Glenn Beck: The revolutionary Holocaust. Live Free...Or Die.

[theyounghistorian77]

Those who know me on the Chat know that i have a paticular dislike Of Glenn Beck, And my dislike was confirmed when this special edition of the Glenn Beck programme was aired. His grand thesis. All you progressives, liberals and Left wingers who are reading this are not only the heirs and supporters to Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Che etc but Glenn also thinks that us Historians have a "delibrate agenda" for not teaching this and suppressing the information presented in the Programme. (No i don't.)

So in the next few days. I plan to post my thoughts, debunking the first part of this "Shock-Doc" Line by line

To get a better context, of his Shock-Doc. I advise you read the website below before you watch the programme yourself.

http://mediamatters.org/research/201001220026





You can view/download the transcript here.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,583732,00.html

Red: Beck and friends (From the transcript).
Gold: My thoughts/rebuttals.

 

[theyounghistorian77]

Re: Glenn Beck: The revolutionary Holocaust. Live Free...Or

GLENN BECK, HOST: Welcome to a special edition of "The Glenn Beck Program."
The story of America is really one of self-reliance and optimism, and profound faith.

It is indeed a story of Self-reliance and optimism. But was it intended to be one of Faith?

"In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. It is easier to acquire wealth and power by this combination than by deserving them, and to effect this, they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer for their purposes"- Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Horatio Spafford, March 17, 1814.

It seems to me, That the founding fathers established a religiously neutral nation, as argued quite forcefully here.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/myth.html

Not only in the context of religious freedom, but also in the unprecedented faith in the ability of human beings to control their own destiny

And here's the reason why. The founding fathers of America were amongst the most liberal men of their time. And many of the founding Fathers were influenced by the likes of John Locke, AKA the "father of liberalism". Thomas Jefferson for example wrote this.

"To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise: but I believe I am supported in my creed of materialism by Locke, Tracy, and Stewart. At what age of the Christian church this heresy of immaterialism, this masked atheism, crept in, I do not know. But heresy it certainly is." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, Aug. 15, 1820.

If you wish to describe the founders philosophy as a sort of "Lassiez-faire Liberalism" Fine but liberalism it is, The Constitution and the declaration were the most liberal documents of it's time, They inspired other nations to create modern constitutions, The 3 May Polish constitution for example.

And while the spirit of personal responsibility was extraordinarily strong with our founders, great patriots like Thomas Paine, he argued for redistribution of wealth right off the bat. Alexander Hamilton, he wanted a central bank. Well, they wound up losing those battles but there were plenty who kept on fighting.

Evidence if you need it about how "Progressive" ( Even by Beck's standards of "Progressive") some of the Founders were.

The Constitution kept those dogs at bay for better part of 200 years.

Paine and Hamilton are "Dogs"? I dont think that's a very patriotic thing to say. Do you?, But regardless, Surely the reason why such ideas were kept away for the last 200 years was because of lack of influence, Not the constitution?

But, eventually, those seeking a different path than the ones the founders settled on realized the only way to really defeat the Constitution was for the people to stop reading it.

The Constitution is a public domain Document. No-one in the [american] mainstream media has openly advocated people to stop reading it as far as im aware, and anyway it is impossible to get the public to stop reading it. So im going to dismiss this as just scaremongering.

A Reading of the Constitution (mp3) by the late David Currie can be found here if you want it.

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/constitution

Progressives realized victory required changing history. To defeat them, we have to correct that.

In actual fact it is Beck's friends that are changing History. Im not just talking about David Barton, a regular guest on the Beck programme and also a well known Liar, But this also includes those Conservatives on the Texas BoE too

Because afterall, "He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past." - George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four (Chapter Three).

Beck knows how powerful History is when it comes to shaping the opinions of his audience. I think there's a "reason" that this "Shock-Doc" contains plenty of Stuff Glenn Beck conveniently omits from this piece, because it goes against his narrative. (I'll Show you later)

The truth is, I see Beck as being no more than the Kent Hovind of historical interpretation. Both Beck and the Hovinds are a joke; if Beck tried to present the following to the historical community as anything but the political propaganda it is recognized as being, he would be (and is anyway) laughed at; just like the Hovinds are laughed at by the scientific community.

When these truths get told and the lies get corrected, the game is going to be on. It's pulling the mask off the monster.

Because Pulling the mask off Beck's Face satisfies me very much ;-)

Next week, we'll dive deeper in to the progressive script. But today, we dismantle the first act.

The only thing being dismantled here is Beck's Narrative, And the notion that Hitler is somehow a leftist.

We've always been told that genocidal dictators of the world , oh, they're just manifestations of the hateful right, that the left wing icons like Che and Mao and Stalin need to be understood in context.

Everything in all subjects needs to be understood in Context, Not just the figures cited above. Contextualisation isn't something Beck isn't very good at, as we shall see later. And Stalin and Mao are "Left Wing Icons"? Maybe on the far left, but as for conventional leftists, I have never met anyone who admires either, and i have plenty of Socialist as well as Conservative friends. There are plenty of Republicans who, by beck's standards admire (or seem to admire) Leftist revolutionaries, but again, I'll come to this, later ;-)

Tonight, we set the record straight.

Indeed we will. That btw was his little Starter to the piece, I guess Beck was milking the image of the founding fathers for all it's worth. Now onto the main course, wherin contains the real substance.

 

[MRaverz]

Re: Glenn Beck: The revolutionary Holocaust. Live Free...Or

I thought Hitler used communists to get into power? Didn't he essentially tempt and trick the working party?

 

[theyounghistorian77]

Re: MRaverz - divertimento.

I thought Hitler used communists to get into power? Didn't he essentially tempt and trick the working party?

In short yes. you can put it like that. Both the KPD and the Nazis tried to utilise one another against the SPD, whom the KPD liked to call "Social fascists"

i guess that is what you were refering to?

Seeing as that Goldberg talks about Nazi-KPD collaboration later on, that's when i will deal with the subject

 

[theyounghistorian77]

Re: Glenn Beck: The revolutionary Holocaust. Live Free...Or

BECK (voice-over): We live in a time that seems to move faster than time , a place that seems to have no place for the truth, a reality that seems to have no connection to reality.

Yeah well, This is for an american audience chiefly, Correct? In which case I would blame the american News Media for the state of the electorate for that nation, which includes Glenn Beck because he too is prone to sowing out so much disinformation, I also recommend watching this Video (On Why Beck's Mormon Claims are rubbish)


-


So to get our feet on solid ground in the future, we must first walk through the past with our eyes wide open

This seems like a good idea in theory, trouble is that i dont want my eyes to be so open that they simply fall out, Whch is why i work from the premise that, In the words of Christopher Hitchens

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

So in other words, i need an argument with real world acedemic substance. Does Beck provide this? Sadly for him: No.

RONALD REAGAN, FMR. U.S. PRESIDENT: Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem.

BECK: That's modern conservatism in a nutshell.

This implies a small Govt philosophy, The trouble for Beck is that the place, that one takes on the political spectrum is determined by the position that one takes on the ownership of the means of production and the distribution of property and wealth in general. It is a political economy position. That is the general academic position, and it has nothing to do with government interference or control and has not changed. There is no such concept as there being a 'modern left' that is different in conception to a 'non-modern or past Left.

There is in this sense only one Left and Right, and it is determined by the political economy position I stated, and that determiner has not changed, which is why it is a useful measure in history and political economy. It is separate from 'Liberal' and 'Conservative' and as long as it is used correctly in the academic manner it is always consistent. Then you have the problem in that you are mixing the economic and social sphere in your categorization of conservative and liberal. Taken as its most basic; a conservative is one who wishes to retain the existing social and economic structure and the power of the existing elites. ("Conservativism is - In general terms, is a political philosophy which aspires to the preservation of what is thought to be the best in established society." - oxford concise dictionary of politics.) Throughout history the strategies to do this can take various forms in different places and times. In the past, it has sometimes taken the form more gov't involvement in the private sector to secure the position of those elites either through and aristocracy and even through the fascist parties.

The modern inception of maintaining the elites (i.e., conservative) is to push the idea of the 'free-market' and total laissez faire which shifts money and power upward and gives more power to the large trusts. So modern conservatives are acting in a consistently conservative manner. A liberal or, to liberalize is one who wishes to remove restrains, but it, like 'conservative' it must be delineated as to whether this involves the social or economic sphere. This is because one can be fiscally conservative but socially liberal,, as is the case for what are called conservative Democrats, and to varying degrees the present day Libertarians. (Although many Libertarians are so far to the Right economically they are beyond being fiscally conservative, they are reactionary ultra-right. Neoliberals on steroids) In the modern usage, a fiscal liberal is, not one who wishes to, remove restrains on the economy, but one who wishes to remove economic restraints put upon the lower classes by the economy using social programs and regulation to do so.
-
So in this way, while the particular ideas and policies pushed by those called Liberal or Conservative may shift, the exact concept behind those terms do not.

When it is said that modern conservatives are the "classical liberals" this is, not really the case either. First of all, in the social sphere, it is the present day liberals that carry on the mantle of the Classical Liberals in political freedoms with positive policies on civil rights, anti-discrimination legislation and fostering free speech through organizations such as the ACLU for example. Additionally, the Classic Liberal economists were not "free-market' as is it is interpreted by the modern libertarian crowd or even most Republicans. Not even Adam, Smith himself preached the type of 'free-market' that is put forth by the modern liberation crowd.

"Adam Smith was not a dogmatic proponent of laissez-faire capitalism. A careful exposition of his work will demonstrate that there were many functions which the government could fulfil in capitalist-organized society. In many (although not quite all) ways, Smith's position on the role of the state in a capitalist society was, close to that of a modern twentieth century US liberal democrat" Spencer Pack "Capitalism as a Moral System, Adam Smith's critique of the Free Market Economy" p1

The Classical Liberals in the economic sphere refers really to the ones who wished to dismantle the mercantilist trading system and the privilege of the aristocracy, issues which; neither is relevant to contemporary society. That was the extent of their idea of "free-market" not the modern usage, of lowering the taxes on the wealthy and totally unregulated markets and trade.

Admittedly the contemporary conservatives do try to claim that they acting from the same concepts, but more properly the modern conservatives are Neoliberal, or, if they include a social aspect Neoconservative, but both push Neoliberal economic policies like 'free-trade' and 'privatization' which is the way to keep the existing social structure and elite status quo; in other words, a conservative policy.

of course The person's position on the political compass can be blurred by their stances on things like personal freedom, religion, et cetera and the connections between them. That's where the complexities lie.

The other ways to look at politics, ie Older models like the "1789 model" as i call it, i find are flawed. This describes the flaws best.

"There's abundant evidence for the need of it. The old one-dimensional categories of 'right' and 'left', established for the seating arrangement of the French National Assembly of 1789, are overly simplistic for today's complex political landscape. For example, who are the 'conservatives' in today's Russia? Are they the unreconstructed Stalinists, or the reformers who have adopted the right-wing views of conservatives like Margaret Thatcher ? On the standard left-right scale, how do you distinguish leftists like Stalin and Gandhi? It's not sufficient to say that Stalin was simply more left than Gandhi. There are fundamental political differences between them that the old categories on their own can't explain. Similarly, we generally describe social reactionaries as 'right-wingers', yet that leaves left-wing reactionaries like Robert Mugabe and Pol Pot off the hook" - Political compass.org.

Which is why i use economics (ie where you stand on who owns the means of production) as a determiner for left and right. Capitalism on one side, Communist economics (not necessarily the system seen in the soviet union) on the other. So how do i solve the problem of Stalin vs Ghandi? Through another axis, the Libertarian/authoritarian scale. Under Glenn Beck's idea of politics, There is no difference between an anarchist (far-left extreme libertarian) and a Stalinist (far-left extreme authoritarian) I would like to point out also that, the definition of Conservativism given earlier does not necessarily say that one has to be libertarian, Vladimir Putin is an authoritarian conservative, as are the islamic conservatives in the middle east. so any assertion that conservativism is automaticly about liberty, can be rubbished. It depends on what you are conserving to begin with, in reality. Monarchists and, aristocrats are also conservative and have no qualms about using a larger gov't to achieve their goals. If you need any convincing that Conservatives in the USA too, can also be authoritarian. I Suggest you read Bob Altemeyer's - The Authoritarians

A fun Fact, Bill Clinton shrunk the size of govt, But under the conservative George W, Bush, The gov't grew again. But if you want the original small gov't ideology, look no further than to Bakunin's anarchist school who are socialists or to Engels for he envisioned a withering away of gov't in the final phase of communism. (Does this make him and/or the final phase of communism Right wing? No it doesn't.) To quote

"State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies out of itself; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The State is not "abolished". It dies out...Socialized production upon a predetermined plan becomes henceforth possible. The development of production makes the existence of different classes of society thenceforth an anachronism. In proportion as anarchy in social production vanishes, the political authority of the State dies out. Man, at last the master of his own form of social organization, becomes at the same time the lord over Nature, his own master , free." - Fredrich Engels. "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific", "Historical Materialism"

And this element of communism is something even Lenin admitted to, (of course, not that it happened under him nor any other dictator of his Kind.)

"From the moment all members of society, or at least the vast majority, have learned to administer the state themselves, have taken this work into their own hands, have organized control over the insignificant capitalist minority, over the gentry who wish to, preserve their capitalist habits and over the workers who have been thoroughly corrupted by capitalism from this moment the need for government of any kind begins to disappear altogether. The more, complete the democracy, the nearer the moment when it becomes unnecessary. The more democratic the "state" which consists of the armed workers, and which is "no longer a state in the proper sense of the word", the more rapidly every form of state begins to wither away. ... Then the door will be thrown wide open for the transition from the first phase of communist society to its higher phase, and with it to the complete withering away of the state." - Vladimir Lenin: "The State and Revolution" Ch 5. "The higher phase of Communist Society".

So in short, The size of gov't has nothing to do with an actual placement on the left/right spectrum.

Yet, we're always told that Nazi Germany, who controlled every aspect of its citizens' lives, was somehow right-wing. Is that true?

Controlling every aspect of your citizens lives is not something automaticly ascribed to be a quality of either the left or the Right. Both left and right winged dictators have in the past controlled every aspect of their citizens lives. But anyway, the overall answer is yes. Hitler was overall, a right wing dictator.

And just so you get the point, that controlling every aspect of your citizens Lives is not a determiner for left and right, Read these words from a Fundamentalist Christian, and an openly republican one at that.

"Our job is to reclaim America for Christ, whatever the cost. As the vice regents of God, we are to exercise godly dominion and influence over our neighborhoods, our schools, our government, our literature and arts, our sports arenas, our entertainment media, our news media, our scientific endeavors -- in short, over every aspect and institution of human society." - D. James Kennedy, "Reclaiming America for Christ" conference, February, 2005. Quoted from Theocracywatch.org

Got the point yet?

Or is it an attempt to distract from other much more inconvenient similarities?

Nope.

JONAH GOLDBERG, AUTHOR, "LIBERAL FASCISM":

The Title Liberal Fascism is an Oxymoron. Fascists aren't liberal and Liberals aren't Fascist, by definition. By the way H.G Wells' use of the term (where Goldberg got the phrase from) had nothing to do with any actual fascist aspects in Liberalism. All he was saying is that the Left has to be as Inspired, motivated and as militant in pushing thier cause as the Nazis seemed to, be.

"Wells did not label his 'entire"¦philosophy' liberal fascism, not in fact and not by, implication. Liberal fascism was the name which he gave to his theory of praxis, that is his method of achieving his utopian goal, not the goal itself. Although the pattern of thought signified by 'liberal fascism' in my article was a long established and extensively developed part of his work, Wells explicitly coupled fascism and liberalism on only a, few occasions and then spoke most often about the need for a 'liberal fascisti' rather than 'liberal fascism'. This was significant inasmuch that it indicates that he was concerned not with changing the content of his utopia but rather the means by which he sought to realize it." - Philip Coupland " H.G. Wells's 'Liberal Fascism' Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 35, No. 4, 541-558 (2000)

And Goldberg's laughable trash has already been dealt with, See this series on History News network

http://www.hnn.us/articles/122469.html
http://www.hnn.us/articles/122231.html
http://www.hnn.us/articles/122473.html
http://www.hnn.us/articles/122247.html
http://www.hnn.us/articles/122245.html
http://www.hnn.us/articles/122592.html
http://www.hnn.us/articles/122667.html
http://www.hnn.us/articles/122744.html
http://www.hnn.us/articles/122872.html
http://www.hnn.us/articles/122871.html

Or you can read David Neiwert's response here.

To say, you know, Hitler was a right-winger because of X, Y, Z, I say, what was Stalin's position on X, Y, and Z?

X = Economics (Plenty of privatization went on in Nazi Germany. Hitler and Stalin had different economic policies.)

Thats the real determiner, But I suppose you want two other differences.

Y = Hitler was an ideological nationalist, Stalin was an ideological internationalist.

Z = Attitudes to Marxism (I'll come to this later, as it's a big part of Beck's thesis)

The common assumption is that the Nazis were right-wing phenomena. They a right-wing party, that Hitler was a man of the right and all of the rest.

