http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany#Environmentalism The Nazis and modern liberals agree on environmentalism and protecting the rights of innocent little animals. In fact Hitler was a vegetarian. So were the Nazis "right wing"? I don't think so. The Nazis were a left-wing idealogy. Note the word "socialist" as in "national socialist."
As the saying goes, even a broken clock is correct twice a day. The atrocities the Nazis committed against Jewish and other minority groups were veritably atrocious and monstrous. Their animal welfare and environmental policies, however, were commendable.
The Nazis were an authoritarian regime, hitler was a nut job, well all of them were but hitler made all of the decsisons when it came to policy the most intresting was that he suffered from asperges! Dont you reckon it would explain some things?? "Hitler's health frequently has been the subject of speculation. It has been suggested that he suffered from irritable bowel syndrome, skin lesions, irregular heartbeat, Parkinson's disease,[210] syphilis,[210] tinnitus,[286] and Asperger syndrome.[287][288] Hitler also had dental problems—his personal dentist, Hugo Blaschke, had fitted a large dental bridge to Hitler's upper jaw in 1933, and in 1944, Blaschke removed the left rear section of the bridge to treat an infection of Hitler's gums that coincided with a sinus infection.[289]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler#Health Im not saying that what they did in terms of the enviroment was bad or anything, we need to still recognise that his thinking and logic was flawed big time!
How many (*)(*)(*)(*)ing threads can you make on the EXACT same topic? The Nazis made most of their political alliances on the right. They upheld conservative ideals such as women staying at home to produce babies. They were not left wing.
So is that to say if any ideological group deters on a policy from the assumed policy choice of the median conservative/liberal, that ideology becomes...what? Centrist? And a conservative cannot personally be liberal in some way (say by being a vegetarian) and still be a conservative? If this is the case, then no one is actually conservative or liberal. The word "socialist" was used (mainly because they gained power by infiltrating a popular worker's party), but they purposely created a hierarchical regime that was against the very core values of liberalism and against groups that usually make up a left-wing coalition (minorities, the poor). Not to mention the other word "national" refers to their primary ideology-- NATIONALISM-- which is generally a right-wing thing (we tend to call it "patriotism" when people in the US are nationalistic). I find it interesting that people think they are doing in-depth analysis by skimming over the most superficial data possible.
Ah, the Transitive Property of Nazis/Hitler. Nazis = Environmentalists and Animal welfare supporters Environmentalists and Animal welfare supporters = Liberals Therefore, Nazis = Liberals?
The Pulpit in the Martin Luther Memorial Kirk... Who could that be, standing behind Jesus, among the aryan women and children?
And this is why, as I do find the Holocaust unfortunate, I will continue to fly the Hakenkruz and give out a resounding Sieg Heil!
Well its kinda hard to keep anything alive when there are capitalists and other...undesirables...shooting at them...
One or two policies which are considered left today don't make up for a million which were radically right wing. Feel free to ask questions about that, I do my research as a historian in that time, and might be able to explain the greater complexities simpler than some sources. Hitler was a vegetarian indeed, he believed in the survival of the fittest, hence the weak humans had to be eradicated. He famously used one example talking about chimpanzees and how the stomp week members to death. He said: "What is valid for the chimpanzees has to be even more valid for humans." (a loose translation on my part as I only know the German quote)
Hmmm, youre popping up everywhere. I like you....you should join my group. That being said, yes he did commend the chimpanzees stomping the weak to death. Him being a vegetarian was smart (im a vegetarian too, I literally exactly like hitler minus the mustache, painter, and anti-Semitism), but just cuz they were environmentalists doesn't mean that they were left, they called themselves socialists to appeal to all of the voters. They were the perfect mix of both right and left.
Hilter was quite a weird individual. The more you read about him of people who spend time around him, the more it is obvious that they hated him. I can recommend the book of Traudl Junge who was one of his secretaries. She wrote her memories down shorty after WW2 which make them therefore way more fresh. What is apparent if you read books like those is, that Hitler annoyed people with his endless monologs, his endless talks about his German shepherd Blondi and that he believed this dog to be smarter than most people. He was great with animals and kids. But he was a crazy homicidal maniac. He used to stay up until 3 am before going to bed and he would sleep through most of the mornings. People were thrilled that he left, because they could finally light their cigarettes and drink alcohol. Dining with him supposed to have been quite horrible as well, because he had one cook and she prepared vegetarian food for him, and he forced the food on everybody. I started studying history because I never understood why smart people possibly could gravitate to someone as stupid as Hitler. I understand Göring, who was useless as a morphine addict, or Himmler who was just a mindless career soldier, but Goebbels or Speer were a mystery to me. These people were actually smart. The roots of the Nazi policies in terms of animals might be largely a result of Hitler considering his dogs life more valuable than those of 1 million German soldiers (never mind the others). But I never really focused on the animal rights policies of the Nazi regime. Might be worth looking into at some point.
