Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We've thoroughly trashed these arguments on previous threads, I see no compelling reason to refute them again. If you would like to see the previous arguments, please use the search feature. They shouldn't be hard to find.
Yeah those right wing nazis were for gun control, social security, nationalized healthcare, a centralized government, and communal land development. Do some reading up on the links between the pro abortion crowd and the nazi eugenics movement too whild youre at it.
Nazi economic theory was decidedly more "left-wing", however, their political/social ideology and structure was decidedly "right-wing". You cannot compare and contrast what the Nazi's were based solely on the modern US meaning of "left" and "right" as it applies to the US. In fact, "left-right" continuums aren't even used in Political Science anymore as they are not descriptive enough to compare and contrast systems. Hence, the use of the "political compass". The earlier Nazi party was far more "socialist" in its leanings and while some of that was retained after Hitler consolidated his control of the party, those elements were largely marginalized. Placed on a political compass, Hitler is economically left and socially right...
Quote:
Originally Posted by NHborn
You do understand that Germany had no intention of invading any country in western Europe right? Only reason they did was because UK and France couldnt mind their own business and declared war on them for invading Poland, which by the way, after the war was occupied by the USSR and suffered through half a century of communism. I would say thats a fail on the British and French part.
You are correct to a point. Hitler's preferred path would have been for the western European nations to stand aside and let him create his new Reich and have his war with the Soviets. He theorized that after such a war a victorious Germany would be so powerful that the western democracies would simply cave to his demands and enter his sphere of influence.
Hitler was fully aware of the guarantees issued and alliances that existed between Poland, France and Britain. The real tragedy is that it took Hitler invading Poland to finally trigger a firm response from the western powers. Hitler had hoped that Britain and France would let him have Poland, but he was fully aware that they had drawn a "line in the sand" over Poland. Hitler crossed that line knowing full well that the west would most likely declare war.
After the war, Poland was unfortunately abandoned to reality. Wherever Soviet boots were on the ground, they weren't going to simply pack up and leave. The western powers lacked the force and will to make them leave and consigned Eastern Europe to its fate.
Nazi economic theory was decidedly more "left-wing", however, their political/social ideology and structure was decidedly "right-wing". You cannot compare and contrast what the Nazi's were based solely on the modern US meaning of "left" and "right" as it applies to the US. In fact, "left-right" continuums aren't even used in Political Science anymore as they are not descriptive enough to compare and contrast systems. Hence, the use of the "political compass". The earlier Nazi party was far more "socialist" in its leanings and while some of that was retained after Hitler consolidated his control of the party, those elements were largely marginalized. Placed on a political compass, Hitler is economically left and socially right...
You are correct to a point. Hitler's preferred path would have been for the western European nations to stand aside and let him create his new Reich and have his war with the Soviets. He theorized that after such a war a victorious Germany would be so powerful that the western democracies would simply cave to his demands and enter his sphere of influence.
Hitler was fully aware of the guarantees issued and alliances that existed between Poland, France and Britain. The real tragedy is that it took Hitler invading Poland to finally trigger a firm response from the western powers. Hitler had hoped that Britain and France would let him have Poland, but he was fully aware that they had drawn a "line in the sand" over Poland. Hitler crossed that line knowing full well that the west would most likely declare war.
After the war, Poland was unfortunately abandoned to reality. Wherever Soviet boots were on the ground, they weren't going to simply pack up and leave. The western powers lacked the force and will to make them leave and consigned Eastern Europe to its fate.
I pretty much agree with everything you said. But I think its important to remember that the US was pretty much just as socially right wing as Germany was.
If Germany had delayed the war against Russia and held Britain and America at bay . Time could have been bought for German specialists to fully equip the German Luftwaffe with jet fighters and to master the construction of supersonic jets and long range bombers like a Super version of the Condor (Germany's answer to the B29) and a potential Amerika Bomber. Germany might have had time to improve the V-2 (A4) and progress to von Braun's multistage rockets the A9(10) which might have easily brought Moscow , New York, Philadelphia, or Washington DC into range for a ballistic missle attack. The final an most decisive element is what the Germans might have done with heavy water moderated nuclear reactors and world class talent in nuclear physics like Otto Hahn and Werner Heissenberg. The addition of a atomic device fitted to a A9 or even a V2 Could have ended the war with any opponent in a few days unless the opponents had been able to respond in kind.
The V-2 sucked, it often missed Great Britain, the island the size of Oregon, no way in a few frantic years they could improve technology enough to be able to hit New York, Moscow or DC, if they couldn't fire accurately 100 miles to London from France
The V-2 sucked, it often missed Great Britain, the island the size of Oregon, no way in a few frantic years they could improve technology enough to be able to hit New York, Moscow or DC, if they couldn't fire accurately 100 miles to London from France
Yeah, they should have invested more in conventional naval and long range bombers instead of these fancy high tech things they were doing. If they were to get sea and air supperiority they could have blockaded and bombed them into sueing for peace.
Sorry NJ, but any cartesian plane that has laissez-faire capitalism as the center point starts off as being fundamentally skewed.
You are bringing up what would then be the salient point to one of these discussions about "left vs. right" and that is, you need a starting point and definition to use. From a western standpoint I think one could argue the use of laissez-faire capitalism and democracy the central point of modern western systems. Fascism and Communism were the "right" and "left" responses to the center point. Absent a definition, which I'm not tied to mine I just offered one, we are all arguing in circles.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