They were, See above for the analysis for left/right on the political spectrum. It's not a common assumption, It's a long agreed acedemic consensus that the Nazis and Fascists are considered to, be Right-wing, and that is well demonstrated even in the very title of academic publications like: "The Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far Right"

"Certainly the ultra-nationalism, anti-equalitarianism, hostility to international socialism, collusion with traditional right-wing forces and constant appeal to 'primordial' spiritual values all point to the conclusion that fascism belongs to the extended family of Rightist ideologies. ... It seems reasonable to regard it for practical purposes as a subcategory to the ultra right but with special qualities all its own, that we are dealing once again with a particular and thus unique manifestation of a generic ideal type." - Roger Griffin, "The nature of fascism.", p49-50.

And there are a lot of problems with this. His social agenda was for expanding universal access to health care,

This sentence is obviously a subtle Attack on Obama care. At any rate, it isn't quite true; Govt run Healthcare in Germany had existed since 1883. It is the oldest govt run Healthcare system in the World. Who introduced it? Otto Von Bismarck. Was he Conservative? Yes he was. Maybe Goldberg was talking about the 1941 legislation, which was passed that allowed workers whose incomes had risen above the income ceiling for compulsory membership to continue their insurance on a voluntary basis?. The same year, coverage was extended to all retired Germans. But even so, Jews, Slavs, Communists and other "Undesirables" were not covered by healthcare in Nazi Germany (So it can hardly be called Universal) and the legislation programmes enacted by the Nazis count as reform. I think it's safe to say Obama Care is more tolerant than Nazi Care. I think it's also safe to say that Angela Merkel knows that as much as i do

But anyway, let us have a look as to what Hitler thought about Bismarck's Social legislation.

"I studied Bismarck's Socialist legislation in its intention struggle, and success. Gradually I obtained a positively granite foundation for my own conviction, so that since that time I have never been forced to undertake a shift in my own inner view on this question. Likewise the relation of Marxism to the Jews was submitted to further thorough examination" - Mein Kampf, Vol 1, Chapter 4.

If the conservative Bismarck can be counted as a de-facto socialist simply because he enacted "Socialist legislation" too Black must therfore be white.

Also, Churchill was for expanding Healthcare. Does this make him a left winger? NO. All three British, political parties had NHS proposals in their 1945 manifestoes. The Conservatives actually had the longest section in their manifesto, pledging

"The health services of the country will be made available to all citizens. Everyone will contribute to the cost, and no one will be denied the attention, the treatment or the appliances he requires because he cannot afford them. We, propose to create a comprehensive health service covering the whole range of medical treatment from the general practitioner to the specialist, and from the hospital to convalescence and rehabilitation"

although they went on to envision it as encompassing voluntary hospitals and university medical research, as well as focussing, on maternity care.

The point is that a Conservative post-war government under Churchill was fully signed up to introducing an NHS (even if they disagreed with labour's NHS) . A Liberal post-war government under Sinclair was also fully signed up to introducing the NHS. The NHS was, in effect an inescapable conclusion.

The Universial healthcare = socialism idea is built upon a myth, a boil that needs to be lanced. while I'll admit that We're so used to Labour politicians churning out the line that Labour gave us the NHS, ie when Ian McCartney MP, celebrated Labour's centenary in 2006, he actually shed a tear for the NHS as "Labour's greatest triumph". But anyone familiar with history will tell you that Goldberg's and McCartney's version of events is a cruel lie.

For expanding access to education.

Which is why "despite much rhetoric ... the educational opportunities of the underprivileged in the nazi state were no better than in the Weimar republic. Workers in the late 30's represented 45% of the population but furnished only 3% of the senior student body, exactly the same % as in the pre-nazi period." - James Taylor and Warren Shaw, "Penguin dictionary of the third Reich", p83.

In actual fact, the real picture is as follows...

"Increasing numbers of teachers took early retirement, or left the profession for other jobs. In 1936, there were 1335 unfilled posts in the elementary schools: by 1938 the number had grown to nearly 3000 while the annual number of graduates from teacher training colleges, at 2500, was nowhere near adequate to the estimated need of the school system for an additional, 8000 teachers a year. The result, was that by 1938, class size on average in all schools had increased to 43 pupils per teacher as compared to 37 in 1927," - Richard, Evans, "The Third reich in power", p269.

"At every level, formal learning was given decreased emphasis as the hours devoted to physical education and sport in the state, schools were increased in 1936 to three a week,, and then in 1938 to five and fewer lessons were devoted to academic subjects to make room for indoctrination and preparation in war" ibid, p289

"The reorganization of German secondary schools ordered in 1937 abolished grammar school education, for girls altogether. The only other, secondary education available to girls was a language based girls school, where domestic science was also compulsory. From April 1938, all girls, who still managed to graduate with a university entrance examination despite all these obstacles were obliged to have a 'domestic year'; only after this would they be given the school leaving certificate and, allowed to proceed to university." Ibid, p299

So in Goldberg's world, Restricting something like Girls education is an expansion of it?

And expanding education isn't a socialist thing either, Churchill, in passing the 1944 "Butler Act" made secondary education free for all pupils. Also, 7000 new schools were built during Harold Macmillan's premiership. As you can probably already tell, Im not very Impressed by Goldberg at all.

It was for cradle to grave welfare state.

Was it? Let me quote Richard J Evans for you and you make your own mind up.

"Nazi Ideology did not in principle favour the idea of social welfare. In 'Mein Kampf', Hitler, writing about the time he had spent living amongst the poor and the destitute in Vienna before the First World War, had waxed indignant about the way in which social welfare encouraged the preservation of the degenerate and the feeble. From a Social Darwinist point of view, charity and philanthropy were evils that had to be eliminated if the German race was to be strengthened and its weakest elements eliminated. the Nazi party frequently condemned the elaborate welfare system that had grown up under the Weimar Republic" - Evans, "The Third Reich in Power" p483-484.

"By devoting welfare to the voluntary sector, the regime was able to save tax-based income and use it for rearmament instead. Conscription, marriage loans and other schemes to take people out of the labour market led to further reductions in the burden of benefit payments... unemployment benefits had already been severely cut by governments and local authorities before the Nazis took power. The new regime lost little time in cutting them even more sharply. ... Cutting back on welfare payments was only part of a wider strategy. Urging the German people to engage in self-help instead of relying on payments from the state carried with it the implication that those who could not help themselves were dispensable, indeed a positive threat to the future health of the German people." ibid, p491

It was for attacking big business and high finance

"Whenever fascist parties acquired power, however, they did nothing to carry out these [early] anticapitalist threats. By contrast, they enforced with the utmost violence and thoroughness their threats against socialism. Street fights over turf with young communists were among their most powerful propaganda images. Once in power, fascist regimes banned strikes, dissolved independent labor unions, lowered wage earners' purchasing power, and showered money on armaments industries, to the immense satisfaction of employers." Robert O. Paxton. "The Anatomy of Fascism" p53

"Yet the equality of status so loudly and insistently proclaimed by the Nazis did not imply equality of social position, income or wealth. The Nazis did not radically revise the taxation system so as to even up people's net incomes, for example, or control the economy in the manner that was done in the Soviet Union, or later on in the German Democratic republic, so as to minimize the differences between rich and poor. Rich and poor remained in the Third Reich, as much as they ever had. In the end, the aristocracy's power over the land remained undisturbed, and younger nobles even found a new leadership role in the SS, Germany's future political elite. Peasant families that had run their village community for decades or even centuries managed for the most part to retain their position by reaching a limited accommodation with the new regime. Businessmen, big and small, continued to run their business for the usual capitalist profit motive." - Evans, "The Third Reich in Power" p500

So, as opposed to the mere words of their propagandists, and those who foolishly believe them, the record shows that the Nazis actually acted not as socialists, but as capitalists do; property and profits remained private in Nazi Germany and they even privatized many areas of previous public ownership.

"Whatever level of state intervention, it could be argued quite forcefully that belief in private property was central to fascist ideology, as [Roger] Eatwell states: the sympathetic reference to socialism did not mean that fascists accepted the abolition of private property. This was seen as a law of nature." - "The Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far Right" p141

"Nazi planning left business intact, from the great firms like IG Farben all the way down to small retailers and backstreet artisanal workshops" - Evans, "The Third Reich in Power" , p371

"The Darwinian principles that animated the regime dictated that competition between companies and individuals would remain the guiding principle of the economy, just as competition between different agencies of state and party were the guiding principles of politics and administration." Evans. Ibid, p410

"Although modern economic literature usually fails to notice it, the Nazi government in 1930s Germany undertook a wide scale privatization policy. The government sold public ownership in several state-owned firms in different sectors. In addition to this, delivery of some public services (welfare) previously produced by the public sector was transferred to the private sector, mainly to organizations within the Nazi Party." - "Nazi Privatization in the 1930s", Economist's View 9/06

It is a fact that the government of the Nazi Party sold off public ownership in several State owned firms in the mid-1930s. These firms belonged to a wide range of sectors: steel, mining, banking, local public utilities, shipyards, ship-lines, railways, etc.

-

"In an article published in the Der Deutsche Volkswirt in February 1934, Heinz Marschner proposed 'The reprivatization' of urban transportation, which after the period of inflation came under public control, especially in the hands of local governments." This proposal was related to the Nazi government's support for returning the ownership of urban transportation back to the private sector. ... Several months later, in an article discussing banking policy in Germany, Hans Baumgarten analyzed the conditions required for the reprivatization in the German banking sector. Discussion of privatization was increasingly common soon after the Nazi government took office early in 1933, and privatizations soon followed.....In the 1930s The Deutsche Reichsbahn (German Railways) was the largest single public enterprise in the world, bringing together most of the railways services operating within Germany. The German Budget for fiscal year 1934/35, the last one published established that Railway preference shares worth Reichsmark 224 million were to be sold. ... The Commerz-Bank was reprivatized through several share sales in 1936-37. These shares amounted to Rm. 57 million, and the largest single transaction was a sale of Rm. 22 million in October 1936. Deutsche Bank was reprivatized in several operations effectively implemented in 1935-37." - Germà  Bel, "Nazi privatization in 1930s Germany".

So despite some of their early words, the Nazis acted not like socialists, but as the capitalists they really were. It is rather disingenuous and simplistic to use the words alone of propagandists and ignore what really was actually the case. nazi germany had a system of private property and private profits, Stalin didn't. There's your X mr Goldberg.

People say, "Well, Hitler abolished labor unions, he was a right-wing then." Well, how did labor unions do under Stalin? How are labor unions doing under Fidel Castro?

Indeed, trade unions did lose most of their power and legitimacy under Stalin and Castro, but i don't think abolishing Unions does not make you right wing or Left wing although given the well known bad relationship between Unions and the right, it may give the impression to the general populace that abolishing the unions is indeed right wing.

Almost anything you can find on a checklist that allegedly proves Hitler was a right-winger, you can apply to almost any one of the communist dictators of the 20th century and the similarities are almost identical.

Well we've already covered economics, and the welfare state haven't we? But seeing as Goldberg wants another difference between Hitler and Stalin, What about Hitler's Christianity? He didn't use it merely for propaganda purposes, he believed in it. See here for more details. Hitler was christian, Stalin, and all the other Communist dictators were Atheist. I didn't put this on the X,Y and Z, but it's another difference.

 

[theyounghistorian77]

Re: Glenn Beck: The revolutionary Holocaust. Live Free...Or

BECK: Today, this idea may seem controversial. But as the Nazis were rising to power, it wasn't controversial. It was common knowledge. November 28, 1925, a tiny article printed in the "New York Times" describing the early internal struggle for the identity of the Nazis. A riot broke out after a Nazi speaker claimed that Lenin was the greatest man second only to Hitler. And the difference between communism and the Hitler faith was very slight. It wasn't just some nobody in the Nazi party who believed this. It was this man: Hitler's closest ally to the very end and his hand-pick successor as chancellor, Joseph Goebbels.

How little does Beck actually know of the history of the period? Goebbels, was a great propagandist even before he became propaganda minister. And in the early stage during the parties initial forming, Goebbels had to play to the more socialist background of northern German urban areas to try and get more support than the Bavarian root of the party did.

Because it was so controversial, Goebbels, a master of propaganda, stopped talking about it in public.

Another thing about that speech, So many Grassroots Nazis so opposed any association with Lenin that a fight broke out over it? The Newspaper article Beck quotes from continues as follows (And you can read it on screen: Pause the Beck programme at 4:14.)

"[because of the content of the speech] a faction war opened with whizzing beer glasses. When this sort of ammunition whas exhausted a free fight in which fists and knives played important roles was indulged in, Later a gang marched to the offices of the Socialist paper Vorwilrts and smashed plate-glass windows. Police made 19 arrests"

I think the realisation of how this kind of party infighting looks to the general populace (It always looks Bad) could be one possible explanation as to why Goebbels the Propaganda minister, (Who had the task to make his party look Good to the populace) stopped talking about it in public)

But his private writings revealed his change in approach wasn't a change of heart.

There's a big problem with quoting goebbels like this, The Nazis were not as Cohesive in their ideology as Beck would like to assume, The infighting reported by that newspaper article certainly proves That. The Nazis did indeed have a "left wing" (of sorts) of their Party, Comprised of indivudials like Goebbels, Along with the Likes of Ernst Rohm (Both were influenced by Gregor Strasser). Unfortunately for Beck, Hitler himself did not belong to this aspect of the Party, He actively tried to suppress it.

First, he called a conference in the City of Bamberg on 14th feb 1926 to instill the Fà¼hrerprinzip onto aspects of the party he felt were dissenting, And that included, guess who? That's Right, Goebbels, Rohm and strasser, Goebbels submitted To Hitler, although he felt dissapointed in the process, He wrote in his diaries after the meeting "I feel devastated, What sort of Hitler? A reactionary? I no longer fully believe in Hitler. That's the terrible thing: my inner support has been taken away."

No he never changed his heart, but whether Hitler knew about that is another thing. But anyways, this excerpt from Ian Kershaw demonstrates the difference between Hitler and the nazi "left"

"on 21 may [1930], Hitler invited otto strasser to his hotel for lengthy discussions. .... the key points were leadership and socialism. ... strasser accused Hitler of trying to destroy the kampfverlag because he wanted to "strangle" the "social revolution" through a strategy of legality and, the borgeois right. Hitler angrily denounced strasser's, "socialism" as "nothing but marxism". The mass of the working class", he went on, wanted only bread and circuses, and would never understand the meaning of an ideal. "there was only one possible kind of revolution, and it is not economic or political or social, but racial," he avowed. Pushed on his attitude towards Big buisness, Hitler made plain that there could be NO QUESTION FOR HIM OF SOCIALIZATION OR WORKER CONTROL. The only priority was for a strong state to ensure that production was carried out in the, national interest" - kershaw. Hitler (abridged), p201

EDVINS SNORE, DIRECTOR, "THE SOVIET STORY"

The points Raised about Hitler here in my critique here can also apply to his film.

The Nazi Germany attacked the Soviet Union in 1941.

Yep, they were so ideologically similar that they went to war against each other? surely the War refutes the point that Nazism and Communism were specifically Compatible? I'll deal with the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact later.

Just a week before that, he wrote in his diary that the goal of the Nazi Germany would be to destroy this Jewish Bolshevism and the Soviet Union as they described it and instead of that, build the true socialism. That's what he wrote in his diary.

"There will be no restoration of the Tsars after Russia has been conquered, But Jewish Bolshevism would be uprooted in Russia and "Real Socialism" Planted in its place., "Der echte sozialismus" - Goebbels Diaries, 16th June 1941.

So the quote may be accurate, but again, this is Goebbels who belonged on the left of the Party, It's not quoting Hitler. And sorry but one cannot use Goebbels to prove Hitler personally was Left Wing. Hitler belongs on the opposite side of the Party. And anyways, this also demonstrates that Nazi "Socialism" and Stalinism/communism aka "Jewish bolshevism" were incompatible. Even the left of the Party thought so.

But what is this "True" or "Real Socialism"? Beck & friends dont tell us, It's almost like they don't want to tell us, It's just a statement without context. Enter Ian Kershaw, to provide it

"In reality, Hitler's 'Social idea' was simplistic, diffuse and manipulative. It ammounted to litttle more than what he told his bourgeois audience in hamburg [more specificly, what he told the Hamburger Nationalklub on 28th feb 1926]: winning the workers over to nationalism, destroying Marxism and overcoming the division between nationalism and socialism through the creation of a nebulous 'national community' (Volksgemeinschaft) based on racial purity and the concept of struggle. The fusion of nationalism and socialism would do away with the class antagonism between a nationalist bourgeoisie and Marxist Proletariat (both of which had failed in their political goals). This would be replaced by a 'Community of Struggle' where nationalism and socialism would be united, where 'brain' and 'fist' would be reconciled, and where - denuded of Marxist influence - the building of a new spirit for the great future struggle of the people could be undertaken. Such ideas were neither new, nor original. And ultimately, they rested NOT ON ANY MODERN FORM OF SOCIALISM, but on the crudest and most brutal version of 19th century imperialist and social-Darwinistic notions. Social welfare in the trumpeted 'national community' did NOT exist for it's own sake, but to prepare for external struggle, for conquest 'by the sword'" - Ian Kershaw, "Hitler" (abridged) P181-182.

