567891011121757 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 692

Thread: What do you Think of Hitler and National Socialism?

  1. #61
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 26th, 2005 @ 04:22 AM
    Gender
    Posts
    766
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4
    Thanked in
    4 Posts

    Post Re: Hitler was wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by George
    I am English and I hate Celts...A deep, implacable, irrational hatred of the English is stamped into their soul,they will always hate us and be loyal only to their own kind.
    No wonder I feel torn from within.

  2. #62
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 26th, 2005 @ 04:22 AM
    Gender
    Posts
    766
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4
    Thanked in
    4 Posts

    Post Re: Hitler was wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by George
    The Germanic peoples are superior. They are the most Nordic, they are the master-race and it is their right and duty to hold sway over everyone else.
    It's precisely because Hitler believed this and acted on this belief, toward the occupied countries in E. Europe, that Germany was totally defeated in WWII. Once the Russian people understood what Hitler really thought of them, the German invasion of Russia was doomed, and so was N-S Germany.

    The reason why should be obvious - it is simply not possible for a tiny fraction of the world's population to hold sway over everyone else through brute force when modern weapons and methods of war have spread everywhere. Surely that is the fundamental lesson to be learned from WWII.
    Last edited by Telperion; Sunday, May 16th, 2004 at 01:28 AM.

  3. #63
    Senior Member Moody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 10th, 2012 @ 10:18 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    Albion
    Subrace
    Paleo-Atlantid
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    State
    Essex Essex
    Location
    England
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Investigator of Souls
    Politics
    Pan-Germanic Nationalist
    Religion
    Runosophy
    Posts
    1,904
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9
    Thanked in
    9 Posts

    Post Re: Hitler was wrong

    To respond to Telperion's points;

    1) Hegemony and the pursuit of war:
    Poland: the burning issue here for the Germans after Versaille was the Polish corridor. Try to imagine a similar affront to your own nation, and then you might appreciate how fired up the Germans were about this.
    While the Third Reich was undoubtedly militaristic in ethos [as opposed to being say capitalistic or communistic], this must be seen in context as I keep saying. Because Hitler has been made into a universal bogeyman, there has been a warping of historical perspective. Young [non-German] Westerners almost assume that their own nations were then the same as they are now, and only "Nazi Germany" was the 'n*gger in the woodpile' [I used that phrase on purpose and you will see why].
    Let's not forget that the USA still had state sanctioned racial segregation at the time; that the British Empire ruled millions of non-whites who had no say in the matter and that the Soviets had carried out political/class-based pogroms, and that Mussolini's Italy had already displayed a very militaristic ethos.
    So the Third Reich was not overly repressive given that context and contemporary comparisons.
    As to hegemony, the British Empire always sought a 'balance of power' in Europe; meaning that it tried to play one power off against another hoping to keep each power down below itself. This was a very dangerous policy as history had already shown. Hitler in Mein Kampf actually put forward a plan for German/British co-operation, claiming that German and British Empire interests did not clash. But the ruling class in Britain [most of them but not all, Sir Oswald] would hear nothing of this, being obsessed with 'balance of power'. In the latter concept you will find the roots of the two world wars.



    2) Harsh actions in war.
    I think the distortion occurs here because after the war, the defeated German defendants were not allowed to use the standard "you too" defence at the rigged Nuremberg Trials.
    That meant that all the "harsh actions" of hard-pressed German forces who were fighting to defend their homeland from invading American, British and Russian forces were emphasised, while the "harsh actions" of the Allies were ignored and considered 'not relevant'.
    This is obviously a travesty of justice.
    If you and I fight "all-in", and you defeat me, it is absurd for you then to condemn me for not observing Queensbury Rules - neither did you!
    Germany DID occupy surrounding nations after war had been declared on her by the British Empire and by France, of course; what other strategy could she have followed?
    Look how Russia/ USA/Britain OCCUPIED EUROPE after 1945 and even divided it into east and west!
    You may get the general gist - I find that all the hyped-up allegations against Hitler's Germany are disingenuous to put it mildly!
    They also detract from what good things that regime achieved [and that's the idea, no doubt].
    Look how the USA/ Britain/ Russia/ Israel have hidden behind this facade of calling everybody else a "Nazi" while perpetrating crimes that the Fuhrer would NEVER have countenanced!


