While fascism does not necessary include hatred specifically directed towards the Jewish race, extreme ethnic nationalism is an essential part of fascism. Under such a system it was only natural that Hitler and the Nazi propagandists would attempt to shift blame for the failures of Germany from the German people to a Jewish scapegoatChris Goodall wrote:Thnaks to all for their very insightful posts. Certainly something to chew over.
OK, not getting into diversions of the difference between National Socialism and Fascism, would it be true to state that Hitler broke with fascist thinking (I'm thinking of Mussolini's Italy here) and implemented a racial system to divide the nation. Anti-Semitism was not originally a tool of fascism, right?
- New member
- Posts: 1
- Joined: 20 Apr 2002 04:14
- Location: United States
- Posts: 216
- Joined: 19 Apr 2002 14:38
- Location: Stockholm
However, even these mystical icons, Hitler and Stalin, were humans with beliefs. As far as Hitler is concerned, he pieced together a pragmatic ideology, mostly by merging diverse ideas of others, into a combination which seems to have suited very well in his political environment. Marx's ideology was based on new theoretical economic ideas which he came up with. The ideologies thus are very different from each other. But both Hitler and Stalin used them as instruments to power. I'd suggest that Hitler actually believed in most of his own ideas. Over time, he gradually changed opinion on several subjects, but what should be the benchmark for the "true" ideology? Certainly, he went from left to right over time, even from radical to conservative on some issues, such as a land reform. However, was it Hitler who deviated, or was it the ideology itself that changed?
Stalin rode the marxist wave into power. I'd say that marxism from very early on, and still today, was used to get power, both through it's propagandistic appeal, and through it's intention to concentrate ALL power in the hands of a small elite. "Now, having established the dictatorship of the proletariat, what was the next step again?"...
- Posts: 741
- Joined: 01 Sep 2019 21:22
- Location: Newport Coast
Lest anyone forget, if anyone hasn't watched the documentary Hitler and Stalin: Roots of Evil they'll notice that even though Hitler was beaten up by his dad, like Stalin, his dad was wealthy and that Stalin was born into poverty. Young Joseph's economic upbringing and his disenchantment with life in the theological school in Tbilisi that he attended rendered the trajectory of his future career predetermined because they made him agree with Lenin and Marx that Czar Nicholas II put the interests of the Romanovs before those of the working class and that religion was "opium of the masses". Hitler, on the other hand, wanted to be an artist against his dad's wishes, and his rejection for admission into an art academy in Vienna laid the ideological foundations for his anti-Semitism along with him seeing the abnormally prolonged medical treatment of his mom by a Jewish doctor.Starinov wrote: ↑19 Apr 2002 15:19Both ideologies are very similar since both are based on socialism. Hitler got to power with the help of the people even if he made a "switch" to the right side in the late thirties. Stalin was a Lenin's follower even if he never made any speeches about that. Lenin always wanted a World Reviolution starting in Germany. Stalin followed that idea as consequently as he could.Chris Goodall wrote:Following up from the "Red or Black...or Brown" posting, I was wondering who remained truer to their ideology, Hitler or Stalin?
The differencies appear somewhere else. Hitler was for a war between races and Stalin for a war between classes. Different ideology but similar principle. They both stayed true to their ideas, i think...
Hitler's party opposed communism, socialism, and all other leftist "isms", associating Jews with communism and he successfully got people to elect him as chancellor by hoodwinking them into thinking that Jews were the root of Germany's defeat in WW1 and its economic ills. Stalin, by contrast, was able to put the USSR in a position to fend off the future Nazi invader by transforming the USSR into an industrial power and bringing many peasants who submitted to his will into the cities and factories to mark subassemblies for tanks, planes, patrol boats, and other weapons of war. Not only that, the dictatorship of Stalin was fiercely anti-racist.
- Posts: 1021
- Joined: 13 Nov 2020 15:08
- Location: Britain
That's a load of old cobblers. The two claims are tiresome urban legends.Cantankerous wrote: ↑10 Jan 2021 17:23Hitler, on the other hand, wanted to be an artist against his dad's wishes, and his rejection for admission into an art academy in Vienna laid the ideological foundations for his anti-Semitism along with him seeing the abnormally prolonged medical treatment of his mom by a Jewish doctor.
Hitler didn't get people to elect him as Chancellor of Germany because of his anti-semitism. He was not elected as Chancellor! Hitler didn't even get a majority of Germans to vote for him before he was appointed as Chancellor and actually lost votes in the November 1932 election. His appointment as Chancellor by Paul von Hindenburg had nothing to do with anti-semitism.Hitler's party opposed communism, socialism, and all other leftist "isms", associating Jews with communism and he successfully got people to elect him as chancellor by hoodwinking them into thinking that Jews were the root of Germany's defeat in WW1 and its economic ills.
Hitler's anti-semitism was not the reason he gained popularity amongst the German public. People didn't join or support the Nazi Party predominantly because of anti-semitism.
- Posts: 71
- Joined: 12 Feb 2021 05:22
- Location: Russia, Siberia
Both fascism and communism had staunch followers but both were mired to take them seriously.