National Socialism vs. Communism.

I’m currently reading a book written by Herbert Hoover, entitled Freedom Betrayed. I hadn’t realized this earlier, but apparently Hoover was a prolific author. He’s made a number of very good points, including the following:

• He was involved in famine relief efforts for Poland, until Churchill blockaded food imports into Germany. Apparently, while Chamberlain and Daladier were the ones who created the blockade itself, it was Churchill who decided to treat food as a contraband item. No different than ammunition or bombs or tanks.

• He stated that in 1939, the Western democracies sought an alliance with the Soviet Union against Nazi Germany. Stalin said that his price for such an alliance would be the annexation of Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland, part of Romania, and some other territory. Chamberlain refused. But in a speech in the House of Commons, Churchill said that Stalin’s demands should be met.

• He noted that very shortly after Hitler invaded the Soviet Union, the United States placed an embargo on Japan. Other anti-Japanese measures were also taken. During the summer of 1941, Japan had a moderate prime minister. That prime minister waged his entire political career on his ability to resolve Japan’s diplomatic differences with the United States. He indicated that he was willing to make very considerable concessions to get the embargo lifted–as long as the American president agreed to a meeting. But instead of the agreed-upon meeting, he was given excuses, delays, or in some cases the thought that Japan had to agree to very considerable concessions before a meeting could even take place. (With nothing in return except the hope that maybe the American president would agree to meet.) Due to the failure of this prime minister’s efforts, he was removed from office and replaced with hard line militarists. The militarists also attempted to resolve Japan’s diplomatic differences with the United States, and didn’t make any more progress than the prime minister had made. At that point they decided to attack Pearl Harbor.

• In April of 1945, Japan’s government had once again become moderate and peace-seeking. Their main precondition for peace was that the emperor be allowed to remain in office, even if only in a ceremonial or religious role. Japan’s peace feelers were ignored, and the United States was unwilling to grant any reassurances about the future role of the emperor. As a result, the war lasted several more months, culminating in incalculable destruction of Japanese cities through the use of conventional and nuclear weapons.

• In 1939, Chamberlain and Daladier took a hard line against Germany in large part because of FDR’s promise to enter the war eventually. They were told that while the United States would not start the war, it would finish it. Similar reassurances were given to the government of Poland. This was a relatively rare case in which FDR actually intended to keep a promise he had made.

• In 1941, on the eve of Germany’s Operation Barbarossa, a pro-Soviet faction within Yugoslavia was contemplating overthrowing the government. FDR promised them that if they did so, the United States would provide immediate and significant aid. That promise was of course broken. After the pro-Soviet putsch, neither the United States nor any other major nation helped the new, pro-Soviet government of Yugoslavia resist the resultant German onslaught.

• After the war, the Truman administration exerted enormous diplomatic pressure on Chiang Kai-shek to make peace with Mao and the Chinese communists. This was consistent with deals made between the Big Three during the war–deals in which Chiang Kai-shek was basically thrown under the bus.

Kurt, can you please start a new thread with this?

Putting aside for a moment the annoyance-factor of resurrecting this thread yet again … creating a new thread would have the added benefit of your post matching the thread topic.

Well at least Hoover didn’t argue that the starvation of millions was not a directed NAZI program of genocide, or that Churchill was complicit in evil doings that required genocide by Germany.

Hes not that stupid. Finally we all know Germany directed the starvation of 10’s of millions as part of her “Hunger Program”.

@KurtGodel7:

• He noted that very shortly after Hitler invaded the Soviet Union, the United States placed an embargo on Japan. Other anti-Japanese measures were also taken. During the summer of 1941, Japan had a moderate prime minister. That prime minister waged his entire political career on his ability to resolve Japan’s diplomatic differences with the United States. He indicated that he was willing to make very considerable concessions to get the embargo lifted–as long as the American president agreed to a meeting. But instead of the agreed-upon meeting, he was given excuses, delays, or in some cases the thought that Japan had to agree to very considerable concessions before a meeting could even take place. (With nothing in return except the hope that maybe the American president would agree to meet.) Due to the failure of this prime minister’s efforts, he was removed from office and replaced with hard line militarists. The militarists also attempted to resolve Japan’s diplomatic differences with the United States, and didn’t make any more progress than the prime minister had made. At that point they decided to attack Pearl Harbor.