    German British Friendship

    3) Dictatorship in place of Democracy;
    I would wager that a "New England" type democracy relied on a very limited franchise [i.e., only the wealthy land-owners etc., had the vote], based on a peasant/ slave-owning state. Hitler himself admired this, of course.
    However, once the franchise is widened and 'egalitarianism' is taken as a political dogma, then the road to the present perdition is fairly easy to chart. As someone once said; "how much democracy do you want"?
    So democracy that is limited to a small elite may be acceptable - but then you are against the rule of elites!
    You say that you are sceptical of 'human nature' [and that itself is another issue] when it comes to the rule of an elite or a dictatorship; but then you will allow the system where just ANY HUMAN, natural or not, can vote!
    This is what Byron called a "dictatorship of blaggards"; it is the system that puts the likes of the Bush dynasty in power! Or else a crook like Clinton!
    It is a system which is easily manipulated by International Finance which has reduced politics to economics!

    There is another slur abroad that Hitler only admired the Germans and considered only they to be Aryans; this is untrue. Hitler expressed his admiration for the racial qualities of the Italians in many instances, and sought a North/South European Axis. Indeed, many say that he put too much into his alliance with Mussolini when it became clear that Benito was not up to the mark.

    Also, Hitler NEVER sought "world domination"; this is another lie and it is based on no evidence whatsoever. He sought a united Germany and a revocation of Versailles. He, like many, saw Communism [in the form it had taken in Russia at the time] as a threat to civilisation, and wanted to effectively combat it. To that end he desired the defeat of the Soviets and the expansion of German farmers into the vast expanses of the east.
    Importantly, he wanted the Reich FREE of Jewish influence.
    He also wanted friendship with Britain and the USA as he felt [as I have already said] that there was no real clash of interests there.

    So I say in conclusion that Hitler was broadly RIGHT, and that it was the Allied policy that was flawed. It was the Allied policy that lead to 50 million war dead and to the growth of Communism, the Middle East problem etc., etc., as the Britisher Oswald Mosley recognised before the war.


    Sir Oswald Mosley and his wife Diana
    Last edited by Moody; Sunday, May 16th, 2004 at 06:13 PM. Reason: spelling
    Why are there beings at all, & why not rather nothing?
    [Leibniz/Heidegger]

  4. #64
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 26th, 2005 @ 04:22 AM
    Gender
    Posts
    766
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4
    Thanked in
    4 Posts

    Post Re: Hitler was wrong

    In reply to Moody Lawless:

    1.) The 'balance of power' concept was indeed at the core of Britain's refusal to accept Germany's rising power. I believe that in 'Mein Kampf', Hitler suggested that a weak Germany was not in England's interests, because it left France too dominant in continental Europe. Accordingly, he suggested that Britain's 'balance of power' concept should lead Britain to support a German resurgence of strength to the point that it could effectively challenge France on the continent, although it would not lead it to support a resurgence of German strength so considerable that it would allow Germany to challenge the British Empire abroad and on the high seas. So, Hitler seems to have recognized how the b.o.p. concept of British foreign policy could serve Germany's interests up to a point, although it would place Britain in opposition to Germany beyond that point. One could suggest that this view was historically verified, in that Britain did nothing to hinder German re-armament, the re-militarization of the Rhineland, the anschluss of Austria, or even the absorption of the Sudetenland and Bohemia/Moravia - all of which were instrument in making Germany a strong continental power once again.

    The British seem to have 'drawn the line' at Poland (with regard to their b.o.p. concept). I definitely understand the Germans' feelings about the Polish corridor issue, which was amongst other things an affront to their national pride. Had the British not clung to their b.o.p. concept, the German invasion of Poland would not have led to a general war.

    Still, Hitler himself recognized in 'Mein Kampf' that countries do not have friendships with each other, only convergences or divergences of interests. Arguably, for Britain to have abandoned its b.o.p. concept would have been tantamount to abandoning its pretensions at being a dominant world power, and one can understand why most of the British elite (not simply those directly connected to Jewish-linked financial interests) were simply unwilling to do this voluntarily. As Hitler apparently knew that the b.o.p. was the centrepiece of foreign policy, and that Britain 'drew the line' at Poland, I would say that he made a calculated decision to risk war with Britain to futher Germany's interests since, from a realpolitik standpoint, Poland was the point beyond which Britain's and Germany's interests (as defined by each country at the time) diverged. Absent a different understanding of their interests by either Britain or Germany, then, war was probably bound to start between them eventually.

    2.) I agree there was a great deal of hypocrisy by the Allies with regard to German activites in the war. In fact, if I recall correctly Admiral Doenitz got off relatively 'lightly' at Nuremburg (10 years) because, in response to allegations of German brutality on the high seas which he had personally authorized, he introduced evidence proving that the Allied high command authorized precisely the same sorts of measures against German ships. And of course the Allies engaged in calculated atrocities of their own, the firebombing of Dresden being the most obvious.

    Parenthetically, I recently watched a documentary called 'The Fog of War' on Robert S. McNamara, who during WWII was attached to US Air Force Gen. Curtis LeMay's group, and who helped plan the firebombing of Tokyo, knowing full well that it would kill hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians. McNamara openly admitted that had the US lost the war, both he and LeMay would have been rightly condemned as war criminals for authorizing this action.

