Bernie: Pope Francis Is a Socialist

[abucs]

Joseph Goebbels was Hitlers spokesman and main propagandist.

When Hitler went to war with England Goebbels criticised England (in German in a Nazi publication) for being a capitalist country which favoured the rich over the poor. When the Germans went to war against Russia he critcised Russia (in his personal diary) for not being the real socialism and for them favouring the comeback of capitalists and priests. It is clear that the Nazis saw themselves as true revolutionary socialists and Goebbels rallied the Nazis and SS troops around this self belief.

quote from Goebells…

England is a capitalist democracy. Germany is a socialist people’s state. And it is not the case that we think England is the richest land on earth. There are lords and City men in England who are in fact the richest men on earth. The broad masses, however, see little of this wealth. We see in England an army of millions of impoverished, socially enslaved, and oppressed people. Child labor is still a matter of course there. They have only heard about social welfare programs. Parliament occasionally discusses social legislation. Nowhere else is there such terrible and horrifying inequality as in the English slums. Those with good breeding take no notice of it. Should anyone speak of it in public, the press, which serves plutocratic democracy, quickly brands him the worst kind of rascal. They do not hesitate to make major changes in the Constitution if they are necessary to preserve capitalist democracy.

Capitalist democracy suffers from every possible modern social ailment. The lords and City people can remain the richest people one earth only because they constantly maintain their wealth by exploiting their colonies and preserving unbelievable poverty in their own country.

Germany, on the other hand, has based its domestic policies on new and modern social principles. That is why it is a danger to English plutocracy. It is also why English capitalists want to destroy Hitlerism. They see Hitlerism as all the generous social reforms that have occurred in Germany since 1933. The English plutocrats rightly fear that good things are contagious, that they could endanger English capitalism.

research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/goeb47.htm

Yet when the Hitler socialists attacked Russia, Goebbell’s wrote in his personal diary that the Germans would show the Russians what real Socialism was. There would not be any come back for the capitalists nor priests when the German variant of socialism was established.

blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100260720/whenever-you-mention-fascisms-socialist-roots-left-wingers-become-incandescent-why/

en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Joseph_Goebbels

It is my understanding that we have the view that Hitler was ‘of the right’ today only because the education systems of the West were largely controlled by sympathetic Socialists who wished to see the evil of Hitler so far from their own policies that they portrayed Hitler as WAAAAAAAAAY to to the right. This would encourage compassionate Christians to see the Left as “The good guys”.

National Socialism was bad they told us because Nationalism was bad. The idea that people viewed race, religion, ethnicity or nationalism as a positive force was misrepresented and denigrated. Hence the idea that religion (but really Christianity) should have no special status and countries should open their borders to all etc etc.

But with the passage of time and the horrors and evil of socialist regimes all over the planet, from Moscow to Romania to Mao’s China to Ethiopia to North Korea to Cambodia it is quite clear that the evil of National Socialism was not so much the Nationalism, but the Socialism and all the realities that always goes with it.

 

[Latias]

But with the passage of time and the horrors and evil of socialist regimes all over the planet, from Moscow to Romania to Mao’s China to Ethiopia to North Korea to Cambodia it is quite clear that the evil of National Socialism was not so much the Nationalism, but the Socialism and all the realities that always goes with it.

I guess you are forgetting people such as Videla, Pinochet, Suharto, and Franco.

Chairman Mao did something right, living standards went up after the Communists took over:

So really there’s a bit of a gap in the market when it comes to modern Chinese history. Instead of ‘How Many People Died Because Of Chairman Mao’, let’s ask: ‘How Many People Lived Because Of Chairman Mao’? If it’s reasonable to attribute all unnatural deaths in China since 1949 to this one man, then surely it’s also reasonable to attribute all life beyond the 1949 life expectancy to the same man!

Before the revolution, life expectancy in China was around 35 years. China was ravaged by famine, war, stagnation, feudalism and colonial brutality. By the time Mao died in 1976, life expectancy had almost doubled, to 67 years. Now it’s 76. The pre-revolution literacy rate in China was around 20%. By the time Mao died, it was around 93%. China’s population had remained stagnant between 400 and 500 million for a hundred years or so. By the time Mao died, it had reached 900 million – clearly, something changed for the better; clearly circumstances were generally favourable for human life! Women, ground down by millennia of feudal backwardness, were able to make unprecedented gains towards attaining social equality. A thriving culture of literature, music, theatre and art grew up and suddenly became accessible to the masses of the people – even to the endlessly ground-down Chinese peasantry, who had never had access to such things. Chinese land was irrigated.

invent-the-future.org/2013/12/monster-liberator-legacy-mao-zedong/

A few statistics demonstrate the significance of that period. In 1949, industrial infrastructure was negligible. Electricity availability outside small urban areas was near zero. Literacy rate was below 20 per cent. Immunisation rate was virtually non-existent and average life expectancy 41 years old.

