Jackboots and Politics

N2272V · 10-25-2005, 12:47 PM

With all the labeling using the term "Jackboot", I thought that Hans Ziegler states it well when he describes Conservatism and the FALSE association of "right wing" and "Nazism."

The definition of conservatism and the language of political identity
Hans Zeiger
January 5, 2003

From time to time, I have heard the question: does political philosophy match the tag often placed upon it by the contemporary lexicon? Are conservatism and liberalism the appropriate words for the beliefs with which they are associated? My answer is yes, with a few exceptions. Yes, I am generally satisfied with the descriptions of political identity commonly applied in America. In other words, I am a conservative consistent with the timeless definition of conservative. My liberal friends are likewise liberal consistent with the timeless definition of liberal.

Allow me to define the two competing political philosophies. Conservatism is the belief that the moral values of an inevitably flawed society should be preserved and individuals should take responsibility for their lives and their government because they are accountable to God. Liberalism is the belief that the moral values of a perfectible society should be changed and the state should take responsibility for its people because it is accountable to the progress of humanity. Again, I believe these descriptions are appropriate for American political philosophy today.

I am a conservative because I believe in God, because I believe that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, and because I believe we must work within the framework of human nature to address realistic issues of order and liberty. Russell Kirk explained conservatism as "a way of looking at the civil social order." For the conservative, he said, politics is the art of the possible, not the art of the ideal. Though issues and circumstances change, conservatism remains a consistent and salient way of looking at the civil social order.

There is nothing truly to be ashamed of in our title, so our objective must not be to find a new one, but to undermine the false connotations of the current one. The current name for our moral beliefs has not changed since Edmund Burke first coordinated the conservative movement of the West. Therefore, let me explain the exception to my identification with the title of conservative. Our hurdle in the title of conservative is not that it is intrinsically misapplied when it is defined as I have defined it. The challenge is that the perception of the masses is tainted by recent political misassociations and misdefinitions orchestrated by the Left. We must seek to reform the culture of false connections that causes many conservatives in our country to label themselves "independents."

What false connections are associated with conservatism? Primarily, the "extreme Right" of Nazis, skinheads, Klansmen, and others are all too often seen as bearing close resemblance to the position of conservatism. But consider Adolph Hitler and the Nazi Party in light of my definitions above. Was Hitler a conservative who believed that the moral framework of society must be preserved and that individuals are accountable to God? Or did he believe that society was perfectible, should be changed, and that the state is accountable to the progress of humanity. The answer is, Nazism was clearly and prolifically a liberal ideology. F.A. Hayek’s Road to Serfdom makes abundantly obvious that Hitler was a socialist and aimed at the overthrow of traditional society. Hitler viewed politics as the limitless art of the ideal.

Carry on.

Assknocker · 10-25-2005, 01:20 PM

Damn, I wish I had nothing better to do than bore the shiit out of Forum members with political garbage.
Get a life loser! Noboby cares about your opinion. YES, we all know you have your head so far up W's rectum that you can taste penis, but we could care less about you and your infatuation with crooked politics.

JustPlaneCrazy · 10-25-2005, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Assknocker

Damn, I wish I had nothing better to do than bore the shiit out of Forum members with political garbage.
Get a life loser! Noboby cares about your opinion.

You must have nothing better to do, you have time to reply to his threads

I'm confused, if you didn't want to read the thread, why did you click on it?

.....you must really care about his opinion otherwise you wouldn't read and reply to his threads

N2272V · 10-25-2005, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Assknocker

Damn, I wish I had nothing better to do than bore the shiit out of Forum members with political garbage.
Get a life loser! Noboby cares about your opinion. YES, we all know you have your head so far up W's rectum that you can taste penis, but we could care less about you and your infatuation with crooked politics.

You cared enough to type this didn't you?