  • In April of 1945, Japan’s government had once again become moderate and peace-seeking. Their main precondition for peace was that the emperor be allowed to remain in office, even if only in a ceremonial or religious role. Japan’s peace feelers were ignored, and the United States was unwilling to grant any reassurances about the future role of the emperor. As a result, the war lasted several more months, culminating in incalculable destruction of Japanese cities through the use of conventional and nuclear weapons.

At the time a main goal of communists everywhere was to spread communism all over the world. Hitler wanted a chunk of the world. There was going to be problems.

I apologize in advance for bumping an old thread. I’m new and don’t know just how taboo that is. No disrespect is intended in any of my following statements. Contrary to what many will think, I am not racist. I am not anti-Jewish.

I agree with very many of Kurt’s statements except those regarding the “Holocaust”. I will try to refute a couple of IL’s and, to a lesser degree, Narvik’s statements. If anyone demands it, I will try to find sources for disputed points, but I will rely on memory otherwise. i will also give my interpretation of the topic discussion.

National Socialism- Came to power through democratic election, despite Hitler’s generally unfavorable view of Democracy. Germany happened to use a dictatorship but that isn’t necessary to the ideology. Belief that the Individual should contribute to the country because he wants and because it is beneficial for all. Believed that all races should take pride and retain their unique cultures and traits. Believed people should not mix as their evolutionary differences provide advantages and disadvantages in different climates(example, 97% of United States African-Americans are Vitamin D deficient because their ancestors adapted to extreme sunlight and can no longer absorb as much from the less intense North American sunshine). Hitler loved the German race and wanted to see it thrive and once again be a proud people. It promoted traditional family values. It opposed homosexuality that was so rampant in Berlin. In fact, the heavily Jewish-owned film industry produced some of the first homosexual scenes. Germany was in a massive depression. Under National Socialism, in 12 years, Germany became the NUMBER ONE leader in medicine, technology, and science. Hitler’s innovative policies revived Germany, in spite of the extremely influential international Jews “declaring war” on Germany via boycott(in 1934 i believe), even the New York Times reported this. Interestingly, despite being bombed to oblivion and losing on all fronts, the Germans never even got close to attempting a revolt against the government in power, such was their love and faith in Hitler and National Socialism.

Communism- Came to power by murdering the Tsar of Russia. Backed primarily by international Jewry and many leaders were themselves Jewish(I bring up Jewish info because this is pertinent to Hitler’s distrust of them and eventual internment of them). Atheistic. Believes in an enormously powerful federal government with a dictator. Total control of industry, harvests, etc. Murders own citizens en masse(Stalin’s gulags, Ukrainian genocide, and Mao’s killing of some 84 million of his Chinese). Don’t know much else about it, honestly, which is in large part because I hate stuff I do know about it. Generally, Stalin was hated by his citizens.

Onto IL’s and Kurt’s debate/argument

Poland
Germany was not some rabid dog wanting to gobble up territory. It was re-claiming German territory pre-WWI where in many cases the ethnic Germans were being mistreated(Czechoslovakia) or murdered(Poland). The stripping of German lands to Poland resulted in many Germans being vulnerable to the Polish government’s and citizens mistreatment. Furthermore, Danzig was now cut off from Germany via land. The blockade prevented adequate commute and supply routes via the Baltic. Thousands and thousands were killed before and during the onset of the German invasion. I don’t know how valid this is but I have read that Poland was planning offensives against Germany, having been promised aid from UK. Poland refused to seriously consider Germany’s proposal to allow a land route to Danzig. It also ignored the demands that they stop incurring on ethnic Germans’ lands and subsequently shooting them. Hitler invaded to save those Germans. UK and France then declare war on GE while refusing to do so when Soviet Union invades Poland, which is… odd, to say the least, no?

Bombing
Yes, IL, Germany sent bombers. They did not carpet bomb. They did not fire bomb which resulted in countless number of humans being incinerated while huddled up in Dresden, of which there was no military significance.