On the eve of Deng’s reforms in 1979, China had built the framework of basic industrial infrastructures, though still very limited. Extensive national and local grids with about 10,000 newly built hydroelectric dams increased electricity coverage to over 60 per cent even in the poorest rural areas. Literacy rate reached an astonishing 66 per cent meaning well over 80 per cent of youth - among the highest among poor developing nations. Hundreds of millions of people were immunised, nearly 100 per cent of children at the age of one, and average life expectancy reached 65. In fact, by 1978, China’s human development index was already closing in on much richer developed nations

scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/1390108/debunking-myths-mao-zedong?page=all

Mao was most certainly repressive, but under China, it has experienced unprecedented material progress.

Most Russians, especially those who lived in the Soviet Union, liked socialism over capitalism.

It is interesting that you are using Nazi propaganda to argue that Nazism was left-wing; propaganda that was likely directed towards the working class, and does not reflect the beliefs of the top Nazis. Please note that this was to criticize Britain, in order so that Nazi Germany could appear to be “progressive” and “righteous” in comparison to Great Britain.

Could to tell me how the Nazis dealt with social democrats and communists.

 

[abucs]

I guess you are forgetting people such as Videla, Pinochet, Suharto, and Franco.

No i wasn’t, unless you believe they are examples of the evils of Socialist regimes.

My point was that given the passage of time and the smogazboard example of evil Socialist regimes, today when we criticise Hitler’s National Socialism we cannot get away with the idea that it must have been the Nationalism that was the evil.

 

[Latias]

No i wasn’t, unless you believe they are examples of the evils of Socialist regimes.

My point was that given the passage of time and the plethora of examples of the evil of Socialist regimes, today when we criticise Hitler’s National Socialism we cannot get away with the idea that it must have been the Nationalism that was the evil.

You are trying to break apart an ideology by saying that it is “nationalist” and “socialist”, treating them as attributes that could be responsible for its heinous policies.

Nationalism is not in itself genocidal, and neither is socialism. Instead, it is certain forms of ultranationalism that are dangerous.

I would also say that many of the deaths and repression ascribed to the Soviet Union is bogus.

 

[ChristianDude]

You said something about making tanks, and the production of tanks imply some battle or war. Any government, not matter how authoritarian or liberal they are, does not make tanks just because they look cool or to defy their citizen’s desire for consumer goods. At minimum, there must be some geopolitical posture to maintain.

Call the Soviet Union authoritarian. It doesn’t bother me. There is no such thing as totalitarianism; it is just a term contrived to conflate the Soviet Union with Nazi Germany. The Soviet Union was authoritarian. Many other regimes that the US supported was similarly “totalitarian” or authoritarian.

To be fair, totalitarianism is actually a real political term. It is a term to describe a more extreme form of authoritarianism; authoritarianism allows for some degree of political pluralism (albeit not that much in comparison to democracy) and such regimes are primarily concerned with maintaining power and/or some kind of status quo or status quo ante. On the other hand, totalitarian regimes seek radical changes and want to fully transform society, so the government stops at nothing or at least not at much. So calling the Soviet Union totalitarian is actually very accurate, and the same could be said about Nazi Germany. That being said, there are nonetheless key differences in their ideological aims, so you do have a point that conflating the two does create (somewhat of) an issue.

 

[abucs]

Chairman Mao did something right, living standards went up after the Communists took over:

Yes, they did in Hitler’s Germany also.

 

[abucs]

Mao was most certainly repressive, but under China, it has experienced unprecedented material progress.

Most Russians, especially those who lived in the Soviet Union, liked socialism over capitalism.

This is a problem with Socialism. It doesn’t work in the long term. As Thatcher said, you end up running out of other people’s money. Russia collapsed financially under Communism. There was no internal revolution in Russia to overthrow it. It collapsed from the inside because it didn’t work. The fools paradise has to, at some point, come up against the reality of people creating enough goods and services. The Left today puts off that engagement with reality by taking other peoples’ money including going into huge debt. Witness the fools paradise of Greece.

