Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (378614)	4/17/2008 7:04:46 AM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574468

"Oh, gee. That makes a big difference. He only joined and came to lead a party called National Socialist. " It does make a big difference. He initially joined, not so much because of the socialism which he didn't believe in, but because they were big on Germany losing in WWI because they were betrayed, which he certainly believed in. And the major betrayers were the Jews. The latter part of your comment is correct. It doesn't make a man who led a party called National Socialist not a socialist though. Arguing that Hitler wasn't a socialist when he called himself and party that is silly: "We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance." Adolf Hitler TOLAND, John (1976). Adolf Hitler. Doubleday, p.306 "Why the need to defend socialism?" Not defending socialism. I am arguing against the rewriting of history to make the Nazis socialists. They weren't. Who should we believe, you or Hitler? When you start rewriting history to make political points, then you lose whatever lessons it might hold. Exactly. You can actually get in the position of claiming a man who said he was socialist and led a party with socialist in its title wasn't a socialist. "Even going to the length of slamming Christianity to insult the religion of people who call Nazism a form of socialism?" There you go, just making shit up. I wasn't slamming Christianity. Calling Hitler a devout Christian is a slam and insult to Christians. Period. Just as calling Hitler a socialist is a slam and insult to socialists. I was just pointing out that if you want to claim the Nazis were socialist based on a few speeches by Hitler, then you have to accept him as a Christian because he talked about his Christianity almost as much. Actually he didn't. When he did talk about Christ it was to fit Christ into his racial idealogy.