As with nearly every war in history, all sides committed atrocities. I contend that Germany committed far fewer than each major Allied power minus probably France.

I’ll pause here and see if anyone is interested in continuing discussion. I wouldnt mind starting a seperate thread although I fear that thread would approach forum rule-breaking. All input is very welcome. Thanks for the read.

Kurt has a new account?

@Colt45:

Contrary to what many will think, I am not racist. I am not anti-Jewish.

Communism- Came to power by murdering the Tsar of Russia. Backed primarily by international Jewry and many leaders were themselves Jewish.

[Starts to raise hand, then slowly lowers it back down]… awww… nevermind… it ain’t worth it.

@Wolfshanze:

@Colt45:

Contrary to what many will think, I am not racist. I am not anti-Jewish.

Communism- Came to power by murdering the Tsar of Russia. Backed primarily by international Jewry and many leaders were themselves Jewish.

[Starts to raise hand, then slowly lowers it back down]… awww… nevermind… it ain’t worth it.

:lol: :lol:

Lolol IL dont tell anyone

Wolf, I’d be happy to discuss that aspect. I will start with a link which delves right into it. http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v14/v14n1p-4_Weber.html

As someone who bears scars from earlier in this thread, trying very hard indeed to change minds via a forum debate - Wolf has it right. Very sensible indeed of you Wolf. I marked your post up in appreciation.

yea, the colt guy seems like a trump voter, in other words not consistent -contradicting thinking.

Contrary to what many will think, I am not racist. I am not anti-Jewish.

Communism- Came to power by murdering the Tsar of Russia. Backed primarily by international Jewry and many leaders were themselves Jewish.

@Imperious:

yea, the colt guy seems like a trump voter, in other words not consistent -contradicting thinking.

Don’t think so, Colts profile says his from North Dakota, a state adjacent to Canada and established by German, Norwegian and Swedish immigrants. I figure Trump get zero votes from up there.

@Colt45:

Communism- Came to power by murdering the Tsar of Russia.
Backed primarily by international Jewry and many leaders were themselves Jewish(I bring up Jewish info because this is pertinent to Hitler’s distrust of them and eventual internment of them).
Atheistic.

This is where I get off your bus. How can a man be both a Jew and an Atheist at the same time ? If commies are atheists that are against religion, why would them label themselves as Jews, Christians or Islamists ? And if #international Jewry# (is this even a word ?) did in fact back Communism, as you claim, then why did Sovjet union not back Israel ? How come it was the Christian President Truman that backed the establishment of Israel in 1948, and not the, according to you, the Jew loving commies ? Just curious

@Narvik:

@Colt45:

Communism- Came to power by murdering the Tsar of Russia.
Backed primarily by international Jewry and many leaders were themselves Jewish(I bring up Jewish info because this is pertinent to Hitler’s distrust of them and eventual internment of them).
Atheistic.

This is where I get off your bus. How can a man be both a Jew and an Atheist at the same time ? If commies are atheists that are against religion, why would them label themselves as Jews, Christians or Islamists ? And if #international Jewry# (is this even a word ?) did in fact back Communism, as you claim, then why did Sovjet union not back Israel ? How come it was the Christian President Truman that backed the establishment of Israel in 1948, and not the, according to you, the Jew loving commies ? Just curious

I am referring to racial Jews(Khazars). Trotsky was one of the racially Jewish leaders. He clearly did not promote the peaceful aspects of the Jewish faith. The Soviet Union did tangibly supply the military entity that seized Arab citrus and olive groves in the northwestern coast of Palestine in 1948.

Truman’s presidential campaign had nearly ran out of funds until Zionists provided two million dollars to continue his campaign. Regarding him being “Christian”, would a Christian support the Palestinian Genocide of 1948 to set up a new “homeland” for the Jews? No, no real Christian would(I am NOT claiming he’s Jewish, only that that act is a gross subversion of God’s laws). But, he had obligations because of the financial support he had received, similar to today’s lobbying in Congress, to support Zionist ambitions. And why would a Jewish state even be necessary after the Germans had been crushed?

