A new academic blog on the Soviet Jewish experience in the 20s and 30s
HHW
jgarbuz
> http://sovietjewishculture.org/<
Who cares about this Jewish bolshevik nostalgia crap? Jewish life has
died, or is dying in the Diaspora everywhere, as the center of Jewish
life shifts back to the homeland. Jewish Brooklyn is as dead as Jewish
Bolshieland too. It's history best forgotten ASAP. It's Jewish
Bolshevism in Russia that gave rise to German Nazism. Had there been
no Jewish Bolsheviks, there would never have been any German Nazis.
One was the equal and opposite reaction to the other.
Frank Arthur
"jgarbuz" <jga...@netzero.com> wrote in message
news:cf3bfb3a-2720-480e...@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
So your history book says Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia, France and
Poland because of Jewish Bolsheviks in Russia?
B.H. Cramer
"jgarbuz" <jga...@netzero.com> wrote in message
news:cf3bfb3a-2720-480e...@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
Have you been taking truth pills, garbageguz.
Your last sentence is the most honest statement you've ever made.
B.H. Cramer
"Frank Arthur" <A...@Arthurian.com> wrote in message
news:tohwk.20868$bx1...@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
He didn't say that at all. He did not localise where the jewish Bolsheviks
existed, silly person.
>
>
jgarbuz
> "jgarbuz" <jgar...@netzero.com> wrote in message
My history says that the state government in Munich, Bavaria, was
taken over for a few days by a bunch of bolsheviks called the
Spartacists led by Rosa Luxembourg in 1918. Could you imagine if the
state capital of Texas had been taken over by communists led by a
female Jewish bolshevik, what the reaction would have been? As is,
the "Red Scare" in 1919 led to the deportation of a number of Jewish
socialists even in the US. But life in the 1920s improved for a while
in Germany up until the Depression. Then mass unemployment in Germany,
as well as Stalin's brutal collectivization drive in the USSR, led
even to some industrialists to support Hitler.. I repeat, Communism
led to Fascism and Nazism. Cause and Effect.
jgarbuz
> "jgarbuz" <jgar...@netzero.com> wrote in message
Every statement I've made has been honest, as, unlike yourself and
your ilk, I don't knowingly make dishonest ones.
>
HHW
> "jgarbuz" <jgar...@netzero.com> wrote in message
Good point, Frank.
HHW
> "Frank Arthur" <A...@Arthurian.com> wrote in message
>
> news:tohwk.20868$bx1...@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> >news:cf3bfb3a-2720-480e...@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> > On Sep 5, 4:50 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>http://sovietjewishculture.org/<
>
> > Who cares about this Jewish bolshevik nostalgia crap? Jewish life has
> > died, or is dying in the Diaspora everywhere, as the center of Jewish
> > life shifts back to the homeland. Jewish Brooklyn is as dead as Jewish
> > Bolshieland too. It's history best forgotten ASAP. It's Jewish
> > Bolshevism in Russia that gave rise to German Nazism. Had there been
> > no Jewish Bolsheviks, there would never have been any German Nazis.
> > One was the equal and opposite reaction to the other.
>
> > So your history book says Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia, France and Poland
> > because of Jewish Bolsheviks in Russia?
>
> He didn't say that at all. He did not localise where the jewish Bolsheviks
> existed, silly person.
>
>
But he did localize where they had an effect.
HHW
That's pretty close, Jack. But they both arose from the 19th Century
European socialist tradition. In terms of the old, illogical, linear
(right/left) analysis right and left were opposites. That's
objectively untrue. In fact political enthusiasms when graphed
describe a circle. Bolsheviks and Nazis sit right next to each other
on that circle, cheek by jowl. When remorselessly analyzed in the most
objective fashion they differ more in irrelevant detail, in matters of
style, than in actual substance. They were both totalitarian and
viewed from that vantage point they were far more similar than
different.
HHW
For what it's worth, I know that, Jack. I hope I don't offend though
if I say that I admire your candor but not so much your judgment on
political matters. Extreme degrees of commitment to a particular world
view tend to cloud perceptions.
B.H. Cramer
Perhaps you don't believe you lie, but your statements generally are nothing
but yid propaganda and institutionalised lies, garbageguz.
>>
B.H. Cramer
"HHW" <coaste...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5cd81354-67b7-4201...@w24g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Yes he did, however he's attempted to distort the message by inferring
bolshevism was restricted to Russia.
Eli Grubman
wrote:
Knowingly??? You can't help lying and making dishonest statements.
It's in your jew DNA.
Eli
Poor Eli Grabmen is a Real Psychopath! LOL
<BG> Psychopath displaying his simplistic, psychopathic world views! Not
much else the poor sod could do anyway! LOL
And here everyone can see the same miserable retard again, right now posting
as Eli Grabmen, already fully retarded in 2002, stalking the same people
then and posting almost the identical garbage he keeps still posting today:
http://home.nyc.rr.com/cypherpunk/tiscali-kook.html
ROTFLOL
jgarbuz
> On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 18:20:49 -0700 (PDT),jgarbuz<jgar...@netzero.com>
And antisemitism is in your goy DNA, and you have no use for truth
when it comes to Jews in any case.
Eli Grubman
wrote:
>On Sep 5, 11:28 pm, Eli Grubman <eli.grub...@googlemail.com> wrote:
So it should be. It's a perfectly rational reaction to semitism. It
should be instilled in youngsters by their parents.
>and you have no use for truth
>when it comes to Jews in any case.
I have no use for jew "truth". It ain't worth jack shit.
Eli
Poor Eli Grabmen is a Real Psychopath! LOL
With the slight correction that this is the statement of a full-blown
psychopath! LOL
>>and you have no use for truth
>>when it comes to Jews in any case.
>
> I have no use for jew "truth". It ain't worth jack shit.
>
> Eli
Yeah, sure psychopath! It's all in your psychopathic mind! LOL
--
Rev. Richard Skull about Eli Grabmen: "Any sex act involving YOU is
bestiality."
jgarbuz
> On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 05:17:59 -0700 (PDT),jgarbuz<jgar...@netzero.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Sep 5, 11:28 pm, Eli Grubman <eli.grub...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 18:20:49 -0700 (PDT),jgarbuz<jgar...@netzero.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Sep 5, 6:25 pm, "B.H. Cramer" <benjis...@yourinvitation.com> wrote:
...
> >> Knowingly??? You can't help lying and making dishonest statements.
> >> It's in your jew DNA.<
>
> >And antisemitism is in your goy DNA,
>
> So it should be. It's a perfectly rational reaction to semitism. It
> should be instilled in youngsters by their parents.<
As I said, it doesn't have to be. It's already in the DNA of your ilk.
Your Hitler Jugend schules only brought it out and made it "official"
policy.
>
> >and you have no use for truth
> >when it comes to Jews in any case.
>
> I have no use for jew "truth". It ain't worth jack shit.<
You have no use for any truth that doesn't suit your evil mind.
Eli Grubman
wrote:
>On Sep 6, 8:43 am, Eli Grubman <eli.grub...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 05:17:59 -0700 (PDT),jgarbuz<jgar...@netzero.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Sep 5, 11:28 pm, Eli Grubman <eli.grub...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 18:20:49 -0700 (PDT),jgarbuz<jgar...@netzero.com>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >On Sep 5, 6:25 pm, "B.H. Cramer" <benjis...@yourinvitation.com> wrote:
>
>...
>
>> >> Knowingly??? You can't help lying and making dishonest statements.
>> >> It's in your jew DNA.<
>>
>> >And antisemitism is in your goy DNA,
>>
>> So it should be. It's a perfectly rational reaction to semitism. It
>> should be instilled in youngsters by their parents.<
>
>As I said, it doesn't have to be. It's already in the DNA of your ilk.
I don't have an ilk.
>Your Hitler Jugend schules only brought it out and made it "official"
>policy.
Do you have a problem with that?
>> >and you have no use for truth
>> >when it comes to Jews in any case.
>>
>> I have no use for jew "truth". It ain't worth jack shit.<
>
>You have no use for any truth that doesn't suit your evil mind.
It's your evil jew mind that has major difficulties with the concept
of truth.
Eli
Panta Rhei is a Grik wog and completely inept stalker! LOLK
inept part-time stalker & raving Psychopath with no penis! LOL
<grabmen....@andfound.invalid> wrote:
>Eli Grabmen wrote:
<snip Grik verbal diarrhoea>
Shabbat shalom, Pants! Mazel tov! Still turning out all those
incoherent one-liners in pidgin English than nobody reads?
You bet! Of course you are! You're rheitarded - what else can you
do? LOL
<EBGETFGEBCVEBCVGHBG>
Eli
Poor Eli Grabmen is a Real Psychopath! LOL
> On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 06:37:02 -0700 (PDT), jgarbuz <jga...@netzero.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Sep 6, 8:43 am, Eli Grubman <eli.grub...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 05:17:59 -0700 (PDT),jgarbuz<jgar...@netzero.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >On Sep 5, 11:28 pm, Eli Grubman <eli.grub...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> >> On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 18:20:49 -0700 (PDT),jgarbuz<jgar...@netzero.com>
>>> >> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> >On Sep 5, 6:25 pm, "B.H. Cramer" <benjis...@yourinvitation.com> wrote:
>>
>>...
>>
>>> >> Knowingly??? You can't help lying and making dishonest statements.
>>> >> It's in your jew DNA.<
>>>
>>> >And antisemitism is in your goy DNA,
>>>
>>> So it should be. It's a perfectly rational reaction to semitism. It
>>> should be instilled in youngsters by their parents.<
>>
>>As I said, it doesn't have to be. It's already in the DNA of your ilk.
>
> I don't have an ilk.
Psychopathic ilk, for sure!
>
>>Your Hitler Jugend schules only brought it out and made it "official"
>>policy.
>
> Do you have a problem with that?
No, but you OBVIOUSLY have, psychopath with no life, no friends, no sex, no
brain, no sleep, etc.! LOL
>>> >and you have no use for truth
>>> >when it comes to Jews in any case.
>>>
>>> I have no use for jew "truth". It ain't worth jack shit.<
>>
>>You have no use for any truth that doesn't suit your evil mind.
>
> It's your evil jew mind that has major difficulties with the concept
> of truth.
>
> Eli
It's your sick psychopathic mind that has difficulties with ANYTHING,
psychopath Grabmen!
And now check this:
PSYCHOPATH GRABMEN GLUED TO HIS COMPUTER SINCE 5:09 a.m. TODAY AGAIN!
That's 14 HOURS, SO FAR!!!!
LMAO!
B.H. Cramer
> On Sep 6, 8:43 am, Eli Grubman <eli.grub...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 05:17:59 -0700 (PDT),jgarbuz<jgar...@netzero.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Sep 5, 11:28 pm, Eli Grubman <eli.grub...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 18:20:49 -0700 (PDT),jgarbuz<jgar...@netzero.com>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >On Sep 5, 6:25 pm, "B.H. Cramer" <benjis...@yourinvitation.com>
>> >> >wrote:
>
> ...
>
>> >> Knowingly??? You can't help lying and making dishonest statements.
>> >> It's in your jew DNA.<
>>
>> >And antisemitism is in your goy DNA,
>>
>> So it should be. It's a perfectly rational reaction to semitism. It
>> should be instilled in youngsters by their parents.<
>
> As I said, it doesn't have to be. It's already in the DNA of your ilk.
> Your Hitler Jugend schules only brought it out and made it "official"
> policy.
Silly person. Anti-semitism has been around for one month less than semitism
has been around.
What does that tell you.
jgarbuz
> "jgarbuz" <jgar...@netzero.com> wrote in message
>
> news:20d5875d-8b5b-4df2...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
...
>
> > As I said, it doesn't have to be. It's already in the DNA of your ilk.
> > Your Hitler Jugend schules only brought it out and made it "official"
> > policy.
>
> Silly person. Anti-semitism has been around for one month less than semitism
> has been around.
> What does that tell you.<
It tells me nothing, as everything you say is meaningless and idiotic.
B.H. Cramer
You are destined to remain stupid, stupid.
>
Panta Rhei is a Grik wog and completely inept stalker! LOL
inept part-time stalker & raving Psychopath with no penis! LOL
<grabmen....@andfound.invalid> wrote:
>Eli Grabmen wrote:
<snip incoherent Grik babbling>
Kalimera, Pants! Still turning out the same illiterate pidgin English
nonsense? You bet! What else can you do - you're a Grik rheitard!
LOL
<EBGEDFEVBEVRBEVBVG>
Eli
Osric
Only to the extent that fear of Communism led the usual oligarchs to attempt
to harness fascism. Still they made for comfortable fellow travellers for
the most part. They may not have controlled the Nazis as they had hoped, but
they did very nicely thankyou. Democratic politicians didn't do well of
course, but all the other power brokers had their usual share. The wheel
just required a slightly different grease. Business as usual. Of course this
is just another of Arendt's trivial details...
--
Osric
THE BORDERS OF MY COUNTRY
RUN AROUND THE SOLES OF MY FEET
Osric
-------------------------
Nazism may have had some socialist influences, although the Night of the
Long Knives showed precisely what Hitler thought of the proletariat. Any SA
street brawler who harboured ambitions of realising a class conflict was
rudely disabused as they watched their enemies in the traditional ruling
elites strutting their stuff in the Wehrmacht that their citizen army was
supposed to supplant, and pour into the ranks of the victorious SS. Another
"irrelevant detail" no doubt. The root of Nazism is in 19th Century Central
European Nationalist movements: not the concept of class, the concept of
race. Not the concept of international struggle, the concept of national
struggle. The two could not be more different.
--------------------------
When remorselessly analyzed in the most
objective fashion they differ more in irrelevant detail, in matters of
style, than in actual substance. They were both totalitarian and
viewed from that vantage point they were far more similar than
different.
---------------------------
Thats a very simplistic vantage point. Hitler was a vegetarian therefore all
vegetarians are Nazis. Hannah Arendt is not the only historian in the world
and parrotting her analysis does not cut the mustard in terms of
objectivity. You are espousing a controversial and partisan analysis, fair
enough, her position is interesting and provides a valuable perspective, but
a historiographical analysis with a shit load of political baggage attached
to it nonetheless. Not "analyzed in the most objective fashion" by any
stretch of the imagination. It would be more accurate to describe the
political circle as a transparent sphere, how close together they appear
reveals more about where your looking from than where they are.
HHW
> "HHW" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Neither regime had any respect for the proletariat. Lenin broke it and
chained workers to the factory bench in the early 20s.
Any SA
> street brawler who harboured ambitions of realising a class conflict was
> rudely disabused as they watched their enemies in the traditional ruling
> elites strutting their stuff in the Wehrmacht that their citizen army was
> supposed to supplant,
The Red Army created by Trotsky during the civil war was run by
Czarist officers whose families were held hostage for their good
behavior. The Communists called them "military specialists".
and pour into the ranks of the victorious SS. Another
> "irrelevant detail" no doubt. The root of Nazism is in 19th Century Central
> European Nationalist movements: not the concept of class, the concept of
> race. Not the concept of international struggle, the concept of national
> struggle. The two could not be more different.
I differ. First one puts actual governmental/industrial structures
under the microscope. In last analysis it didn't matter that Hitler
and Mussolini allowed corporate firms to remain nominally "private".
They took orders from the Party. They were monitored constantly
through a system of parallel corporate and party offices all leading
back to the party oligarchs. There was no question that the direction
of the economy as a whole was under control of the party. The same
structure was found in the Soviet Union. Industries had their own
bureaucracies but office by parallel office the power lay with the
party layer. It made no real difference who had formal title to
industrial assets. Where title lay became an irrelevant detail.
Totalitarian systems require both internal and external enemies. They
seek to keep their populations highly mobilized most of the time and
demonization of these theoretical enemies is one of the tools used to
maintain a fever pitch. The criteria for labeling enemies on racial
grounds by the Nazis and on grounds of alleged class characteristics
in the Soviet Union become de minimus when you go to the results,
millions of deaths of innocents who, if one is a humanist, must be
accorded equal dignity. The Germans murdered Jews, Gypsies, Slavs and
eugenic "failures". These reflect matters of style rather than
substance when placed against royalists, capitalists, Ukrainian
Kulaks, Don Cossacks and enemies of the peopled generally.
Hitler was very respectful of both Lenin and Stalin and copied many
things from them including the use of politicals in labor camps as
adjuncts to the cash economy. Both countries were secret police states
with similar structures answering to the party. In both the civil and
criminal courts essentially collapsed and were replaced by
administrative tribunals with no allegiance except to the ruling party
oligarchy. Both countries had grandiose ideological plans for
exporting their respective revolutions. Both utilized terror as the
main mechanism for the maintenance of control and order. In both
countries unions became arms of the state. In both cases it was WW I
which can be traced to the collapse of the old regime.
Mussolini ran the Italian Socialist Party's primary newspaper. He was
a Marxist ideologue who fell out with his comrades over a relatively
minor matter of theoretical doctrine associated with the party line on
WWI.
You mention Hannah Arendt. Her Origins of Totalitarianism was seminal
but I think the political scientists have evaluated the two systems
most effectively. Zbigniew Brzyzhinski (sic) is probably the most
accessible. His book must be over forty years old now. As to both
systems having had socialist origins, Richard Pipes' two volume
history of the Russian Revolution and Russia under the Bolshevik
Regime is hard to differ with. The chapter I'm thinking of is probably
in the former volume. Finally, a recent study, "The Faces of Janus" by
A. James Gregor, a leading scholar of fascism, comes to similar
conclusions citing Dr. Pipes on the socialist origins. The title is
indicative of the underlying thesis.
Anyway, these are interesting issues of intellectual/ideological
history. The 20th Century was the bloodiest in human history, with a
hundred million helpless civilian victims of the Marxists alone. I've
hated to see the Cold War end only to be succeeded by foreign policy
crises in the ME which could be even more dangerous.
jgarbuz
.....
> > > So your history book says Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia, France and
> > > Poland because of Jewish Bolsheviks in Russia?<
>
> > My history says that the state government in Munich, Bavaria, was
> > taken over for a few days by a bunch of bolsheviks called the
> > Spartacists led by Rosa Luxembourg in 1918. Could you imagine if the
> > state capital of Texas had been taken over by communists led by a
> > female Jewish bolshevik, what the reaction would have been? As is,
> > the "Red Scare" in 1919 led to the deportation of a number of Jewish
> > socialists even in the US. But life in the 1920s improved for a while
> > in Germany up until the Depression. Then mass unemployment in Germany,
> > as well as Stalin's brutal collectivization drive in the USSR, led
> > even to some industrialists to support Hitler.. I repeat, Communism
> > led to Fascism and Nazism. Cause and Effect.
>
> That's pretty close, Jack. But they both arose from the 19th Century
> European socialist tradition.<
Which arose from Karl Marx's "Communist Manifesto" of 1948.
> In terms of the old, illogical, linear
> (right/left) analysis right and left were opposites. That's
> objectively untrue. In fact political enthusiasms when graphed
> describe a circle. Bolsheviks and Nazis sit right next to each other
> on that circle, cheek by jowl.<
Whatever. Both led to the conclusion that the Jew had to be
eliminated, one way or the other.
Communism meant class warfare, or a jihad on the "oppressive"
capitalists, which often meant Jews.
Nazism meant race warfare, or elimination of the "oppressive"
Bolshevik virus, which often also meant Jews.
B.H. Cramer
Most of the leaders of the Bolsheviks were jews, garbageguz.
Osric
>>
>> That's pretty close, Jack. But they both arose from the 19th Century
>> European socialist tradition.
>> In terms of the old, illogical, linear
>> (right/left) analysis right and left were opposites. That's
>> objectively untrue. In fact political enthusiasms when graphed
>> describe a circle. Bolsheviks and Nazis sit right next to each other
>> on that circle, cheek by jowl.
>>
>> -------------------------
>>
>> Nazism may have had some socialist influences, although the Night of the
>> Long Knives showed precisely what Hitler thought of the proletariat.
>
> Neither regime had any respect for the proletariat. Lenin broke it and
> chained workers to the factory bench in the early 20s.
>
> Any SA
>> street brawler who harboured ambitions of realising a class conflict was
>> rudely disabused as they watched their enemies in the traditional ruling
>> elites strutting their stuff in the Wehrmacht that their citizen army was
>> supposed to supplant,
>
> The Red Army created by Trotsky during the civil war was run by
> Czarist officers whose families were held hostage for their good
> behavior. The Communists called them "military specialists".
Oh come now, thats hardly a legitimate comparison at all. The Wehrmacht
remained entirely intact. The Red Army was not dissolved in favour of the
Imperial Russian Army. Thats the whole point where Arendt and her fellow
travellers go wrong. The chauvenist nature of Nazism meant that only
democratic politicians amongst society's power brokers were expunged and
traditional right wing elites largely remained in place. The military and
industrialists, the first victims of the Soviet system, were fellow
travellers with the Nazis throughout. This is fundamental. The socialist
wing of Nazism was purged and utterly expunged as Hitler put himself at the
head of precisely the same power brokers that existed prior to the Nazi rise
to power. The Soviet rise to power wiped out these societal forces and hung
on to only a very few as you pointed out by holding their families hostage.
The reckless desire to rid Soviet society of perceived reactionary forces
led to the liquidation of the officer class in the late 1930's and the
ascendency of political commissars in the army. There was no such desire to
have root and branch purges of pre-existing forces of reaction in Nazi
Germany. The only purge that took place was that of the potential
revolutionary tendencies of the SA. If Lenin had disbanded the Red Army and
maintained the Imperial army you might have a point. The USSR was a root and
branch revolution, the Nazis a constitutional coup.
>
> and pour into the ranks of the victorious SS. Another
>> "irrelevant detail" no doubt. The root of Nazism is in 19th Century
>> Central
>> European Nationalist movements: not the concept of class, the concept of
>> race. Not the concept of international struggle, the concept of national
>> struggle. The two could not be more different.
>
> I differ. First one puts actual governmental/industrial structures
> under the microscope. In last analysis it didn't matter that Hitler
> and Mussolini allowed corporate firms to remain nominally "private".
> They took orders from the Party.
No they didn't, they cosied up to the party to receive government contracts,
sound familiar? They were free to pursue their economic interests as they
saw fit. They were private, not nominally so. After the outbreak of war
things were different, as they were in the UK.
They were monitored constantly
> through a system of parallel corporate and party offices all leading
> back to the party oligarchs. There was no question that the direction
> of the economy as a whole was under control of the party.
No more so than it was in the US in the 1930's and anyway the Nazis were
nowhere near that organised. It took Speer to gear the Nazi state to a war
economy and he trod on the feet of the Allgemeine-SS to do so. Ford was
still happily fulfilling Wehrmacht contracts and their industrial capacity
not sequestered until 1941.
The same
> structure was found in the Soviet Union.
Total bollocks. The USSR nationalised the entire economy and was a direct
command economy from the outset. Nazi Germany did not even after the
outbreak of war when industry was still churning out consumer goodies. Only
after things began to go pear shaped was it a real command economy.
Industries had their own
> bureaucracies but office by parallel office the power lay with the
> party layer. It made no real difference who had formal title to
> industrial assets. Where title lay became an irrelevant detail.
>
Not at all. prior to WW2 the German economy was Keynesian of a type similar
to economic models such as the New Deal. Sure industrialists cosied up to
the Nazi regime and positioned themselves alongside its interests but you'll
find similar close associations in the US and other so-called "free-market
economies". You'll also find similar government departments liasing with US
industry. Nazi Germany was more like South Korea than the Soviet Union.
Nazi Germany was not a command economy, it was during the war, but then all
combatants largely had a command economy. Such is "Total War"
> Totalitarian systems require both internal and external enemies.
So what? So has the US. Or have you forgotten McCarthy? I think McCarthy
might have had an issue with him being cheek by jowel with the communists.
Margaret Thatcher had it with the Unions, so did Hitler, therefore Thatcher
was politically indistinguishable from the Nazis?
They
> seek to keep their populations highly mobilized most of the time and
> demonization of these theoretical enemies is one of the tools used to
> maintain a fever pitch.
Now can you think of a society that is maintaining demonized theoretical
enemies as a tool to maintain a fever pitch?
