Not so much "What if?" but Why the Allies Won by Richard Overy is a seminal text on the strategic, military and economic reasons behind ultimate Allied victory.
Could Germany have won WW2?
- Thread starter nightrider1470
- Start date
Not so much "What if?" but Why the Allies Won by Richard Overy is a seminal text on the strategic, military and economic reasons behind ultimate Allied victory.
Man of Honour
Brilliant, I’ll take a look. Thanks
Soldato
So how does the article, which you mostly agree with, sum up Fascism?
Robert Paxton, a professor emeritus of social science at Columbia University in New York who is widely considered the father of fascism studies, defined fascism as "a form of political practice distinctive to the 20th century that arouses popular enthusiasm by sophisticated propaganda techniques for an anti-liberal, anti-socialist, violently exclusionary, expansionist nationalist agenda."
Do tell then, how could the Nazis have been both Left or leaning Left more than Right and at the same time anti-liberal and anti-socialist? There's no need to provide sources this time.
I take it from your bolded and enlarged text that you consider "anti-liberal" to not be a Left Wing trait?
I said it was very interesting and thanked Efour for sharing it. Nowhere did I use the words "mostly agree" that you attribute to me. Though I do think it's an excellent article and do agree with much of it. The article is too complex to single out a small part as you do and present it as the thesis. Elsewhere the same author says economically Nazism was "socialism with a capitalist veneer" and discusses how the Nazis clashed with the conservative elites (the latter even trying to have Hitler assassinated). You are like someone going through a big box of apples till you find a red one and holding it up exclaiming "Ha! It's a box of red apples, I said so". But ultimately, as you do every post, you never argue Nazism is Left Wing because of some fact, always by searching for someone to agree with you. This is because you don't have a lot of familiarity with the subject as opposed to safetytrousers for example who will go "but what about the purging of the SA..." or some other actual historical detail.
Idiots often agree with each other. Smart people almost never agree on every detail. The reason being reality is complex. Your goal is to prove your belief and you skim through an article or Wikipedia as earlier looking for something that you can copy paste here. Mine is to arrive at what I think is the truth through debate. That's why when Angillion debates something I've said I read it to see if I was wrong. And when you screech "Alt Right! Alt Right!" I roll my eyes so hard I look like a slot machine.
Soldato
There's the World At War series done by ITV if you want something visual that's not too abysmal.
They did a book of it as well. It will give you a very good feel for the times and how people were.
It's on Amazon for a fiver. I've just ordered a copy.
I take it from your bolded and enlarged text that you consider "anti-liberal" to not be a Left Wing trait?
I said it was very interesting and thanked Efour for sharing it. Nowhere did I use the words "mostly agree" that you attribute to me. Though I do think it's an excellent article and do agree with much of it. The article is too complex to single out a small part as you do and present it as the thesis. Elsewhere the same author says economically Nazism was "socialism with a capitalist veneer" and discusses how the Nazis clashed with the conservative elites (the latter even trying to have Hitler assassinated). You are like someone going through a big box of apples till you find a red one and holding it up exclaiming "Ha! It's a box of red apples, I said so". But ultimately, as you do every post, you never argue Nazism is Left Wing because of some fact, always by searching for someone to agree with you. This is because you don't have a lot of familiarity with the subject as opposed to safetytrousers for example who will go "but what about the purging of the SA..." or some other actual historical detail.
Idiots often agree with each other. Smart people almost never agree on every detail. The reason being reality is complex. Your goal is to prove your belief and you skim through an article or Wikipedia as earlier looking for something that you can copy paste here. Mine is to arrive at what I think is the truth through debate. That's why when Angillion debates something I've said I read it to see if I was wrong. And when you screech "Alt Right! Alt Right!" I roll my eyes so hard I look like a slot machine.
You were under the impression this was a debate? This was an experiment aimed at seeing how far you would go down the rabbit hole... I've had you since your 'Yes' reply and let me just say, you did not disappoint. You are not in the position to debate historical facts, you should get a couple of degrees, a PhD, write some essays, put up some papers up for peer review and, if all of that goes well, come back and we can start a debate.
There's nothing complex about the fact that Fascism and Nazism are far right reactions to the rise of Communism and Socialism. The blind relativism you are displaying will not lead to the truth, you do not seek the truth anyway. If you did, you would grab a few good history books and you would find it there. What you actually seek is the confirmation of a looney idea that found its way into your mind(the Nazis were on the Left). No matter how much you bend and stretch facts or complain about the complexity of the issue, you will never accomplish much more than to twist the knife in your own wound.