And just so it's all clear, "Hitler was never a socialist" - ibid p269

So what the "True socialism" really meant was the creation of the Volksgemeinschaft, That's all.

And, of course, Goebbels was a liar, but , why would, he lie to his own diary?.

I have no reason to suspect that He's lying to his own diary. The thoughts in his own diary were thoughts that even Hitler probably did not know about.

GOLDBERG: The red shirts and the brown shirts in Germany had all sorts of members who were members of one group joining the other group and vice versa.

That's called being Converted, Doesn't prove that the Nazis were Left Wing. Interesting to know that they were joining the SA led by Rohm (Who, like Goebbels, was in the left of the Party) Not the Blackshirts of the SS.

"The SA was a vast organization and, by the early 1930s, on occasion actually outnumbered the NSDAP's membership. Due to its function the SA was different in many key ways from its parent. It, was overwhelmingly composed of young men. Four fifths of its members were under 29 years of age. the biggest single group (41%) being aged 20 to 24. Further, although precise figures are lacking, the bulk of the SA were unemployed, the proportion nearing 70%. Part of its attraction for the young unemployed, many of whom failed to qualify for any unemployment benefits, was its provision of soup kitchens, clothing (Uniforms and boots), and hostels. In 1932 its units were described as being, 'composed solely of the unemployed'. For these men in particular, the creation of SA hostels was especially fortuitous. For many, these hostels became a real home. In term of social composition the SA was quite different to the NSDAP. Its paramilitary character meant that many of its leaders were noble ex-officers clearly distinguishable by the 'von' in their names; from the overall chief (Until his replacement by Rohm), captain von Pfeffer, to the deputy leaders respectively for the west, central and south, Germany - von Ulrich, von Killinger, von Obernitz. Its leading ranks also included the Kaiser's son Prince August-Willhelm, Prince Friedrich-Christian of Schaumbeurg-Lippe, Prince Philipp of Hesse, Duke Euard of, Saxe-Coburg - and the list goes on. Among the lower ranks the situation was reversed, the presence of workers being far more significant than in the NSDAP itself. To a certain extent the character of the SA can be explained by the circumstances of the time and its, role. Unemployment affected manual workers more than other sectors, and many SA unemployed were attracted by the food warmth and a roof. So the SA was more working class in composition than the NSDAP., If the general argument about the Nazis being an all-class movement were correct, then we would not expect social distinctions between the two. In fact there were a multitude of differences which culminated in the bloody slaughter of the SA leadership by Hitler's henchmen in the 'Night of the Long Knives' of 1934. FIRST OF ALL, FEWER THAN HALF OF THE STORMTROOPERS ACTUALLY BELONGED TO THE NAZI PARTY. [Emphasis added.] This suggests a lack of commitment to the party's aims and outlook. Secondly the SA's ideology was rather different than that of the parent body. In some sense it is a mistake to dignify the ragbag of ideas circulating in the SA with any term ideology. If there was a greater, emphasis on socialism it amounted to little more than: 'A series of passionate, radical, and often pugilistic remarks by various leaders on the necessity of smashing Marxism, the republic and the Jews and of creating some sort of ill defined egalitarian volksgemeinshaft. It was a force designed to capture and dominate the streets. Ideology mattered little in these circumstances, and the socialism it is supposed to have possessed amounted to little more than the ability to organize soup kitchens, shelter, and clothing for sections of the working, class unemployed.' ... The SA was, in a sense, the exception that proved the rule of Nazism's class character." - Donny Gluckstein, "The Nazis, Capitalism and the Working Class.", p91-92.

They saw themselves as equally revolutionary organizations fighting each other for control

And that's why Hitler killed off the S.A and much of the Nazi "Left". He deemed them to be too revolutionary.

The Nazi versus Bolsheviks in Germany was really a case of Coke versus Pepsi.

False analogy, The Cola Wars of the 80's and 90's involved two companies who basically make the very same soft drink products trying to out advertise one another. The Nazis do not have the very same ideological product as the Bolsheviks. Period.

BECK: Even as the Nazis were taken control of France, the French communist newspaper found reason to celebrate. "In these sad times, it is exceptionally comforting to see many Parisian workers talk to German soldiers as friends, in the street, or at the corner cafe. Well done, comrades. And keep it up, even if it displeases some of the middle classes as stupid as they are mischievous."

A slight mistranslation is at play here, Here is the same quote from David Wingeate Pike, "Between the Junes: The French Communists from the Collapse of France to the Invasion of Russia," Journal of Contemporary History Vol. 28, No. 3 (Jul., 1993). p. 470.).

"It is particularly comforting, in these unhappy times, to see so many Parisian workers engage in friendly relations with German soldiers, whether it be in the street or the neighbourhood bar. Good work, comrades. Keep it up, even if that upsets certain members of our bourgeoisie who are as stupid as they are spiteful."

And if you continue reading that article, You also come across this.

"conversations between Parisian workers and German soldiers increase by leaps and bounds. We are delighted. Let us get to know one another. And when we tell the German soldiers that the communist députés have been thrown into prison for their defence of peace we shall be working for Franco-German friendship"

The only reason why some Communists in France would have appeared friendly unto the Nazis (Some communist groups even sabotaged the French resistance headed by de-Gaulle) It was to only strengthen their own position in such a tough time as directed by the Commitern. Nothing more and nothing less. Although not all communists followed this line and actively joined resistance movements. I highly recommend you read the full article by David Pike.

GOLDBERG: The communists in the Reichstag voted almost uniformly with the Nazis. They voted in lock step

Not quite true. The Communists voted not WITH, the but separately, for different reasons, in the Reichstag. The Nazi voted against from the Right, and the Communists voted against from the Left; two entirely different sides and reasons behind it. And additionally the Nazi marched lock, step with the other right-wing parties like the Nationalists and the Stahlhelm. And the Nazis went against the expropriation referendum of 25/26. So when they had a chance to act in a real socialist manner, They actualy failed to do so. Both the SPD and the KDP supported passage of that referendum, the Nazis did not. "Although the SPD and KDP both supported the referendum, the communists failed to create, United Front committees, and the two parties conducted entirely separate campaigns." - Bernhard Fulda, "Press and politics in the Weimar Republic" p121-122.

But they did collaborate in other ways, As James Taylor and Warren Shaw point out "During the 1920's The KPD, following the Moscow Line, misread the Nazis as being part of the Ruling Bourgeoisie, an extreme element of the Capitalist Pseudo-democracy. They saw the SPD as the real enemy. Many times the KPD and the Nazis worked together, breaking up Social Democratic (SPD) meetings with a combination of SA men and Red Commandoes." - The Penguin dictionary of the Third Reich. p61.

In Short, The KPD was blind to the Nazis real intentions. They were just following what their masters in Moscow were telling them. Just because they did work together does not equal a "Nazi and Communists are ideologically the same analysis." Even if you apply that analysis to which way the parties voted in the Reichstag.

And the slogan for the communists in the Reichstag was: First, brown, then, red.

Contrary to what you hear It wasn't a KPD slogan, and it wasn't "First brown, then red". It was infact "Red Equals Brown", and that was the slogan and rationale of the SPD, who saw both the Nazis and the KPD as threats to the Weimar, democracy that they upheld. The Berlin police, under SPD command, shot communist leaning workers who demonstrated on May Day in 1929 (Which wasn't a legal Bank Holiday) and the SPD legislated against freedom for the communists. The SPD also took an active role in quashing the Russian inspired German revolution in 1918-9. Leading the KPD to accuse the SPD of being "Social Fascists", However One, slogan that the KPD did use is "After Hitler, our turn"

The general understanding among the communists, among socialists back then was that Nazism was a steppingstone towards the ultimate victory of socialism and communism.

At the very most, Goldberg would only qualify as being half correct here, although again this does not demonstrate that Nazism = Communism. And a general understanding is not necessarily a correct one. As was demonstrated when the Nazis came to power, Their first targets were the Communists and Socialists.

As to the KPD themselves, They viewed the Nazis as little more than tools to be used against the weimar democracy and the "Social Fascist" SPD. An organised Socialist/Communist front against the Nazis wasn't felt too much as needed. Despite Leon Trotsky warning the KPD that

"Worker-Communists, you are hundreds of thousands, millions; you cannot leave for anyplace; there are not enough passports for you. Should fascism come to power, it will ride over your skulls and spines like a terrific tank. Your salvation lies in merciless struggle. And only a fighting unity with the Social Democratic workers can bring victory. Make haste, worker-Communists, you have very little time left!"

Ernst Thälmann (Leader of the KPD) didn't take Trotsky seriously at all, especially when he said.

"In his pamphlet on the question, How will National Socialism be Defeated? Trotsky gives always but one reply: 'The German Communist Party must make a bloc with the social democracy...' In framing this bloc, Trotsky sees the only way for completely saving the German working class against fascism. Either the Communist Party will make a bloc with the social democracy or the German working class is lost for 10-20 years. This is the theory of a completely ruined fascist and counter revolutionary. This theory is the worst theory, the most dangerous theory and the most criminal that Trotsky has constructed in the last years of his counter revolutionary propaganda." - closing speech at the 13th Plenum, September 1932: Communist International, No. 17-18, page 1329.

There is another element as well, It is also to be remembered, that the feeling capitalism itself was on the brink was not too uncommon in the KPD and other communist and hardcore socialist circles after the depression hit. There was some sort of a feeling of inevitability on their part that, went way too far. I suppose one could blame the Marxist ideas of Historical Materialism a little. A feeling of predestination almost set in. And Some felt that all they had to do is let things happen and history would, turn to their side.

In this sense the meaning of "First Brown, then red" if the KPD did use it at all would be totally different than what Goldberg is trying to use it as. It would not be that communism or socialism would come through, or be achieved by the Nazis, it is not saying that they have anything in common; it is actually indicating the, opposite; that Historical Materialism would dictate "Red" would come, because their "Brown" tools would fail anyway!

BECK: While Hitler certainly to opposed communism outwardly,

Is The assumption that inwardly, hitler Embraced Communism? That is just a false insinuation.

He did so mainly because he disagreed with its internationalism

Yes, Hitler was a nationalist, Stalin was an internationalist. Seeing as this is admitted by Beck, There is no real further need for elaboration. There's your "Y" Mr Goldberg, Given to you by Beck himself.

Here's a few more differences, courtesy of Sir Alan Bullock.

"While Hitler's attitude towards liberalism was one of contempt, towards Marxism he showed an implacable hostility Ignoring the profound differences between Communism and Social Democracy in practice and the bitter hostility between the rival working class parties, he saw in their common ideology the embodiment of all that he detested - mass democracy and a levelling egalitarianism as opposed to the authoritarian state and the rule of an elite; equality and friendship among peoples as opposed to racial inequality and the domination of the strong; class solidarity versus national unity; internationalism versus nationalism." - Sir Alan Bullock, "Adolf Hitler.", p228-9.

GOLDBERG: He was a proud German, a German nationalist, a German jingoist, not a patriot but a nationalist.

Hitler Not a Patriot? A Patriot is someone who loves his or her country and supports its authority and interests. Hitler Clearly fits that definition. He was a Patriot. Oh and BTW, Nationalism and Jingoism are both entwined with Patriotism, so how could he be a nationalist and a Jingoist but not a Patriot? Goldberg doesn't explain that one.

The term Jingoism itself for example came in use after a popular music-hall song by G. W. Hunt, which has the following lyrics

We don't want to fight,
But by Jingo if we do,
We've got the ships,
We've got the men,
And got the money too.
We've fought the Bear before,
And while we're Britons true,
The Russians shall not have Constantinople.

It appeared at the time of the Russo-Turkish War (1877-8), when an anti-Russian feeling in Britain ran high and Disraeli (the British Prime Minister of the day) ordered the Mediterranean fleet to Constantinople. The Russophobes who took up this song as "their own" became known as Jingoes, and any belligerent patriotism has been labelled jingoism ever since.

 

[theyounghistorian77]

Re: Glenn Beck: The revolutionary Holocaust. Live Free...Or

And he rejected that element of Marxism

Hitler, Rejected Marxism completely, and that's why we can put weight on the following

"In the years 1913 and 1914, I, for the first time in various circles which today in part faithfully support the National Socialist movement, expressed the conviction that the question of the future of the German nation was the question of destroying Marxism." - Mein Kampf, Vol 1, Chapter 4.

But he embraced socialism entirely.

"Hitler had never been a socialist: he was indifferent to economic questions" - Bullock, ibid p281

And need you a reminding of Kershaw?

"Hitler was never a socialist" - Ian Kershaw, "Hitler" (abridged), p269.

For you see, Stating something out loud that conflicts real world acedemic consensus is not very impressive is it? Because Hitler is also on record for saying, "Socialism! That is an unfortunate word altogether. [...] What does socialism really mean? If people have something to eat and their pleasures, then they have their socialism." - H.A Turner, "German Big Business and the Rise of Hitler", p77.

Therby demonstrating that hitler never knew or accepted what socialism is all about. but hang on a minuite? Doesn't Beck have his pleasures and things to eat? beck therfore must be something of a socialist too. :lol:

So Hitler "Embraced Socialism entirely" eh? What a Joke.

He embraced the idea of racial solidarity, socialism for one race.

As we have already seen with Ian Kershaw, The Volksgemeinschaft wasn't based on any notion of Socialism, But anyways, This is what he writes about 'Racial solidarity' in Mein Kampf.

"It would be absurd to appraise a man's worth by the race to which he belongs and at the same time to make war against the Marxist principle, that all men are equal, without being determined to pursue our own principle to its ultimate consequences. If we admit the significance of blood, that is to say, if we recognize the race as the fundamental element on which all life is based, we shall have to apply to the individual the logical consequences of this principle. In general I must estimate the worth of nations differently, on the basis of the different races from which they spring, and I must also differentiate in estimating the worth of the individual within his own race. The principle, that one people is not the same as another, applies also to the individual members of a national community. No one brain, for instance, is equal to another; because the constituent elements belonging to the same blood vary in a thousand subtle details, though they are fundamentally of the same quality." - Mein Kampf, Vol 2, Chapter 4.

That Long quote suggests that no one is equal, Hitler not only suggests that some races are better than others, but also that some individuals are superior to others within the same race. Oh and Hitler seems to think that Marxism/Socialism (Does Goldberg think the two are the same?) is about Equality for all. So much for "Socialism for One Race" then. Here are a few more quotes from the Same Chapter. Just so you get the Point.

"It is difficult to select from among a whole multitude of people all those who actually possess the highest intellectual and spiritual characteristics... This selection according to capacity and efficiency cannot be effected in a mechanical way. It is a work which can be accomplished only through the permanent struggle of everyday life itself."

It's all about Competition it seems, Isn't Extreme Capitalism supposed to be like that as well? Hitler makes a point in the next Paragraph that the whole philosophy of the Folkish State is...

"A philosophy of life which repudiates the democratic principle of the rule of the masses and aims at giving this world to the best people, that is, to the highest quality of mankind, must also apply that same aristocratic postulate to the individuals within the race-community. It must take care that the positions of leadership and highest influence are given to the best men. Hence it is not based on the idea of the majority, but on that of personality."

And Paxton also makes it clear, that by doing what Goldberg is doing here, one gets a very twisted view that doesn't really fit the historical picture.

"What they said cannot be ignored, of course, for it helps explain their appeal. Even at its most radical, however, fascists' anticapitalist rhetoric was selective. While they denounced speculative international finance (along with all other forms of internationalism, cosmopolitanism, or globalization , capitalist as well as socialist), they respected the property of national producers, who were to form the social base of the reinvigorated nation. When they denounced the bourgeoisie, it was for being too flabby and individualistic to make a nation strong, not for robbing workers of the value they added. What they criticized in capitalism was not its exploitation but its materialism, its indifference to the nation, its inability to stir souls. More deeply, fascists rejected the notion that economic forces are the prime movers of history. For fascists, the dysfunctional capitalism of the interwar period did not need fundamental reordering; its ills could be cured simply by applying sufficient political will to the creation of full employment and productivity. Once in power, fascist regimes confiscated property only from political opponents, foreigners, or Jews. None altered the social hierarchy, except to catapult a few adventurers into high places.

At most, they replaced market forces with state economic management, but, in the trough of the Great Depression, most businessmen initially approved of that. If fascism was "revolutionary," it was so in a special sense, far removed from the word's meaning as usually understood from 1789 to 1917, as a profound overturning of the social order and the redistribution of social, political, and economic power. It turned out in practice that fascists' anticapitalism was highly selective. Even at their most radical, the socialism that the fascists wanted was a "national socialism": one that denied only foreign or enemy property rights (including that of internal enemies). They cherished national producers. Above all, it was by offering an effective remedy against socialist revolution that fascism turned out in practice to find a space." - Robert O. Paxton, "The Anatomy of Fascism", p53.

BECK: Even in "Mein Kampf" he acknowledged the movements were so close that if not for the focus on race, his national socialist movement would really do nothing more than compete with Marxism on its own ground.

And here's the quote

"The folkish philosophy is fundamentally distinguished from the Marxist by reason of the fact that the former recognizes the significance of race and therefore also personal worth and has made these the pillars of its structure. These are the most important factors of its view of life.

