Godlike Productions - Discussion Forum
Users Online Now: 1,983 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 990,359
Pageviews Today: 1,769,690Threads Today: 759Posts Today: 13,485
08:03 PM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

Pictured: Hitler playing chess with Lenin

 
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 588954
United States
09/03/2009 07:52 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Pictured: Hitler playing chess with Lenin
[link to www.telegraph.co.uk]

A picture of a young Adolf Hitler apparently playing chess against Vladimir Lenin 100 years ago has come to light.

The image is said to have been created in Vienna by Hitler's art teacher, Emma Lowenstramm, and is signed on the reverse by the two dictators.

Hitler was a jobbing artist in the city in 1909 and Lenin was in exile and the house where they allegedly played the game belonged to a prominent Jewish family.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 756919
United States
09/03/2009 08:00 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Pictured: Hitler playing chess with Lenin
Hitler was a Teutonic Knights Templar. Lenin was Freemason Templar Knight.

No Jew conspiracy no matter how they spin it.

They all were partners in crime though. And it is still at work today with men like Rockefeller.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 757823
United States
09/03/2009 08:03 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Pictured: Hitler playing chess with Lenin
Hitler was a Teutonic Knights Templar. Lenin was Freemason Templar Knight.

No Jew conspiracy no matter how they spin it.

They all were partners in crime though. And it is still at work today with men like Rockefeller.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 756919



Lol, are you talking about that painting in the NBC rockefeller's lobby room?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 762072
Ireland
09/03/2009 08:05 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Pictured: Hitler playing chess with Lenin
More proof that the Elite have manufactured world wars and the global economy...
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 654301
Finland
09/03/2009 08:05 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Pictured: Hitler playing chess with Lenin
Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, where Hitler & Stalin agreed division of Eastern and Central Europe and started WW2, have soviets or russians ever apologized for their role of the start of the war?
The Conservative Monster

User ID: 747310
United States
09/03/2009 08:28 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Pictured: Hitler playing chess with Lenin
Hitler was a Teutonic Knights Templar. Lenin was Freemason Templar Knight.

No Jew conspiracy no matter how they spin it.

They all were partners in crime though. And it is still at work today with men like Rockefeller.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 756919



They were both SOCIALISTS
mathetes

User ID: 514914
United States
09/03/2009 08:41 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Pictured: Hitler playing chess with Lenin
Hitler was a Teutonic Knights Templar. Lenin was Freemason Templar Knight.

No Jew conspiracy no matter how they spin it.

They all were partners in crime though. And it is still at work today with men like Rockefeller.



They were both SOCIALISTS
 Quoting: The Conservative Monster

Very true! One an International Socialist(Lenin) & the other A NATIONAL SOCIALIST...like someone today is
For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 296013
Iraq
09/03/2009 08:57 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Pictured: Hitler playing chess with Lenin
FAKE these were nobodies in 1909.

hitler is painted like dictator hitler. he didn't look like that in 1909.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 737897
Australia
09/03/2009 09:00 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Pictured: Hitler playing chess with Lenin
FAKE these were nobodies in 1909.

hitler is painted like dictator hitler. he didn't look like that in 1909.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 296013



yep!!!! good observation .....
T
User ID: 759683
Sweden
09/03/2009 09:08 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Pictured: Hitler playing chess with Lenin
Yeah, must have been about twenty at the time of the picture... And, at least during WWI he didn't have a toothbrush moustache and was a bit slimmer...My guess too would be that it's a fake.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 762243
United States
09/03/2009 09:10 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Pictured: Hitler playing chess with Lenin
That picture is just a sketch it never happened. There is more lies about hitler than any man ever on earth i think.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 722410
United States
09/03/2009 09:17 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Pictured: Hitler playing chess with Lenin
Hitler was a Teutonic Knights Templar. Lenin was Freemason Templar Knight.

No Jew conspiracy no matter how they spin it.

They all were partners in crime though. And it is still at work today with men like Rockefeller.



They were both SOCIALISTS

Very true! One an International Socialist(Lenin) & the other A NATIONAL SOCIALIST...like someone today is
 Quoting: mathetes




One an International Socialist(Lenin) & the other A NATIONAL SOCIALIST.

there is a world of diference in the two forms of
Socialism.