You're either stuck on stupid or just downright retarded. I'm going for the latter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Assknocker

I’m just another Left Wing Looney Tune who's stuck on stupid and thinks that any opinion other than my own should be censored lest I be forced to face the reality that my own distorted views and beliefs are just a lie.

cpal_747 · 10-25-2005, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by N2272V

[color="SeaGreen"][size="3"][font="Tahoma"]The answer is, Nazism was clearly and prolifically a liberal ideology. F.A. Hayek’s Road to Serfdom makes abundantly obvious that Hitler was a socialist and aimed at the overthrow of traditional society. Hitler viewed politics as the limitless art of the ideal.

Carry on.

So when the Nazi's tried to live up to their National Socialist name and introduced a socialist bill to the Reichstag following their own party plans, why did Hitler force them to withdraw the bill. If he was such a socialist he should have welcomed the socialism bill. It was kind of embarassing when the communist party introduced the exact same bill, word for word.

Try quoting someone that has some grasp of Nazi history next time Jackboot. Try your grandfather!

Magnesium Overcast · 10-25-2005, 04:11 PM

Don't worry about'ol Jackboot, he's having a stressful time waiting for the operation to move his penis from his forehead to his groins where it's meant to be. If he is so sensitive about his nazi views why does he keep bragging about his uncle Heinrichs Nzi past and how he has a signed picture of Himmler on his wall and arbeit mach frei carved in stone above his door? Can't be easy being a lone nazi in a world that hates the idea.

Hapag-Lloyd · 10-25-2005, 04:14 PM

The NSDAP (national socialist worker´s party of Germany), which emerged from the Thule society around 1920, was strictly right-wing, from the beginning on. After the failed coup d´ état in 1923, Hitler as leader decided to gain power in an ersatz democratic style. However, by the end-1920s, the party sported a faction emphasizing on the "socialist" element. As Hitler couldn´t eliminate this element (that would have blown his "nice" and "democratic" cover), he tolerated it. Then, during the 1934 "night of the long knives", which used an alleged coup d´état against Hitler by the SA and its leader, Ernst Röhm, to eliminate "dangerous" elements within the NSDAP and guarantee Hitler sole power (the Reichswehr (armed forces) was also worried that the SA could turn into a second military power within, and therefore the generals could lose power), this faction and its leader, Gregor Strasser, was eliminated as well. So much in a nutshell; a google search on the name "Gregor Strasser" will certainly turn up more details.

Jim, I guess I do have a better grasp on German history than you do. So quit posting secondary sources; I prefer primary sources, and will continue to cite them.

N2272V · 10-25-2005, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cpal_747

So when the Nazi's tried to live up to their National Socialist name and introduced a socialist bill to the Reichstag following their own party plans, why did Hitler force them to withdraw the bill. If he was such a socialist he should have welcomed the socialism bill. It was kind of embarassing when the communist party introduced the exact same bill, word for word.

Try quoting someone that has some grasp of Nazi history next time Jackboot. Try your grandfather!

Another of your typical rants and insults without making a point. I'd love to respond but as is typical with your arguments, you make no sense.

As for Hans Zeiger, I am positive he has a much better grasp on history, and reality than you could ever hope to. Now try and form a coherent thought and get back to me.

N2272V · 10-25-2005, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hapag-Lloyd

The NSDAP (national socialist worker´s party of Germany), which emerged from the Thule society around 1920, was strictly right-wing, from the beginning on. After the failed coup d´ état in 1923, Hitler as leader decided to gain power in an ersatz democratic style. However, by the end-1920s, the party sported a faction emphasizing on the "socialist" element. As Hitler couldn´t eliminate this element (that would have blown his "nice" and "democratic" cover), he tolerated it. Then, during the 1934 "night of the long knives", which used an alleged coup d´état against Hitler by the SA and its leader, Ernst Röhm, to eliminate "dangerous" elements within the NSDAP and guarantee Hitler sole power (the Reichswehr (armed forces) was also worried that the SA could turn into a second military power within, and therefore the generals could lose power), this faction and its leader, Gregor Strasser, was eliminated as well. So much in a nutshell; a google search on the name "Gregor Strasser" will certainly turn up more details.

