3 ms·

I find it curious that you got downvoted. I'm European as well and I have had the same question for a while. We have far-right, nationalist parties and even mor

by kmm 7y ago

I find it curious that you got downvoted. I'm European as well and I have had the same question for a while. We have far-right, nationalist parties and even more extreme fringe groups, but no threat of secret Nazis. Maybe it's because we had to deal with the consequences of the actual Nazis and they're not just comic book villains to us. Or because it's the last big war America fought in with a clear bad guy, whereas more recent events are harder to defend.

tootahe45 7y ago
Nobody wants to have that conversation because when you break down Nazi ideology a lot of it starts to point left.
- Jotra7 7y ago
  No one wants to have the conversation when disengenous people like you make absurd arguments like this one.
- cyberpunk 7y ago
  Serious question: can you give an actual example of this because I can't think of a single one. A lot of commentators without thinking seem to call the nazi's a 'left' party -- I assume because of the word socialist in the party name -- there are many books on the history of the nazi party, and reading any of them should be enough to clear anyone of this misapprehension.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - tropo 7y ago
    It's not just about the word "socialist" in the party name. Policy actually fits, on that and more. They were into government intervention and social spending. They had gun control. (a prerequisite for hauling off the Jews) They shipped an ethnicity off to prison camps, just as FDR did. FDR is on the left, is he not? They had the Sturmabteilung to break up opponent's political meetings, rather like the violent protesters that were sent to attack Trump supporters at campaign events. So it seems you may need to clear up a misapprehension. I suspect the mistake arises from the desire to maximize political distance from the Nazi party for yourself, while minimizing that distance for your opponents. You might also wrongly associate nationalism with racism. They are not the same. Both can be found on both sides of the political divide. It is fair to say that the Nazi party was to the right of communism, the popular alternative at the time, but of course everything is to the right of communism.
    - orf 7y ago
      Oh boy. Not the old "aaachtchuly the left are the real nazis!" trope again? How long until you start misinterpreting the cause of the civil war? Hitler was incredibly anti-liberal, authoritarian, pro-business and pro-military and drew most of his initial support from the middle classes and farmers. The socialist name was an attempt to draw lower class workers to the party who typically voted for the actual communist party. Violent protesters exist on both sides, sure. However only one side agitates its members into such a fury that they mow down counter-protesters with cars. The parallels to Sturmabteilung are absolutely ridiculous. Also, gun control did not aide in "hauling off the jews"[1] 1. https://www.politifact.com/facebook-fact-checks/statements/2019/apr/08/viral-image/no-gun-control-regulation-nazi-germany-did-not-hel/ https://www.politifact.com/facebook-fact-checks/statements/2...
      - tropo 7y ago
        Your link does not show what it claims to show. It merely dismisses the issue, hand-waving away the gun issue due to an imbalance of military capability. If life worked that way: The USA would have failed at the revolution. Vietnam would have been a trivial war for the USA. Afghanistan would have been a trivial war for the USSR. None of the attributes you list for Hitler place him definitely on the right. We can find most of them in FDR, Lenin, Hillary Clinton, and Stalin. (mainly "pro-business" being disputable) Placing that car driver politically with the right is quite a stretch. Remember, the right rejects his values, not even counting the violence. So this idea that he is "right" due to those values, and also that the right is bad via association with people like him, is circular reasoning. One of your arguments works much better the other way: Only one side agitates its members into such a fury that they shoot members of congress at a baseball practice. Only one side agitates its members into such a fury that they try to kill peaceful protesters with bike locks.
    - cyberpunk 7y ago
      > They were into government intervention and social spending. How else could they recover from the punishment of Treaty of Versailles? The economic recovery of Germany before the start of WW2 is pretty interesting and a surprising success story even knowing what we now do of those involved. The Nazi's were famously and fanatically anti-bolshevik. > They had gun control. (a prerequisite for hauling off the Jews) I have no real opinion on this besides "gun control" being an American issue which seems to be used to split left/right there. Our left and right parties both support gun control here, as does most of the rest of the world. > They shipped an ethnicity off to prison camps, just as FDR did. FDR is on the left, is he not? "Shipped an ethnicity off to prison camps" doesn't really do the events of the Holocaust justice. By FDR I assume you mean the American president? What does he have to do with the Nazi party? Your argument for the nazi party having "leftist" policies is that some later US president who did the 'same thing' (he ordered the deaths of all these people did he?) was a member of a left party? That's pretty weak sauce my friend. As a German, I have no desire to minimize or indeed maximize the 'distance 'to Nazi ideology for anyone, I'm not attacking you here -- I just don't understand how you can hold such views. You've cherry picked some here which you think are enough to be able to present the nazis as a left party while ignoring the historical actions of this group (which are far-right in the extreme). It's quite ironic that on an article about bios-confirming echo chambers you seem to be hook-line+sinker in the same hole. Please think carefully before throwing Nazi around or trying to align them with one side of the political debate wherever you are or the other -- the nazis were among the worst we have come up with so far in our history, and no one is aligned with them. While I think you're wrong to call them leftist; in the end it doesn't matter. We object to nazis because they are evil, not because of their supposed political leanings -- using them as ammunition in a discussion only ends it and offends people.
- dang 7y ago
  Please don't take HN threads on generic ideological tangents. They never go anywhere interesting. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

by kmm 7y ago

tootahe45 7y ago

Nobody wants to have that conversation because when you break down Nazi ideology a lot of it starts to point left.