IF anyone realy wants to understand how to LIBERATE
allnations it behooves to study National Socialism

NOT from anti NS sites


the basic principles can be applied to
any nation and national culture
It isnt just '33-45 German system
it is the only Natural system
thats why it worked so well'
and thats why the controlled media
paint it as eeevil 24/7 in press
movies, music, government run schools...

IF the masses ever moved past the propaganda and
understood the basics of NS the controllers
would be run out of all positions of control.

It is the system of Ancient times before WARS
became a way of governing.


Study HISTORY.


book
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 713601
United States
09/03/2009 09:55 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Pictured: Hitler playing chess with Lenin
Possible ... but unlikely.

"IF" Lenin was in Vienna in 1909 he may well have run into Hitler, after all Vienna is not that big of a city in those days (and was physically compact), though the two probably traveled in very different circles. At the time Hitler was not yet into political theories and was a struggling young person just trying to make a living.

As for that being how Hitler looked at the age of 20 ... highly doubtful.

Extremely dubious but highly inventive.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 762197
United States
09/03/2009 09:58 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Pictured: Hitler playing chess with Lenin
Hitler was a Teutonic Knights Templar. Lenin was Freemason Templar Knight.

No Jew conspiracy no matter how they spin it.

They all were partners in crime though. And it is still at work today with men like Rockefeller.



They were both SOCIALISTS
 Quoting: The Conservative Monster


uh....the Bolsheviks were communists Jr. That's what they called themselves too. Ever heard of the Bolshevik communist revolution?...the one Lenin started?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 762275
United Kingdom
09/03/2009 10:06 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Pictured: Hitler playing chess with Lenin
erm guys I think people looked alot older 100 years ago dunno why they really did...thats not proof.

The guy in the link is only 13...

[link to www.familyoldphotos.com]

5a
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 756919
United States
09/03/2009 11:16 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Pictured: Hitler playing chess with Lenin
Hitler was a Teutonic Knights Templar. Lenin was Freemason Templar Knight.

No Jew conspiracy no matter how they spin it.

They all were partners in crime though. And it is still at work today with men like Rockefeller.



They were both SOCIALISTS


uh....the Bolsheviks were communists Jr. That's what they called themselves too. Ever heard of the Bolshevik communist revolution?...the one Lenin started?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 762197

Yep, 6 of 1 half dozen of the other. All the same thing.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 762335
United States
09/03/2009 11:54 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Pictured: Hitler playing chess with Lenin
Yeah, must have been about twenty at the time of the picture... And, at least during WWI he didn't have a toothbrush moustache and was a bit slimmer...My guess too would be that it's a fake.
 Quoting: T 759683


incorrect.here is a photo of Adolph Hitler circa 1909
[link to chattahbox.com]
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 762335
United States
09/03/2009 12:04 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Pictured: Hitler playing chess with Lenin
Hitler's moustache in the WWI era went back and forth from a large flowing Kaiser-style moustache to the toothbrush moustache depending on several factors.

In 'elite' society the Kaiser was the preferred moustache among men of style and culture. However the 'working man' as a sign of rebellion against the upper crust sported the toothbrush moustache with great popularity.

Hitler used both styles to his advantage when dealing with differing groups of people, and when around the everyday common folk, the working man, and Lenin, would choose the working man's style.

During WWI it was a mater of no small contention that men with the Kaiser moustache were often forced by the military to change their moustache to the toothbrush style in order to properly fit inside their gas masks.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 762336
United States
09/03/2009 12:41 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Pictured: Hitler playing chess with Lenin
Hitler was a Teutonic Knights Templar. Lenin was Freemason Templar Knight.

No Jew conspiracy no matter how they spin it.

They all were partners in crime though. And it is still at work today with men like Rockefeller.



They were both SOCIALISTS
 Quoting: The Conservative Monster

Many conservatives accuse Hitler of being a leftist, on the grounds that his party was named "National Socialist." But socialism requires worker ownership and control of the means of production. In Nazi Germany, private capitalist individuals owned the means of production, and they in turn were frequently controlled by the Nazi party and state. True socialism does not advocate such economic dictatorship -- it can only be democratic. Hitler's other political beliefs place him almost always on the far right. He advocated racism over racial tolerance, eugenics over freedom of reproduction, merit over equality, competition over cooperation, power politics and militarism over pacifism, dictatorship over democracy, capitalism over Marxism, realism over idealism, nationalism over internationalism, exclusiveness over inclusiveness, common sense over theory or science, pragmatism over principle, and even held friendly relations with the Church, even though he was an atheist.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 762336
United States
09/03/2009 12:42 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Pictured: Hitler playing chess with Lenin
The primary basis for this claim is that Hitler was a National Socialist. The word "National" evokes the state, and the word "Socialist" openly identifies itself as such.