    So I'll admit that wartime atrocities are not a reason for singling the Germans out for condemnation - though they still count as 'negative aspects' in my view. (If you asked me what I thought of the Allied powers at the time, I'd certainly hold their own nasty actions against them.)

    3.) By 'human nature', I mean that all humans are at least potentially flawed, in the sense of prone to lapses in judgment, selfishness, etc. - which seems a plausible assertion to me.

    The points you have raised about the inherent flaws of a democracy with a broad franchise are valid. However, I don't see any easy answers to the issue of dictatorship versus democracy. Aristotle recognized in his 'Politics' that all 'ideal' forms of governance are inherently corruptible; thus a just monarchy can degenerate into an unjust tyranny, a wise aristocracy into a corrupt oligarchy, and a virtuous polity into a chaotic democracy. Your objections to a democracy with a broad franchise are indeed sound, and yet I could throw back valid objections about the corruptability of rule by a single individual or a small elite. Perhaps the system one would advocate comes down to a personal judgment call based on one's own preferences...in a less than perfect world (as opposed to my idealized 'New England' world), my own judgment is that a Roman republican model is the 'best' form of government, though only so long as civic virtue or public spiritedness can be maintained amongst the populace.


    In any case, on the bright side, at least I acknowledge that Hitler made significant positive achievements, which is more than one can say for most (brainwashed) individuals today.

  5. #65
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Last Online
    Tuesday, August 30th, 2005 @ 09:07 PM
    Subrace
    Nordid/Dinarid
    Location
    California
    Gender
    Age
    32
    Occupation
    Student
    Politics
    National Socialist
    Religion
    Catholic
    Posts
    21
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post Re: Hitler was wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by ogenoct
    I cannot respect Hitler because he was essentially anti-Aryan due to his irrational contempt for Slavs. This kind of thinking is counterproductive to a true pan-Aryan movement.

    Constantin
    Why is the dude in your picture holding a commie flag? I was under the impression that NS was opposed to Bolshevism.

  6. #66
    Senior Member Moody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 10th, 2012 @ 10:18 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    Albion
    Subrace
    Paleo-Atlantid
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    State
    Essex Essex
    Location
    England
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Investigator of Souls
    Politics
    Pan-Germanic Nationalist
    Religion
    Runosophy
    Posts
    1,904
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9
    Thanked in
    9 Posts

    Post Re: Hitler was wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by BlutUndEhre
    Why is the dude in your picture holding a commie flag? I was under the impression that NS was opposed to Bolshevism.
    Ogenoct is not N-S, of course, but he presents a friendly challenge to NS; one which is not abusive, but is measured and thought-provoking.

    He seems to be suggesting that his own 'bolshevism' is more worthy than NS because Hitler's anti-Slav sentiments were anti-Aryan [because Slavs are Aryans according to ogenoct].

    What do you think of his contention?
    Why are there beings at all, & why not rather nothing?
    [Leibniz/Heidegger]

  7. #67
    Senior Member The Dagda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Last Online
    Thursday, April 12th, 2007 @ 09:03 PM
    Location
    Ireland
    Gender
    Politics
    National Socialist
    Posts
    78
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Post Re: Hitler was wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by Moody Lawless
    Ogenoct is not N-S, of course, but he presents a friendly challenge to NS; one which is not abusive, but is measured and thought-provoking.

    He seems to be suggesting that his own 'bolshevism' is more worthy than NS because Hitler's anti-Slav sentiments were anti-Aryan [because Slavs are Aryans according to ogenoct].

    What do you think of his contention?
    Hitler was the founder of what we call National Socialist ideology and he was
    anti-slav, so we could argue that anti-slavism is an integral part of National Socialism. However, Hitler was Germanic and we must take into account the
    view held by many Germans toward the Slavs.
    Of course you don't have to be German to follow National Socialism, so it's just a matter of where you come from, what the history of your nation is and
    who the enemies of your nation are.
    I am loyal to true National Socialism as set out in the teachings of Adolf Hitler.
    There are others who call themselves National Socialist, who take their influence from the United States and others still who take theirs from aisa (NSJAP).In my opinion National Socialism is like any other political ideology, it
    can be adapted to suit your individual nation.
    I'm sure there is a Jewish version out there calling itself by a different name.

  8. #68
    Senior Member Moody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 10th, 2012 @ 10:18 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    Albion
    Subrace
    Paleo-Atlantid
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    State
    Essex Essex
    Location
    England
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Investigator of Souls
    Politics
    Pan-Germanic Nationalist
    Religion
    Runosophy
    Posts
    1,904
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9
    Thanked in
    9 Posts

    Post Re: Hitler was wrong

    Yes, you make some good points.