Jim, I guess I do have a better grasp on German history than you do. So quit posting secondary sources; I prefer primary sources, and will continue to cite them.

Like your other brother C-Pal, you failed in comprehending the argument laid out by Hans Zeiger. I suggest you try reading it again without those biased colored glasses on because the point was subtle, but readily understandable to a person of such great intellect as yourself.

Here are the KEY words so you will know what to look for:

"But consider Adolph Hitler and the Nazi Party in light of my definitions above. Was Hitler a conservative who believed that the moral framework of society must be preserved and that individuals are accountable to God? Or did he believe that society was perfectible, should be changed, and that the state is accountable to the progress of humanity. The answer is, Nazism was clearly and prolifically a liberal ideology. F.A. Hayek’s Road to Serfdom makes abundantly obvious that Hitler was a socialist and aimed at the overthrow of traditional society. Hitler viewed politics as the limitless art of the ideal.

Arguing about Nazi history will only divert the debate. You can, however, argue his "definition" of Liberal or Conservative, but to rant about Nazi history is OFF the topic. Try to stay focused and read this with an OPEN mind first.

Hope this helped you. Carry on.

Criton · 10-25-2005, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cpal_747

So when the Nazi's tried to live up to their National Socialist name and introduced a socialist bill to the Reichstag following their own party plans, why did Hitler force them to withdraw the bill. If he was such a socialist he should have welcomed the socialism bill. It was kind of embarassing when the communist party introduced the exact same bill, word for word.

Try quoting someone that has some grasp of Nazi history next time Jackboot. Try your grandfather!

Nice try, Spanky. The similarities between National Socialism and economic Socialism are strong. Both seek to atomize society and subvert individual freedoms and aspirations to larger social/political goals. Both stress collectivism and collective actions to implement their policy prescriptions. Both also implement these goals through the threatened or actual use of force. In both instances, the state or party either has or strives to have monopoly authoritarian control over the use of force.

N2272V · 10-25-2005, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Criton

Nice try, Spanky. The similarities between National Socialism and economic Socialism are strong. Both seek to atomize society and subvert individual freedoms and aspirations to larger social/political goals. Both stress collectivism and collective actions to implement their policy prescriptions. Both also implement these goals through the threatened or actual use of force. In both instances, the state or party either has or strives to have monopoly authoritarian control over the use of force.

I'm impressed with your logic, but give him time Criton. You have to understand that when you look at the world through rose colored glasses, it is not easy to understand the subtleties of intellectual debate and thoughtful logic. I am sure with time he will come around. It could be a LONG one, but it should eventually sink in.

This goes back to that very interesting test TomBlo put on the forum. Most of the Liberals were on the extreme right side of the graph indicating these very tendencies. I tried to find it again, but I think it may be deleted. It was very telling.

Hapag-Lloyd · 10-25-2005, 04:41 PM

Jim, I haven´t even read it. Before I do, I´d like to know who Hans Ziegler is. A scholar´s reputation matters to me; I wouldn´t want to waste my time with some obscure fellow with an agenda. Like the one that wrote a book on Hitler being a homosexual.

Or the one writing that Germans were only waiting to take part in the holocaust (Dr Goldhagen has been proven wrong by Prof. Norman G. Finkelstein and R.B.Birn, who did some more research on the matter). I prefer historians like Raul Hilberg, who know their stuff, and have no agenda.

To enable a google search on the author of your article, I´d ask you the favor of posting his correct name. You have provided two different ways of spelling; Ziegler, and Zeiger.

Apart from that, you of all on DAC should know that the "Führerprinzip" or leader principle which the Nazis introduced into all aspects of society was about command and obey, by introducing a chain of command even into civil life, where a lower rank was to report to the next higher, who in turn took over responsibility for his subordinates´actions. Liberal thinking is not about command and order, but rather about equality. So, it seems to me that Mr. Zieg(l)er has it wrong right from the start.

The only social element Hitler introduced was the "Volksgemeinschaft" or "people´s community", which was supposed to eliminate the old élites. However, through the Führerprinzip, he introduced new ones. Plus the reasons for taking power from the old élites was their involvement in what he saw as "Reaktion", or "headed-back" politics. Albeit most Germans were fed a soup dish once a month (at the same day), the Nazi leaders did not take place in these rituals; the "Volksgemeinschaft" was solely a propaganda plot.

Hapag-Lloyd · 10-25-2005, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Criton

Nice try, Spanky. The similarities between National Socialism and economic Socialism are strong. Both seek to atomize society and subvert individual freedoms and aspirations to larger social/political goals. Both stress collectivism and collective actions to implement their policy prescriptions. Both also implement these goals through the threatened or actual use of force. In both instances, the state or party either has or strives to have monopoly authoritarian control over the use of force.

What you say is true, however, neither national nor economic nor any kind of socialism are liberal. All socialists, no matter what designation they carried, have so far enacted opression of all ideas adverse to their own ideology. This, however, is not "liberal", not in the sense of the word (derived from "liber" = "free") nor in the sense of the idea behind it.

Criton · 10-25-2005, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hapag-Lloyd

What you say is true, however, neither national nor economic nor any kind of socialism are liberal. All socialists, no matter what designation they carried, have so far enacted opression of all ideas adverse to their own ideology. This, however, is not "liberal", not in the sense of the word (derived from "liber" = "free") nor in the sense of the idea behind it.

Yes, you are right. Unfortunately, in the last 50 years, the meaning of the term "liberal" has changed dramatically. Classical liberalism and modern liberalism are about as far removed from each other as they can be. Unfortunately, modern socialists have appropriated the term "liberal," leading to this confusion. This is why in the U.S., ideas such as mandatory race-based quotas, total bans of even private voluntary personal prayer in public schools, mandatory income redistribution, lack of parental notification and consent in matters related to birth control and abortion for minors, the maintenance of goverment monopolies in primary and secondary education, and the vilification of any institution (especially businesses and corporations) that challenges Socialists' attempts to gain hegemony, absolute total gun control- are all associated with modern Liberals. What all of these policies have in common is that they all seek to atomize society, and increase personal dependence on the state.

cpal_747 · 10-25-2005, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Criton

Nice try, Spanky. The similarities between National Socialism and economic Socialism are strong. Both seek to atomize society and subvert individual freedoms and aspirations to larger social/political goals. Both stress collectivism and collective actions to implement their policy prescriptions. Both also implement these goals through the threatened or actual use of force. In both instances, the state or party either has or strives to have monopoly authoritarian control over the use of force.

So explain to me oh wise Sage why Hitler in 1928 is quoted as saying:

Since the NSDAP is fundamentally based on the principle of private property, it is obvious that the expression "confiscation without compensation" refers merely to the creation of possible legal means of confiscating when necessary, land illegally acquired, or not administered in accordance with the national welfare. It is therefore directed in the first instance against the Jewish companies which speculate in land.

N2272V · 10-25-2005, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hapag-Lloyd

Jim, I haven´t even read it. Before I do, I´d like to know who Hans Ziegler is. A scholar´s reputation matters to me; I wouldn´t want to waste my time with some obscure fellow with an agenda. Like the one that wrote a book on Hitler being a homosexual.

Or the one writing that Germans were only waiting to take part in the holocaust (Dr Goldhagen has been proven wrong by Prof. Norman G. Finkelstein and R.B.Birn, who did some more research on the matter). I prefer historians like Raul Hilberg, who know their stuff, and have no agenda.

To enable a google search on the author of your article, I´d ask you the favor of posting his correct name. You have provided two different ways of spelling; Ziegler, and Zeiger.

Apart from that, you of all on DAC should know that the "Führerprinzip" or leader principle which the Nazis introduced into all aspects of society was about command and obey, by introducing a chain of command even into civil life, where a lower rank was to report to the next higher, who in turn took over responsibility for his subordinates´actions. Liberal thinking is not about command and order, but rather about equality. So, it seems to me that Mr. Zieg(l)er has it wrong right from the start.

The only social element Hitler introduced was the "Volksgemeinschaft" or "people´s community", which was supposed to eliminate the old élites. However, through the Führerprinzip, he introduced new ones. Plus the reasons for taking power from the old élites was their involvement in what he saw as "Reaktion", or "headed-back" politics. Albeit most Germans were fed a soup dish once a month (at the same day), the Nazi leaders did not take place in these rituals; the "Volksgemeinschaft" was solely a propaganda plot.

Here is the link: http://www.americandaily.com/article/2620

The name is correct as spelled at the top of this posting and you can do a search on the background of this person as well.

Criton · 10-25-2005, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cpal_747

So explain to me oh wise Sage why Hitler in 1928 is quoted as saying:

Since the NSDAP is fundamentally based on the principle of private property, it is obvious that the expression "confiscation without compensation" refers merely to the creation of possible legal means of confiscating when necessary, land illegally acquired, or not administered in accordance with the national welfare. It is therefore directed in the first instance against the Jewish companies which speculate in land.

Did you bother reading what you just posted? Especially the parts AFTER what you highlighted?

Hapag-Lloyd · 10-25-2005, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Criton

Yes, you are right. Unfortunately, in the last 50 years, the meaning of the term "liberal" has changed dramatically. Classical liberalism and modern liberalism are about as far removed from each other as they can be. Unfortunately, modern socialists have appropriated the term "liberal," leading to this confusion. This is why in the U.S., ideas such as mandatory race-based quotas, total bans of even private voluntary personal prayer in public schools, mandatory income redistribution, lack of parental notification and consent in matters related to birth control and abortion for minors, the maintenance of goverment monopolies in primary and secondary education, and the vilification of any institution (especially businesses and corporations) that challenges Socialists' attempts to gain hegemony, absolute total gun control- are all associated with modern Liberals. What all of these policies have in common is that they all seek to atomize society, and increase personal dependence on the state.

As for me, I view liberalism as liberté, égalité, fraternité. THAT is MY definition of liberalism.

Here in Germany, the terminus technicus "liberal" is a trademark of the F.D.P., which is in no way left wing; they tend to make coalitions with the center-right CDU.

As for the USA, some of wthe ideas you post correspond with my idea of "liberal", whereas others do not. However, I think you get the idea that my own definition of liberalism does not necessarily correspond with US mainstream

Takeo von Tucher · 10-25-2005, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by N2272V

[color="SeaGreen"][size="3"][font="Tahoma"][b]...bla bla bla... But consider Adolph Hitler and the Nazi Party in light of my definitions above...Carry on.

... and who is that guy again??? Adolph??? Had Adolf Hitler a brother named Adolph??? Or is Adolph maybe the brother of... of... OH NO!!!... JIM McDonalds himself???

Takeo von Tucher · 10-25-2005, 06:43 PM

Try this:

Sebastian Haffner: Anschauungen über Hitler

title in english:

Sebastian Haffner: Defying Hitler

cpal_747 · 10-25-2005, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Criton

Did you bother reading what you just posted? Especially the parts AFTER what you highlighted?

Hitler made that statement after misunderstandings of what his party stood for. Certain people were actually trying to implement the socialist part of National Socialists, and Hitler had to put a stop to that. So if you think that it was Socialist just because they stole from and persecuted the Jews, then more power to you. The average German (ie Jimbo's grandpappy) never had to give up anything to support the state, in fact he got a job from the Nazi's.

Takeo von Tucher · 10-25-2005, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by N2272V

[color="SeaGreen"][size="3"][font="Tahoma"]... The answer is, Nazism was clearly and prolifically a liberal ideology. F.A. Hayek’s Road to Serfdom makes abundantly obvious that Hitler was a socialist and aimed at the overthrow of traditional society. Hitler viewed politics as the limitless art of the ideal.

Carry on.

.. Now THAT is soo true!!! What nobody knows is, that the NAZIs were smoking phot and having a great time all the time... Rosa Luxenburg, an early NAZI, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels - the true founders of the NAZI partie!!!
In the end the NAZI were Hippies!!! Flowerpower!!! Clearly influenced by NAZIs. Woodstock - A NAZI Festival!!! Country Joe!!! American NAZI number One!!! Now whe know why Jimmi Hendrix distorted Stars and Stripes - its because he was a NAZI!!! I'm getting the picture right know... hmmm... I bet the Dalai Lama is a NAZI too???

10-25-2005, 12:47 PM	#1
N2272V Insane Collector Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Ventura Age: 54 Posts: 2,110	Jackboots and Politics With all the labeling using the term "Jackboot", I thought that Hans Ziegler states it well when he describes Conservatism and the FALSE association of "right wing" and "Nazism." The definition of conservatism and the language of political identity Hans Zeiger January 5, 2003 From time to time, I have heard the question: does political philosophy match the tag often placed upon it by the contemporary lexicon? Are conservatism and liberalism the appropriate words for the beliefs with which they are associated? My answer is yes, with a few exceptions. Yes, I am generally satisfied with the descriptions of political identity commonly applied in America. In other words, I am a conservative consistent with the timeless definition of conservative. My liberal friends are likewise liberal consistent with the timeless definition of liberal. Allow me to define the two competing political philosophies. Conservatism is the belief that the moral values of an inevitably flawed society should be preserved and individuals should take responsibility for their lives and their government because they are accountable to God. Liberalism is the belief that the moral values of a perfectible society should be changed and the state should take responsibility for its people because it is accountable to the progress of humanity. Again, I believe these descriptions are appropriate for American political philosophy today. I am a conservative because I believe in God, because I believe that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, and because I believe we must work within the framework of human nature to address realistic issues of order and liberty. Russell Kirk explained conservatism as "a way of looking at the civil social order." For the conservative, he said, politics is the art of the possible, not the art of the ideal. Though issues and circumstances change, conservatism remains a consistent and salient way of looking at the civil social order. There is nothing truly to be ashamed of in our title, so our objective must not be to find a new one, but to undermine the false connotations of the current one. The current name for our moral beliefs has not changed since Edmund Burke first coordinated the conservative movement of the West. Therefore, let me explain the exception to my identification with the title of conservative. Our hurdle in the title of conservative is not that it is intrinsically misapplied when it is defined as I have defined it. The challenge is that the perception of the masses is tainted by recent political misassociations and misdefinitions orchestrated by the Left. We must seek to reform the culture of false connections that causes many conservatives in our country to label themselves "independents." What false connections are associated with conservatism? Primarily, the "extreme Right" of Nazis, skinheads, Klansmen, and others are all too often seen as bearing close resemblance to the position of conservatism. But consider Adolph Hitler and the Nazi Party in light of my definitions above. Was Hitler a conservative who believed that the moral framework of society must be preserved and that individuals are accountable to God? Or did he believe that society was perfectible, should be changed, and that the state is accountable to the progress of humanity. The answer is, Nazism was clearly and prolifically a liberal ideology. F.A. Hayek’s Road to Serfdom makes abundantly obvious that Hitler was a socialist and aimed at the overthrow of traditional society. Hitler viewed politics as the limitless art of the ideal. Carry on.