However, there is no academic controversy over the status of this term: it was a misnomer. Misnomers are quite common in the history of political labels. Examples include the German Democratic Republic (which was neither) and Vladimir Zhirinovsky's "Liberal Democrat" party (which was also neither). The true question is not whether Hitler called his party "socialist," but whether or not it actually was.
Sp4LG

User ID: 762195
United States
09/03/2009 01:01 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Pictured: Hitler playing chess with Lenin
Hitler's moustache in the WWI era went back and forth from a large flowing Kaiser-style moustache to the toothbrush moustache depending on several factors.

In 'elite' society the Kaiser was the preferred moustache among men of style and culture. However the 'working man' as a sign of rebellion against the upper crust sported the toothbrush moustache with great popularity.

Hitler used both styles to his advantage when dealing with differing groups of people, and when around the everyday common folk, the working man, and Lenin, would choose the working man's style.

During WWI it was a mater of no small contention that men with the Kaiser moustache were often forced by the military to change their moustache to the toothbrush style in order to properly fit inside their gas masks.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 762335


Hitler in 1914, with small 'stache:

[link to www.historyplace.com]
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 365611
United Kingdom
09/03/2009 01:40 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Pictured: Hitler playing chess with Lenin
The man on the picture's right looks like Roman Malinovsky, the Bolshevik 'traitor' (ie an Okhrana agent):

[link to www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk]
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 758618
United States
09/03/2009 01:50 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Pictured: Hitler playing chess with Lenin
bsflag


The picture is a fraud. The only conspiracy here is the owners scheme to make a quick buck.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 661554
Ireland
09/03/2009 01:58 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Pictured: Hitler playing chess with Lenin
Fascism = socialism.
[link to rexcurry.net]
[link to www.lawrence.edu]

(in the name of "the people" of course)

Anytime you give to government the responsibility and authority to provide government-made jobs, old-age financial security, "free" health care, and "free" education and indoctrination of children, it will control the lives of the people who live under its jurisdiction, and individual liberty and freedom of choice are sacrificed.

Sure, security is important -- but anyone can find security from a prison warden. But, despite socialist promises, bureaucratic programs of the political state cannot guarantee security anyway. Instead the socialist state uses its coercive powers to seize the wealth and properties of those who have earned financial security by their own hands. Socialism does not help poor people; rather, socialism makes people poor so that they have to become dependent on the socialist state and therefore beholden to those in charge of the government.

Socialism is the ultimate exploitative monopoly. No competitors (peaceful market alternatives) are allowed. All major industries, including food, banking, transportation, communication, health care, education, and insurance are owned and operated as state monopolies.

Socialism is the ultimate system of government intervention in the peaceful business affairs and other voluntary relationships of the people -- and the socialist state tends to become the legal tool for running interference on behalf of the most corrupt interests in society at the expense of peaceful businessmen and workers. After all, what could be more monopolistic than a system in which the political state owns or controls the major industries -- while the privileged monopolistic clique owns or controls the state and uses it as a sort of legal holding company for its own interests? When the government "nationalizes" a business or entire industry, the monopolistic elite is just using government intervention to take over and control what would otherwise be its competitors. And the alternatives and choices available to consumers for obtaining what they need and want are greatly diminished.

Socialism is a system of authoritarian political control over the individual by bureaucratic central planners -- very similar to fascism or communism. Socialism promises to use the power of the political state to forcibly redistribute resources (peoples' earnings) so that the basic needs of all will be met. To do this, power must be centralized in the hands of the political state. When government has power over the lives and properties of its citizens, the citizens have no freedom -- only the meager privileges the state programs may dole out to them. In practice, socialism's redistribution of wealth ends up with bureaucrats doling out poverty and dependency on the state.

If government could give you everything you want, it must have the power to take everything you've got. This is the real agenda of socialism. It is the confiscation of property in the name of a "fairer" distribution of it. It is the total political institutionalization of violence and exploitation in the name of abolishing exploitation. And the dirty little secret is that socialism is a tool of big, monopolistic interests behind the scenes while their front men act in the name of "the people" (or in the name of "the race" or the "working class" or the "New World Order" or the global environment)!