    1
    Essentially we are saying that any nationalistic doctrine will reflect the prejudices of that particular nation.

    We might say that this is a good thing as it is an honest expression of nationalism.

    So even if we widened the national group from say Germans to 'Europeans', then we would still have a set of prejudices.

    There must always be an Other against which we draw our boundaries.

    So if we take what many will feel is an 'enlightened' N-S stance, taking into our 'national group' all Latins, Slavs etc., as well as Germanics, then we meet the next exception.
    So, we find ourselves being asked; 'what of Turks?', for example.

    And when we go to a wider more spiritual grouping, such as 'Aryan', we then are met with the usual 'what is Aryan?' questions.

    2
    But there is another point; Adolf Hitler's ideology was not based totally on making exclusions; indeed, its main thrust was to gather up a divided people.
    A people of a common race and culture who for whatever reason had been broken up and dispersed.
    THAT to me is actually the main thrust of what we find in the original doctrine of N-S.
    If we translate that into a British version, for example, then we would demand the unification of all people in the world of British race and culture.

    3
    Going back to the notion of extending the 'nation', from the German up to the European, and then to the Aryan, there is a trade-off.
    While anti-Slavism and other intra-European hatreds may be subsumed, there is the added problem of a lack of focus.
    It is almost as if a 'liberalism' creeps in along with a sense of abstraction.
    Why are there beings at all, & why not rather nothing?
    [Leibniz/Heidegger]

  9. #69
    Senior Member The Dagda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Last Online
    Thursday, April 12th, 2007 @ 09:03 PM
    Location
    Ireland
    Gender
    Politics
    National Socialist
    Posts
    78
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Post Re: Hitler was wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by Moody Lawless
    2
    But there is another point; Adolf Hitler's ideology was not based totally on making exclusions; indeed, its main thrust was to gather up a divided people.
    A people of a common race and culture who for whatever reason had been broken up and dispersed.
    THAT to me is actually the main thrust of what we find in the original doctrine of N-S.
    If we translate that into a British version, for example, then we would demand the unification of all people in the world of British race and culture.

    3
    Going back to the notion of extending the 'nation', from the German up to the European, and then to the Aryan, there is a trade-off.
    While anti-Slavism and other intra-European hatreds may be subsumed, there is the added problem of a lack of focus.
    It is almost as if a 'liberalism' creeps in along with a sense of abstraction.
    Regarding your first point, what do you mean by "demand the unification"?
    If you are talking about encouraging them to return to Britain and making space for them at the expense of other races and cultures, then I probably
    agree.
    Regarding your second point, each nation has it's own problems, enemies, culture and history to focus on. I'm not talking about extending the "nation"
    up to European or up to anything, all nations have an individual history.

  10. #70
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Last Online
    Tuesday, August 30th, 2005 @ 09:07 PM
    Subrace
    Nordid/Dinarid
    Location
    California
    Gender
    Age
    32
    Occupation
    Student
    Politics
    National Socialist
    Religion
    Catholic
    Posts
    21
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post Re: Hitler was wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by Moody Lawless
    Ogenoct is not N-S, of course, but he presents a friendly challenge to NS; one which is not abusive, but is measured and thought-provoking.

    He seems to be suggesting that his own 'bolshevism' is more worthy than NS because Hitler's anti-Slav sentiments were anti-Aryan [because Slavs are Aryans according to ogenoct].

    What do you think of his contention?


    Personally, I think all people from Mother Europe should unite against the evil scum opposed to our sacred Movement. I don't think all of Hitler's choices were the correct ones, but for the most part were. One thing though, I don't think that all Europeans will stay united after the war is won. Besides, I'm no expert, but isn't Bolshevism a commie state? I definitely do not agree with the theory that the individual is nonexistent, just the State.

Page 7 of 70 FirstFirst ... 234567891011121757 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Would There have Been National Socialism Without Hitler?
    By ogenoct in forum Political Theory
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: Saturday, October 12th, 2019, 04:39 PM
  2. What Would You Choose? National Socialism or National Anarchism?
    By DieMenschMaschine in forum Political Theory
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: Tuesday, June 28th, 2011, 06:51 PM
  3. Chauvinism, National-Socialism or Racial-Socialism?
    By Lusitano in forum Political Theory
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: Thursday, May 4th, 2006, 07:02 PM
  4. On National Socialism & World Relations [Adolf Hitler, 30th of January 1937]
    By Prussian in forum Modern Age & Contemporary History
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Monday, November 22nd, 2004, 02:12 PM
  5. National Socialism and National Anarchism
    By Aethrei in forum Political Theory
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: Saturday, January 31st, 2004, 06:05 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •