lol this bait thread. either they were socialist in which case socialism is CANCELED because STALIN, or they weren't socialist and socialism did nothing to fight fascism.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
"Socialists defeated the Nazis" vs. "The USSR was not socialist" which opinion do Era Socialists agree with more?
- Thread starter ItWasMeantToBe19
- Start date
- Status
hitler was given power by a democratically elected body of representatives, what now liberal democracy?
if some species of monkeys engage in communal societies then why are there still monkeys
So #NotAllAntiCommunists, but anti-communism and antisemitism have a long, rich and disgusting history together.
People really love crediting everything except the genius of Soviet commanders for the total defeat of Nazi Germany....
Some of their innovations, and plans were pretty far ahead for their time, and made pretty good use of almost all of the Soviet army's strengths to effectively push back the invading hordes.
Some of their innovations, and plans were pretty far ahead for their time, and made pretty good use of almost all of the Soviet army's strengths to effectively push back the invading hordes.
Ego defeated the Nazis; if they kept their non-aggression pact with the Soviets, brokered peace with Britain, and just settled for Europe and Africa the world would have looked a lot different than it does today (were things to have settled down). Not to discredit the effort the Soviets put into pushing them back to Berlin, but the Nazis shot themselves in the foot so many times they had to switch to the other foot just for more foot to shoot.
Socialism definitely did not defeat the Nazis (weird take anyway), and the Soviets were semi-socialist so I don't really know what to say.
Socialism definitely did not defeat the Nazis (weird take anyway), and the Soviets were semi-socialist so I don't really know what to say.
Uk and USA pretty much became Keynesian socialist command economies to win the war, Nazi Germany took too long to realize this before Albert Speer that UK even by itself actually out produced them for a few months in middle of the war!
In fact ww2 pretty much guaranteed 1945 UK labour victory due to how efficient UK became with Keynesian socialist command economy was during the war that Uk wanted more of that post war.
In fact ww2 pretty much guaranteed 1945 UK labour victory due to how efficient UK became with Keynesian socialist command economy was during the war that Uk wanted more of that post war.
Germany did offer peace to the UK, it was the British government that rejected it. It's possible (but not certain) that a Halifax government may have reached an agreement, but supremely unlikely that the Churchill gov would have unless Hitler offered truly magnanimous conditions that the Germans would not have been willing to provide, like withdrawing from Poland. "Settling for Europe and Africa" was basically not an option unless they could either outright defeat Britain or properly drive them out of North Africa.
Once the Battle of Britain was going on the chances of a negotiated peace declined to basically zero, unless they were willing to wait it out under blockade to 1944+. The RAF was attritting at a lower rate than the Luftwaffe was, and if they kept up the attacks for longer, the LW would have just been even more spent than it already got. The Royal Navy was unchallenged, so Britain really had very little to fear beyond 1940, so the German bargaining position was extremely weak if they wanted to keep all their conquests. Britain just had no compelling reason to legitimize all their conquests at that point in time. The Germans also realized that the idea of cooling off for 3-6 months then trying to attack Britain again was not a winning strategy, because the Commonwealth was mobilizing and the United States was stepping up it's aid to the UK. Another hindsight thing - the United Kingdom substantially outproduced Germany in aircraft every single year of the 1939-1944 period. This was not necessarily known to the Germans at the time, but yeah.
Attacking the USSR did doom them in retrospect, although I've often written about how this fact was not obvious to people at the time. Finland had humiliated the Red Army in the Winter War, and the first several months of the invasion saw such staggering losses inflicted upon the Red Army that many believed the Soviets would crumble in short order. The question of invading/not invading the USSR in 1941 is really hard to talk about because while I strongly agree it was a strategic mistake, the political objectives of the Nazi party made it the least bad option on the table for them. An attack into the USSR was the strategic goal, long term, for the Nazis. All of the other parts of the war were undesirable distractions that needed to be dealt with to free up their armies to march East without interference from the Western powers. The idea of giving up on the USSR as a target makes perfect sense for you and me, because we know Germany doesn't "need" to conquer all that stuff to prosper. But if they were willing to give up that goal, there wouldn't have been any war at all!
The question of timing is kind of important here. The Winter War showed that the Soviets were weaker than their paper strength suggested - they were disorganized and as an institution were substantially under-performing. If they couldn't even invade Finland without it turning into a complete balls-up, how would they cope with a war against Germany, Italy, Romania and Hungary? The German army at the peak of their strength high on virtually bloodless victories against what had up until that point been considered the best army in the whole world (France)? In the 1920's, Poland was victorious in a war with the Soviet Union. In the First World War, the Russian Empire collapsed after the Germans and Austro-Hungarian forces barely penetrated into their borders. The idea that the USSR would not only hang on after being pushed back to the gates of Moscow, Leningrad, and Stalingrad but fight back and be victorious was not conventional wisdom.
Even so, why not wait, right? Hitler himself wrote about the importance of avoiding a two-front war. Well there are several factors here.
- Will the Soviet Union be this weak forever? Answer - almost certainly not.
- Is there any easy way to get the British out of the war in late 1940/early 1941 while still preserving German conquests? No.
- Will the Soviet Union, once it feels more secure, still be shipping vital war materials to the Germans for their war on the West (and to fuel their conquest into the USSR)? Unknown, but they were worried that the answer was no.
- Is there any way for the British to open a major front on the continent within the next 12-18 months? Zero chance.
So the calculus becomes this - if the Axis can defeat the Soviet Union within a span of 1-2 years, it will not really be a two front war. And that calculation was correct - it kind of wasn't a two front war, not until 1943-1944. If you're a senior Nazi dead set on dealing with the USSR at some point, does it seem like a better idea to strike in their moment of greatest weakness, or wait 5 years for them to keep strengthening and shoring up their weaknesses while you struggle to make progress against Britain? If you didn't know the real history, it may not seem so unreasonable to think that attacking now was the correct bet.
Speer took all sorts of credit for many things he did not cause. Adam Tooze in The Wages of Destruction provides an extremely thorough (and very damning) analysis of Speer's "Armaments Miracle", and I'd strongly recommend reading that if you have any interest in WWII economics. It's extremely illuminating on a great variety of topics.
So does communism and antisemitism.
Hating Jews is something that apparently anyone can enjoy.
Enough of this. Nazism was directly opposed to both liberalism and to socialism. It styled itself as "national socialism" in an attempt to market itself as an alternative to Marxist international socialism, and to attract working class Germans, but it championed the class hierarchy and rejected social welfare in favor of social Darwinism. Nazism is inimical to egalitarianism and cosmopolitanism.
Last edited:
Hitler himself was probably the biggest contributor to the nazis downfall.
Leaving the UK un invaded (yes he was justified in saying that the UK posed no threat), but that mistake was massive once he declared war on the US (another huge mistake) and the UK became the jump point.
Diverting army group center to the south to secure the resources of the Ukraine instead of taking Moscow. Losing 6 weeks and then not getting there because of the winter. Was a fatal error.
Then refusing to allow his generals to retreat to more defensible positions was another fatal mistake. Von Manstein himself wrote that he could have fought the USSR to a stalemate as late as 1943 if he had been allowed to fight the war without hitlers meddling and stupid orders.
Just a few examples that disprove the theory that the war was won with ideology. The war was won and the nazis vanquished by bad decisions, technological advances, changes in tactics plus more things that I have time to write. More importantly, it was won by brave men and women. Who witnessed slaughter on a scale that I hope will never again be seen on this planet.
Leaving the UK un invaded (yes he was justified in saying that the UK posed no threat), but that mistake was massive once he declared war on the US (another huge mistake) and the UK became the jump point.
Diverting army group center to the south to secure the resources of the Ukraine instead of taking Moscow. Losing 6 weeks and then not getting there because of the winter. Was a fatal error.
Then refusing to allow his generals to retreat to more defensible positions was another fatal mistake. Von Manstein himself wrote that he could have fought the USSR to a stalemate as late as 1943 if he had been allowed to fight the war without hitlers meddling and stupid orders.
Just a few examples that disprove the theory that the war was won with ideology. The war was won and the nazis vanquished by bad decisions, technological advances, changes in tactics plus more things that I have time to write. More importantly, it was won by brave men and women. Who witnessed slaughter on a scale that I hope will never again be seen on this planet.
Well, according to some of the posts here it seems like my great-grandfather died in vain because General Moroz and General Gryaz would stop Germans regardless of the actions of Soviet Army, what an idiot.
First question that should be asked is, are we using the American definition of socialism or the actual definition of socialism here?
The USSR was socialist, socialism being the in-between step between capitalism and communism where eventual true communism is the goal.
The USSR was not socialist in the way that many in the US think Sweden is a socialist state and by those standards, you should probably call the USSR communist because really, if you call Western Europe welfare states socialist, where do you go from there?
The USSR was socialist, socialism being the in-between step between capitalism and communism where eventual true communism is the goal.
The USSR was not socialist in the way that many in the US think Sweden is a socialist state and by those standards, you should probably call the USSR communist because really, if you call Western Europe welfare states socialist, where do you go from there?
"The most succinct definition of fascism comes from Roger Griffin: "palingenetic ultranationalism," a wonderful term because it fits a great many ideas into only two roots and a bunch of affixes, and a terrible one because both words need definitions of their own. (That's not how efficiency works, Rog!)
So, OK: Palingenesis is the idea of rebirth, with some frankly Biblical overtones. The word "palingenesis" is used to refer to reincarnation, or the remaking of the world after Judgment Day. In terms of fascism, it is the notion that "we," as a unified people, are ancient, that our former glory has waned, and that we are due to rise again. The implications that this rebirth will come by purging the world in fire with boiling seas and a blood-red sky are not entirely accidental. It is the granting of "us" with mythological importance.
Nationalism is, in the broadest sense, thinking of oneself through the lens of national identity. A single person holds a lot of identities: White, male, gamer, New Englander, cyclist, sports racer, and so on. Nationalism is the lens through which thinking of oneself as, for instance, American, is distinct from being Canadian, Liberian, Chilean, and that putting stock in this distinction is desirable. This can play out a lot of ways: Nationalism can be a colonized people forming an identity distinct from the ruling class and arguing that this people should have its own state, as in the American or Haitian Revolutions; Black nationalism has argued, at times, that Black Americans, while coexisting with other Americans, should maintain a distinct identity rather than be assimilated into white culture; and where Black nationalism has also sometimes argued for the repatriation of Black Americans to African nations, white nationalism typically argues that whites should have a nation of their own, not by returning to Europe, but by removing non-whites from the US (something Native Americans have opinions about). This would be an example of ultranationalism: The emphasizing of national identity as among the most, if not the most, important.
(These are not rare traits, and I want to stress that it is not the presence but the confluence of them that gives fascism its character.)
So, palingenetic ultranationalism: The belief that the nation is of the utmost importance, that the people running the nation should be a narrowly defined "us," and that "we" should rule because it's, more or less, our destiny."
- Induendo Studios: White Facism
User Banned (2 weeks): Spreading Misinformation and Historical Revisionism Over Multiple Posts
If you're going to copy paste wikipedia at me you could at least make an effort to you know... scroll down to the part about the economic viewpoints of the party...
(Hint: it starts with the title anti-capitalism...)
Honestly I see more people claiming the Nazi party was socialist than what you are saying. Which of course is bs
Edit: oh hey look, someone claiming that in the thread.
"The Nazi's were socialists!" seems be a heavy right wing talking point pushing back against any form of socialism. Funny they never bring up the fact that the nordic countries they all wish more immigrants would come from are also socialist countries
Edit: oh hey look, someone claiming that in the thread.
"The Nazi's were socialists!" seems be a heavy right wing talking point pushing back against any form of socialism. Funny they never bring up the fact that the nordic countries they all wish more immigrants would come from are also socialist countries
Buahahahahahahhaha. I can't believe we have this on ERA.
"NAzIs WerE SociAliSt" BS spreads everywhere.
I guess North Korea truly is a democratic country, buffalo have wings and the tarabtula hawk is a tarantula and a hawk.
This thread is so American lmao.
When your political party is a advocate of redistribution of the wealth to the people (albeit only specific German people as they weren't quite fond of a large portion of the world) that's socialism for you...
When they say hmmm the state being owner of everything is a bad a idea and bit quite fond of the idea of a class revolution, that makes you anti-communist. Doesn't make you any less socialist.
When you create a government program to help people (specific Germans only again) get cars... Also quite socialist.
The fact that their socialism is limited by their backwards and hateful ideals on race... Doesn't make them any less socialist for what they wanted to achieve ... For the people in scope once again.
When your political party is a advocate of redistribution of the wealth to the people (albeit only specific German people as they weren't quite fond of a large portion of the world) that's socialism for you...
When they say hmmm the state being owner of everything is a bad a idea and bit quite fond of the idea of a class revolution, that makes you anti-communist. Doesn't make you any less socialist.