I visited China twice last year. They were busy listing companies on the stock exchange and encouraging citizens to invest. I was also going out with a daughter of a Chinese general (as friends). Her Dad was simply given the means of production of cars in a Chinese city. Government corruption is rife in Socialist economies (North Korea etc). The Chinese are privatising industry because they know keeping it in government hands ultimately is a recipe for economic failure.

 

[abucs]

It is interesting that you are using Nazi propaganda to argue that Nazism was left-wing; propaganda that was likely directed towards the working class, and does not reflect the beliefs of the top Nazis. Please note that this was to criticize Britain, in order so that Nazi Germany could appear to be “progressive” and “righteous” in comparison to Great Britain.

Whenever i give this quote, it is so damning that the automatic response is always - oh, it must be propaganda with the Nazis trying to trick people into thinking they were really good guys.

As mentioned in my post, the writing by Goebbels was written in the German language, during war time, in an internal publication for Nazi members. It was the Nazis themselves who were the ones reading this and it was the Nazis themselves who saw themselves as Progressives and Socialist defenders of the poor. Such evil has been conducted in the name of the poor. This was written at the time of Germany going to war with Britain and was a way to rally the faithful Nazi members against the common enemy. That enemy was clearly Democratic capitalism.

Note it wasn’t a publication read by the German people at large, but specifically Nazi members. That is how they saw themselves.

 

[ChristianDude]

I guess you are forgetting people such as Videla, Pinochet, Suharto, and Franco

No i wasn’t, unless you believe they are examples of the evils of Socialist regimes.

 

[Latias]

Yes, they did in Hitler’s Germany also.

You could also say that about many of the New Deal reforms too. The Nazis, like Roosevelt, just implemented Keynesian reforms, which is actually different from having a “socialist” economy. Acknowledging the Nazis success means that, in some ways and in some contexts, Keynesian policies are effective. However, Mao and Stalin industrialized the countries that they presided over from a very low starting point, while Germany and the US were already industrialized.

To be fair, totalitarianism is actually a real political term. It is a term to describe a more extreme form of authoritarianism; authoritarianism allows for some degree of political pluralism (albeit not that much in comparison to democracy) and such regimes are primarily concerned with maintaining power and/or some kind of status quo or status quo ante. On the other hand, totalitarian regimes seek radical changes and want to fully transform society, so the government stops at nothing or at least not at much. So calling the Soviet Union totalitarian is actually very accurate, and the same could be said about Nazi Germany. That being said, there are nonetheless key differences in their ideological aims, so you do have a point that conflating the two does create (somewhat of) an issue.

Whatever, fine. I find it hard to believe Salazar would not be considered a “totalitarian” sine he wanted make Portugal into a clerical, conservative autocracy, while suppressing all forms of dissent and dissemination of liberal and revolutionary political thought. The term would be more credible if it was not primarily used to conflate the Soviet Union with Nazi Germany. I find it pathetic that Salazar would evade such a derogatory label, but someone such as Ulbricht and Honecker would be “totalitarian”.

I believe the Great Purge (more accurate called the Yezhovshchina) reflected the lack of Soviet power or central authority, as the political persecutions were largely the consequence of the NKVD chief Yezhov deceiving Stalin of the nature and threat of counterrevolutionary elements.

 

[abucs]

Could you tell me how the Nazis dealt with social democrats and communists.

I know about how they treated the communists. They initially tried to woo them into their form of National Socialism. The red in Hitler’s Swastika emblem represented the party’s commitment to the socialist ethos.

Like Mussolini’s adaption of Socialism along national lines Hitler had the same idea. The Russians fell out with Mussolini over this adaption and the Russians similarly criticised Hitler for being “Fascist” (after Mussolini’s National Fascisto Party).

The communists in Germany that didn’t accept the Nazi version of the state were persecuted like everyone else who didn’t bow down to their state ideology.

The agreement and pact between Germany and Russia eventually disintegrated and Germany attacked Russia. As the contemporary quote from Goebbel’s in his diary suggests, it was a civil war within Socialism. Civil wars are particularly brutal.

 

[Latias]

Whenever i give this quote, it is so damning that the automatic response is always - oh, it must be propaganda with the Nazis trying to trick people into thinking they were really good guys.