If the National Socialist Movement should fail to understand the fundamental importance of this essential principle, if it should merely varnish the external appearance of the present State and adopt the majority principle, it would really do nothing more than compete with Marxism on its own ground. For that reason it would not have the right to call itself a philosophy of life. If the social programme of the movement consisted in eliminating personality and putting the multitude in its place, then National Socialism would be corrupted with the poison of Marxism, just as our national-bourgeois parties are." - Mein Kampf, Vol 2, Chapter 4.

Also, It's in the Same Chapter as the "No-one is Equal" quote just cited earlier, its Funny how Beck quotes this but misses the above. Anyways in Context, Hitler is saying that Marxists are not racist, which he finds as a fault in them, he is saying that he cannot not compete on a level playing field because the majority support is apparantly really with the Marxists, he is not making a connection between socialism and the Nazis.

The quote also describes what would happen if the nazis abandoned their racist politics, Nazism will then end up getting corrupted with the "Poison of Marxism", not that they were actually Close ideologically, The earlier quote clearly shows that Hitler thought Nazism and Marxism were opposites when it comes to equality and approach to the individual. Also we have the accusation that the current crop of politicians and political parties are infected by an elitist Marxism (ie Elitist Leftism) it's a common tactic employed by the Right.

So, it's a Bad Quote-mine from Beck, (But what do we expect from him?)

But Nazi Germany had no corner on the market of racism, and anti-Semitism.

True, The very conservative state of Tsarist Russia Proves that, The Black Hundreds, The Secret Orthodox policemen who published the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, The pogroms, and of course, The Non Marxist, aristocratic, reactionary and very conservative White Army who commited a series of terrible pogroms in and around Kiev between 1918-1920.

SNORE: We can find many Nazi-like passages in the writing of Marx and Engels.

Well the ones Provided in this Documentary are provided by Quotemining. At any rate, even if true this would be a Genetic Fallacy, Just because the X came before the Y, does not mean X caused Y.

where they both poured scorned on the Czechs and Hungarians and Poles.

The Czechs maybe But no quotes are given concerning them, so we will leave it at that, but in a piece That Beck cites later on, Marx and engels considered the Hungarians and Poles as being among the "Standard bearers of revolution", Which in marxist terms, is a good thing.

Also Consider this quote about the Polish:

"First of all, of course, sympathy for a subjugated people which, with its incessant and heroic struggle against its oppressors, has proven its historic right to national autonomy and self-determination. It is not in the least a contradiction that the international workers' party strives for the creation of the Polish nation. On the contrary; only after Poland has won its independence again, only after it is able to govern itself again as a free people, only then can its inner development begin again and can it cooperate as an independent force in the social transformation of Europe. As long as the independent life of a nation is suppressed by a foreign conqueror it inevitably directs all its strength, all its efforts and all its energy against the external enemy; during this time, therefore, its inner life remains paralysed; it is incapable of working for social emancipation. Ireland, and Russia under Mongol rule, provide striking proof of this. 'Another reason for the sympathy felt by the workers' party for the Polish uprising is its particular geographic, military and historical position. The partition of Poland is the cement which holds together the three great military despots: Russia, Prussia and Austria. Only the rebirth of Poland can tear these bonds apart and thereby remove the greatest obstacle in the way to the social emancipation of the European peoples. 'The main reason for the sympathy felt by the working class for Poland is, however, this: Poland is not only the only Slav race which has fought and is fighting as a cosmopolitan soldier of the revolution. Poland spilt its blood in the American War of Independence; its legions fought under the banner of the first French republic; with its revolution of 1830 it prevented the invasion of France, which had been decided upon by the partitioners of Poland; in 1846 in Cracow it was the first to plant the banner of revolution in Europe, in 1848 it had a glorious share in the revolutionary struggles in Hungary, Germany and Italy; finally, in 1871 it provided the Paris Commune with the best generals and the most heroic soldiers." - Engels, "For Poland" [Notice the title?]

See here also

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/subject/poland/index.htm

Marx didn't like Spanish, for example. He said that Spanish are degenerate and that Mexican are degenerated Spanish.

Well this quote is quite an obscure one. Looking into it I came up with various dates that the quote is attributed to, but he most consistent and most seemingly authoritative is a correspondence of December 2, 1854. Unfortunately I can't find the entire letter on the net. (It must be a really important letter for understanding Marx and Marxism huh?)

here is the list of Marx's Private correspondence covering 1854 on Marxists.org

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1854/letters/

Sadly, the actual letter in question that im after is not itself acsessable, (The quote is not to be found in the letters that are) but here is as much of the quote as i can muster from my internet searchings:

"The Spanish are already degenerate, but a degenerate Spaniard, a Mexican is an ideal. All the Spanish vices, braggadocio, swagger and Don Quixotry, raised to the third power, but little or nothing of the steadiness which the Spaniards possess. The Mexican Guerrilla war was a caricature of the Spanish, and even the 'sauve qui peut' of the regular armies infinitely surpassed. But the Spaniards have produced no talent comparable to that of Santa Anna"

A few issues come to my mind when I read it. First off, how exactly is the Marx quote racist? The mistake I think Beck and friends are making is to put the modern connotation of what it means to be 'Mexican' and transpose that onto Marx's meaning. Mexico was, and still is, comprised of various populations that occupy the social strata. On the top were the Europeans, those from Spain who moved to Mexico, very closely next would be those of direct European decent. These two groups were the ruling elite of Mexico, and it is to these to whom Marx is referring when he uses the term 'Mexicans'. He is not referring to the mixed race people or native Mexicans, or the Mexicans as a whole, as we would think of the term now. Of course he didn't need to specify this to Engels because they knew each other's thinking and it would have been clear to them that the reference was to the ruling class. And it is not a racist remark to call the Spanish ruling class "Swaggering" and such, because they certainly were in their relations to the lower social strata, European or not. The history of Mexico, and the various revolutions that were fought, not only for independence, but because of this social strata bear this out. Mexico was long a battleground between those of European descent and those of the mixed and native peoples, but Marx was referring to none of that, he was only referring to the upper crust. They were essentially the same group only separated by location. So perhaps to put it in a more contemporary and exacting language one could say the quote says:

The counter-revolutionary Spanish elites are bad enough, but the counter-revolutionary Spanish elites who have the people of Mexico under their thumb are worse. The Guerrilla war was not fought with the same intensity or effort as is was in Spain against Napoleon by these elites, and their armies were mainly lead by men that looked only to themselves. ('sauve qui peut')

So I think to see the quote as racist is entirely missing the real context. He was nowhere referring to 'Mexicans; as we think of them today, but only the ruling European Spaniards. And they are 'degenerate' not because of any inherent personal or 'racial' qualities, but because of their counter-revolutionary positions. So he's comparing the elite European Spaniards in Mexico, to the elite Spaniards in Europe during the resistance against Napoleon. Where's the racism?

It is also interesting that if the date i have for the quote is correct then he wrote that it directly after writing this lengthy piece about the Spanish resistance in Spain and its revolution.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1854/revolutionary-spain/index.htm

Certainly the comparison between the two was on his mind. And certainly if he had any thoughts as to the 'degenerate' Spanish as a whole, it would make into this article, but by quickly looking it over, that is not the case, and it is another typical look at class, politics and revolution from him.

If you want a Communist analysis of Marx on Mexico that has a more external light, You can find one here.

http://www.icl-fi.org/english/wv/934/mexican-american.html

To quote

"In Mexico, nationalists trying to discredit socialism sometimes denounce Marx and Engels for having supported the United States invasion. And throughout the Third World, they are also sometimes labeled "racists." In 1848, Engels wrote about the war:

"In America we have witnessed the conquest of Mexico and have rejoiced at it. It is also an advance when a country which has hitherto been exclusively wrapped up in its own affairs, perpetually rent with civil wars, and completely hindered in its development, a country whose best prospect had been to become industrially subject to Britain,when such a country is forcibly drawn into the historical process. It is to the interest of its own development that Mexico will in future be placed under the tutelage of the United States. The evolution of the whole of America will profit by the fact that the United States, by the possession of California, obtains command of the Pacific. But again we ask: 'Who is going to profit immediately by the war?' The bourgeoisie alone."

Several years later, in 1854, Marx wrote to Engels about the war, calling it "a worthy prelude to the military history of the great land of the Yankees." And several days later, in another letter, he praised the "Yankee sense of independence and individual proficiency" and criticized the Mexicans: "The Spanish are already degenerate. But a degenerate Spaniard, a Mexican, is an ideal."

Well, this is what is used against Marx and Engels. And Marx and Engels were wrong,but not because they were in favor of U.S. imperialism or because they were racists. The time of the Mexican-American War was very early in the development of Marxism, before the Communist Manifesto was published. Industrial capitalism was still in the process of development and Marx believed that it needed to fully develop in order to make proletarian revolution possible. Capitalism was then a progressive force, and Marx and Engels believed that one of its most progressive features was creating a nation with a unified working class. As a result, Marx and Engels opposed self-determination for small nations; they thought that such peoples should be assimilated into bigger nations. They mainly wrote about the Slavic peoples of Central and East Europe, but they also extended this to Mexico. In this view, the expansion of capitalism on a world scale would benefit not only the developed capitalist countries but the backward countries as well. As they wrote in the 1848 Communist Manifesto, "The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilisation.""

GOLDBERG: Marx, you need to remember, was Jewish. He was a self- hating Jew. He rejected Judaism and all of the rest, but he was Jewish.

He was an Atheist; He rejected all religions, not just Judaism.

And Hitler hated , you know, hated Jews. I mean, this is not a news flash. Hitler was a passionate anti-Semite. And he saw Marxism as corrupted with a deep-seated Jewish nature.

Evidence that Hitler wasn't a Marxist. His Hatred of Judaism was related to his Hatred of Marxism. It looks like even Goldberg admits that here. But to show you all how closely Hitler thought Marxism and Judaism were, consider these passages from Mein Kampf.

"Marxism, whose goal is and remains the destruction of all non-Jewish national states"

And later, we find out that Marxism is a "Whole treacherous brotherhood of the Jewish poisoners of the people".

Hitler then proceeds to tell us all what the German govt should have done about this apparent "problem".

"What, then, should have been done? The leaders of the whole movement should at once have been put behind bars, brought to trial, and thus taken off the nation's neck. All the implements of military power should have been ruthlessly used for the extermination of this pestilence. The parties should have been dissolved, the Reichstag brought to its senses, with bayonets if necessary, but, best of all, dissolved at once. Just as the Republic today can dissolve parties, this method should have been used at that time, with more reason. For the life and death of a whole nation was at stake!"

All quotes from Vol1 - Chapter 5.

Another interesting thing is that According to earlier Chapters of Mein Kampf, His hatred of Marxism and Socialism came before his hatred of Judaism.

"I took all the Social Democratic pamphlets I could lay hands on and sought the names of their authors: Jews. I noted the names of the leaders; by far the greatest part were likewise members of the 'chosen people,' whether they were representatives in the Reichsrat or trade-union secretaries, the heads of organizations or street agitators. It was always the same gruesome picture. The names of the Austerlitzes, Davids, Adlers, Ellenbogens, etc., will remain forever graven in my memory. One thing had grown dear to me: the party with whose petty representatives I had been carrying on the most violent struggle for months was, as to leadership, almost exclusively in the hands of a foreign people; for, to my deep and joyful satisfaction, I had at last come to the conclusion that the Jew was no German.

Only now did I become thoroughly acquainted with the seducer of our people."

So he claimed he had been struggling against the Socialists (SPD) for months before he found out their apparent connection to Judaism. Here's another quote from the Same Chapter.

"But then a flame flared up within me. I no longer avoided discussion of the Jewish question; no, now I sought it. And when I learned to look for the Jew in all branches of cultural and artistic life and its various manifestations, I suddenly encountered him in a place where I would least have expected to find him.

When I recognized the Jew as the leader of the Social Democracy, the scales dropped from my eyes. A long soul struggle had reached its conclusion" - Vol1, Chapter 2.

The irony here is that so did Marx.

Marx saw his own ideology, Marxism as "Corrupted with a deep seated Jewish Nature"? Perhaps others can find evidence for that but Goldberg here doesn't provide it.

Marx was a real anti-Semite. He wrote about the Jewish problem a generation before the Nazis started talking about the Jewish problem. He said how we had to purge the Jewish spirit from western civilization or from the global civilization. He had horrible racist things to say about Jews

Here's what Stanford has to say

"In this text Marx begins to make clear the distance between himself and his radical liberal colleagues among the Young Hegelians; in particular Bruno Bauer. Bauer had recently written against Jewish emancipation, from an atheist perspective, arguing that the religion of both Jews and Christians was a barrier to emancipation. In responding to Bauer, Marx makes one of the most enduring arguments from his early writings, by means of introducing a distinction between political emancipation , essentially the grant of liberal rights and liberties , and human emancipation. Marx's reply to Bauer is that political emancipation is perfectly compatible with the continued existence of religion, as the contemporary example of the United States demonstrates. However, pushing matters deeper, in an argument reinvented by innumerable critics of liberalism, Marx argues that not only is political emancipation insufficient to bring about human emancipation, it is in some sense also a barrier. Liberal rights and ideas of justice are premised on the idea that each of us needs protection from other human beings. Therefore liberal rights are rights of separation, designed to protect us from such perceived threats. Freedom on such a view, is freedom from interference. What this view overlooks is the possibility , for Marx, the fact , that real freedom is to be found positively in our relations with other people. It is to be found in human community, not in isolation. So insisting on a regime of rights encourages us to view each other in ways which undermine the possibility of the real freedom we may find in human emancipation. Now we should be clear that Marx does not oppose political emancipation, for he sees that liberalism is a great improvement on the systems of prejudice and discrimination which existed in the Germany of his day. Nevertheless, such politically emancipated liberalism must be transcended on the route to genuine human emancipation. Unfortunately, Marx never tells us what human emancipation is, although it is clear that it is closely related to the idea of non-alienated labour, which we will explore below"

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/marx/#2.1

So the language Marx is using is a metaphor and his intent was not to put those qualities upon particularly Judaism. But rather to say that the special privileges and restrictions put upon Jews [and remember that at the time the Jews were living in Ghettos and were restricted in economic activity to lending, (Christianity forbade usury), and other economic activities that were well known at the time and he only needed to describe as hucksterism] being released will not in itself free the Jews because they will still be a separate entity within Christian society. His intent is to impugn all religion as destructive not just Judaism. It goes toward his later notion of the base and superstructure. As long as there is a base of separation, in this case though religion, it will be reflected somehow in the superstructure and hence no true emancipation can result.

"Those critics, who see this as a foretaste of 'Mein Kampf', overlook one, essential point: in spite of the clumsy phraseology and crude stereotyping, the essay was actually written as a defense of the Jews. It was a retort to Bruno Bauer, who had argued that Jews should not be granted full civic rights and freedoms unless they were baptised as Christians". Francis Wheen. Karl Marx, p. 56.

Jonathan Sacks, Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom, regards application of the term "anti-Semitism" to Marx as an anachronism,because when Marx wrote On the Jewish Question, virtually all major philosophers expressed anti-Semitic tendencies, but the word "anti-Semitism" had not yet been coined, let alone developed a racial component, and little awareness existed of the depths of European prejudice against Jews. "Marx thus simply expressed the commonplace thinking of his era." See his book The Politics of Hope. pp. 98-108.

perhaps for context, you should read the words of Moses Hess, Marx's onetime friend and collaborator and a would-be proto-Zionist thinker.

"The Jews had the world-historic mission in the natural history of the social animal world of developing the beast of prey out of man; they have finally fulfilled their mission. The mystery of Judaism and Christianity has been made public in the modern Jewish-Christian world of shopkeepers. The mystery of the blood of Christ, like the mystery of the old Jewish blood cult, appears here finally completely unveiled as the mystery of the beast of prey. In ancient Judaism the cult of blood was only prototypic; in the Christian Middle Ages it was realised theoretically, ideally, logically, i.e., the externalised, split blood of mankind was consumed really but only in the imagination, as the blood of the man-God. In the modern Jewish-Christian world of shopkeepers this bent and drive of the social animal world no longer comes out either symbolic or mystic but as wholly prosaic. In the religion of the social beasts of prey there was still some poetry. It was not at all the poetry of Olympus, but indeed that of Blocksberg. The social animal world first became common and prosaic when nature again enforced its rights and the isolated man, this pitiful slave of Antiquity and serf of the Middle Ages, no longer wanted to be satisfied with heavenly nourishment; when he began to struggle for material instead of for spiritual treasures and when he wanted to play out his externalised life, his split blood in a visible purse rather than in an invisible stomach. So the holy juggling tricks became profane, heavenly trickery became earthly, the poetic fight of God and the Devil became a prosaic animal fight and the mystical theophagy became a public anthrophagy. The church of God, the heavenly vault where the priest, the hyena of the social animal world, celebrated an imaginary funeral meal changed itself into the money State, into this earthly battlefield where beasts of prey with equal rights suck each other's blood. In the money State, the State of free competition, all privilege and all distinctions of rank come to an end. There reigns, as has been said, a poetry-less freedom of beasts of prey based on the equality of death. In face of money kings are no longer entitled to conquer as the lions of the animal-men, just as little as the gloomy priests still have the right to refresh themselves with the smell of corpses because they are their hyenas. Rather have they only the right, like the other animal-men, arising from common natural right, from their common quality of beasts of prey, bloodsuckers, Jews, money-wolves." - http://www.marxists.org/archive/hess/1845/essence-money.htm

And the blacks

You expect someone living in the 19th century not to be racist unto the Blacks? How absurd!. Almost everybody had Racist things to say about the Blacks in the 19th and early 20th century. It was tragicly a social norm back then; Winston Churchill for example was quite racist. And had horrible things to say about Blacks. He wasn't left wing. Here are just a few Churchill Quotes.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2002/nov/28/features11.g21

And he was Still racist, even After WW2.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2007/aug/06/past.politics
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/aug/05/race.past

And Hitler very much inherited that Marxist analysis when it came to things like Jews and other races.

