Forums
Guides
Features
Media
Zelda Wiki
Patreon
    History of Nazi Party and Ideology in Germany
    • Red Dingo wrote:

      Once again, one side leads to genocide and one side doesn’t. It’s not that hard to see where discrimination is best practiced. “The bad guys might do it too” is a shit excuse for being civil and giving them a platform, they’d do it regardless of what we attempted if they ever got the power to do so.

      Here’s another thing to to consider. Giving them a platform is detrimental to the morale of the people they are trying to destroy, which is harmful to society as a whole. Not giving Neo Nazis a platform and exerting social pressure to break their spirit as group isn’t harmful because Neo Nazis are perfectly capable of ceasing to be Neo Nazis at any point in time.

      Okay, this time the Nazis are actually relevant for a point.

      Has everyone forgotten that, when they started, the Nazis were a liberal worker's rights political party? The fascist regime they became happened years later.

      "One side leads to genocide and one side doesn't" is an argument that has already proven historically false, and in one of the worst ways possible.

      While trying to stop people like the white nationalists who did this, can we please not repeat past mistakes that led to genocide?
    • Kerest wrote:

      Has everyone forgotten that, when they started, the Nazis were a liberal worker's rights political party? The fascist regime they became happened years later.
      Uh, no. The NSDAP (and it's predecessor, the German Worker's Party, or DAP) was always far-right, always racist, always (ultra)nationalist, always anticommunist, always authoritarian, and always, always virulently antisemitic. Even before Hitler joined the party, you had people like Dietrich Eckart and Gottfried Feder.

      Even the Strasserist "left" wing of the NSDAP (most of whom were purged during the Night of Long Knives, the most notable example being Ernst Röhm) had antisemitism at the heart of the ideology. Their opposition to capitalism was rooted in opposition to Jews, whom they associated with with capitalist institutions.


      I don't know in what universe anyone could think the NDSAP (or DAP) was "liberal" in any sense of the word, at any point in its history. Just because they had "socialist" in the name doesn't mean they were anything of the sort.
    • Silver wrote:

      Kerest wrote:

      Has everyone forgotten that, when they started, the Nazis were a liberal worker's rights political party? The fascist regime they became happened years later.
      Uh, no. The NSDAP (and it's predecessor, the German Worker's Party, or DAP) was always far-right, always racist, always (ultra)nationalist, always anticommunist, always authoritarian, and always, always virulently antisemitic. Even before Hitler joined the party, you had people like Dietrich Eckart and Gottfried Feder.
      Even the Strasserist "left" wing of the NSDAP (most of whom were purged during the Night of Long Knives, the most notable example being Ernst Röhm) had antisemitism at the heart of the ideology. Their opposition to capitalism was rooted in opposition to Jews, whom they associated with with capitalist institutions.


      I don't know in what universe anyone could think the NDSAP (or DAP) was "liberal" in any sense of the word, at any point in its history. Just because they had "socialist" in the name doesn't mean they were anything of the sort.
      If "they had racist members" is your criteria for "not a liberal party," then I have some bad news for you about the Democrats at current.

      In any case, you're missing a large amount of context in that. The antisemitism isn't really a fair criteria, in large part because being antisemitic was incredibly popular in the era for both sides of the political spectrum. So was racism in a number of nations at the time, including the United States.

      Also, at the time, a lot of political parties were nationalist to some degree. It's really rather hard to find a party that wasn't than to find examples that were.

      The problem is that you are using criteria from the early 21st Century to judge the political stance of an early 20th Century political party, while ignoring that both liberal and conservative have shifted quite a bit in the intervening time period; by modern standards, nearly 100% of the politicians of the era would be conservatives.

      So, what universe? This one, exactly 100 years ago.
    • Kerest wrote:

      Silver wrote:

      Kerest wrote:

      Has everyone forgotten that, when they started, the Nazis were a liberal worker's rights political party? The fascist regime they became happened years later.
      Uh, no. The NSDAP (and it's predecessor, the German Worker's Party, or DAP) was always far-right, always racist, always (ultra)nationalist, always anticommunist, always authoritarian, and always, always virulently antisemitic. Even before Hitler joined the party, you had people like Dietrich Eckart and Gottfried Feder.Even the Strasserist "left" wing of the NSDAP (most of whom were purged during the Night of Long Knives, the most notable example being Ernst Röhm) had antisemitism at the heart of the ideology. Their opposition to capitalism was rooted in opposition to Jews, whom they associated with with capitalist institutions.