As mentioned in my post, the writing by Goebbels was written in German in an internal publication for Nazi members. It was the Nazis themselves who were the ones reading this and it was the Nazis themselves who saw themselves as Socialist defenders of the poor. Such evil has been conducted in the name of the poor. This was written at the time of Germany going to war with Britain and was a way to rally the faithful Nazi members against the common enemy. That enemy was clearly Democratic capitalism.

Note it wasn’t a publication read by the German people at large, but specifically Nazi members. That is how they saw themselves.

The article was in the collection “German Propaganda Archive”. In the sense of your post, “Nazi” is fairly broad, since it refers to registered members of the dominant political party in Germany. In such a medium, it would still be a conduit to express jingoist propaganda.

You should also remember that in Mein Kampf Hitler did propose an alliance with Great Britain (and he said that he should not compete with them for Naval dominance, something that was later abandoned with the ambitious naval rearmament Plan Z). Some historians also speculate that Hitler did not finish of the British Expeditionary Force due to his sympathies with the British.

“Liberal capitalism” was not itself any enemy by the Nazis, but it was regarded as a decadent form of government in contrast the philosophy of the Führerprinzip.

The British did not embody “liberal capitalism”; in more pragmatic terms, the British feared that the Axis power would threaten their colonial holdings. The prospect of a German victory in Case Blue threaten to cut off the British Empire if Rommel prevailed in North Africa so he could link up the forces in the Caucasus.

This was posted as a response to the Telegraph article in the comment section

What is socialism about, at its core? When you strip away everything but the most basic impulse driving socialist politics, what are you left with? Equality. Socialism is about equality. Everyone knows this, both its supporters and its opponents.

And the reason why the Nazis were in reality anti-socialist - no matter what their Minister of Propaganda Josef Goebbels might have said - is because they were anti-equality. All racist ideologies are by their very nature anti-equality, and the Nazis, with their belief in a “master race”, took the anti-equality position much further than most.

This is another reason why the Nazis have a better claim to the title “right-wing” than classical liberals like yourself. You’re not anti-equality, you’re merely indifferent to equality. You oppose socialist attempts to impose equality, but you don’t want to go in the opposite direction and oppose INequality, either. You simply don’t care either way and wish people would just stop making a fuss about it.

The Nazis, on the other hand, wanted to impose their own particular vision of racial inequality on the world. Hitler was very clear in Mein Kampf that he wanted to “make war against the Marxist principle that all men are equal”. In fact, he advocated the imposition of inequality not merely between races, but between individuals as well. Here is the full quote in question (from Mein Kampf, part II, chapter 4):

“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.”

The question of whether the Nazis really did believe themselves to be “socialists” or whether they just made that claim for propaganda purposes remains open. But what is clear is that even if they did believe themselves to be “socialists”, their definition of “socialism” was in many ways the opposite of what people usually mean by that word.

 

[abucs]

It is clear that the Nazis thought of themseves as Progressive, for equallity and Socialist.

Now you or others might argue that they are not Progressive in your sense of the word today, not for equality in your sense of the word today, and not socialist in your sense of the word today… but all that really means is that you have a different variant of Progressiveness, equality and Socialism.

When you analyse these words they become very fluid and subjective. That is one reason why it is dangerous to build ones morality on these principles.

They are in themselves an attempt to build a morality system without reference to God. In the end i believe they all sway to totalitarianism and despair when the reality does not match the dream. That dream i believe is floored from the start.

I think history has shown that and unfortunately will continue to show that.

Writing the Nazis off falsely as right wing and the Soviets off as totalitarianists, not talking about North Korea and ignoring dozens of places like Cambodia doesn’t hide the fact that these people tried to build a new morality based on the above principles and fell into totalitarianism and despair.

Those principles need to be addressed, not from the propaganda of its adherents but from the objectivity of their critics and from the clear and recorded history of their implementation all around the world.

 

[Latias]

It is clear that the Nazis thought of themseves as Progressive, for equallity and Socialist.

Now you or others might argue that they are not Progressive in your sense of the word today, not for equality in your sense of the word today, and not socialist in your sense of the word today… but all that really means is that you have a different variant of Progressiveness, equality and Socialism.

When you analyse these words they become very fluid and subjective. That is one reason why it is dangerous to build ones morality on these principles.