When you create a government program to help people (specific Germans only again) get cars... Also quite socialist.
The fact that their socialism is limited by their backwards and hateful ideals on race... Doesn't make them any less socialist for what they wanted to achieve ... For the people in scope once again.
Shut up. You are not only ignorant, you are being disingenuous.
The Nazis weren't socialists, even Hitler said it. They purged the socialists in the Night of the Long knives, Privatization is something deeply attributed to Nazis, and corporations benefited a LOT from Nazi Germany.
So NO. And I not American, and Shugga is French, and there's already an academic consensus which can easily debunk your claims.
You are actually spreading Far Right propaganda (and, hell, Nazi propaganda, too), while making yourself a fool.
death and sacrifice were due to how LITTLE Stalin cared about his own citizens. He was a fucking monster. You can't erase that history. Also, to call the Soviet Union communists is like calling China a republic.
(he got rid of his political opponents on that night, he was targeting socialists as such)
JFC get a clue.
I'm Belgian, the far right party here Vlaams Belang, look at their viewpoints on economy. They're socialists. They hate foreigners and other religions etc. But they're all for giving more money to Belgian poor people. More money to Belgian unemployed workers etc.
It doesn't mean that these parties viewpoints aren't inclusive and just plain sick, that they're not socialist.
So does that mean trump is a socialist because he said he would help rural america ?
Just because politicians name something socialist or do some empty promises doesn't automatically make them socialists
Soviet manpower backed by American weapons, intelligence, and supplies is what beat the Nazis.
Hitler's major boo-boo was declaring war on the US after Pearl Harbor. That allowed the US to go full bore on supplying Britain and the USSR with supplies.
Hitler's major boo-boo was declaring war on the US after Pearl Harbor. That allowed the US to go full bore on supplying Britain and the USSR with supplies.
Not saying that we'll be living in Wolfenstein universe or anything if Hitler wasn't the leader they still probably would have lost but everyone else would have suffered more
Buuuuuuut Nazi Germany worst enemy was Hitler
This is huge oversimplification and is often parroted by former german generals because they wanted to shift the blame from themselves. A lot of early success of Nazis was exactly because of Hitler. For example invasion of France trough Ardennes was huge gamble and most german generals were against it but Hitler overwrote them. Hitler was gambler and early on almost every decision he made paid off. That is also why there was less and less resistance towards Hitler from the army as time went by. I mean by late war Hitler had already gone full paranoid mode and made a lot of decisions that hindered the war effort but by then germans had lost the war anyhow so in grand picture it doesn't really change things.
I didn't know Americans designed T-34, PPSh-41 and Mosin's rifle. You learn something new every day.
Lend-Lease was already doing that. The Imperial Japanese knew this too which is why they tried to preempt the US finishing their Pacific fleet.
If you want to look at what aided the Soviet victory in the Eastern Front it is these factors:
1. Stalin's ruthlessness: He really didn't value life in the USSR and used conscripts as disposable resources to cover his retreats back across Eastern Europe and into Russia.
Once the Red Army was ready we see a mass change in strategy, training and troop make up on his front lines.
2. Lend-lease. Food, oil and material support from the Western allies held fuel the Ref Army's advances across Europe. Even despite the USSR trying to rewrite history later on we have logs of maintenance show the Soviet air corps being as high as 15% lend-lease aircraft. Then add the grey area of converted designs like the main Soviet transport aircraft being a copy of the C-47.
3. Strategic Air Command. Soviets couldn't hammer Berlin and more importantly Axis oil reserves in the Mediterranean. So the Western air power had to do the heavy lifting there causing the mass fuel and resource shortages that doomed the Nazis in the East.
4. Multi-front war. The Western allies opened new fronts the African Magreb, France, and Holland put even further pressure on the Nazis with the bulk of their forces fighting the Red Army
Ernst Röhm and his Sturmabteilung, who thought the natinalsocialistic revolution hadn't gone far enough and said they would pay with their lives to see the idea behind the Hakenkreuz become reality, were the real german socialists after all?
Are you serious right know, you write that shit and then call other people fools!!?
Just wanted to say I approve of the large number of socialists here at Era that came out of the woodwork to respond to OP.
Nice troll account, fool. But, sure, I should have said "they purged the "socialist" side of the Nazis, or Strasserists"
Communists, Socialists and anarchists were already persecuted, after all.
Last edited:
- Status