Genetic Fallacy, And a statement without evidence. For example, I don't think Hitler inherited a marxist analysis of the Polish.

 

[theyounghistorian77]

Re: Glenn Beck: The revolutionary Holocaust. Live Free...Or

BECK: Sometimes, it's hard to tell Hitler and Marx apart. Who wrote that Germany's neighbours should accept "the physical and intellectual power of the German nation to subdue, absorb and assimilate its ancient eastern neighbours"? That's Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels, author of "The Communist Manifesto" almost a century before the Holocaust.

{Beck is now resorting to Quote-mining Marx and Engels. As can be expected of him, he takes the Quote out of Context, Here it is in full.

"The history of a thousand years ought to have shown them that such a retrogression was impossible; that if all the territory east of the Elbe and Saale had at one time been occupied by kindred Slavonians, this fact merely proved the historical tendency, and at the same time physical and intellectual power of the German nation to subdue, absorb, and assimilate its ancient eastern neighbours; that this tendency of absorption on the part of the Germans had always been, and still was one of the mightiest means by which the civilization of Western Europe had been spread in the east of that continent; that it could only cease whenever the process of Germanization had reached the frontier of large, compact, unbroken nations, capable of an independent national life, such as the Hungarians, and in some degree the roles: and that, therefore, the natural and inevitable fate of these dying nations was to allow this process of dissolution and absorption by their stronger neighbours to complete itself."

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/germany/ch14.htm

Marx was basically saying, from a historical perspective, that the Slavic people would likely be absorbed by the powerful German nation. He was saying that it was inevitable that this would happen to the less advanced societies. There is a difference between acceptance and inevitability. Beck didn't quite catch that.

Actually, when you put a quote into context, it becomes easy to tell the difference.

But two can play at this Game. Sometimes, it's hard to tell Hitler and Pat Robertson apart. Who wrote that "Communism was the brainchild of German-Jewish intellectuals."?

Give that quote to 100 random people and i bet 100 will say Hitler. But no, it was Pat Robertson. The quote is from The New World Order, (1991), p.17.

Here's another one, who wrote that "It is interesting, that termites don't build things, and the great builders of our nation almost to a man have been Christians, because Christians have the desire to build something. He is motivated by love of man and God, so he builds. The people who have come into [our] institutions [today] are primarily termites. They are into destroying institutions that have been built by Christians, whether it is universities, governments, our own traditions, that we have.... The termites are in charge now,

And that is not the way it ought to be, and the time has arrived for a godly fumigation"?

It sounds like a Hitler rant doesn't it? But no. Again it was Pat Robertson. The quote is from the New York Magazine, August 18, 1986.
Is Pat Robertson Left or Right Wing? He is Very much a Right Winger; he has openly endorsed a number of Conservative Republican candidates in the Past. Let this be a lesson to you, Superficial Bullshit counts for nothing.

This website is worth checking out. It's where i got the Pat Robertson quotes from.

http://www.bettybowers.com/reich.html

Hitler's underlying admiration for Marxism was obvious.

{No it isn't, and just to show that it isn't. Here are a few more quotes from Mein Kampf.

Marxism, Social Democracy and Socialism are a "pestilential whore, cloaking herself as social virtue and brotherly love, from which I hope humanity will rid this earth with the greatest dispatch, since otherwise the earth might well become rid of humanity."
Just a few Paragraphs later, we find out that Socialist/Marxist groups are "mortal enemies of our nationality"
Vol1- Chapter 2.

http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv1ch02.html

In the next Chapter, we find out that Hitler's hatred of Marxism was related to his Hatred of democracy.

"The Western democracy of today is the forerunner of Marxism which without it would not be thinkable. It provides this world plague with the culture in which its germs can spread. In its most extreme form, parliamentarianism created a 'monstrosity of excrement and fire,' in which, however, sad to say, the 'fire' seems to me at the moment to be burned out."
Vol1, Chapter 3.

http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv1ch03.html

"In the years 1913 and 1914, I, for the first time in various circles which today in part faithfully support the National Socialist movement, expressed the conviction that the question of the future of the German nation was the question of destroying Marxism."
Vol1, Chapter 4.

http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv1ch04.html

Here we find out that Marxists are Scoundrels without honor.
"Kaiser William II was the first German Emperor to hold out a conciliatory hand to the leaders of Marxism, without suspecting that scoundrels have no honor. While they still held the imperial hand in theirs, their other hand was reaching for the dagger."
Vol1, Chapter 7

http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv1ch07.html

Here, we find out that Marxism, Social democracy and Finance capital are related, and Hitler hates them all because of it.

"The internationalization of the German economic life had been begun even before the War through the medium of stock issues To be sure, a part of German industry still attempted with resolution to ward off this fate. At length, however, it, too, fell a victim to the united attack of greedy finance capital which carried on this fight, with the special help of its most faithful comrade, the Marxist movement.
The lasting war against German 'heavy industry' was the visible beginning of the internationalization of German economy toward which Marxism was striving, though this could not be carried to its ultimate end until the victory of Marxism and the revolution. While I am writing these words, the general attack against the German state railways has finally succeeded, and they are now being handed over to international finance capitals 'International' Social Democracy has thus realized one of its highest goals."

In the Same Chapter, we find out about the "Liberal Press" which is apparently involved in a deliberate Marxist Jewish internationalist conspiracy.

"The so-called liberal press was actively engaged in digging the grave of the German people and the German Reich. We can pass by the lying Marxist sheets in silence; to them lying is just as vitally necessary as catching mice for a cat; their function is only to break the people's national and patriotic backbone and make them ripe for the slave's yoke of international capital and its masters, the Jews."

Both quotes from vol1, Chapter 10.

http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv1ch10.html

Social Justice = Marxism. Many Neo-cons believe it to be true, and Hate social Justice for it. Hitler believes it to be true and hates Social Justice for it. It's a Jewish Conspiracy. According to Hitler.

"Here the Jew's procedure is as follows:

"He approaches the worker, simulates pity with his fate, or even indignation at his lot of misery and poverty, thus gaining his confidence. He takes pains to study all the various real or imaginary hardships of his life-and to arouse his longing for a change in such an existence. With infinite shrewdness he fans the need for social justice, somehow slumbering in every Aryan man, into hatred against those who have been better favored by fortune, and thus gives the struggle for the elimination of social evils a very definite philosophical stamp. He establishes the Marxist doctrine."
And the hatred just continues on and on and on. Read what Hitler wrote below that quote.
Vol1, Chapter 11.

http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv1ch11.html

Because so Many Neo-Cons think that Social Justice is such a Communist Leftist Progressive Plot. Lets see what their Hero Ronald Reagan had to say about it.

"India today is poised for greater growth. We have taken up plans and policies to generate new employment in our rural areas and to harness the productive energies of our young. We want the nation to benefit from the enterprise latent in our people. Growth has to be carefully calibrated so that in enlarging national production, it redresses regional imbalances and ensures social justice. This is indeed the basis of planning within our democratic system."

http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1985/61285d.htm

"Well, as we move ahead, we're determined to leave no one behind. Under this administration more funds go to needy Americans, even after adjusting for inflation, than ever before. And total spending on social programs has increased by $71 billion during these last 3 years.

And while I'm on this subject, I wonder if you who are intensely committed to social justice and Jewish charity would join us in questioning the relationship between greater Federal spending and a healthy, prosperous, and growing country. During the sixties and seventies, the Great Society and other Federal programs led to massive increases in social spending. Why, then, at the same time, did the number of Americans below the poverty line stop shrinking? Why did we see a drop in the number of males in the work force and a huge increase in births out of wedlock?

I believe the answer lies in the firm difference between the New Deal and the Great Society. The New Deal gave cash to the poor, but the Great Society failed to target assistance to the truly needy and made government the instrument of vast transfer payments, erecting huge bureaucracies to manage hundreds of social programs. The Great Society failed in two crucial aspects: It fostered dependence on government subsidies, and it made the transfer of money from Washington bureaucrats to those in need seem like a mission impossible.

I was a New Deal Democrat. And I still believe, today, that there is only one compassionate, sensible, and effective policy for Federal assistance: We must focus domestic spending on the poor and bypass the bureaucracies by giving assistance directly to those who need it. We must end dependency, eliminate quotas, and foster a vital, innovative economy that rewards all Americans according to their talent and hard work. If we do, we can enhance our democratic ideals and can make America a genuine opportunity society."

http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1984/31384a.htm

To be fair to Reagan. This is how he plans to achieve "Social Justice"

"Free market policies can promote economic growth based on social justice, self-reliance, and the skills of the people."

http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1986/091886d.htm

To be fair, Hitler wasn't in favor of a complete Free Market, even though the role of Capital was strengthened rather than weakened under his totalitarian Anti-Marxist regime. Nevertheless. Just the very idea that the Neo-con Demigod preached "Social Justice" and the fact that Hitler thinks Social Justice is a Marxist/Jewish Leftist Plot is plenty to mull over. Does that mean Ronald Reagan was Too Marxist/Leftist for Hitler's Taste? Maybe Yes. And that's why so many people think Hitler is even more Right Wing than Ronald Reagan.

Mein Kampf consists of Two volumes with 27 Chapters in total. All i've done here is quoted from the First volume. The second one is just as bad. All this absolute Hatred for Marxism is obvious, And Glenn Beck & friends willfully ignores it. It contridicts his narrative. Here is your Z Mr Goldberg. I cannot find this level of Hatred of Marxism in the writings of Stalin, Because Stalin was a true Marxist inspired Dictator, and he knew it.

 

[theyounghistorian77]

Re: Glenn Beck: The revolutionary Holocaust. Live Free...Or

SNORE: When I made the film, I was expecting actually that there would be similarities between the Nazis and Soviet communism, but I was actually amazed to discover how similar where these posters, and the posters were so similar that as if for one artist had drawn them. Of course, I think it is because , it is because they were both, the ideologies were very similar and their expression, therefore, was very similar as well.

{So Posters that look Similar Prove Similar ideologies do they? There exist plenty of Allied Posters that look like Nazi/Communist ones. What does that prove? Did the allies have the same ideology as the Nazis or the Communists just because the posters were similar? No.

In response to this point, I made this video showing how absurd the idea of Similar posters = Similar ideologies is.}



And all the posters used can be found here

http://forums.leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=5426

Of course there exist plenty of Nazi posters that look like Soviet posters. But the same is true of allied posters as well. So His point is virtualy a non sequitur.

And on a sidenote. Here's a little Musical treat.



{Does this prove that the Red army had the same ideology as the White Army? again, No it doesn't.

 

[theyounghistorian77]

Re: Glenn Beck: The revolutionary Holocaust. Live Free...Or

GOLDBERG: In "Mein Kampf," Hitler writes about the Nazi party flag, which is this big red flag with a white disk in the middle and the swastika in the center. Hitler explains it quite clearly in "Mein Kampf" that the red, the big sea of red that the swastika was in was intended to attract socialists to his movement. The red flag was the emblem of the communists, the reason why we call them the reds.

{There are, in essence Two Mein Kampf quotations in question.

"The fact that we had chosen red as the colour for our posters sufficed to attract them to our meetings. The ordinary bourgeoisie were very shocked to see that, we had also chosen the symbolic red of Bolshevism and they regarded this as something ambiguously significant. The suspicion was whispered in German Nationalist circles that we also were merely another variety of Marxism, perhaps even Marxists suitably disguised, or better still, Socialists. The actual difference between Socialism and Marxism still remains a mystery to these people up to this day. The charge of Marxism was conclusively proved when it was discovered that at our meetings we deliberately substituted the words 'Fellow-countrymen and Women' for 'Ladies and Gentlemen' and addressed each other as 'Party Comrade'. We used to roar with laughter at these silly faint-hearted bourgeoisie and their efforts to puzzle out our origin, our intentions and our aims.

We chose red for our posters after particular and careful deliberation, our intention being to irritate the Left, so as to arouse their attention and tempt them to come to our meetings, if only in order to break them up, so that in this way we got a chance of talking to the people."


"After innumerable trials I decided upon a final form, a flag of red material with a white disc bearing in its centre a black swastika. After many trials I obtained the correct proportions between the dimensions of the flag and of the white central disc, as well as that of the swastika. And this is how it has remained ever since.
At the same time we immediately ordered the corresponding armlets for our squad of men who kept order at meetings, armlets of red material, a central white disc with the black swastika upon it. Herr Fà¼ss, a Munich goldsmith, supplied the first practical and permanent design.

The new flag appeared in public in the midsummer of 1920. It suited our movement admirably, both being new and young. Not a soul had seen this flag before; its effect at that time was something akin to that of a blazing torch. We ourselves experienced almost a boyish delight when one of the ladies of the party who had been entrusted with the making of the flag finally handed it over to us. And a few months later those of us in Munich were in possession of six of these flags. The steadily increasing strength of our hall guards was a main factor in popularizing the symbol.

And indeed a symbol it proved to be.

Not only because it incorporated those revered colours expressive of our homage to the glorious past and which once brought so much honour to the German nation, but this symbol was also an eloquent expression of the will behind the movement. We National Socialists regarded our flag as being the embodiment of our party programme. The red expressed the social thought underlying the movement. White the national thought. And the swastika signified the mission allotted to us, the struggle for the victory of Aryan
mankind and at the same time the triumph of the ideal of creative work which is in itself and always will be anti-Semitic."

both from the same chapter. Vol 2 - Chapter 7.

http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv2ch07.html

on the 1st passage, Note the irony when Hitler used the word "Proved" and note how the nazis were deliberately disguising themselves as marxists to confuse others ie substituting words and greetings and afterwards having a laugh about it. It was a very effective disguise, so effective that some (Goldberg) believe it to this very day. No doubt Hitler is laughing in his grave at Goldberg right now. As he seems to not understand the difference between Propaganda and ideology. But even if you interpret these passages like Goldberg did, It would still be the case that attempting to "Attract Socialists to your cause" does not automatically make you a socialist. David Cameron tried to attract the Socialist Trade unions to his cause in the run up to the General election of 2010. Does that make him a Socialist? No

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/conservative/2565787/David-Cameron-launches-secret-mission-to-win-over-trade-unions.html

Some quotes from the article

"The Conservative leader has held privately talks with the head of the TUC while party officials have met with the unions more than sixty times since the spring.

The trade unions have also been asked to help draw up opposition policy, the Daily Telegraph can disclose."

"The strategy is seen as important to the Conservatives who are trying to appeal to voters across the social spectrum."

Hitler also tried to appeal to people across the Social spectrum.

The Poster reads, "We the Workers have awoken!" Wir Arbeiter sind erwacht. But remember, this is only a propaganda Poster. Nothing more. Back to the telegraph Article.

"Union officials have been covertly offering advice and ideas for some policies, such as being asked to comment on David Willett's recent policy paper on skills - 'Building Skills, Transforming Lives'"

And because of this strategy the article claims

"Senior Tories believe that as many as , and they are keen to open a dialogue."one in three trade union members are likely to vote Conservative at the next election

Hitler, like David Cameron, also appealed to the Trade unions. He wrote an entire chapter in Mein Kampf titled On the Trade union Question, stressing their importance.

http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv2ch12.html.

So this tactic of appealing to Socialists or Trade Unions isn't left or Right wing, David Cameron is virtually doing what Hitler did.

Another Hilarious point about the Conservatives is that, over the last year or so, They have tried to portray themselves as "Progressive" and that they are now in favour of "Social Justice" and "Progressive Change". Just take a look for yourselves.





If you accept the Tory definition of "Progressive" and If you believe that the Tories really are "Progressive" Than that's just another nail in Beck's dumb theory. But anyways. Either it's the case that "Progressive" is not an intrinsic quality ascribed to one wing on the Left/Right scale (Beck thinks "Progressives" are all on the left.). Or it's nothing much more than a rhetorical device, designed for propaganda purposes, If the latter is true, than it would incline me to believe that Beck is so Dumb. He cannot tell the difference between Propaganda and ideology. No the Nazi's were not "Progressive". An idea supported by the Fact that, in this Shock-Doc, He doesn't call them "Progressive". That's rather strange in a piece of Anti-Progressive Propaganda. Is it not?

At any rate.