Jotra7 7y ago
No one wants to have the conversation when disengenous people like you make absurd arguments like this one.
cyberpunk 7y ago
Serious question: can you give an actual example of this because I can't think of a single one. A lot of commentators without thinking seem to call the nazi's a 'left' party -- I assume because of the word socialist in the party name -- there are many books on the history of the nazi party, and reading any of them should be enough to clear anyone of this misapprehension.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- tropo 7y ago
  It's not just about the word "socialist" in the party name. Policy actually fits, on that and more. They were into government intervention and social spending. They had gun control. (a prerequisite for hauling off the Jews) They shipped an ethnicity off to prison camps, just as FDR did. FDR is on the left, is he not? They had the Sturmabteilung to break up opponent's political meetings, rather like the violent protesters that were sent to attack Trump supporters at campaign events. So it seems you may need to clear up a misapprehension. I suspect the mistake arises from the desire to maximize political distance from the Nazi party for yourself, while minimizing that distance for your opponents. You might also wrongly associate nationalism with racism. They are not the same. Both can be found on both sides of the political divide. It is fair to say that the Nazi party was to the right of communism, the popular alternative at the time, but of course everything is to the right of communism.
  - orf 7y ago
    Oh boy. Not the old "aaachtchuly the left are the real nazis!" trope again? How long until you start misinterpreting the cause of the civil war? Hitler was incredibly anti-liberal, authoritarian, pro-business and pro-military and drew most of his initial support from the middle classes and farmers. The socialist name was an attempt to draw lower class workers to the party who typically voted for the actual communist party. Violent protesters exist on both sides, sure. However only one side agitates its members into such a fury that they mow down counter-protesters with cars. The parallels to Sturmabteilung are absolutely ridiculous. Also, gun control did not aide in "hauling off the jews"[1] 1. https://www.politifact.com/facebook-fact-checks/statements/2019/apr/08/viral-image/no-gun-control-regulation-nazi-germany-did-not-hel/ https://www.politifact.com/facebook-fact-checks/statements/2...
    - tropo 7y ago
      Your link does not show what it claims to show. It merely dismisses the issue, hand-waving away the gun issue due to an imbalance of military capability. If life worked that way: The USA would have failed at the revolution. Vietnam would have been a trivial war for the USA. Afghanistan would have been a trivial war for the USSR. None of the attributes you list for Hitler place him definitely on the right. We can find most of them in FDR, Lenin, Hillary Clinton, and Stalin. (mainly "pro-business" being disputable) Placing that car driver politically with the right is quite a stretch. Remember, the right rejects his values, not even counting the violence. So this idea that he is "right" due to those values, and also that the right is bad via association with people like him, is circular reasoning. One of your arguments works much better the other way: Only one side agitates its members into such a fury that they shoot members of congress at a baseball practice. Only one side agitates its members into such a fury that they try to kill peaceful protesters with bike locks.
  - cyberpunk 7y ago
    > They were into government intervention and social spending. How else could they recover from the punishment of Treaty of Versailles? The economic recovery of Germany before the start of WW2 is pretty interesting and a surprising success story even knowing what we now do of those involved. The Nazi's were famously and fanatically anti-bolshevik. > They had gun control. (a prerequisite for hauling off the Jews) I have no real opinion on this besides "gun control" being an American issue which seems to be used to split left/right there. Our left and right parties both support gun control here, as does most of the rest of the world. > They shipped an ethnicity off to prison camps, just as FDR did. FDR is on the left, is he not? "Shipped an ethnicity off to prison camps" doesn't really do the events of the Holocaust justice. By FDR I assume you mean the American president? What does he have to do with the Nazi party? Your argument for the nazi party having "leftist" policies is that some later US president who did the 'same thing' (he ordered the deaths of all these people did he?) was a member of a left party? That's pretty weak sauce my friend. As a German, I have no desire to minimize or indeed maximize the 'distance 'to Nazi ideology for anyone, I'm not attacking you here -- I just don't understand how you can hold such views. You've cherry picked some here which you think are enough to be able to present the nazis as a left party while ignoring the historical actions of this group (which are far-right in the extreme). It's quite ironic that on an article about bios-confirming echo chambers you seem to be hook-line+sinker in the same hole. Please think carefully before throwing Nazi around or trying to align them with one side of the political debate wherever you are or the other -- the nazis were among the worst we have come up with so far in our history, and no one is aligned with them. While I think you're wrong to call them leftist; in the end it doesn't matter. We object to nazis because they are evil, not because of their supposed political leanings -- using them as ammunition in a discussion only ends it and offends people.
dang 7y ago
Please don't take HN threads on generic ideological tangents. They never go anywhere interesting. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html