The criteria for labeling enemies on racial
> grounds by the Nazis and on grounds of alleged class characteristics
> in the Soviet Union become de minimus when you go to the results,
> millions of deaths of innocents who, if one is a humanist, must be
> accorded equal dignity.
So what? Its another Hitler was a vegetarian therefore all vegetarians are
Nazis argument. It is woefully simplistic. Sure the distiction is irrelevant
to the victims. We can agree that both systems were morally bankrupt. Fine.
We surely aren't in the habit of analysing political and economic systems
based upon how much of an arsehole they are? But thats not the argument. The
argument is that dialectically, politically and economically they were very
different. History is littered with piles of corpses.
The Germans murdered Jews, Gypsies, Slavs and
> eugenic "failures". These reflect matters of style rather than
> substance when placed against royalists, capitalists, Ukrainian
> Kulaks, Don Cossacks and enemies of the peopled generally.
>
No its not style, its a fundamental difference in ideology. The Roma Empire
produced piles of corpses, so did the British Empire, Genghis Khan, and the
current US Empire, the Chinese and just about any powerful entity you care
to mention. Using Arendt and her fellow travellers' criteria the political
framework describes a dot. And is therefore utterly useless in identifying
the driving ideological forces behind various political movements.
> Hitler was very respectful of both Lenin and Stalin and copied many
> things from them including the use of politicals in labor camps as
> adjuncts to the cash economy.
By this I take it you mean the Wirtschaft - und Verwaltungshauptampt (WVHA).
Consisting initially of limited companies owned and run by people like
construction tycoons Georg and Hans Lorner financed by people like the
Dresdner bank - all the standard trappings of the standard western economy,
actually very much like US companies in Iraq. This system was an unmitigated
failure and recognised as such by Speer and Hitler. It was quite apparent
that the cost of feeding, clothing, housing, training and guarding
brutalised starving prisoners who produced around 5 percent of the output
generally expected of a worker was a false economy. Auschwitz-Birkenau was
probably of better outcome for GDP. This was Himmler's hobby horse and one
that Hitler railed at when the true cost of these failed enterprises became
apparent. Now are we going to suggest that because some of the most
notorious aspects of the Nazi regime are similar in structure and
industrialist involvement to the US military industrial complex that Nazi
Germany sits cheek by jowel with the US? No, because to do so is
superficial. Marxist historians have traditionally done it, but I give them
no greater credibility than their Rostovian counterparts such as Pipes. But
no prizes for why Pipes and his ilk choose to eliminate it from their
perspective. All this is just a political dick measuring competition over
who owns the Nazis.
Both countries were secret police states
> with similar structures answering to the party.
So is Jordan. So was Elizabethan England.
In both the civil and
> criminal courts essentially collapsed and were replaced by
> administrative tribunals with no allegiance except to the ruling party
> oligarchy.
Thats pretty common too. Historically independent judiciaries are rare -
hanging chads and all that. Are they all politically indistinguishable from
Communists?
Both countries had grandiose ideological plans for
> exporting their respective revolutions.
Could not be further from the truth. Nazism was a German thing. Many people
expected the Nazis to export their ideologies but they didn't. The
Ukrainians and many Soviet dominated states welcomed the Nazis as liberators
expecting a domestic nationalist resurgence only to be cruelly disabused.
Nazi Germany was fundamentally imperialist. Hence the Lebensraum. Nazi
Germany may have set up client states in the West, but only in so far as
they delivered on not being a pain in the arse and when they ceased to be
quiescent central German rule was re-established. Hitler couldn't give a
toss about anyone other than Germans. It was a fundamentally chauvenist
ideology. A Nationalist movement. A movement that owes its origins to
Germanic volkisch beliefs. Himmler may have had designs on a pan European
National Socialist movement, but Hitler only allowed this impression because
Himmler was delivering SS units with this anti-bolshevik illusion. Himmler
portrayed WW2 as an anti-bolshevik crusade, but that was his outlook.
Hitler couldn't give a flying fuck what system foreign governments employed
just so long as they didn't threaten or stand in the way of Germany's
manifest destiny.
The Soviets sought to instill their values and political systems in the
entire world as it conformed to Marxist determinism just as the US does
today with its Rostovian determinism and the consequent foreign policies you
dislike. Hitler, for all his rhetoric, cared about one thing and one thing
only, Greater Germany that posessed unqualified European hegemony, posessed
enough territory to enshrine this dominance forever, and encompassed all
Germanic people. What the British got up to with their Empire and the
Russians got up to beyond the Urals was a matter for them, so long as they
stayed there. If they didn't want a Nazi style regime then so much the
better as in his mind they would be less likely to be strong enough to pose
a threat. Hitler was not the slightest bit interested in either world
conquest or providing a universal system of government, he wanted a Germanic
Empire that ecompassed the food and industrial centres of Western Russia.