They are in themselves an attempt to build a morality system without reference to God. In the end i believe they all sway to totalitarianism and despair when the reality does not match the dream. That dream i believe is floored from the start. I think history has and unfortunately will continue to show that. Writing the Nazis off falsely as right wing and the Soviets off as totalitarianists, not talking about North Korea and ignoring dozens of places like Cambodia doesn’t hide the fact that these people tried to build a new morality based on the above principles and fell into totalitarianism and despair.

Those principles need to be addressed, not from the propaganda of its adherents but from the objectivity of their critics and from the history of its implementation.

Videla’s Argentina and Salazar’s Portugal were influenced by traditional Catholicism.

Cardinal Antonio Caggiano and his secretary Bishop Emilio Grasselli worked together in the two decades when Argentina’s defining tragedy was prepared. The cardinal played an important role in those preparations.

Elements of the Catholic church elsewhere had long taken an interest in “counter-terrorism”. In 1958, an advance party of La Cité Catholique arrived in Argentina. This was an offshoot of the French Catholic monarchist movement known as L’Action Française, created by in 1889 by Charles Maurras, the brilliant French philosopher and later apologist for Fascism. La Cité Catholique brought a doctrine of counter-revolutionary warfare and torture, justified as part of Thomist dogmatism.

Jean Ousset, Maurras’s private secretary, established La Cité Catholique in 1946. The idea originated in the French armed forces. In his book Le Marxisme-leninisme, Ousset states that this enemy can only be successfully combated by a “profound faith, an unlimited obedience to the Holy Father, and a thorough knowledge of the Church’s doctrines”.

Charles Lacheroy, a member of La Cité Catholique, was the first person to reflect on the ideological and technical reasons behind the defeat of the French colonial army in Indochina in 1954. Another member, Roger Trinquier, theorised on the use of torture in Modern Warfare, a bible for its followers.

Another of Ousset’s recruits was the chief French expert in psychological warfare – Colonel Jean Gardes. Between them they developed a new concept, that of subversion. This conceived a protean, quintessential enemy who, rather than being defined by his actions, was seen as a force trying to subvert Christian order, natural law, or the Creator’s plan. For this reason, Ousset states that “the revolutionary apparatus is ideological before it is political, and political before it is military”. This explains the wide range of enemies he sought to define.

When the torture that French paratroopers used in Algeria during the bloody war of 1954-62 aroused protests and debate, French military chaplains calmed the officers’ troubled consciences. One of them, Louis Delarue, wrote a text that was distributed to all units:

“If, in the general interest, the law allows a murderer to be killed, why should it be seen as monstrous to submit a delinquent who has been recognised as such and is therefore liable to be put to death, to an interrogation which might be painful, but whose only object is, thanks to the revelations he may make about his accomplices and leaders, to protect the innocent? Exceptional circumstances call for exceptional measures”.

globalresearch.ca/the-truth-behind-pope-francis-breaking-the-silence-the-catholic-church-in-argentina-and-the-dirty-war/5327049

I would choose Honecker and Ho Chi Minh over these people.

 

[abucs]

I am no fan of Salazar but he did come after the fanatically anti-clerical First Republic when Portugal was left economically decimated. He also was no fan of Adolf Hitler.

From Wikipedia :

Both Salazar and the Portuguese public felt they could not trust Hitler. During the Second World War (1939-45), Portugal remained officially neutral. Portugal provided assistance not by declaring war but by helping Spain stay neutral and by assuming a co-belligerent status against Germany by leasing air bases in the Azores to the Allies in 1943. It cut off vital shipments of tungsten to Germany in 1944, after heavy Allied pressure. Lisbon was the base for International Red Cross operations aiding Allied POWs, and a main air transit point between Britain and the U.S.[10]

In practice Salazar collaborated with the British and sold them rubber and tungsten (“wolfram”, used in making stronger steel).[11] He helped Franco avoid German control of Spain. In late 1943 he allowed the Allies to establish air bases in the Azores to fight German U-boats. He sold tungsten to Germany until June 1944, when the threat of a German attack on Portugal was minimal.[12]

In 1942, Australian troops briefly occupied Portuguese Timor, but were soon overwhelmed by invading Japanese. Salazar worked to regain control of East Timor.[13] He admitted several thousand Jewish refugees. Lisbon maintained air connections with Britain and the U.S. Lisbon was a hotbed of spies and served as the base for the International Red Cross in its distribution of relief supplies to POWs.