It’s not a matter of Commies and capitalists, it’s a good old-fashioned case of money talks. Whether people recognize it or not, the richest men in the world happen to be racial Jews(Rockefeller, Rothschild).
To people claiming I’m racist: All peoples have evil among their ranks whether it be Western Europeans, Africans, Asians, or Jews. I’m not claiming any one of those is inherently evil as THAT is racist and false.

Six corporations own 90% of United States media(Warner, etc.) and plays a massive role in what “history” is. Let’s be respectful and not brand someone racist or having an unsound mind when he/she disagrees with that 90%.

Thank you for being respectful with your question, Narvik

@Narvik:

This is where I get off your bus. How can a man be both a Jew and an Atheist at the same time ? If commies are atheists that are against religion, why would them label themselves as Jews, Christians or Islamists ? And if #international Jewry# (is this even a word ?) did in fact back Communism, as you claim, then why did Sovjet union not back Israel ? How come it was the Christian President Truman that backed the establishment of Israel in 1948, and not the, according to you, the Jew loving commies ? Just curious

If commies are atheists that are against religion, why would them label themselves as Jews, Christians or Islamists ?
And if #international Jewry# (is this even a word ?) did in fact back Communism, as you claim, then why did Sovjet union not back Israel ?

You’ve asked two very good questions. The answer to both can be found by looking at history. Czarist Russia had a long history of Anti-Semitism. That history was so strong that, at least until 1917, the international Jewish community generally favored the Axis. The general feeling, at least among Jews, was that while all major participants in WWI had an unfortunate history of anti-Semitism, czarist Russia’s anti-Semitism was significantly stronger than that of any other major participant.

Any time you’re trying to overthrow a government, it generally makes sense to ally with those the government has alienated. The Bolsheviks understood this. After coming to power, they declared anti-Semitism to be a crime, with the punishment for that crime being execution. The Jewish community saw czarist anti-Semitism as a disease; and many Jews also saw Bolshevism as the cure.

Some Jews recognized that Jewish participation in the Bolshevik revolution and Bolshevik government had served to fuel Russian anti-Semitism. Many Russians blamed the Jews for the communist government’s massive crimes against humanity. There was a feeling among many Jews that if the Bolshevik government was to fall, the replacement government would be at least as anti-Semitic as the czarists had been. A number of Jews felt it was in the Jewish community’s best interests for the Bolshevik government to survive.

It is that feeling which may help explain the (Jewish-owned) New York Times’ decision to lie about the Ukrainian famine. That famine represented the mass murder of 7 million innocent people, including 3 million children. (Seventy year later the New York Times apologized for this coverup.) In choosing to lie about the famine, a deliberate decision was made to shield the Soviet government from the negative diplomatic and international political consequences which would otherwise have arisen. Several years later, the New York Times began a vigorous campaign to get the United States to go to war against Nazi Germany (and perhaps in alliance with the Soviet regime). The thinking was that the Jewish community would benefit from the defeat of an anti-Semitic regime (such as Hitler’s), and the victory of a pro-Semitic regime (such as the Soviet Union).

Stalin, however, had the habit of allying with B against A. Then he’d ally with C to get rid of B. Then he’d eliminate C. He used this strategy to become the uncontested dictator of the Soviet Union. He also applied it to his other dealings, including his dealings with the Jews. His plan was to use the international Jewish community as part of a broader effort to destroy a common enemy (Nazi Germany). Once his Jewish ally had served its intended purpose, it could then be eliminated. Toward the end of his life, he ordered the construction of two large new concentration camps, widely rumored to be used on the Jews. His show trials of Jewish doctors were intended to create the legal fictions necessary for a broader campaign against Soviet Jews generally. The Soviet media began issuing statements such as the following “Unmasking the gang of poisoner-doctors struck a blow against the international Jewish Zionist organization.”

In America, Jews had achieved important positions in the media, finance, academia, and other fields. Due to all this Jewish influence in America, Stalin believed that in a war between America and the Soviet Union, the international Jewish community would favor the United States. Stalin’s political preparations for the war against Nazi Germany consisted of liquidating any Soviet citizen who had right wing political views. His internal political preparations for war against the United States and the West consisted primarily of the planned liquidation of the Soviet Jewish population.