Why do you think he didn't apply the same policies in the West as he did in
the East. The western governments could have set up an Islamic republic for
all he cared provided they were plient little client states, and invading
them was a regrettable necessity. The fact that there existed a cadre of
fellow fascists made Nazi clone governments the path of least resistance and
instinctive to secure territories the Reich had no intention of annexing or
treating in the colonial manner with which they approached the East, where
he could have had far more willing vassal states had this been his intent.
Nowhere in Mein Kampf does Hitler mention establishing client Nazi states in
the West. Had the west given the Nazis free hand in the East they need never
have gone to war, they would, however, have had to tolerate their complete
immasculation and that was a price to high to bear, fortunately for
everyone. The universality of the Communist model was a central tenet of
Communist thought, although establishing it by force of arms by the Soviet
Union was not, historical determinism would see to that, perhaps with a
nudge here and there.
Both utilized terror as the
> main mechanism for the maintenance of control and order.
So what? The US used terror and genocide to gain control of the US and
shipped inconvenient indigenous populations to internment camps, so did the
British in the Boer War. Does that make 19th Century America politically
indistinguishable from Nazism and Communism? They all used guns to shoot
people. This is so superficial as to make it impossible to slide a cigarette
paper between any number of historical entities.
Any any case this is something of a caricature. Most Germans could not argue
with Hitler's apparent economic successes and the Nazis did not whip their
citizens into line and into war. Many Germans were pleased with the
relatively homogenous society that contrasted deeply with the violent chaos
of Weimar. They remained surprisingly loyal with the patriotism engendered
by war. And many in 1930's Soviet Union could remember the appalling
degradations of Imperial Russia that had feudal slavery up until the 1870's
and when reformed had left the peasants destitute and starving, starvation
being a recurrent theme of Imperial Russia. One thing that Nazi Germany and
Soviet Russia have in common is the surprising similarities with their
Imperial pasts. If, like most people, all you cared about was getting by
there
was no need for terror.
Incidentally you try raising a placard outside the British Houses of
Parliament, you'll get arrested and if you resist you'll get maced or
smacked round the head with a trucheon, imprisoned, propagandised as violent
extremists in the press and your economic and employment prospects curtailed
as a result of a criminal record you'll be obliged to declare. Go any
further and you're a terrorist. Still you get to vote, like the choice in
the Soviet Union, you will get a chance to chose between one free market
capitalist, or a different free market capitalist. For the moment, because
for the most part western electorates major problem is coping with the
obesity arriving out of all their material desires being sated, and the
little square Goebbels in the corner, the west hasn't needed to use large
scale repression, but won't those anti-terrorist laws make it easier if the
natives get restless, as they could well do? British police routinely use
anti-terrorist legislation to stifle dissent. In some respects we're not so
different from the contented little prolls of late 1930's Germany, a whole
load of shit done in our name that we prefer not to think about.
In both
> countries unions became arms of the state.
They did not. Trade Unions were abolished in Nazi Germany on 2nd May 1933
having faced a violent campaign by the SA and were forcibly replaced by the
DAF.
In both cases it was WW I
> which can be traced to the collapse of the old regime.
>
So too did the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Wars tend to topple regimes and a
variety of political structures occupy the power vacuums they create.
> Mussolini ran the Italian Socialist Party's primary newspaper. He was
> a Marxist ideologue who fell out with his comrades over a relatively
> minor matter of theoretical doctrine associated with the party line on
> WWI.
>
Mussolini clearly understood fuck all about Marxism if he though nationalism
had any part to play. But then nobody ever suggested that Mussolini was an
intellectual giant. Even the neo-cons used to be liberal.
> You mention Hannah Arendt. Her Origins of Totalitarianism was seminal
Yeah, for right wing historians, but a necessary wake up call for complacent
wilfully naive Marxist historians nonetheless.
> but I think the political scientists have evaluated the two systems
> most effectively. Zbigniew Brzyzhinski (sic) is probably the most
> accessible. His book must be over forty years old now. As to both
> systems having had socialist origins, Richard Pipes' two volume
> history of the Russian Revolution and Russia under the Bolshevik
> Regime is hard to differ with.
Come now, two old cold warriors? I'd give them no more credibility than if
Nikita Kruschev wrote a book claiming that because Nazi Germany was
nationalist, imperialist and fellow travellers with capitalists that Nazi
Germany was fundamentally indistinguishable from the US.
The chapter I'm thinking of is probably
> in the former volume. Finally, a recent study, "The Faces of Janus" by
> A. James Gregor, a leading scholar of fascism, comes to similar
> conclusions citing Dr. Pipes on the socialist origins. The title is
> indicative of the underlying thesis.