      I don't know in what universe anyone could think the NDSAP (or DAP) was "liberal" in any sense of the word, at any point in its history. Just because they had "socialist" in the name doesn't mean they were anything of the sort.
      If "they had racist members" is your criteria for "not a liberal party," then I have some bad news for you about the Democrats at current.
      In any case, you're missing a large amount of context in that. The antisemitism isn't really a fair criteria, in large part because being antisemitic was incredibly popular in the era for both sides of the political spectrum. So was racism in a number of nations at the time, including the United States.

      Also, at the time, a lot of political parties were nationalist to some degree. It's really rather hard to find a party that wasn't than to find examples that were.

      The problem is that you are using criteria from the early 21st Century to judge the political stance of an early 20th Century political party, while ignoring that both liberal and conservative have shifted quite a bit in the intervening time period; by modern standards, nearly 100% of the politicians of the era would be conservatives.

      So, what universe? This one, exactly 100 years ago.
      There's so much wrong with this post I'm not sure where to begin. So bear with me here.

      Firstly, I'd appreciate if you didn't make assumptions and strawmen of my argument. I'm not saying that the NDSAP was racist "because it had racist members", though it certainly did and then some (nice false equivalency with the Dems of today btw). I'm calling it racist and illiberal because that's what it fucking was. Literally, it was their actual ideology. Nazism at its core actively rejects liberalism. This is not controversial or obscure knowledge.


      Yeah, lots of other parties were racist and antisemitic and nationalist at the time. The Nazis took it even further. These were not your garden-variety racists. Their ideology was fundamentally bigoted. It wasn't merely a byproduct of the more-racist standards of the time. It was literally at the very heart of the ideology. Like, that's the entire basis of Nazism; ultranationalism, xenophobia, authoritarianism, and hatred of those who are "inferior".


      I'm not missing any context. I got a degree in history and studied the Nazi era at length. Saying that Nazism was ever "liberal" is revisionist bullshit at its finest.

      And I'm not judging anything by the standards of 21st century morality or other such tripe (again with the strawmen and assumptions!). I'm merely calling a spade a spade.
      PM me for the clan test!

      Avatar & sig by the amazing Liah!

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Silver ().

    • Silver wrote:

      There's so much wrong with this post I'm not sure where to begin. So bear with me here.
      Firstly, I'd appreciate if you didn't make assumptions and strawmen of my argument. I'm not saying that the NDSAP was racist "because it had racist members", though it certainly did and then some (nice false equivalency with the Dems of today btw). I'm calling it racist and illiberal because that's what it fucking was. Literally, it was their actual ideology. Nazism at its core actively rejects liberalism. This is not controversial or obscure knowledge.


      Yeah, lots of other parties were racist and antisemitic and nationalist at the time. The Nazis took it even further. These were not your garden-variety racists. Their ideology was fundamentally bigoted. It wasn't merely a byproduct of the more-racist standards of the time. It was literally at the very heart of the ideology. Like, that's the entire basis of Nazism; ultranationalism, xenophobia, authoritarianism, and hatred of those who are "inferior".


      I'm not missing any context. I got a degree in history and studied the Nazi era at length. Saying that Nazism was ever "liberal" is revisionist bullshit at its finest.

      And I'm not judging anything by the standards of 21st century morality or other such tripe (again with the strawmen and assumptions!). I'm merely calling a spade a spade.
      The wrong part is that you and I are not entirely speaking of the same thing.

      You're speaking of the later, post-Hitler political action... the point at which the group had already turned to facism. You know, the part long after what I'm talking about.

      I'm talking about where it all started. I'm not talking about the German Worker's Party, but about the group they split off from: The Free Workers' Committee for a Good Peace, which actually was a liberal (for the day) worker's movement (and also militant nationalists). The original Nazi group started off as a branch of that group, before splitting to become the DAP and later the Nazis.

      The Free Workers did have a nationalist orientation and a lot of views that we now know are simply inhuman, but they didn't go nearly as far as their successors did. It was Anton Drexler, the founder of the DAP, who decided that capitalism was a Jewish plot and who would later mentor Adolf Hitler after Hitler impressed him with oratory skills. And I'm not disputing what Hitler's group was like.

      I will note it can be seen how I was arguing it being the DAP, due in part to the fact a lot of what you said also applied to the Free Workers (and, to be fair, it is easy to confuse the DAP and Free Workers), and I had the date the DAP was founded wrong (I thought it was June, not January, of 1919; I was wrong about it being exactly 100 years ago).

      So, no, I was not making strawmen of your post. Though, it would help if you didn't leap to the strawman accusation at the drop of the hat; even if you were right and I was making false accusations, that is not the logical fallacy that would have been at play. It would have been a false equivalence, since I was not actually attacking the equivalence I made; a strawman argument requires you set up a false position as being the opponent's real argument and then attack it. Pointing out an equivalence does not meet the standards.