And yet, he was incredibly popular and well-liked in Germany, with a 90% approval rating. Amazing what propaganda can do. Oh no, how horrible!
The Nazi's were a cult of personality and have nothing to do with today's right or left wing in America. Obama does have his cult of personality followers but it is relatively small compared to what happened in Germany.
He was elected in November 1932 with 33.1% of the votes. The approval rating was relatively fake afterwards due to incarcerations of the opposition. Most people who approved were young though. This has practical reasons: Prior to the depression in 1928 the Nazis only got 2.6% of the votes. These were the real core who approved of the policies prior to everything going wrong. After the depression around 25% of the workforce was unemployed, and therefore radical changes were demanded. The extreme right (Nazis) and the extreme left (communists) gain quickly in votes, because they represented extreme solutions. The depression and the situation afterwards was particularly problematic for factory workers, who suffered job loss at a greater scale than other professions. After WW1 already most of the (I think over 10 million) strong armed forces of Germany were reduced to 100,000 due the regulations coming from Versailles, which meant an overwhelming part of the armed forces lost their job. If you liked the military service, you couldn't serve anymore. But there was a loophole: militia. Groups formed and became armed and did the stuff they had done for years in the German army. Now, however, they didn't have the emperor as the commander and chief anymore, but rather someone else who might have been politically active. And who better to organize a militia and fund it properly than a big party. Therefore in Germany the private armies of the various parties sometimes were larger than the 100,000 men strong regular army. And now additionally as a result the great depression more men found themselves bored and out of a job. But let us take a step back and use a scenario: If you were an older couple back then, who was just a local farmer, your focus was the harvest not the policies in the city. The farmer already had a job, owned usually the property he worked on and owned the house he lived in. Therefore it was much harder to convince them that radical change is really necessary compared to the youth on the streets looking for a job. Basically anybody who still had a job, owned a house and still lived in a stable environment was harder to convince. And the ones who lived in a stable fashion, tended to be middle aged or older. A demographic in which the Nazis did very well, was among MDs. The reason was a high percentage of the doctors in Germany was jewish. With the Nazi policies the competition was suddenly gone. At that time Germany also had some of the best medical universities, which were hard to get in. Also among the students a large quantity was jewish. As a German now it was much easier to get into the colleges and get a degree and job thereafter. While official numbers indicate a 90% approval rating, I would have to doubt that this is realistic. He was popular no doubt, especially because propaganda works, but 90% or even higher as propagated by the regime is just not true. You laugh, but nobody likes eating stuff they don't like just to appeal to the boss. If you're a vegetarian yourself just reverse the situation. Being around vegetarians, but because you're boss is not, everybody has to eat a juicy stake and act like they love it.
And 'nationalism' was 'right', so 'nazism' was a combination of 'left' and 'right'. And that is how it could grow in numbers (a struggle between two mind sets, or emotional states in millions, and somehow that emotion flipped from one side to the other, because of emotional politics and mind control) One thing is clear about 'nazism', the focus was on the German people's psyche and emotion, and it worked. So when the focus is again on the same thing it can work again, directly and also when a realization aka process of 'awakenng' starts to grow (because that is an emotional process, or when mass media starts to inform the people, to open their eyes, looks like this is currently the problem. And it is very hard to slow down or to stop (because emotion spreads via 'social media', via Twitter and many forums) To stop such processes you need to stop communicating (that people's minds do not get 'infected' by emotions of other's emotional responses to politics and events) Enviromentalists and animals rights nuts, that (being nuts and acting insane) is the key, nuts use emotion. Emotion is why history is repeating, because it is very old, it works like a fatal flaw in the mind (but it is not a flaw, but in times when a lot is going on around people (this time) it starts to change their emotional state more and more) Emotion (politics is emotional) is the thing to organize masses of people, either high level of emotion or a low level of emotion, but millions of people on the same level and you have (emotional) unity, because when a majority of a population has reached nearly the same level in emotion it starts to become 'the same' (emotionaly) And not a single person inside a group can sense an abnormally (see North Korea for example, what you see you cannot see directly, that all people's minds are at the same emotional level), everything was in 'perfect' harmony (until the war started, then a lot of Germans started to realize what happened to them, it was too late. An hierarchy of millions with nearly the same very high emotional state of mind.
The difference is that one is smart, at least economically, morals aside. See, most people do not eat solely meat, which is why people can be vegetarians, but literally no one is an all out meat only person. Its not like Hitler said, you are going to eat salad and like it. He just said, I'm only going to serve vegetarian meals, and I am banning the consumption of meat. Not really much of a loss in my opinion, and yes, I am a vegetarian, but I am trying to be unbiased. I get the fact that you probably think meat tastes good, but there is a difference between forcing someone to eat something, and forcing someone to not eat a certain group of foods. If no one else gives a resounding Hail Victory to getting rid of meat, well then, I hope to change your mind.