Sure, there are several different brands of socialism -- at least as many types as there are would-be people-planners who wish to impose their schemes to control the personal and economic lives of other people. But are you willing to surrender your precious liberties to a Socialist State which promises "security" for everyone or government-enforced equality? Isn't this what Hitler and other socialists promised the German people in his Nazi (national socialist) platform -- a country in which government guarantees security and "equality" in exchange for giving up individual freedom? Will Americans fall for the same scam?

Socialism is an old dream. Some dreams are nightmares when put into practice.

[link to www.socialismsucks.net]

"'Change' is a word we hear over and over. By 'change' these groups mean Socialism. The naive radicals think that under Socialism the 'people' will run everything. Actually, it will be a clique of insiders in total control, consolidating and controlling all wealth. ... If the Establishment wanted the revolutionaries stopped, how long do you think they would be tolerated?" - Gary Allen, 1971

"If one understands that socialism is not a share-the-wealth program, but is in reality a method to consolidate and control the wealth, then the seeming paradox of super-rich men promoting socialism becomes no paradox at all. Instead, it becomes logical, even the perfect tool of power-seeking megalomaniacs. Communism, or more accurately, socialism, is not a movement of the downtrodden masses, but of the economic elite." - Gary Allen
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 756919
United States
09/03/2009 02:00 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Pictured: Hitler playing chess with Lenin
Hitler was a Teutonic Knights Templar. Lenin was Freemason Templar Knight.

No Jew conspiracy no matter how they spin it.

They all were partners in crime though. And it is still at work today with men like Rockefeller.



They were both SOCIALISTS

Many conservatives accuse Hitler of being a leftist, on the grounds that his party was named "National Socialist." But socialism requires worker ownership and control of the means of production. In Nazi Germany, private capitalist individuals owned the means of production, and they in turn were frequently controlled by the Nazi party and state. True socialism does not advocate such economic dictatorship -- it can only be democratic. Hitler's other political beliefs place him almost always on the far right. He advocated racism over racial tolerance, eugenics over freedom of reproduction, merit over equality, competition over cooperation, power politics and militarism over pacifism, dictatorship over democracy, capitalism over Marxism, realism over idealism, nationalism over internationalism, exclusiveness over inclusiveness, common sense over theory or science, pragmatism over principle, and even held friendly relations with the Church, even though he was an atheist.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 762336


Socialism is a marxist program for BIG GOVERNMENT. They all use Marx's ten planks manifesto. And Marx got it from the Templar's/Illuminati/Jacobins ect ect. 'National socialist' must have been a popular concept with the Germans, a propaganda term. OBVIOUSLY, the Nazis went all over Europe, into Russia and then some. And we should know by now they were all financed by international bankers for their socialist world revolution.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 661554
Ireland
09/03/2009 02:02 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Pictured: Hitler playing chess with Lenin
Socialism and Fascism

[link to www.lawrence.edu]

In my recent article on Tony Kushner, I suggested that his socialist views were somehow akin to fascism. Predictably enough, the knee-jerk reaction to this statement was the reassertion of an old historical fallacy: the notion that socialism and fascism are somehow opposed to each other, that they have been historical rivals, that there is nothing but difference between the two -- and that I must have been ignorant of this historical fact. I did not, however, make this comparison glibly. Taken in full historical context, with full consideration of philosophic principle, socialism and fascism are essentially the same.

To know what socialism and fascism are, let us begin by examining some historical examples of each. Fascist states have included Hitler's Germany, Mussolini's Italy, Tojo's Japan, Franco's Spain, Pinochet's Chile, and possibly Peron's Argentina. If we were to focus on each of these concretes, we would observe numerous differences. For instance, Hitler's Fascism was racist. Mussolini's was not. Mussolini's fascism involved belligerent nationalism. Franco's did not. What unites each of these concretes into a group of similars can be seen in a common definition of fascism: "A governmental system with strong centralized power, permitting no opposition or criticism, controlling all affairs of the nation (industrial, commercial, etc.)" (American College Dictionary, New York: Random House, 1957).

Socialist states have included the USSR(1), Communist China, socialist Sweden, socialist England, Cuba, North Korea, and a handful of lesser regimes in Eastern Europe, East Africa, and Southeast Asia. Once again, there is a prima facie difficulty in determining what factor these various states held in common. After all, some socialist regimes (like Sweden's and England's) were elected democratically. Others, like the USSR's and the PRC's, were the result of popular violent revolutions. Still others were the product of either military coup (Cuba, Ethiopia, Vietnam) or foreign invasion (the Eastern Bloc). The trait common to all of these is provided, once again by the definition of socialism: "a theory or system of social organization which advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means or production, capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole" (American College Dictionary).