"For him (Hitler) the Nazi socialist slogans had been merely propaganda, means of winning over the masses on his way to power. Now that he had the power, he was no longer interested in them." Shirer. The Rise & Fall Of the Third Reich p. 205}

BECK: But it went deeper than similar ideology

{Beck still hasn't made a solid argument that Hitler was a Stalinist}

and imagery.

{What does similar imagery prove? Remember those allied Posters? Here's a more modern example of "Similar imagery." That Beck may not like.

Clearly, the tea partiers borrowed the Red clenched fist idea off their supposed ideological enemies, But it get's more interesting, To quote the Tea Party website itself.

"It was a purposeful decision to create a defiant image, raised fists against the statist policies of Congress and the president. I think it's an edgy symbol that communicates the anger and the defiance of the protests happening around the country since early February.

We have to make sure this is a protest against what's going on in DC, and we have to convey that image to the country and the world. I fear that if we start to lose that edge, the politicians won't take us as seriously, and will write us off. We've been studying and applying the tactics of the left for a long time, and although we despise their bad ideas, they have us beat when it comes to symbolism, activism and dominating the public debate. We can learn from them and co-opt their symbols, some of their messages and even their tactics.

We have to remember that this is a March on Washington, which should conjure up images of the street protests in other countries. If we want the politicians to pay attention, we believe it is imperative that we keep our edge, tailor our message narrowly and maintain the populist imagery."

Tea Party website Here.
http://912dc.org/about/faq/

[edit, The info has completely "disappeared". The Google cache of the webpage here no longer works, so You'll going to have to make do with the screen cap below

Thankfully, Im not the only one to have noticed what was said.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/34662_Tea_Party_Logo-_Lifted_From_Communist_Designs
http://www.theusreport.com/the-us-report/912-march-on-washingtontea-party-protesters-head-to-capital.html ]

So not only are they admitting to borrowing images from the Left, but they are admitting to borrowing the very same tactics as well. We know Hitler and Stalin learnt a great deal off each other, But it's fascinating to see the tea partiers admit that they too, are learning off those who they disagree with. The truth is that the GOP and the Right have been copying Tactics of the left and indeed Communists for a long time,.

"In the 1950s, GOP activist Stephen Shadegg explicitly followed Mao Zedong's "cell group" model. Just as Mao's cells would lay the basis for guerrilla warfare, so Shadegg's cells would quietly build support for his candidates apart from formal political organizations. "The individuals we enlisted became a secret weapon possessing strength, mobility and real impact," Shadegg wrote. "They were able to infiltrate centers of opposition support, keep us informed of opposition tactics, disseminate information, enlist other supporters and to do all these things completely unnoticed by the opposition. In the early 1990s, local affiliates of the Christian Coalition sometimes backed "stealth candidates" for local office who would downplay their affiliations in order to attract broader support. Ralph Reed, longtime director of the Christian Coalition, once summed up the value of the quiet approach: "It's like guerrilla warfare. If you reveal your location, all it does is allow your opponent to improve his artillery bearings. It's better to move quietly, with stealth, under cover of night. ... It comes down to whether you want to be the British army in the Revolutionary War or the Viet Cong. History tells us which tactic was more effective." John J. Pitney Jr The Art of Political Warfare.

And here's a more recent Example. A Conservative who admits to admiring, learning off and using the Tactics Of Stalin?

"First, we want to remove liberal personnel from the political process. Then we want to capture those positions of power and influence for conservatives. Stalin taught the importance of this principle. He was running the personnel department, while Trotsky was fighting the White Army. When push came to shove for control of the Soviet Union, Stalin won. His people were in place and Trotsky's were not"¦. With this principle in mind, conservatives must do all they can to get jobs in Washington." - Grover Norquist.

Quoted from The Wrecking Crew: How Conservatives Rule by Thomas Frank.

If any of the above came from a Democrat. (Anita Dunn springs to mind.) Beck would probably go mental, but because both examples are the GOP. He is Silent. Beck is a GOP Propagandist and too stupid to figure it out.

So with that in mind. learning off your ideological and political enemies (And borrowing their imagery) is not a quality of one side of the left/right scale either.

 

[nasher168]

Re: Glenn Beck: The revolutionary Holocaust. Live Free...Or

:shock:
You know your stuff. I wouldn't want to be of the opposing viewpoint about now.

You should go and talk to shaneDK...

 

[theyounghistorian77]

Re: nasher168

:shock:
You know your stuff. I wouldn't want to be of the opposing viewpoint about now.

Thank you for the compliment

Im nowhere near finished with Beck yet.

 

[theyounghistorian77]

Re: Glenn Beck: The revolutionary Holocaust. Live Free...Or

Until Germany launched a surprise attack on the Soviet Union in 1941

{Indeed, it was a "Surprise attack".}

the Nazis and the Soviets worked together. They even put it in writing, signing what was originally sold as a non-aggression pact. But just weeks later, they would invade Poland from opposite sides.It wasn't until much late they're we would learn the full scope of the agreement.

SNORE: They signed an agreement in 1939 that was called the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact, which had the secret protocol attached to it. And according to that secret protocol, they agreed on the division of the neighboring countries between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.

{Nothing new is revealed here, You can read the Pact, as well as related documents here. http://www.lituanus.org/1989/89_1_03.htm }

{ But first, Here's a Little Backdrop to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. (I'm keeping this brief. If you want more detail. Let me know )

In August 1939. With The details for Case White already settled upon and the Timing set for 1st September.(Yes, the Invasion of Poland was planned long before any suggestion of any military alliance with Stalin.) It was imperative that Hitler had to have some assurance from The Soviet Union regarding Non-Interference with regards to their involvement with Poland and with their foreign Policy aims in general. It was with this in mind that Ribbentrop (The German Foreign Minister.) Contacted the Russians on 15th August, Stating that He was prepared to settle by negotiation the Outstanding Problems of Soviet-German Relations; He furthermore stressed that the Urgency of such an agreement for future Prosperity. Molotov replied that he was interested in a non-aggression Pact and in joint agreement with regards to the Baltic States. However he stalled the Germans by insisting that preliminary discussions must be held upon all matters concerning the current foreign Policy of The Soviet Union, before concrete decisions could be made in future meetings.

The German Ambassador to Moscow, Friedrich-Werner Graf von der Schulenburg, Was Instructed to stress Both the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany had a need for the signing of a treaty, Using an Excuse that The Polish Situation was "Ever Worsening.". Molotov, in response insisted that a trade and credit agreement could be concluded as a precedent for signing the Pact, (That was to become the German-Soviet Credit Agreement, Signed on August 19th 1939.) Molotov would also require the famous Secret Protocol With regards to Mutual Interests in various questions with regard to foreign Policy.

Frustrated with Lack of real progress from his ambassadors, Hitler personally intervened, sending a telegram to Stalin on the 20th, welcoming the Credit agreement and stressed that because of tension between Germany and Poland, An imminent Conclusion to all negotiations was essential. Stalin, in a telegram to Hitler on the 21st Accepted. Ribbentrop was sent to Moscow to Work on the Pact itself on the 23rd to quick agreement.}

TARAS HUNCZAK, PROFESSOR EMERITUS, RUTGERS UNIVERSITY:

{At least Someone in this programme is qualified Unlike Beck and Friends}

Then there was a secret protocol which essentially divided Europe into two spheres of influence between Hitler and Stalin. After all, it was not so difficult for them. Both of them were totalitarian regimes. They understood each other.

{"it's all a game to see who can fool whom. I know what Hitler's up to. He thinks he's outsmarted me, but actually it's I who have tricked him." - Stalin. As recorded by Khrushchev. Crankshaw. Khrushchev Remembers. p. 128.

That probably wasn't what the Historian intended, But here, I can at least agree with him to a considerable extent. Unlike Beck.}

The Soviets were delivering all kinds of raw materials to the Germans. It was not just theoretical friendship.

And the USA was also delivering all kinds of stuff to the soviet Union. What does this prove?
US deliveries to the USSR Include the following

Aircraft 14,795
Tanks 7,056
Jeeps 51,503
Trucks 375,883
Motorcycles 35,170
Tractors 8,071
Guns 8,218
Machine guns 131,633
Explosives 345,735 tons
Building equipment valued $10,910,000
Railroad freight cars 11,155
Locomotives 1,981
Cargo ships 90
Submarine hunters 105
Torpedo boats 197
Ship engines 7,784
Food supplies 4,478,000 tons
Machines and equipment $1,078,965,000
Non-ferrous metals 802,000 tons
Petroleum products 2,670,000 tons
Chemicals 842,000 tons
Cotton 106,893,000 tons
Leather 49,860 tons
Tires 3,786,000
Army boots 15,417,001 pairs

Leo T. Crowley, "Lend Lease" in Walter Yust, ed. 10 Eventful Years (1947)

SNORE: An aspect of their collaboration was mutual exchange of prisoners. Basically German communists and Jews, they fled to the Soviet Union in order to be safe. The Soviet Union sent them back to Gestapo.
And many of them, of course, were killed there and perished in the Nazi concentration camps.


{ It dont think it was a real friendship .On the outside at least, it looked like a real and genuine de-facto friendship unto one-another and the world. Indeed, they collaborated over the invasion with Poland and the Nazi invasion of Norway as well. But Internal politics, especialy with the Nazis however suggests a diferent kind of friendship, more like a Machiavellian type of friendship. They were only "real friends" with the Soviets only because it suited their intermediate needs. ie securing Russian raw materials and a secure border whilst fighting in the West. The end goal was still the Invasion of the Soviet Union, as part of Hitler's Lebensraum policies. In Mein Kampf, as part of his Lebensraum Policy. He openly states Russia as a target.

"And so we National Socialists consciously draw a line beneath the foreign policy tendency of our pre-War period. We take up where we broke off six hundred years ago. We stop the endless German movement to the south and west, and turn our gaze toward the land in the east. At long last we break of the colonial and commercial policy of the pre-War period and shift to the soil policy of the future.

If we speak of soil in Europe today, we can primarily have in mind only Russia and her vassal border states."

http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv2ch14.html

But even so, because of outside relations between the Nazis and the Soviets seemed extremely positive, It led Stalin to place a great deal of Trust within Hitler, Indeed the Nazi Invasion of the Soviet Union was dubbed as the "verolomstvo". "The Breach of Faith", However, Operation Barbarossa was very much planned over a long period of Time. To keep this brief. On December 5th 1940, Hitler had Called for a conference of His Generals, Within the 4 hours that followed, He spoke of some detail of the up and coming Attack, "The Bolshevik Breeding Grounds" of Leningrad and Stalingrad, were main Targets. "Hegemony over Europe ... Will be decided in Battle against the Russians." Friendly Words? I think not. General Hadler added his contributions by saying "The Red Army is leaderless ... The Russian Soldier was Mindless" The Red Army was regarded as being as inferior in terms of weaponry, The Russian field batteries, It was argued, Gave the panzers a free hand in Russia. Hadler had talked about "Strangling" the Red Army by encirclement.

"Leaderless", "Mindless", "Strangling the Russians", definitely not the Hallmark of an ally or true friend is it?

And of Course, we have to discuss Operation Otto which came before it. In short, It was designed to build efficient road and rail networks To bring the Nazi Soldiers to the Soviet German borders, Wonder why? It was enacted in the fall of 1940; Plans for invasion of the Soviet Union were discussed as early as August, According to James Taylor and Warren Shaw. Penguin dictionary of the Third Reich. p323. See also Second World War by Martin Gilbert. (Rev edition.) P129, 144-5, and p181.
In short, the Nazis were plotting to invade the Soviet Union whilst reaping the economic and military "rewards" from Nazi-Soviet collaboration. It clearly shows just how Machiavellian the Nazis were. Most of those Raw materials the historian was talking about would go on to build the Tanks, Planes and Guns that would be used against guess who? That's right. The Soviet Union. especialy the Raw materials delievered after the Polish and french campaigns. It is said that The former cost the Nazis over 25% of it's air strength, as well as a number of tanks and Guns. The french campaign made this materials crisis worse.


But the reasons why the Soviets collaborated with the Nazis remains Unclear. With multiple theories.

Firstly, Seeing that the ideas of Viktor Suvorov among others are gaining popularity in Eastern europe. I'll deal with him first. In Short, He stresses that Stalin, in providing Hitler with munitions, treated Hitler as an "Icebreaker" (The title of Suvorov's Book, It refers to the idea that Hitler was being treated as a Proxy by Stalin.) In short, Stalin was prepared to let Hitler and the western governments exhaust themselves fighting each other. And once that had been achieved, Stalin was going to invade west Europe as a "Liberator". Mikhail Meltyukhov whilst rejecting elements of Suvorov's thesis, argues in Stalin's Missed Chance, that he was planning to invade Nazi Germany at some point in 1941. There are plenty of other historians who argue that Stalin was going to invade the Nazis at some point. R.C Tucker, Vladimir Nevezhin, Boris Sokolov, Valeri Danilov, Joachim Hoffmann and Mark Solonin et al. This theory however, is still controversial in acedemic circles, My opinion is that Suvorov's work would have been brilliant if only he provided the Sources to back his theory up. But if were validated, it would still not demonstrate True Friendship.

Another theory has been proposed not originaly by a historian but by a Conservative MP. In a Parliamentary debate on the 20th september 1939 ( 3 days after the Soviet Union had invaded Poland.) Robert Boothby, MP for for East Aberdeenshire said the following

"Obviously, there are many implications underlying this action of the Soviet Government; but one thing must be perfectly clear, and that is that the German success in Poland, which was spectacular and in some measure unexpected, due entirely, I think, to the overwhelming preponderance of their mechanised forces, came to the Russians with as great a shock and as great a surprise as it did to us. But the impact of that shock upon Russia was much more immediate and forceful than it was upon us; and it is understandable. I think it is legitimate to suppose that this action on the part of the Soviet Government was taken in sheer self-interest, and from the point of view of self-preservation and self-defence. After all, what effect has the action taken by the Russian troops during the last three days had? It has pushed the German frontier with Russia considerably westward of where it would have been had the Russians taken no action at all.

Therefore, I think we, at any rate, ought not to take too tragic a view of this action, and above all not to take too moral a view of it. There is nothing this country likes better than to take a high moral attitude, prematurely, before it realises the full implications of a situation; and I must say that I was rather disappointed when I heard the Prime Minister refer to the "cynical" invasion of Poland by Russia, and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition go into some panegyrics about the immorality of the Russian action. In my view the Russians are now face to face with one of the most formidable military machines that the world has ever seen; and for my part, although I do not condone the Russo-German pact itself, I am thankful that Russian troops are now along the Polish-Rumanian frontier. I would rather have Russian troops there than German troops"

(Parliamentary Debates, 5th Series, Volume 351; House of Commons; London; 1939; Col. 996).
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=1939-09-20a.975.0

It was, for him about self preservation and self defense and he is thankful of it.

It's interesting that others have developed and expanded upon Similar themes. Most involved time buying. I at the moment, i admit to subscribing to this theory in general.

E.H Carr (Whose views i often disagree with.) for example wrote that The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact provided Stalin with the following.

a) A breathing space of immunity from attack;

b) German assistance in mitigating Japanese pressure in the Far East;

c) German agreement to the establishment of an advanced defensive bastion beyond the existing Soviet frontiers in Eastern Europe; it was significant that this bastion was, and could only be, a line of defence against potential German attack, the eventual prospect of which was never far absent from Soviet reckonings. But what most of all was achieved by the pact was the assurance that, if the USSR had eventually to fight Hitler, the Western Powers would already be involved".

From Munich to Moscow: II', in: 'Soviet Studies', Volume 1, No. 2 (October 1949); p. 103.

(I have to be careful analysing him because Carr was very much a Pro-soviet Historian in his lifetime, but here, in this one point he seems to be correct.)

Military Historian Prof Ian Beckett comments that.

"Clearly neither side expected it [the Pact] to last for it's full 10 years, but it gave Stalin a chance to prepare for War. Although the Soviet Union was far from ready when Germany attacked on 22 June 1941, certain measures had been taken."

He goes on to describe the various measures including increased conscription to 5 years signed on 1 Sept 1939, the same day Hitler invaded Poland and the expansion of his army. He also makes the point that The increased land annexed which the soviets thought provided a buffer zone, "Leningrad was thought to be more secure", See Communist Military machine, by Ian Beckett. P20.

"Stalin was aware from June 1939 onwards of Hitler's intention to invade Poland in late August or early September. More than anything else, he needed to ensure that the invasion went no father. He needed time to regroup and rebuild the Red Army... and get ready for the assault he was sure would follow some time after the conquest of Poland." - Evans "The Third Reich in Power" p692

In the Popular and well researched TV series, The World at War. The narrator. (Laurence Olivier: No less) 4:25 onwards. Says " The Nazi-Soviet Pact had served it's purpose for Hitler. He had not been Hindered while he dealt with Poland and France. Stalin for his part, Gained a breathing space while he put his army in order after the blood-letting purges of the 1930's. He had Gambled too, upon a lengthy struggle between Germany and the Allies"

The First two and a half parts cover this time period well. I recommend you watch it.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaKwloKQYfY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6nbdBFSWMY&feature=related

A theme that may be justified by this old Newspaper article. The headline is "Stalin not fooled by Hitler Pact, merely sought time to arm." (page 2) http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1977&dat=19411121&id=h2oiAAAAIBAJ&sjid=WKsFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1156,1989033 .