No shit, no angle there then. Perhaps you should get to grips with some more
primary source material instead of trusting to right wing ideologues, or at
least read a historian without a naked agenda. Read Mein Kampf. Volkisch
volkisch volkisch volkisch. Understand the German concept of the
"Volksgemeinschaft" and you understand the fundamental origins of Nazism, it
is mystical nationalism. Volk literally means "people" but it has
fundamentally different overtones than that word when used in marxist
rhetoric. Not for nothing did the SS have an archaeological department
called the Ahnenerbe. Not for nothing were leading nationalist mystics
closely associated with the Nazi movement and given honorary SS rank. If you
want a modern day equivalent of German nationalism you want to look at
people like Radovan Karadzic, thats what Nazism is all about. This concept
is anathema to Marxism. It is race not class, and nationalism not
internationalism. Diametric opposites.
Many aspects of the Nazi model have commonalities with the US: nationalism,
military industrial complex, imperialist tendencies, the existence of
traditional elites, all irrelevant. And the structures that the Nazis and
Communists have in common all stressed. A view of history that places
stresses where it fits their determinist model on "the Road to High Mass
Consumption". If you can't smell a rat there's something wrong, the
droppings are everywhere.
The two opposing determinist historiographical theories are both bollocks.
One theory suggests that capitalism inevitably leads to a revolution and
Marxist utopia, the other leads to "The Age of High Mass Consumption"
utopia. Historians of both approaches have sought to shoe-horn history into
their preferred model. Pipes is to Rostow what Engels was to Marx. The
historians, or rather politicians, you cite are recognised as being the
founding fathers of a highly politicised historiographical approach with a
HUGE axe to grind, just like their Marxist alter egos.
When Bush et al kicked in the doors to Iraq, the neocons believed only a
small army would suffice because these immutable economic and political laws
would inevitably work their magic. PNAC is an expression of the determinist
righteousness of their creed. Just as Marxism would sweep all before it
through deterministic logic. The end of the Cold War left one nefarious
blinkered political ideology that seeks to impose itself on the world
intact.
>
> Anyway, these are interesting issues of intellectual/ideological
> history. The 20th Century was the bloodiest in human history, with a
> hundred million helpless civilian victims of the Marxists alone. I've
> hated to see the Cold War end only to be succeeded by foreign policy
> crises in the ME which could be even more dangerous.
>
>
Then perhaps you should consider rejecting the neo-con historiography and
ideological narrative, that provides the intellectual framework of the
foreign policy you oppose.
jgarbuz
wrote:
> "jgarbuz" <jgar...@netzero.com> wrote in message
So? Most of the leaders of the Nazis were Germans. Does that mean all
Germans are bad? I've already stated many times that Communism was the
blackest stain on the Jewish people, but that doesn't mean that all
Jews were Bolsheviks. The majority had nothing to do with it. One does
not blame an entire people for the sins of a few.
Eli Grubman
Some Nazis may have been a little over-enthusiastic. Does that mean
all Nazis are bad?
> I've already stated many times that Communism was the
>blackest stain on the Jewish people, but that doesn't mean that all
>Jews were Bolsheviks. The majority had nothing to do with it. One does
>not blame an entire people for the sins of a few.
One does when most Bolsheviks were jews.
Eli
plainolamerican
jews should fund and fight their own wars without US tax dollars
Warmongers Beware!
Poor Eli Grabmen is a Real Psychopath! LOL
AHAHAHAAA...!!! Psychopath exposing "psychopathic logic", above!
>> I've already stated many times that Communism was the
>>blackest stain on the Jewish people, but that doesn't mean that all
>>Jews were Bolsheviks. The majority had nothing to do with it. One does
>>not blame an entire people for the sins of a few.
>
> One does when most Bolsheviks were jews.
>
> Eli
... only when the blamers are psychopaths! Never forget what you are, my
dear punching bag!
Poor psychopath Grabmen trolling today already again as from 6:58 a.m.!
Watch this miserable sod making a complete ass of himself for the next
FOURTEEN to TWENTY HOURS at a stretch, again! ROTFLOL!!!
Osric
Communism may have been the blackest stain on the Jewish people. But the
intent of Communism was sound, its execution a complete disaster. Its a
fundamentally flawed ideology. Nazism set out to commit heinous crimes
Communism did not. The concept of a nation as a giant kibbutz is not in
itself malevolent. Nazism on the other hand deliberately set out to enslave
some people and exterminate others, I don't see the moral equivalence
between the two in terms of intent. In terms of piles of corpses its hard to
slide a cigarette paper between them.
Truth Will Out
Apples and washing machines.
Try to stay on topic.
jgarbuz
No, Jews and Germans.
> Try to stay on topic.<
I'm always focused and on topic. You're fucked up and totally out of
focus..
DoD
lol!!!
Truth Will Out
>No, Jews and Germans.
No you are not.
>You're fucked up and totally out of
>focus..
No I am not.
Eli Grubman
inept part-time stalker & raving Psychopath with no penis! LOL
<grabmen....@andfound.invalid> wrote:
<snip skata>
Shabbat shalom, Pants! Looking forward to the jew shabbos? You bet!
Another day to spend on inept and ineffectual stalking! What could be
better? LOL
<Very Bugger Grease>
Eli
B.H. Cramer
>No, Jews and Germans.
BBBWWWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
You hebes lie so effortlessly.