 

[Latias]

So do you want to call East Germany and North Korea “democracies”? Do you consider them “democracies”?

So if you do not consider those countries “democracies” as they refer to themselves as “democracies”, then why should I consider the Nazis “socialist” just because Goebbels said so.

If you want to call someone a “left-wing fascist”, Timothy Synder deserves that epithet because he considers himself “liberal” but supports far-right Ukrainian nationalism. He seems to be the person that vindicates Jonah Goldberg.

 

[abucs]

It is a well known joke that a good indication that a regime is a communist dictatorship when they use the term ‘Democratic’ in their countries name.

3 mins mark - youtube.com/watch?v=jllMX_bQx7U

The Nationalist Socialist Workers Party was not socialist ONLY because they said they were. The USSR was not socialist JUST because they said so. They were socialist for the same reason Mussolini’s National Fascisto Party was socialist -

“All within the state, nothing against the state, nothing outside the state” Benito Mussolini.

 

[Latias]

It is a well known joke that a good indication that a regime is socialist and totalitarian is that they use the term ‘Democratic’ in their countries name.

The Nationalist Socialist Workers Party was not ONLY socialist because they said they were.

So you dismiss it as a joke. Why do you take Goebbels word over those socialists who say their countries are “democratic”. All you have are words from Goebbels and Hitler.

Here is something that Hitler said in Mein Kampf:

Yes, how often did they not turn up in huge numbers, those supporters of the Red Flag, all previously instructed to smash up everything once and for all and put an end to these meetings. More often than not everything hung on a mere thread, and only the chairman’s ruthless determination and the rough handling by our ushers baffled our adversaries’ intentions. And indeed they had every reason for being irritated.

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.**

 

[abucs]

Latias you are trying to equate two things which are not equal. This is one of the curses of equality which retards thought. I have already explained the context of Goebbels.

The writing was for the Nazi Party members at the critical point of time when Germany went to war with Britain.

It cannot be read in any other way than German Nazi Party members seeing themselves as Socialist Progressives. They saw themselves as being against the exploitation of the poor.

These are Nazi Party members being reassured when Britain entered the war.

The writing contrasted social programs in England to Germany. It criticised the exploitation of the poor and contrasted it to the socialist workers nation of Germany.

It is not simply Goebells speaking in isolation and somehow losing it or trying to con people. The Nazis contrasted themselves to the British. The British were Democratic Capitalists. The Germans were Progressive Socialists.

Look at the policies of the Nazis. They spoke about equality between the German poor and rich. They instigated widespread social reforms. They attacked the Church mercilessly. They put the state above all other institutions and looked to abolish everything not under state control or coercion of the state. They looked to make people dependent on the state.

Socialism.

 

[Latias]

The writing contrasted social programs in England to Germany. It criticised the exploitation of the poor and contrasted it to the socialist workers nation of Germany.

Look at the policies of the Nazis. They spoke about equality between the German poor and rich. They instigated widespread social reforms. They attacked the Church mercilessly. They put the state above all other institutions and looked to abolish everything not under state control or coercion of the state. They looked to make people dependent on the state.

Socialism.

That is all propaganda. It is the most simplest explanation that Goebbels wrote that to condition the Germans mentally for war against Great Britain. Nazi Germany was at war with Britain, so one would criticize them with whatever they could. If it means appropriating some economic left-wing rhetoric, so be it.

Have you actually listened or heard to some of *Mein Kampf *? I listened to chapters 1-6 on YouTube (since I didn’t think it was worth my time reading), and even though I did not take any personal notes (except on the chapter on propaganda), it is obvious that he had extreme antipathy for leftist causes. Perhaps you are under the influence of a propaganda campaign conducted under the principles of Hitler: just repeat a lie long enough so that it would become true, such as the notion that Nazi Germany was “left-wing”.

So have you actually read Mein Kampf? I doubt you have, and you are primarily relying on quote mining. Hitler spoke fondly of Great Britain in Mein Kampf.

Look at the policies of the Nazis. They spoke about equality between the German poor and rich. They instigated widespread social reforms. They attacked the Church mercilessly. They put the state above all other institutions and looked to abolish everything not under state control or coercion of the state. They looked to make people dependent on the state.

So they weren’t libertarians? That is you could reasonably conclusion from the material you cited. I would find it hard to construe the Nuremberg Laws as “left-wing”.