NATO’s non-nuclear forces would have been completely inadequate to prevent the Red Army from sweeping across all of Western Europe. The only real deterrent to Soviet invasion was the American nuclear threat. But as of the early '50s, the United States did not have ICBMs. To drop a nuclear bomb on someone, one had to get a plane directly over the intended target. Stalin believed his (very numerous) MiG force capable of shooting down American bombers before they delivered their nuclear payloads.

However, Stalin died in 1953, without having had the time to either launch WWIII, or to liquidate the Soviet Jewish population. Stalin’s successors tended to embrace a milder and less aggressive version of his anti-Semitism. The United States and Israel were regarded with extreme distrust, and the Soviet Union tended to aid Israel’s enemies.

@Colt45:

Lolol IL dont tell anyone

Wolf, I’d be happy to discuss that aspect. I will start with a link which delves right into it. http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v14/v14n1p-4_Weber.html

Thanks for your collection of very good posts, Colt, and for the above link. I’d like to lay a bit of a foundation before addressing the link itself.

Let’s say you have an ethnic conflict, like the undeclared war between the Jews and the Palestinians. Typically, there will be very little overlap between the claims being made by one side and the claims made by the other side. To believe all the factual assertions made by either participant will almost inevitably lead to favoring that participant over the other. The most important step in choosing a side to favor is to determine which factual assertions to actually believe. Factual assertions made by a third party (such as the Red Cross, or a human rights organization) are probably more reliable than the claims of either participant. (Except in cases where Jews or Palestinians have become influential members of such organizations. To the extent that members of either group have gained influence over those organizations, those organizations could no longer be regarded as neutral.) In a conflict such as this, a number of factual claims will need to be held in abeyance. Until a factual assertion has been either confirmed or denied by a highly credible neutral third party, that assertion should be regarded as something which could easily be true, and just as easily be false.

There are some parallels between the Jewish/Palestinian ethnic conflict, and the Jewish/Russian ethnic conflict. During the latter ethnic conflict, the Russians began in the stronger position. They used that position to do enough anti-Semitic things to create massive resentment and bitterness within the Jewish community. But they did little about the massive expansion of the Russian Jewish population which occurred in the 19th and 20th centuries. The Jews were not expelled from Russia, and were not prevented from reproducing at well above replacement level. Most Russian Jews lived in poverty due to anti-Semitic economic discrimination. But they were also in a position of rapidly growing demographic strength.

The Jews were far from the only ones excluded from the center of Russian society. Czarist Russia had occupied nations such as Poland and Finland. Polish and Finns were not necessarily accorded the same treatment as ethnic Russians.

The phrase “Russian Revolution” is a misnomer, because the vast majority of inner circle Bolsheviks were not ethnic Russians. The phrase “Anti-Russian Revolution” would be far more accurate; to denote the fact that for the most part, that revolution resulted in ethnic Russians losing control over their own country. Those who gained control were typically people who had been excluded from the center of czarist Russia. They then exacted an ugly revenge against the groups they blamed for having excluded them. Stalin, for example, was from Georgia. (Not the American Georgia, but the Georgia south of Russia.)

Any time you have an ethnic conflict, whether it’s Jews against Palestinians, or Jews against czarist Russians, one often finds oneself wondering who started it. Normally the answer to that question depends on who you listen to. If you listen to the standard-issue Jewish account of the Jewish/Palestinian conflict, the Jews have made every reasonable effort to show restraint in the face of intolerable Palestinian provocation. The typical Palestinian description places blame for that conflict on the Jews. Jews describe atrocities committed by Palestinians, while remaining silent about atrocities committed by Jews. Palestinians of course are very vivid in their descriptions of Jewish atrocities committed against them, while remaining silent about their own acts of terror against Jews.

The article to which you linked was written from a pro-czarist/pro-ethnic Russian perspective. Because it was written from that perspective, it places the vast majority of blame for the Jewish/Russian ethnic conflict at the feet of the Jews. Something written from the Jewish perspective, on the other hand, would draw attention to the anti-Semitic measures undertaken by the czars, while downplaying or completely whitewashing the brutal revenge that some Jews exacted during the Soviet era. Because there was even more bitterness and hatred associated with the Jewish/Russian ethnic conflict than with the Jewish/Palestinian ethnic conflict, it’s at least as difficult to be objective about the former as it is the latter. All the more reason, therefore, to go the extra mile in the effort to reach objectivity.