      You could also have made a red herring accusation at the idea of even bringing up Nazis as an example to begin with, and then I would have had to argue even harder to prove it wasn't that fallacy.

      The post was edited 3 times, last by Kerest: One sentence struck me as too hostile. ().

    • To sum it up thus:

      The Left are just as easily capable of being as racist, genocidal, xenophobic as the Right is. Only they will use different ideology, reasoning, and justification and bullshit science.

      Pretty much, I agree. The very presumptions that it is very unlikely that it could arise within a particular ideology often tend to be the conditions for it to develop, because troublesome behavior either is overlooked or excused, and there is an ugly tendency for self-righteous behavior, echo-chambers and 'true believers.'

      Maybe Extreme-Right breeds Fascism, but Far-Left breeds Authoritarianism. They just use very different paths to accomplish the same thing, which is control over a population and systems to stay in power.
    • Kerest wrote:

      Has everyone forgotten that, when they started, the Nazis were a liberal worker's rights political party? The fascist regime they became happened years later.

      "One side leads to genocide and one side doesn't" is an argument that has already proven historically false, and in one of the worst ways possible.

      Umm...no, it’s been historically proven that people who endorse bigotry will attempt to commit genocide and oppression if given positions of power.

      I won’t bother trying to explain how wrong you are about the origins of the Nazi Party. Silver is an expert on the subject of history and the best he got from you was goal post shifting. Also it would be highly irrelevant even if you were right since the big issue with the Nazi Party wasn’t socialist policies, it was the ethnic-nationalist, fascist, imperialistic shit show they used their power to enforce.
    • Red Dingo wrote:

      Kerest wrote:

      Has everyone forgotten that, when they started, the Nazis were a liberal worker's rights political party? The fascist regime they became happened years later.

      "One side leads to genocide and one side doesn't" is an argument that has already proven historically false, and in one of the worst ways possible.
      Umm...no, it’s been historically proven that people who endorse bigotry will attempt to commit genocide and oppression if given positions of power.

      I won’t bother trying to explain how wrong you are about the origins of the Nazi Party. Silver is an expert on the subject of history and the best he got from you was goal post shifting. Also it would be highly irrelevant even if you were right since the big issue with the Nazi Party wasn’t socialist policies, it was the ethnic-nationalist, fascist, imperialistic shit show they used their power to enforce.

      The history I posted about the party's origins is established-enough it's included in the very source Silver felt confident using to back their point. Wikipedia gives the source as Hitler: A Biography by Ian Kershaw, but you can also find a couple of other scholarly articles talking about it in history journals. For the most part, the Free Workers' Committee for a Good Peace is only remembered because it is the grandfather of the Nazi party, despite the fact that most of the core members who created the Nazi party came from that group. The origins arguably go back farther than that, but that gets into details of German history that are irrelevant to the discussion.

      That is a fair claim of goalpost moving. I admit it is entirely my fault; I screwed up in how I presented the information and had a couple of my historical facts wrong.

      Also, note that what does and does not count as bigotry has shifted over the decades, and will shift over the decades to come. Many will look back on even the most liberal of people by today's standards as bigots in the distant future. Whether well-intentioned and doing their best with the knowledge, or outright monsters, is yet to be determined; I would prefer the former, which is why I oppose certain tactics that trend towards the later or even borrow tactics of oppression for the purposes of advancement (what the discussion was originally about when I pointed out the Nazi connection before the thread was separated out).

      Also, I ignored the doctorate claim for one reason: It very much was not a wise move. Silver and I don't know each other; we've barely met. By all appearances from Silver's end, I'm defending the Nazis in some manner. Claiming a doctorate, and thus making one's own self a key point of the discussion in that it's being used as a legitimate appeal to authority (not the fallacy appeal to authority; there is a difference) and can only be properly refuted by outright attacking the person making the claim... which makes what would normally be an ad hominim argument a legitimate aspect of discussion. And the only way to prove the claim is legitimate and not a case of Sudden Doctorate Syndrome that shows up often on the internet would be for Silver to dox themselves... which, go right back to that part about "defending the Nazis" for why it's not a good idea. In essence, Silver has set up a claim they cannot safely legitimately prove, and thus weakened their argument by even making it. So I chose to ignore it entirely and try to deal fairly with the rest of the post.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Kerest ().

    • Also, note that what does and does not count as bigotry has shifted over the decades,
      No it’s pretty universal that when you believe that people should be discriminated against based on attributes they never chose nor mentally or physically affect anyone other than themselves, you’re a bigot. What’s changed is that we’ve become more aware of what enables more monstrous forms of bigotry to be carried out and we’re trying to nip it in the bud instead of letting it fester.