Soldato
Okay. Getting my two degrees, PhD and working on my peer-reviewed papers so I have the necessary qualifications to debate with you. BRB!
If you want to discuss overlap, by all means let's discuss it. But if you want to say Nazis were left wing and chickens are ducks (feathers and beak overlap?) maybe now it's time to read some books on history/biology.
Sure let’s discuss! I’ve read a fair few history books in my time as I gained a 1st Class degree in History in 2015. I can’t say I know a great deal about ducks though.
Soldato
First class degree in history insufficient for Zethor - can't you read! You need at least one more degree plus a Phd, some peer-reviewed papers and, um, "essays". Apparently.
First class degree in history insufficient for Zethor - can't you read! You need at least one more degree plus a Phd, some peer-reviewed papers and, um, "essays". Apparently.
I know, that’s why I thought I would throw it in. At least I might have reached a third or so of the entry requirements!
Soldato
I have to say, I know people write "LOL", but this thread is genuinely making me actually laugh. Plus I'm learning the odd thing.
Those are the requirements needed to dispute established historical facts, not to debate Zethor.
Soldato
But you don't offer historical facts. I've listed numerous things in support of my thesis. You find quotes that support your view and paste them. All of your arguments so far have been either personal attacks or appeals to authority. I think that all of mine have been listing actual, verifiable historical facts and citing them as evidence. You accused me of peddling lies but I've twice asked now which of the historical details I've used to build my argument you consider "lies" but you ignore it. I don't actually recall one "historical fact" you've actually offered so what am I supposed to dispute. The closest to posting an historical "fact" that you came was stating that the Nazis were nationalist. Which we all know and which was addressed comprehensively by showing that's not a trait inherent to Right or to Left.
So please inform me what "historical facts" I have disputed. Or do you consider your conclusions historical fact?
The problem is the definition of left and right.
Which definition are we using, 18th century French? 20th century? Modern?
Are we using the terms purely in reference to political theory? Or also implementation? Economic policies, environmental policies and so on?
The picture is much more complex than to state National Socialists were strictly on the right. Yes historically that is true, but there are elements which have significant overlap with the extremes of the left.
Which definition are we using, 18th century French? 20th century? Modern?
Are we using the terms purely in reference to political theory? Or also implementation? Economic policies, environmental policies and so on?
The picture is much more complex than to state National Socialists were strictly on the right. Yes historically that is true, but there are elements which have significant overlap with the extremes of the left.
Yeah its a complex one - if you remove a lot of detail as to implementation and structure the ultimate goals of the Nazi party are very left wing but when you start adding in the details a lot is against what the left usually stand for and then the actual implementation of policies was often driven more by necessity due to the circumstances than ideology and have more in common with the right and even then that doesn't entirely fit 100%.
Soldato
Generally I use Right or Left in terms wide enough not to be culture specific. So for example in the USA there is a strong correlation between the Right and Christianity (although the Democrats have a large Christian element in their African American support base as well. Just less so in Dem states such as California where their supporters are usually affluent White Collar urbanites). But that's far less so in much of Europe so I wouldn't accept "they're Christian so they're Right Wing" as an argument. That's a peculiarity of US history. Whereas I would accept something like "lots of State interference / management of businesses" as an indicator of Left Wing because that's very much a common factor in Left Wing practice.
I don't think any of that would be contentious. The contentious one would be whether you separate out social conservatism from being Right Wing. And as a good minarchist, I obviously do.
Last edited:
Soldato
With regards to one specific point you mentioned which is that the Nazis did things that were "against what the Left usually stand for," I'd like to separate out two meanings here. In this instance you are using Left in the sense of those people who make up the political faction. I.e. "against what [people on the Left] usually stand for". I.e. the Nazis were, imo, Left Wing. But most people on the Left don't agree with secret police taking people away at 3am for example. I've slightly put words in your mouth there so correct me if I'm wrong - but the reason I interpret it that way is because otherwise we get into the approach of defining Left Wing as anything that isn't authoritarian. And that can't be. Which is also the reason why I do not want to define Left Wing as what most people on the Left are fine with. If you're in the USA then most people on the Right are anti-abortion, but you wouldn't say Right Wing means anti-abortion. At least I don't think it's useful.
In everything I've argued so far, I've been talking about Right Wing / Left Wing as political ideologies rather than as factions. The people who follow those ideologies have certain beliefs in common, but we shouldn't run it backwards and say the ideology is whatever its followers believe or else we suck a lot of detritus back up the pipe with it into our definitions that shouldn't be there.
That's where I'm coming from in this discussion.
That is one way of putting it - I'm trying to avoid anything too specific as it gets incredibly complex.