It is time to kill a whacko piece of historical revisionism.
Naming names is important here because in the recent past, more than one person here has implied that Hitler's National Socialism was a left wing (liberal) idea.

And that's just nonsense.

Taking on all comers, if you think Hitler and the Nazis were leftists, prepare to be embarrassed as your theory gets dissected and exposed as sham.

Go for it.
https://nationalvanguard.org/2016/10/national-socialism-a-left-wing-movement/
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/28...ocialism/page/1
https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/myth-busted-actually-yes-hitler-was-a-socialist-liberal/
https://mises.org/library/national-socialism
The last article was written by Ludwig von Mises who lived in in Austria before WWII.

Ummm, hello...that IS fascism. The Mises article plays fast and loose with terminology. Under Communism, the state OWNS (not controls - OWNS) production. If you produce hammers, you are an employee of the state, the hammers you make are government property. The store people buy those hammers AT is government owned and operated.

Pretending to ignore definitions by altering the meaning of words and saying "The German and Russian systems of socialism have in common the fact that the government has full control of the means of production" is windyfoggery.

The German government did not OWN IG Farben, AEG, AEC, Siemens, Bayer or Oskar Shindler's company. Shindler owned his company, Shindler took home the money he made, Shindler did not work as a government employee. He CONTRACTED WITH the government.

Words have actual meanings and Ludwig von Mises is not entitled to create his own lexicon.

Socialism/Communism and Fascism are all totalitarian governments. In Socialism/Communism the government does own the means of production. In Fascism the government lets people "own" their business but those businesses are so regulated by the government that all of the business decisions are made by the government. If business owners are not allowed to make any decisions about what the business can or cannot do, because of government regulations, do they really own it? No, they don't.

The National Vanguard?
Hatrack, do you even understand that you sourced a neo-Nazi publication?



Sorry, I will not dignify an article from a Nazi newspaper with a response. What next, are you going to source "The Dearborn Independent"?

The Nazis were originally called the German Workers Party, and the name change to incorporate the word "socialist" was partly designed to pull in working class voters by making the party seem more caring and respectable than it actually was, because "socialism" was a relatively "good" word to many idealistic people in the 1930s on both sides of the Atlantic.

But in any case, merely because a party calls itself by a name doesn't mean that this is what it stands for, and that is especially so given the low standards of honesty practiced by totalitarians.

Vladimir Zhirinovsky's Russian fascist group of the 1990s was ludicrously called the Liberal Democratic party although it was virulently anti-liberal and anti-democratic.

Why not? Who knows what Nazism is better than a Nazi? A weak argument must discredit the source because it cannot refute what the source says.

Not only did Hitler detest socialism, liberalism and communism, but he was appeased in Europe partly because powerful American industrialist and some of the European right saw him and Mussolini as valuable strong men against Stalin.

This foolish admiration was a major factor in appeasement and extended almost to the eve of war.
Here's George Orwell, reviewing an English translation of Hitler's "Mein Kampf" in March 1940, as German bombs are falling on Britain:



In America for some, the appeasement continued apace.
Prescott Bush was indicted under the "Trading With the Enemy Act" of 1942.

Fascism was also a good word back in the 1930's.
https://www.dineshdsouza.com/news/the-lefts-romance-with-fascism/

Again, you're entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts.
Oskar Schindler was not an employee of the state and his factories were not government property.