      Post by Mozly Alice ().

      This post was deleted by the author themselves: Things to do ().

      Post by Mozly Alice ().

      This post was deleted by the author themselves: I'm leaving this to silver ().
    • Red Dingo wrote:

      Also, note that what does and does not count as bigotry has shifted over the decades,
      No it’s pretty universal that when you believe that people should be discriminated against based on attributes they never chose nor mentally or physically affect anyone other than themselves, you’re a bigot. What’s changed is that we’ve become more aware of what enables more monstrous forms of bigotry to be carried out and we’re trying to nip it in the bud instead of letting it fester.

      That allows for a lot of discrimination currently considered bigotry. Like, for example, saying women should not have the right to vote since that mentally affects people by encouraging them to think women have opinions worth listening to. I can alsoargue that it excludes opposition to gay rights, civil rights, and a lot of other necessary platforms of human advancement.

      I think you have entirely the wrong idea of what bigotry is. Because I'd rather not disenfranchise a lot of groups who very much deserve far more of a voice than they have accomplished so far, and your definition sets up a platform for doing just that.
    • Is what he said supposed to make sense? I can’t be the only one who just read a tangled mess of mental gymnastics.

      Okay, I’m going to assume that you didn’t intentionally build a shitty straw man.

      Forebidding women from voting is bigotry because it punishes women for being women, a trait that is absolutely harmless to outside parties physically and mentally.

      Allowing women to vote isn’t bigotry because the only people that would physically or mentally harm are people that find piece of mind in the oppression of women.

      You can choose to stop being a misogynist, you cannot choose to stop being a woman and even if you could, you shouldn’t be made to because it is not a choice that would violate the autonomy of other people.

      Far from excluding opposition to civil rights, trans rights, women’s rights, etc. My definition applies exclusively to homophobes, misogynists, transphobes, antisemites, and just about anyone else who derives satisfaction from the oppression of another human being.
    • It took me all of ten seconds to come up with my previous post, and maybe a couple minutes to write it on my cell phone. I don't thumb-type fast.

      Here, let me quote the definition you provided and cover what it is you missed:

      "No it’s pretty universal that when you believe that people should be discriminated against based on attributes they never chose nor mentally or physically affect anyone other than themselves, you’re a bigot."

      For one thing, this is false; discriminating against people because of attributes they never chose and which generally don't affect anyone but themselves is not only not inherently bigotry, but actually common practice. It usually has to do with limits of physiology, biology, technology, or the laws of physics. A four year old cannot get a driver's license; despite the fact this is discriminating against them, it's pretty obvious why this discrimination is necessary. Someone who is born blind cannot become a fighter pilot; this discrimination isn't bigotry, but because of the limits of their physiology and the limits of human technology intersecting to create a job they simply cannot do.

      Also, the important other aspect of this is "or mentally or physically affect anyone other than themselves." While a necessary exception because there are cases where someone is born with something that can make them a danger to others despite it not being something they can control, it also is worded in such a way it neglects considering positive affects. Thus, if a trans person affects someone else by making them be more considerate of their use of pronouns, the definition as worded allows discrimination against that trans person as being not bigotry despite the positive affect the trans person is having on another.

      This isn't mental gymnastics. This is just fully thinking through the implications of wording. A skill I am admittedly bad at, as can be seen above, but still one I attempt to do.

      As such, a more accurate (but still far from perfect) definition would be as follows:

      "Bigotry is discrimination beyond what is absolutely necessary for society to function, necessary for public health or safety, or mandated by the intersecting limits of physics and physiology and technology."

      Now, let's test this definition!

      Is opposing women voting absolutely necessary for society to function? Obviously, not. Is opposing women voting necessary for public health or safety? It appears to have a positive effect on both, so no. Is opposing women voting necessary because of the intersection of physics and physiology and technology? Again, no. Thus, opposing women voting is bigotry.

      The child example I provided above is allowed as not bigotry due to both the second and third items; the child's physiology makes them both a danger to public safety and limits them from using the vehicle properly. The blind person example is purely the third, though this will likely change in the future (come on cybereyes!).

      But homophobia is also something that should be blocked under that definition. The reason? It's a public healthy and safety danger. One look at the number of gay people attacked, killed, or forced into suicide backs that up. Transphobia is also the same type of danger. So it white nationalism, as shown very recently with the tragedy in New Zealand and its long history.

      Also note that this example allows for the idea of affects they have being reasons for non-bigotry discrimination, but only the negative effects; positive effects are still bigotry.