Listening to both sides’ stories is an important part of going that extra mile. Obviously, both sides in any ethnic conflict are typically capable of presenting lies, half truths, distortions, exaggerations, facts taken out of context, and omissions. One typically has to sift large piles of that to find a few precious nuggets of objective truth.

Among the many problems with Kurt and Colt’s perspective is they don’t object to ethno-nationalism.  In fact they celebrate it.  It’s not like Hitler was for national/ethnic/cultural autonomy and leaving everyone be.  Hitler was quite clear that the goal was Aryan domination of the world.  Germans would become managers/owners/conquerors of a world dominion and would be educated to rule.  So while the imagined enemy is an ethnic group that is supposedly conspiring to dominate the world (the Jews), and Nazis wanted to supplant that group with their own group.  Via the process of defining their imaginary enemy, the Nazis also defined the lengths they would go to to supplant that enemy.

This is why communism/socialism, despite it’s severe flaws in terms of historical implementation (and I make no attempt to defend Lenin/Trotsky.  I categorically condemn them and argue they shouldn’t even be called socialists on account of their rejection of democratic accountability) remains way more sympathetic (from the perspective of justice and liberty) than national socialism.  Among the many reasons for this is that if international socialism had been achieved, then we wouldn’t have to worry about any particular ethnic group (or other type of group) dominating society via their ownership of capital and consequent control of governments.  The ultimate goal of socialism is to abolish such centralization of power so that ordinary people control their own lives (via control/management of the means of production where they work) and are not marionettes for capital owners to play with.  Socialism aims for solutions to the problems of ethno-nationlist domination, imperialism, and ecological degradation while national socialism celebrates ethno-nationalist domination as natural and good.  Maybe this socialist goal is utopian, but not less honorable than national socialism.

Did international capital play a role in infiltrating, shaping, distorting and deforming the Bolshevik Revolution?  Almost certainly.  But they also played a role in shaping the Nazi Revolution and probably every major revolution since (with Revolutionary Catalonia as one of the few honorable exceptions).  Yes the Bolsheviks failed and became tyrants, but if we look at history we see that most revolutions ultimately fail and revert to tyranny.  With the clarity of history, we know that the French Revolution reverting to tyranny is not even remotely sufficient reason to reject the cause of “liberty, equality, and fraternity” for all times just as the present state of American political life is not sufficient reason to reject the principles upon which America was founded.

It is indeed quite silly to suppose that Trotsky and other prominent Bolsheviks were racial supremacists who were participating in some grand plot initiated by rich Jewish capitalists.  But what is not at all silly is the idea that those people who control vast amounts of capital will use any means necessary to maintain and expand that position of power and domination over other people.  And some of these people are indeed motivated by ethno-nationalism and other dishonorable ideologies (while others are motivated purely by greed).  This means war, ecological degradation, and other irrational acts that lead to death, impoverishment, and diminution of the quality of life.

One of the many reasons to reject national socialism is that far from transcending ethno-nationalism, in fact it is just another ethno-nationalist power fantasy.  It presupposes a world where ethnic groups are in a death-struggle with one another (and therefore it is natural and good for these ethnic groups to commit crimes and practice deception in pursuit of their own ends….)  That’s right, according to the national socialist ethic and worldview, their imagined “Jewish” enemy is in fact doing what it ought to.  If we really want to oppose ethno-nationalism as well as the tragedy of billionaires using war for their own ends, then what is necessary is not forming ethno-nationalist enclaves and fighting each other for domination.  What is necessary is taking up cause against the system of global capitalism and imperialism that perpetuates such problems.  And from this perspective, the Bolsheviks (while deserving condemnation) remain more sympathetic than the national socialists.

Its just a soapbox of the same ideas that is brought up in virtually every single thread regardless if said thread has any relevance to these topics. Its been going on for years and is pretty funny actually.

Interesting post Zhukov