Religion wasn't supressed. It was regulated, quite strictly, but it wasn't supressed. In the USSR the church was "officially" supressed, but it was still active, especially during the "Great Patriotic War" (aka WWII).

...and?
How does this make them socialist? Secularism/Atheism isn't only a socialist idea.

I'd really like to see that quote. I mean, I'd REALLY want to see a valid source for that. It doesn't sound like anything of Hitler's own saying.

here is a list of speeches where he talks about capitalism and his being a socialist. i'll leave this link, as it is the fastest way to locate the speeches.

http://www.adolfhitler.ws/lib/speech...t/speeches.htm

dates of the capitalism speeches:

april 12, 1922
april 6, 1941
may 4, 1941
march 15, 1942
april 26, 1942
august 30, 1942
september 30, 1942
november 8, 1942
february 24, 1945

dates of speeches regarding socialists:

july 28, 1922
april 12, 1922
january 18, 1927
february 12, 1942
february 24, 1942

and there are more. you can look them up yourself.

and as for no religious suppression, both jehovah's witnesses and pentecostals were jailed for their beliefs, not to mention other religions. that is religious suppression.
-j

__________________
Я капиталист, конечно!

I mistated religion in my last post. I meant mainstream Christianity, in the case of Germany both Protestanism and Catholicism. (For an odd fact, there was even a small Muslim force in the Wehrmacht)

Also, I don't have enough time to read through all of Hitler's speeches looking for the correct one, so do you have a date for the speech in question?

yeah, the speech was given on may 1, 1927. i don't think that it's on the link that i gave you, so you'll have to look up the date online. it is also quoted in a book by a guy named toland, on page 306.
-j

__________________
Я капиталист, конечно!

This is a really deep topic both on a historical and current level.

As far as Nazi Germany goes:

Yes, the Nazi party was a National Socialist movement. This simply means that they represented both Socialism and German ideals. Socialism was their economic modus operandi but the German Nationalist aspect was the means of uniting the "German" people as a source of national pride and hope. The people who were targeted by the "Germans" simply represented, for lack of a better term "Infidels".

For example, "Communists" were agents of Russia, Jews were their own separate culture, as were gypsies, ect........ The bottom line is that all the groups which were persecuted by the Nazis represented outside cultures which did not assimilate into the dominant German culture.

Here is the definition of Fascism:

A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. - Dictionary.com

Of course the term "Fascism" comes from Benito Mussolini and his Fascisti party and only addresses the the nationalist aspect of an authoritarian movement. As far as Socialism is concerned, it is implied than any "Nationalist" based economic system is by definition "Socialist" in nature.

It has always been really interesting to me to see people use terms like "Fascist"

One Sec.......

__________________
The Science of Brute Force......

I wasn't getting the option to "Edit" my last post so I'll continue on here....

It has always been really interesting to me to see people use terms like "Fascist" to heckle "Capitalists" because it is a totally incorrect term

Likewise, people using the term "Commie" to describe "Hippies" isn't really accurate either when you look at the people who represent Socialism historically speaking.

Socialism vs. National Socialism

As far as Socialism and National Socialism go historically speaking the two are one in the same. As I pointed out earlier, in my example of Nazi Germany, the Nationalist aspect seems to be the driving force for Socialism. Lenin/Russia, Mao/China, and Castro/Cuba all fit the same similar mold as far as cultural development go.

Capitalism

OK here is a food for thought issue. Is "Capitalism" ever in the best interest for any nation or culture? It seems to me that it does undermine nations, government, and culture. In it's most extreme form Capitalism is very tightly aligned with Anarchy. It moves without purpose, other than perpetuate itself, and presents no tangible values other than the accumulation of personal wealth.

My Personal Political Stance

LOL This may get a bit wordy but I certainly fall into a a Noam Chomski-ist realm known as "Social Libertarianism" which in a nutshell means responsible individuals working together for the greater good of society. I would also say that I classify myself as being "National Socialist" a unified nation and culture which places the greatest importance on it's own socio-economic development is something I also value. I have no tolerance for either upper-class vultures or lower-class leeches but total respect toward people who live their own lives with self determination and dignity as well as respect others. So i guess that makes me a......

"National Socialist Libertarian"

LOL I hope someone enjoyed my rant

__________________
The Science of Brute Force......

THe difference is the "National" part.
You can be 99% leftist but if you lack internationalism you are right wing.
You can have the best doctrine in the world, but as long as you leave it to "our people" it becomes bad.
WWI was about nationalism, Naziam was NATIONAL socialism, and the real bad things in SOviet Union started to happen when Stalin issued his doctrine of "socialism in a SINGLE COUNTRY".

Don't be misled by names: if there is no internationalism, then you are looking at a right wing party, no matter how left wing hteir internal politics is.

Right Wing = Bad
Left Wing = Good

That's literally a one dimensional viewpoint. Very rare thing to come across........

__________________
The Science of Brute Force......

This fits in with what I said earlier about the true differentiation being between freedom and statism. Either we are free or we belong to the State.

The accumulation of wealth is a good thing, as it allows a society to learn. Without wealth, then research is not possible. Research is what allows us to become better at anything we do. We need leisure time, and wealth allows that.

I want to know why we should be working for the greater good of society. That is a nebulous goal that means something different to everybody. Why not work for the benefit of self and family, as long as you don't violate the rights of others?


I did.

__________________
Never moon a werewolf.

lordnurgle- i would have to disagree with you on that one. national does not mean right wing. the main difference i have seen between left and right is that the left wants more centralized government control while the right wants less of it. we could call it either national and international socialism, or we could call it micro and macro socialism. both are socialism, only on different levels. just because the nazis may have been more to the right than the communists doesn't mean that they were right wing. they were 99% lefties while the communists were 100%. still sounds left to me.

has anyone read those speeches i posted? they opened my eyes to how the national socialists really felt about things. and here for all these years i was taught that nazis were capitalists!
-j

__________________
Я капиталист, конечно!