10-25-2005, 01:20 PM	#2
Assknocker Coach Seat Pilot Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Dallas LOVE Age: 31 Posts: 121	Damn, I wish I had nothing better to do than bore the shiit out of Forum members with political garbage. Get a life loser! Noboby cares about your opinion. YES, we all know you have your head so far up W's rectum that you can taste penis, but we could care less about you and your infatuation with crooked politics. __________________ Wright is WRONG! SET LOVE FREE

10-25-2005, 04:11 PM	#6
Magnesium Overcast Collector Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: St. George, Utah Age: 24 Posts: 102	Don't worry about'ol Jackboot, he's having a stressful time waiting for the operation to move his penis from his forehead to his groins where it's meant to be. If he is so sensitive about his nazi views why does he keep bragging about his uncle Heinrichs Nzi past and how he has a signed picture of Himmler on his wall and arbeit mach frei carved in stone above his door? Can't be easy being a lone nazi in a world that hates the idea. __________________ The only Bullsh#t Detector on DAC; here to expose hippocracy & lies, and defend against it! Right now there's a lot of it coming from Federal Way, China, and Guelph, Ontario!

10-25-2005, 04:14 PM	#7
Hapag-Lloyd Insane Collector Join Date: Feb 2004 Age: 40 Posts: 2,395	The NSDAP (national socialist worker´s party of Germany), which emerged from the Thule society around 1920, was strictly right-wing, from the beginning on. After the failed coup d´ état in 1923, Hitler as leader decided to gain power in an ersatz democratic style. However, by the end-1920s, the party sported a faction emphasizing on the "socialist" element. As Hitler couldn´t eliminate this element (that would have blown his "nice" and "democratic" cover), he tolerated it. Then, during the 1934 "night of the long knives", which used an alleged coup d´état against Hitler by the SA and its leader, Ernst Röhm, to eliminate "dangerous" elements within the NSDAP and guarantee Hitler sole power (the Reichswehr (armed forces) was also worried that the SA could turn into a second military power within, and therefore the generals could lose power), this faction and its leader, Gregor Strasser, was eliminated as well. So much in a nutshell; a google search on the name "Gregor Strasser" will certainly turn up more details. Jim, I guess I do have a better grasp on German history than you do. So quit posting secondary sources; I prefer primary sources, and will continue to cite them. __________________ THIS SPACE 4 RENT!!! Last edited by Hapag-Lloyd; 10-25-2005 at 04:16 PM.

10-25-2005, 04:41 PM	#12
Hapag-Lloyd Insane Collector Join Date: Feb 2004 Age: 40 Posts: 2,395	Jim, I haven´t even read it. Before I do, I´d like to know who Hans Ziegler is. A scholar´s reputation matters to me; I wouldn´t want to waste my time with some obscure fellow with an agenda. Like the one that wrote a book on Hitler being a homosexual. Or the one writing that Germans were only waiting to take part in the holocaust (Dr Goldhagen has been proven wrong by Prof. Norman G. Finkelstein and R.B.Birn, who did some more research on the matter). I prefer historians like Raul Hilberg, who know their stuff, and have no agenda. To enable a google search on the author of your article, I´d ask you the favor of posting his correct name. You have provided two different ways of spelling; Ziegler, and Zeiger. Apart from that, you of all on DAC should know that the "Führerprinzip" or leader principle which the Nazis introduced into all aspects of society was about command and obey, by introducing a chain of command even into civil life, where a lower rank was to report to the next higher, who in turn took over responsibility for his subordinates´actions. Liberal thinking is not about command and order, but rather about equality. So, it seems to me that Mr. Zieg(l)er has it wrong right from the start. The only social element Hitler introduced was the "Volksgemeinschaft" or "people´s community", which was supposed to eliminate the old élites. However, through the Führerprinzip, he introduced new ones. Plus the reasons for taking power from the old élites was their involvement in what he saw as "Reaktion", or "headed-back" politics. Albeit most Germans were fed a soup dish once a month (at the same day), the Nazi leaders did not take place in these rituals; the "Volksgemeinschaft" was solely a propaganda plot. __________________ THIS SPACE 4 RENT!!!

10-25-2005, 06:43 PM	#20
Takeo von Tucher Senior Collector Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 419	Try this: Sebastian Haffner: Anschauungen über Hitler title in english: Sebastian Haffner: Defying Hitler