One point raised in the TV series is Soviet Appeasment as a way of buying time. The prisioner exchanges and the Raw materials trades certainly are compatiable with that idea.

To keep this point short, i think that both sides were not truly friendly unto each-other, and each had an agenda in exploiting the peace that they had with each other for militaristic ends, against the other side. Despite having the outward appearance of a true friend. Internal politics suggests that they were not true friends. Now, I do not think that all this what i've described would be activities a true ally would do. Would it?}

 

[theyounghistorian77]

Re: Glenn Beck: The revolutionary Holocaust. Live Free...Or

BECK: But is this just a story of brutal iron-fisted dictators

{Yes it is.}

or something inherent in the philosophy?

{Beck still hasn't proved Hitler was a Stalinist/Communist. But He is now going to talk about those Nazi like Passages Snore was talking about earlier. Let's discuss them. Remember, There is a difference betwen Like and influence.}

The fathers of communism, Marx, and Engels, believed that societies would evolve from capitalism to socialism.

{The order of Marxian evolution is as follows. Beck At least get's one part of the Marxian evolutionary scale right
1) Primitive Communism. (Tribalism)
2) Slave Society (When Civilisation begins and an aristocracy is born.)
3) Feudalism
4) Capitalism
5) Dictatorship of the Proletariat (This is the Marxist definition of Socialism. Lenin and Stalin, Mao, Castro etc were all Marxist inspired self styled socialist dictators.)
6) Communism. (Where everybody has control of the economy and services within a classless society. This part of the Marxist evolutionary scale has never been achieved. And I suspect will never be achieved on the grounds it's too utopian. Even by Marxist standards. Socialism does not equal Communism on the evolutionary scale. So much for Goldberg's analysis that they are the same above.}

But they acknowledged that there were still what they called primitive societies that hadn't even evolved into capitalists yet.

{Indeed they did. And actually, Marx and Engels liked Primitive societies, especially tribal ones. Indeed in a way, Engels argued that primitive peoples were superior to modern Europeans because they did not recognise private property or capitalism, or the state. This is Engels on the The Iroquois tribe. Notice how lyrical the description is.

"And a wonderful constitution it is, this gentile constitution, in all its childlike simplicity! No soldiers, no gendarmes or police, no nobles, kings, regents, prefects, or judges, no prisons, no lawsuits - and everything takes its orderly course. All quarrels and disputes are settled by the whole of the community affected, by the gens or the tribe, or by the gentes among themselves; only as an extreme and exceptional measure is blood revenge threatened-and our capital punishment is nothing but blood revenge in a civilized form, with all the advantages and drawbacks of civilization. Although there were many more matters to be settled in common than today - the household is maintained by a number of families in common, and is communistic, the land belongs to the tribe, only the small gardens are allotted provisionally to the households - yet there is no need for even a trace of our complicated administrative apparatus with all its ramifications. The decisions are taken by those concerned, and in most cases everything has been already settled by the custom of centuries. There cannot be any poor or needy - the communal household and the gens know their responsibilities towards the old, the sick, and those disabled in war. All are equal and free - the women included. There is no place yet for slaves, nor, as a rule, for the subjugation of other tribes. When, about the year 1651, the Iroquois had conquered the Eries and the "Neutral Nation," they offered to accept them into the confederacy on equal terms; it was only after the defeated tribes had refused that they were driven from their territory. And what men and women such a society breeds is proved by the admiration inspired in all white people who have come into contact with unspoiled Indians, by the personal dignity, uprightness, strength of character, and courage of these barbarians."

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/ch03.htm

They called them racial trash

The original German phrase for Beck's Racial Trash quote is Và¶lkerabfälle.

One very important point, Marxist translations do not say "Racial Trash" Instead, they give the allusion that Engels was talking about "Residual fragments" within society. Let's have a look at the original quote in German, and then i will give you the Marxist translation, so you can make your mind up as to what Engels actually said.

Firstly, The original German.

Die Zeit des Panslawismus war im 8. und 9. Jahrhundert, als die Sà¼dslawen noch ganz Ungarn und Ostreich innehatten und Byzanz bedrohten. Konnten sie da der deutschen und magyarischen Invasion nicht widerstehen, konnten sie die Unabhängigkeit nicht gewinnen und ein haltbares Reich bilden, selbst als ihre beiden Feinde, die Magyaren und Deutschen, sich gegenseitig zerfleischten, wie wollen sie es jetzt, nach tausendjähriger Unterjochung und Entnationalisierung?

Es ist kein Land in Europa, das nicht in irgendeinem Winkel eine oder mehrere Và¶lkerruinen besitzt, Ãœberbleibsel einer frà¼heren Bewohnerschaft, zurà¼ckgedrängt und unterjocht von der Nation, welche später Trägerin der geschichtlichen Entwicklung wurde. Diese Reste einer von dem Gang der Geschichte, wie Hegel sagt, unbarmherzig zertretenen Nation, diese Và¶lkerabfälle werden jedesmal und bleiben bis zu ihrer gänzlichen Vertilgung oder Entnationalisierung die fanatischen Träger der Kontrerevolution, wie ihre ganze Existenz à¼berhaupt schon ein Protest gegen eine große geschichtliche Revolution ist.

So in Schottland die Gälen, die Stà¼tzen der Stuarts von 1640 bis 1745.

So in Frankreich die Bretonen, die Stà¼tzen der Bourbonen von 1792 bis 1800.

So in Spanien die Basken, die Stà¼tzen des Don Carlos.

So in Östreich die panslawistischen Sà¼dslawen, die weiter nichts sind als der Và¶lkerabfall einer hà¶chst verworrenen tausendjährigen Entwicklung. Daß dieser ebenfalls hà¶chst verworrene Và¶lkerabfall sein Heil nur in der Umkehr der ganzen europäischen Bewegung sieht, die fà¼r ihn nicht von Westen nach Osten, sondern von Osten nach Westen gehen sollte, daß die befreiende Waffe, <173> das Band der Einheit fà¼r ihn die russische Knute ist - das ist das Natà¼rlichste von der Welt.

Die Sà¼dslawen hatten also ihren reaktionären Charakter schon vor 1848 deutlich ausgesprochen. Das Jahr 1848 hat ihn offen an den Tag gelegt.

Als der Februarsturm losbrach, wer machte die à¶streichische Revolution? Wien oder Prag? Budapest oder Agram? Die Deutschen und Magyaren oder die Slawen?

Es ist wahr: Unter den gebildeteren Sà¼dslawen existierte eine kleine demokratische Partei, die zwar ihre Nationalität nicht aufgeben, aber sie doch zur Verfà¼gung der Freiheit stellen wollte. Diese Illusion, der es gelang, auch unter den westeuropäischen Demokraten Sympathien zu erwecken, Sympathien, die vollständig berechtigt waren, solange die slawischen Demokraten gegen den gemeinsamen Feind mitkämpften - diese Illusion wurde gebrochen durch das Bombardement von Prag. Von diesem Ereignis an stellten sich sämtliche sà¼dslawischen Stämme, nach dem Vorgang der Kroaten, zur Verfà¼gung der à¶sterreichischen Reaktion. Diejenigen Chefs der sà¼dslawischen Bewegung, welche noch ferner von Gleichberechtigung der Nationen, von demokratischem Österreich usw. fabeln, sind entweder vernagelte Schwärmer, wie z.B. viele Zeitungsschreiber, oder Schurken, wie Jellachich. Ihre demokratischen Beteuerungen bedeuten nichts mehr als die demokratischen Beteuerungen der à¶sterreichischen offiziellen Kontrerevolution. Genug, in der Praxis fängt die Wiederherstellung der sà¼dslawischen Nationalität mit dem brutalsten Wà¼ten gegen die à¶sterreichische und rnagyarische Revolution an, mit einem ersten großen Liebesdienst, den sie dem russischen Zar erweisen.

Die à¶sterreichische Kamarilla fand, außer dem hohen Adel, der Bà¼rokratie und der Soldateska, nur Unterstà¼tzung bei den Slawen. Die Slawen haben den Fall Italiens entschieden, die Slawen haben Wien gestà¼rmt, die Slawen sind es, die jetzt à¼ber die Magyaren von allen Seiten herfallen. An ihrer Spitze als Wortfà¼hrer die Tschechen unter Palacky, als Schwertfà¼hrer die Kroaten unter Jellachich.

Das ist der Dank dafà¼r, daß die deutsche demokratische Presse im Juni à¼berall mit den tschechischen Demokraten sympathisierte, als sie von Windischgrätz niederkartätscht wurden, von demselben Windischgrätz, der jetzt ihr Held ist.

Resumieren wir:

In Österreich, abgesehen von Polen und Italien, haben die Deutschen und die Magyaren im Jahre 1848, wie seit tausend Jahren schon, die geschichtliche Initiative à¼bernommen. Sie vertreten die Revolution.

http://www.mlwerke.de/me/me06/me06_165.htm

And now the Marxist Translation.

Pan-Slavism was at its height in the eighth and ninth centuries, when the Southern Slavs still held the whole of Hungary and Austria and were threatening Byzantium. If at that time they were unable to resist the German and Magyar invasion, if they were unable to achieve independence and form a stable state even when both their enemies, the Magyars and Germans, were tearing each other to pieces, how will they be able to achieve it today, after a thousand years of subjection and loss of their national character?

There is no country in Europe which does not have in some corner or other one or several ruined fragments of peoples, the remnant of a former population that was suppressed and held in bondage by the nation which later became the main vehicle of historical development. These relics of a nation mercilessly trampled under foot in the course of history, as Hegel says, these residual fragments of peoples always become fanatical standard-bearers of counter-revolution and remain so until their complete extirpation or loss of their national character, just as their whole existence in general is itself a protest against a great historical revolution.

Such, in Scotland, are the Gaels, the supporters of the Stuarts from 1640 to 1745.

Such, in France, are the Bretons, the supporters of the Bourbons from 1792 to 1800.

Such, in Spain, are the Basques, the supporters of Don Carlos.

Such, in Austria, are the pan-Slavist Southern Slavs, who are nothing but the residual fragment of peoples, resulting from an extremely confused thousand years of development. That this residual fragment, which is likewise extremely confused, sees its salvation only in a reversal of the whole European movement, which in its view ought to go not from west to east, but from east to west, and that for it the instrument of liberation and the bond of unity is the Russian knout , that is the most natural thing in the world.

Already before 1848, therefore, the Southern Slavs had clearly shown their reactionary character. The year 1848 brought it fully into the light of day.

When the February storm broke, who made the Austrian revolution? Vienna or Prague? Budapest or Agram? The Germans and Magyars, or the Slavs?

It is true that among the more educated Southern Slavs there was a small democratic party which, although not wanting to renounce its nationality, nevertheless desired to put it at the disposal of the struggle for freedom. This illusion, which succeeded in arousing sympathy also among West-European democrats, sympathy that was fully justified as long as the Slav democrats took part in the struggle against the common enemy , this illusion was shattered by the bombardment of Prague. After that event all the South-Slav races, following the example of the Croats, put themselves at the disposal of Austrian reaction. Those leaders of the South-Slav movement who continue to talk drivel about the equality of nations, about democratic Austria, and so on, are either stupid dreamers, such as, for example, many journalists, or they are scoundrels like Jellachich. Their democratic assurances have no more significance than the democratic assurances of official Austrian counter-revolution. It suffices to say that in practice the restoration of the South-Slav nationality begins with the most savage outbursts of fury against the Austrian and Magyar revolution, with a first great good turn rendered to the Russian Tsar.

Apart from the higher nobility, the bureaucracy and the military, the Austrian camarilla found support only among the Slavs. The Slavs played the decisive part in the fall of Italy, the Slavs stormed Vienna, and it is the Slavs who are now attacking the Magyars from all sides. At their head as spokesmen are the Czechs under Palackà½, as leaders of armed forces the Croats under Jellachich.

That is the gratitude shown for the fact that the German democratic press in June everywhere sympathised with the Czech democrats when they were shot down by Windischgrätz, the same Windischgrätz who is now their hero.

To sum up:

In Austria, apart from Poland and Italy, it is the Germans and Magyars in 1848, as during the past thousand years already, who have assumed the historical initiative. They represent the revolution.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1849/01/13.htm

So, What do you think Engels said?

And do you think that quote applies to all such groups as The Iroquois tribe? Or did it specificly apply to european counter-revolutionary Groups, ie those "residual nations" or "refuse of nations" mentioned to give it a more precise translation, that is in context, those left behind (discarded) by the other dominant european civilizations? I would like to know what you think.

As the revolution happens, the classes and the races, too weak to master the new conditions of life, must give way.

{Beck, unsurprisingly, rips this quote Out of context, here is the full quote.

"Now I share neither in the opinions of Ricardo, who regards 'Net-Revenue' as the Moloch to whom entire populations must be sacrificed, without even so much as complaint, nor in the opinion of Sismondi, who, in his hypochondriacal philanthropy, would forcibly retain the superannuated methods of agriculture and proscribe science from industry, as Plato expelled poets from his Republic. Society is undergoing a silent revolution, which must be submitted to, and which takes no more notice of the human existences it breaks down than an earthquake regards the houses it subverts. The classes and the races, too weak to master the new conditions of life, must give way. But can there be anything more puerile, more short-sighted, than the views of those Economists who believe in all earnest that this woeful transitory state means nothing but adapting society to the acquisitive propensities of capitalists, both landlords and money-lords? In Great Britain the working of that process is most transparent. The application of modern science to production clears the land of its inhabitants, but it concentrates people in manufacturing towns."

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1853/03/04.htm

The context of the "Silent revolution" seems to be a capitalist revolution. Not a Marxist one. In fact, the whole article is about Capitalist development}

There was only one thing left for those too far behind in the process of societal evolution. "The chief mission of all other races and peoples, large and small, is to perish in the revolutionary holocaust.

This is the original German.

"Alle andern großen und kleinen Stämme und Và¶lker haben zunächst die Mission, im revolutionären Weltsturm unterzugehen. Daher sind sie jetzt kontrerevolutionär."

http://www.mlwerke.de/me/me06/me06_165.htm

It's in the Magyar Struggle Nowhere in that phrase do i see the word Holocaust. (Instead, It's 'Worldstorm'. Different Word methinks) Beck simply made the word Holocaust up. He only uses the word Holocaust only because it reminds people of the horrors of the Nazi regime. It is a deliberate lie to convince his credulous viewers that the Nazis are related to Marx

And by 'revolutionary Worldstorm', Engels was referring to the ongoing event of the revolutionary fervour sweeping europe at the time.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/181144/Revolutions-of-1848

In this context, Engels was writing about 'revolutionary' and 'counterrevolutionary' nations (and related to what i said above), and he is not calling for any notion of Genocide, he just predicting that 'counterrevolutionary' nations will perish because of circumstance.

 

[theyounghistorian77]

Re: Glenn Beck: The revolutionary Holocaust. Live Free...Or

Up until the horrors of Hitler, prominent socialist supporters discuss these ideas out in the open. Nobel Prize winner, Fabian socialist and prominent Soviet supporter, George Bernard Shaw.

{The trouble with George Bernard Shaw is that he had a combination of Whacked out views plus a bizarre sense of humor, plus his rhetoric can be considered extremely Hyperbolic. A definite recipe for Quote-mining.



One such example is that he seemed to glorify not just the Soviet Union (As Beck points out here.) but also Mussolini ( in the above Video) and Hitler (As well as it would seem any other undemocratic Dictator in europe.)

But admiring dictators wasn't just a socialist thing. Both lloyd George and Even Churchill early on, expressed admiration for Hitler.

"I have now seen the famous German leader and also something of the great change he has effected. "Whatever one may think of his methods - and they are certainly not those of a parliamentary country, there can be no doubt that he has achieved a marvelous transformation in the spirit of the people, in their attitude towards each other, and in their social and economic outlook"¦

It is not the Germany of the first decade that followed the war - broken, dejected and bowed down with a sense of apprehension and impotence. It is now full of hope and confidence, and of a renewed sense of determination to lead its own life without interference from any influence outside its own frontiers.

There is for the first time since the war a general sense of security. The people are more cheerful. There is a greater sense of general gaiety of spirit throughout the land. It is a happier Germany. I saw it everywhere, and Englishmen I met during my trip and who knew Germany well were very impressed with the change.

One man has accomplished this miracle. He is a born leader of men. A magnetic and dynamic personality with a single-minded purpose, as resolute will and a dauntless heart."

Lloyd George - Daily Express, 17.9.1936.

"While all those formidable transformations were occurring in Europe, Corporal Hitler was fighting his long, wearing battle for the German heart. The story of that struggle cannot be read without admiration for the courage, the perseverance, and the vital force which enabled him to challenge, defy, conciliate, or overcome, all the authorities or resistance's which barred his path. He, and the ever increasing legions who worked with him, certainly showed at this time, in their patriotic ardour and love of country, that there was nothing that they would not dare, no sacrifice of life, limb or liberty that they would not make themselves or inflict upon their opponents."

That was Winston Churchill. http://www.ety.com/HRP/rev/ahdance.htm

And here he is again, Praising Mussolini. speaking in Rome on 20 January, 1927. He said.