Now that we have these two concepts (socialism and fascism) squarely on the table, we can spell out their differences and similarities. It is obvious that there are numerous differences between socialism and fascism, the most obvious of which concerns their view of private property. Socialism abolishes the institution entirely; fascism does not. For instance, in the Soviet Union, citizens had to wait years for their names to come up on a list to receive a car from the government. At the same time, everyone is familiar with the existence of wealthy property owners like Oskar Schindler who lived under the Nazi regime. This difference in ideology did in fact manifest itself in actual historical practice. The communists and Social Democrats were, in fact, the main opponents of the rise of Nazi power in Weimar Germany; Nazi Germany and Socialist Russia were at each other's throats in World War II.

True enough: We can put socialism and fascism on a table and stare at them all we like, and all we may see will be differences. What is required to go beyond this is to widen our context of knowledge. For instance, let's say we draw two geometrical figures on the chalkboard: a scalene and an isosceles. If we focus merely on these two concretes, without widening our context, we will see nothing but difference. The two triangles have different angles, different side lengths, different locations, different sizes. Now imagine that we introduce a foil: We draw a square on the board. The difference between the first two triangles is still there, but is made insignificant by the even greater difference between the triangles, on the one hand, and the square on the other. This process of differentiation allows us to see the triangles as similar. If we are able to isolate an essential characteristic of the group (a difference bewteen the triangles and squares which explains all or most of the other differences between them), we can then integrate this group of similars into a single mental unit, uniting it by a common definition, i.e., forming a concept.(2)

We can treat social systems in the same way in which we treat geometical figures. As we observed before, there are probably innumerable differences between socialism and fascism. But what happens if we introduce a foil here, as well? Let's imagine that we introduce a third type of social system. Rather than having society control all property, and rather than having dictatorship in one form or another, we introduce a system in which individuals are free to follow the dictates of their own mind. Rather than having a system in which the choice is between the abridgment of political freedom or the abridgment of economic freedom, we introduce one in which no one's freedom is to be abridged. In short, we introduce capitalism : the social system in which all property is privately owned, and the government's function is restricted to the protection of individual rights.

Once we remember the possibility of the existence of such a system, the differences between socialism and fascism become trivial, superficial and, above all, non-essential. Differentiation of socialism and fascism from capitalism permits the recognition of their similarity. They do differ from each other, but only in the way in which the scalene and the isosceles differ from each other: in degree, but not in kind. Socialism and fascism are each forms of statism, forms of government in which the government is given complete or extensive control over the lives of its citizens.

This theoretical consideration has massive consequences in the practical realm: The differences we noted before turn out not to be as important as we once might have thought.

It is true that fascist systems permitted property ownership, while socialist ones did not. However, fascist "property rights" were only nominal: A businessman (such as Oskar Schindler) would retain legal title to his goods, but he would not retain any control over them. Because he was not politically free, the government could order him to use his property as it desired (such as by using it to produce war implements) -- even if it was _his_ property that was being used. Just as there can be no split between mind and body, there can be no split between political freedom and economic freedom. Man cannot exist without a mind and a body, and he cannot be free if someone else controls either.

It is true that the Nazis and socialists were rivals for power in Weimar Germany. On account of their similar political ideologies, however, this rivalry collapsed in the face of the defeat of their common enemy: capitalism. Forgive me for "quoting Ayn Rand", but the following is a matter of historical fact:

...in the German election of 1933, the Communist Party was ordered by its leaders to vote for the Nazis -- with the explanation that they could later fight the Nazis for power, but first they had to help destroy their common enemy: capitalism and its parliamentary form of government ("'Extremism,' or The Art of Smearing", September 1964, in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, pg. 180).

Dr. Leonard Peikoff reaffirms this point in his book, The Ominous Parallels:

The communists, too, wanted to use Hitler. Time after time their deputies voted with the Nazis in the Reichstag; they voted against legislation designed to cope with emergencies, against measures designed to curb violence, against attempts to maintain in office any kind of stable government. The Communists even agreed to cooperate with Nazi thugs. In November 1932, for instance, the two mortal enemies could be observed standing comfortably, shoulder to shoulder, on the streets of Berlin, collecting money to support a violent strike by the city's transportation workers.