"I could not help being charmed, like so many other people have been, by Signor Mussolini's gentle and simple bearing and by his calm, detached poise in spite of so many burdens and dangers. Secondly, anyone could see that he thought of nothing but the lasting good, as he understood it, of the Italian people, and that no lesser interest was of the slightest consequence to him. If I had been an Italian I am sure that I should have been whole-heartedly with you from the start to finish in your triumphant struggle against the bestial appetites and passions of Leninism. I will, however, say a word on an international aspect of fascism. Externally, your movement has rendered service to the whole world. The great fear which has always beset every democratic leader or a working class leader has been that of being undermined by someone more extreme than he. Italy has shown that there is a way of fighting the subversive forces which can rally the masses of the people, properly led, to value and wish to defend the honour and stability of civilised society. She has provided the necessary antidote to the Russian poison. Hereafter no great nation will be unprovided with an ultimate means of protection against the cancerous growth of Bolshevism."


GEORGE BERNARD SHAW, NOBEL PRIZE WINNER: I don't want to punish anybody. (INAUDIBLE) an extraordinary number of people whom I want to kill. I think it would be a good thing to make everybody come before a properly-appointed board, just as they might come before the income tax commissioner, and say every five years, or every seven years, just put them there, and say, "Sir, or madam, now will you be kind enough to justify your existence?"
If you're not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little more, then, clearly, we cannot use the big organizations of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us and it can't be of very much use to yourself.

{Despite my best efforts, I havent managed to track down the original video where he says this

But There are two youtube comments worth checking out below that video i just showed you.

The quote re. eliminating people who cannot justify their existence was part of a polemical and hyperbolic argument with G.K. Chesterson concerning private property, and should not be read, as a statement of Shaw's own position. See Collected Works of G.K. Chesterton: Plays and Chesterton on Shaw By G. K. Chesterton p. 553.

Additionally, that quote has nothing whatsoever to do with Shaw's beliefs concerning eugenics. The topic of the debate with Chesterson was private property, not eugenics. Use of the quote doesn't meet minimum standards for valid argumentation or use of sources. The quote doesn't belong in this piece and should be deleted. A decently-researched section on his views on eugenics and/or biology is needed, not, this hogwash.

If i am to recommend a decently-researched piece on his views on eugenics and/or Biology. I recommend "On mice and men: Evolution and the Socialist Utopia" (Hale, 2010).

I also recommend you read the Preface to his play, On the Rocks. In which his policies for Killing are explained.

http://wikilivres.info/wiki/On_the_Rocks/Preface/1

But as for Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and others, George Bernard Shaw is on record for saying this.

"As to militant Dictatorship, it means no more than Gas and Gaiters. At present all the countries which are not, like England, merely sticking in the mud, are dominated by dictators: Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Kemal, Roosevelt, Pilsudski, and De Valera. But none of these dictatorships is like any of the others. The only feature they have in common is the abolition of party government and of Oppositions. The notion that the only alternative to the party system is a Tsardom masquerading as a Republican Dictatorship is only a symptom of political ignorance and thoughtlessness, which is unfortunately an almost universal disease at present."

http://wikilivres.info/wiki/On_the_Rocks/Shaw_Answers_Some_Questions

So apart from broad similarities, each one is different. (Although the phrase "merely sticking in the mud" seems to condemn democracies in favor of dictators.) So even the admirer of dictators disagrees with Beck on this one. }

BECK: And this was actually somewhat subtle for Shaw. He'd also foreshadow some of the worst atrocities in our planet's history. He wrote, "I appeal to the chemists to discover a humane gas that will kill instantly and painlessly. In short, a gentlemanly gas , deadly by all means, but humane not cruel."



Such open advocacy of Using Gas as a tool for genocidal social policy came long before Shaw's quote above. Who wrote that...

"I do not understand the squeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas against uncivilised tribes."

That was Winston Churchill, Writing as president of the Air Council, 1919

GOLDBERG: People like George Bernard Shaw were convinced that overpopulation was this terrible, terrible problem; particularly, because the unfit, the genetically less desirable, were swamping the good genetic types. In the late 19th century, there are almost a cream of British intelligentsia embracing eugenics. Well into the 20th century. Saying that thousands, millions had to be marched off into gas chambers and liquidated.

{Seeing that Goldberg is talking about British intelligentsia, Here, in the UK, eugenics was embraced by the Right as much as the left, Churchill was also in favour of Eugenics as much as using Gas. as you can see here.

http://www.winstonchurchill.org/support/the-churchill-centre/publications/finest-hour-online/594-churchill-and-eugenics

Arthur Balfour was also in favour of eugenics, and even Neville Chamberlain had some pro-eugenic thoughts, both were members of the Eugenics education society. In 1926 it became the British eugenics society. Now it's known simply as the Galton institute.

As Far as the United States is concerned,

some conservatives in America such as Michael Medved, radio talk-show host and Movie critic apparently believes in Eugenics according to this website.

http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2008/05/conservative_eugenics.php

However, with all this in mind, it is worth reflecting on this.

"The people who embraced eugenics in the early twentieth-century were primarily "social Darwinists" but also "progressives" (though not all progressives embraced eugenics), who often (but not always) had what we would now consider very socially conservative ideals but were confident in enacting socially active, governmentally involved methods, with a firm belief that what they were doing was "scientific" (a distinction which does not mold easily onto modern political categories). Beyond that, eugenics was a mobile philosophy which found support among many different political traditions, ranging from what we would today call staunch social conservatives to the most optimistic British socialists of the early twentieth century. "

http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Liberal-eugenics

Anyone in the United States (especialy Washington State) ought to find this Lecture very informative.



George Bernard Shaw has this great line where he says, you know, we should do it while playing lovely classical music as we march them into the gas chambers. The idea , and a lot of people seem to think that this concept of the gas chamber as a tool of social policy was invented by the Nazis. It wasn't. It was , and I mean this in the most disgusting evil way, it was perfected by the Nazis.

{Does Goldberg know who invented the first physical Gas Chamber as a tool of social Policy? It was his fellow countrymen. The first death by Gas Chamber happened on February 8, 1924 when Gee Jon, A convicted murderer was sent to death. Though he is right about the Nazis perfecting this method.

Some more info on the American Gas Chambers here.

http://www.ihr.org/books/leuchter/us_gas.html
http://www.capitalpunishmentuk.org/gascham.html

"Hitler's concept of concentration camps as, well as the practicality of genocide owed much, so he claimed, to his studies of English and United States history. He admired the camps for Boer prisoners in South Africa And for the Indians in the Wild West; and often praised to his inner circle the efficiency of America's extermination,by starvation and uneven combat,of the 'Red Savages' who could not be tamed by captivity." - Toland, "Adolf Hitler" p802

I'm still open as to George Bernard Shaw's influence on the Nazis. But even if this is the Case, How does this Make Hitler as Left wing as Shaw was, Given all i said above?}

But this idea of using things like gas chambers to kill off millions of people so that the rest of the good guys could prosper and move to the sunny uplands of history was immensely popular.

Across the whole political spectrum.

"The rise of the Nazis, and the rise of other anti-jewish right-wing parties in france and other continential countries, has put inter-war britain in a benign light. .... but the picture is too simple., For Britain had some ferociously anti-semitic groups too. ... They emerged out of the Great war alongside anti-communist orginizations. The middle Classes Union, for instance and the British empire Union and angry groups such as the Silver Badge Party of ex-servicemen, run by the eccentric avaitior Pemberton Billings, who during the Great War had caused a sensation by claiming, the germans had a "Black Book" containing the names of 47'000 highly placed perverts, and that the Kaiser's men were undermining Britain by luring her men into homosexual acts ... Such people tended to see Lloyd George's govt as a corrupt sell out and possibly under the influence of German Jews,, much as the extreme right had seen things before the war of 1914." - Andrew Marr. The Making of Modern Britian. p290

"Henry Hamilton Beamish, ... had set up an anti-semitic group called the Britons and had campaigned for jews to be resettled in Madagascar. By the late 30's he was publicly prophesying that Germany would have to invade Russia and, place half the population in the Lethal Chamber: all jews must be sterilized, Killed or segregated" ibid p291

"Then there were secret groups like the Nordics, and the "Right Club" run by a well known Conservative MP, Archibald Maule Ramsay; there was even a Nazi British version of the KKK, called the White Knights of Britain or the Hooded men." ibid p291

yes im not joking, they actualy called themselves, "the Right Club" Funny isn't it?

"These groups were quickly penetrated by British intellegence and their extreme language kept them far from mainstream politics, but they should not be entirely dismissed. The Brownshirts and other fascist groups in Weimar Germany had also been small, apparantly ridiculous, and fought vigorously amongst themselves. Had Britain been beaten in 1940, in the conditions of national collapse and a search for scapegoats, she had her Proto-Hitlers waiting in the wings, ready to, call on an underground tradition of Anti-semitism that ran from Aristocrats to dockers" ibid p291

"The Mitfords were not typical, but their interest in Far-Right Politics was not at all unusial for the upper classes of the 30's. ... When war with Nazi Germany eventualy came, almost all of the British, followers of fascism would drop their previous attachments and serve their country. Only a tiny number became traitors... But most of the wealthier British who fell out, of love with the national government were lookng further to the right. Communism was their enemy, Not fascism" - ibid p324

So these ideas weren't just Commonplace on the left, They were commonplace on the Right too

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BECK: All of these systems are based on the idea that we know better. That the little people get in the way of our plan , well, first, we'll go around them and then we'll destroy them. This arrogance always ends exactly the same way.}

For once i agree with Beck. But it's a broad comparision of the totalitarians of the 20th century.

"his extreme nationalism and rabid anti-marxism were of course seen as very positive attributes, and his demagogic talents were linked to hopes he might wean the masses from socialism" - ian kershaw. The "Hitler myth": image and reality in the Third Reich p37

"Hitler had never been a socialist:, he was indifferent to economic questions" Bullock: Hitler p281

One of history's worst examples: The genocide you've never heard of. Next.

I have no idea what the american education system is like with regards to teaching of Soviet History, but If The Holodomor or the Crimes of Stalin isn't widely known in the US, Blame it on those Texas Republicans who are in control of so much of what goes in the education textbooks.

 

[theyounghistorian77]

Conclusions with Politico

The Politico article can be found here.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31882.html

In my introduction to the thread. I set out to debunk</COLOR>

the first part of this "Shock-Doc" Line by line

And of course. i'll leave you all to judge just how well i managed to achieve that aim. The reason why i set out to do this was more out of a reaction to my first viewing of his documentary than anything else. This is my speciality. I am (As you can guess by my nick) a Historian. And the way History gets tampered and abused to suit the ideological ends of the likes of Beck saddens me a great deal, in the same way that Science gets abused by creationists to only further their own ideological ends.

I wasn't the only one to notice this. that Beck is abusing History to his own ends. After the documnetry was aired. Politico.com gathered a number of Historians and professors of Political philosophy to watch the piece. And it is to say that their views echo mine.

In attempting to describe what Beck felt was

"the true unseen history of Marxism, progressivism and communism" - with some implied lessons for today.

<i></i>

<COLOR color="#FFFF00">Beck made a number of basic factual errors in trying to link Hitler into the Communists and Marx. which is why i wasn't impressed with him, and neither were these professors.

Clemson University professor Steven Marks, author of "How Russia Shaped the Modern World," said that while Beck doesn't explicitly tie the left-wing totalitarian regimes of the past to contemporary liberals, that's what "he's hinting at here."


"No one in their right mind is going to defend Stalin or Mao or Che Guevara," Marks said. "The implication is that this is what's going to happen if Democrats get their way. This is just a complete lie."

The comment about hitler wishing to expand Helthcare was obviously a subtle attack on Obama and his healthcare legislation. I canot see it any-other way. It's guilt by association rather than anything else. As to the comment about defending Stalin, Mao and Che. The only people who choose to do so are i would agree as irrational as Beck. "No one in their right mind" would do such a thing. But the most important quote for me was this.

Alan Wolfe, director of the Boisi Center for Religion and American Life at Boston College, said that the film not only isn't accurate, but that Beck "lives in a complete alternative universe."

With regards to Beck on Hitler, i thought that this was the case. nearly Every line was riddled with error. and what i've written above hopefully exposes that to you.

As an example, he said, Beck mentions how the Nazis supported programs like universal health care as evidence that their ideology may have more to do with the left than the totalitarian right.


Nazi Germany was "not evil because of their economic program," said Wolfe, which he noted included a few programs designed to promote public health.


"It was evil," he said, " because it aimed at the extermination of European Jewry."

In a nutshell. yes. and as i've highlighted above, the very worst of Anti-semitism came from the right in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Now i didn't come onto the Communist dictators, but this quote succinctly sums up Beck on Communism and Socialism.

Michael Kazin, a history professor at Georgetown, described Beck's special as "a classic piece of anti-Communist propaganda" which he said doesn't mean most of the facts are wrong, but that the host's selectively using some, while ignoring others.


For instance, Kazin said, Beck doesn't mention that "the first anti-Communists were democratic socialists and anarchists like Emma Goldman" or that "socialists in Europe after 1945 were allies of the U.S. against the USSR."


"Totalitarianism has been around as a concept since the late 1930's, but Beck seems to have discovered it this week," Kazin said.

"State inhumanity , under different economic systems , is a terrible fact of history," Kazin said. "And, yes, Communist regimes were among the worst of them. But Beck is only interested in 'exposing' inhumanity on the left. And that's why his film is propaganda."

As far as the article is concerned. I'll agree with Lee edwards about Che and Mao to a limited extent. It is good to see someone take on myths concerning Che and Mao. but i dont think Becks research was as solid as edwards claims. i'd rather someone with credibility in the acedemic community do it instead.

so to sum up. The Shock-doc didnt reveal anything new, (As far as im concerned anyways.) The segment about Hitler was plain out wrong, Beck only uses selective evidence that only suits his agenda and deliberately discards the rest. And as a result, he gets condemmed by acedemics and by me.

I hope you've enjoyed my critique

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Re: Glenn Beck: The revolutionary Holocaust. Live Free...Or

Those who know me on the Chat know that i have a paticular dislike Of Glenn Beck, And my dislike was confirmed when this special edition of the Glenn Beck programme was aired. His grand thesis. All you progressives, liberals and Left wingers who are reading this are not only the heirs and supporters to Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Che etc but Glenn also thinks that us Historians have a "delibrate agenda" for not teaching this and suppressing the information presented in the Programme. (No i don't.) .

Beck would be much more convincing if not for the fact that Republicans like Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and even Mitt Romney didn't fit his definition of "leftist." When you define the extreme right-wing as "center" and the center as "extremely liberal", anything else you have to say can be dismissed as complete nonsense by any sane viewer.

 

[theyounghistorian77]

Re: Glenn Beck: The revolutionary Holocaust. Live Free...Or

Those who know me on the Chat know that i have a paticular dislike Of Glenn Beck, And my dislike was confirmed when this special edition of the Glenn Beck programme was aired. His grand thesis. All you progressives, liberals and Left wingers who are reading this are not only the heirs and supporters to Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Che etc but Glenn also thinks that us Historians have a "delibrate agenda" for not teaching this and suppressing the information presented in the Programme. (No i don't.) .

Beck would be much more convincing if not for the fact that Republicans like Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and even Mitt Romney didn't fit his definition of "leftist." When you define the extreme right-wing as "center" and the center as "extremely liberal", anything else you have to say can be dismissed as complete nonsense by any sane viewer.

Was that an attack on me or an attack on Glenn Beck?

It may be the case that, in the words of David Sirota "On economic issues, we are often told that right is center, center is left, and left is fringe". But it is not me that defnes the left/right scale. HIitler was quite the totalitarian, but he is still far removed from Stalin is he not? .Which goes against becks narrative. And Hitler would have regarded those republican figures as leftist, which would give the allusion that he was far-right.. would it not?

The point here is that i'm trying to demonstrate that Hitler wasnt a marxist. Do you agree or disagree with me?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Re: Glenn Beck: The revolutionary Holocaust. Live Free...Or

Was that an attack on me or an attack on Glenn Beck?

Glenn Beck, of course. I would never consider attacking any member of this site, ever, for any reason. I was a little unclear there, and I apologize for it. I'm not posting from my computer, which puts me ill at ease.

I agree with you entirely. I meant to post that "Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and even Mitt Romney ABSOLUTELY fit his(Glenn Beck's) definition of "leftist." Glenn Beck is so insane that most Republicans fit his definition of leftists, Marxists, Communists, or whatever stupid and seditious things he is saying this week.

 

[theyounghistorian77]

Re: Glenn Beck: The revolutionary Holocaust. Live Free...Or

Was that an attack on me or an attack on Glenn Beck?

Glenn Beck, of course. I would never consider attacking any member of this site, ever, for any reason. I was a little unclear there, and I apologize for it. I'm not posting from my computer, which puts me ill at ease.

I agree with you entirely. I meant to post that "Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and even Mitt Romney ABSOLUTELY fit his(Glenn Beck's) definition of "leftist." Glenn Beck is so insane that most Republicans fit his definition of leftists, Marxists, Communists, or whatever stupid and seditious things he is saying this week.

I accept your apology