When Hitler's fortunes seemed to be faltering for a time in 1932, a stream of anxious Nazis poured into the ranks of the Communists; the Germans watching said that a Nazi is like beefsteak: brown on the outside, red on the inside. Soon, however, the traffic was in the opposite direction. "[T]here is more that binds us to Bolshevism than separates us from it," said Hitler to Rauschning. "There is, above all, genuine revolutionary feeling, which is alive everywhere in Russia except where there are Jewish Marxists. I have always made allowance for this circumstance, and given orders that former Communists are to be admitted to the party at once. The petit bourgeois Social-Democrat and the trade-union boss will never make a National Socialist, but the Communist always will" (Quoting from Rauschning's The Voice of Destruction, pg. 131) (Peikoff, 221).

Peikoff continues:

In the final months the Communists viewed the growing Nazi strength with equanimity. The triumph of Nazism, they said, has been ordained by the dialectic process; such triumph will lead to the destruction of the republican form of government, which is a necessary stage in the achievement of communism. Afterward, they said, the Nazis will quickly fade and the party of Lenin can take over (222).

As for the Social Democrats, Dr. Peikoff notes that

The Social Democrats, meanwhile, were being "tamed" in another way by Chancellor Franz von Papen. In July 1932, using only a token armed force, he ousted them illegally from the government of Prussia. The party leaders understood that this coup, if uncontested, would mean the loss of their last bastion of strength. But they observed the swelling ranks of the Nazis and Communists; the Prussian police and the German army brimming with nationalist militants; the millions of unemployed workers, which made the prospects for a general strike bleak -- and they decided to capitulate without a fight, lest they provoke a bloody civil war they had no heart to wage and little chance to win....There were not many Social Democrats who rose up in fury over 'the rape of Prussia.' The party had long since lost most of those who take ideas or causes seriously. there was not much youtful ardor to summon to the side of social democracy. "Republik, das ist nicht viel, Sozialismus is unser Ziel" ("A republic, that is not much, socialism is our goal") -- such were the signs carried in parades by young workers of the period (222).

The reason for which the Social Democrats were so passive was not a mere inability to practice their principles consistently. It was, instead, a matter of the logical import of their principles. As Dr. Peikoff notes: "The republicans in every political party and group were in the same position: more and more, the contradictions involved in their views were leaving these men lifeless, and even speechless. They could hardly praise freedom very eloquently, not while they themselves, like everyone else, were insisting on further statist measures to cope with the economic crisis" (222-223).

To the extent that any of these political groups did clash in Weimar Germany, the clashes were not over matters of principle. They were of the variety of conflict seen most often in inner city America, where rival gangs fight over turf, over such trivial difference as the color of clothing worn by the other gang. In the end, whoever happens to win is a pointless consideration. The result is the same: blood in the streets.

As for the conflict between the Nazis and the USSR, one need only recall the Hitler-Stalin pact of 1937, in which the two powers agreed to divide up Eastern Europe together. Hitler and Stalin apparently had no problem in principle with working together to exterminate freedom in peaceful nations.

In case anyone still doubts the fact that there was no difference in princple between the fascists and the socialists, consider the following revealing quotations from various infamous Nazis and other fascists:

We ask that the government undertake the obligation above all of providing citizens with adequate opportunities for employment and earning a living.

The activities of the individual must not be allowed to clash with the interests of the community, but must take place within its confines and for the good of all. Therefore, we demand:...an end to the power of the financial interests.

We demand profit sharing in big business.

We demand a broad extension of care for the aged.

We demand...the greatest possible consideration of small business in the purchases of the national, state and municipal governments.

In order to make possible to every capable and industrious [citizen] the attainment of higher education and thus the achievement of a post of leadership, the government must provide an all-around enlargement of our entire system of public education...We demand the education at government expense of gifted children of poor parents...

The government must undertake the improvement of public health -- by the greatest possible support for all clubs concerned with the physical education of youth.

[We] combat the...materialistic spirit withn and without us, and are convinced that a permanent recovery of our people can only proceed from within on the foundation of The Common Good Before the Individual Good .

(Nazi party platform adopted at Munich, February 24, 1920;Der Nationalsozialismus Dokumente 1933-1945, edited by Walther Hofer, Frankfurt am Main: Fischer Bucherei, 1957, pp. 29-31).

It is thus necessary that the individual should finally come to realize that his own ego is of no importance in comparison with the existence of his nation; that the position of the individual ego is conditioned solely by the interests of the nation as a whole...that above all the unity of a nation's spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and will of an individual....This state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the ego to the conservation of the community, is really the first premise for every truly human culture....The basic attitude form which such activity arises, we call -- to distinguish it from egoism and selfishness -- idealism. By this we understand only the individual's capacity to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow men.

(Adolf Hitler speaking at Bueckeburg, Oct. 7, 1933; The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, 1922-39, ed. N.H. Baynes (2 vols., Oxford, 1942), I, 871-72; translation Professor George Reisman.)

[Fascism stresses] the necessity, for which the older doctrines make little allowance, of sacrifice, even up to the total immolation of individuals, in behalf of society...For Liberalism, the individual is the end and society the means; nor is it conceivable that the individual, considered in the dignity of an ulitmate finality, be lowered to mere instrumentality. For Fascism, society is the end, individuals the means, and its whole life consists in using individuals as instruments for its social ends.

(Alfredo Rocco, "The Political Doctrine of Fascism" (address delivered at Perugia, Aug. 30, 1925); reprinted in Readings on Fascism and National Socialism, pp. 34-35.)

[T]he higher interests involved in the life of the whole...must set the limits an lay down the duties of the interests of the individual.

(Adolf Hitler at Bueckeburg, op cit pg. 872.)

Unless the political implications of this ethical doctrine of collectivism are not apparent to everyone, the Nazis make them strikingly clear. The Nazis were opposed to authentic private property, and as a result, to capitalism:

"Private property" as conceived under liberalistic economic order was a reversal of the true concept of property. This "private proprerty" represented the right of the individual to manage and to speculate with inherited or acquired property as he pleased, without regard to the general interests...German socialism had to overcome this "private", that is, unrestrained and irresponsible view of property. All property is common property. The owner is bound by the people and the Reich to the responsible management of his goods. His legal position is only justified when he satisfies this responsibility to the community.

(Ernst Huber, Nazi party spokesman; National Socialism, prepared by Raymond E. Murphy, et al; quoting Huber, Verfassungsrecht des grossdeutschen Reiches (Hamburg, 1939))

To be a socialist is to submit the I to the thou; socialism is sacrificing the individual to the whole.

(Nazi head of propaganda, Joseph Goebbels; In Erich Fromm, Escape from Freedom (New York: Farrar, 1941), pg. 233.)

Finally,

I have learned a great deal from Marxism, as I do not hesitate to admit. The difference between them and myself is that I have really put into practice what these peddlers and penpushers have timidly begun...I had only to develop logically what Social Democracy repeatedly failed in because of its attempt to realize its evolution within the framework of democracy. National Socialism is what Marxism might have been if it could have broken its absurd and artificial ties with the democratic order.

(Hitler to Rauschning, The Voice of Destruction, pg. 186).

I hope by now that it should be obvious that the philosophical difference between the fascists and the socialists was minor, if existent at all. Each of these schools reject the efficacy of reason, affirm the principle of altruism, and uphold some form of collectivism. The inevitable result of these views is the destruction of freedom, which is exactly what happened in Nazi Germany and in Soviet Russia.

This leads me to reiterate a point I made in my original article on Tony Kushner. Kushner may believe that he can argue for gay rights, he may reject the conclusions of fascism, he may have even openly condemn Nazism in his many works on the holocaust. This, however, is what makes his overall position so utterly contradictory -- and saddening. In my article, I listed each of his positions in epistemology and ethics. These positions were precisely the same as those held by the Nazis. He cannot escape his premises, and their logical conclusions -- no matter how much he wishes to reject the holocaust and affirm gay rights.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 756919
United States
09/03/2009 02:03 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Pictured: Hitler playing chess with Lenin
Hitler admitted in his book The New Order he was continuing the Marxist priciples of the Jacobins French Revolution.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 762432
United Kingdom
09/03/2009 02:29 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Pictured: Hitler playing chess with Lenin
FAKE these were nobodies in 1909.

hitler is painted like dictator hitler. he didn't look like that in 1909.



yep!!!! good observation .....
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 737897


+1
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 728979
United States
09/03/2009 02:39 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Pictured: Hitler playing chess with Lenin
Well, there's certainly a play, book, or tv movie hidden away within this scenario.

Anyone feeling enterprising?





GLP