You may sigh all you want, but insinuation doens't constitute argument:
Excuse me?
Now try reading that again.
They were not "lumped together" as "social fascists." The SPD were referred to as "social fascists" as opposed to the "fascist" NSDAP. It implies that the SPD were fascists with a veneer of socialism; not as bad as the Nazis, but still not worth forming a coalition with. Either you are changing the goalposts of the discussion, as we all know you are wont to do, or you simply made a mistake in that statement. I'll choose to believe it was the latter.
Ouch. I need some cream for the burn you just gave me. Not everything I say is a point to be debated. If you hadn't created some sort of competition in your head, you wouldn't feel the need to attack a meaningless, harmless statement.
Don't bother. If you don't even know what you wrote yourself, further argument is moot:
I'd say this was a case of the pot calling the kettle black, but that would imply that I was making the same mistake you often do - as I recently pointed out our discussion of anarchism in another thread - in not understanding what I myself was writing.
I see. First you state the Nazis refused to form a coalition, but look, now they do... Shifting goalposts much?
Nice to see that you are even pilfering the terminology I used in our anarchism discussion. The Nazis
did refuse to form a coalition, because said coalition would not have granted the NSDAP the power they desired. When von Papen returned with an offer that would give the Nazis the power to carry out their desired reforms, they seized the opportunity. None of this is difficult to understand.
Which, unfortunately they didn't, as they thought they could use the Nazis. Hitler simply outmanoeuvred them.
Yes he did. Which he couldn't have done if he'd only had one of his subordinates in the Vice-Chancellorship.
Unlike my comment about Hindenburg, this is a direct and relevant point. You said that Hitler would co-operate with other parties if it suited his purpose. I pointed out an example of him doing just that, with a party far more objectionable to him than Zentrum.
Indeed. Thanks for repeating what I said again...
I really must archivve that post that Masada links to in multiple threads discussing your debating style. Here you are misappropriating your debating partner's argument in an attempt to claim you were really agreeing with him all along. You said:
JEELEN said:
Unlikely, even for a hypothetical. Hitler only kept the SA as they served his purpose. Once he was firmly in control of the state he eliminated their more radical elements ruthlessly without opposition.
I responded:
Lord Baal said:
The SA existed for the entire length of Hitler's reign.Allso, why is the potential for a split between the Strasserites and the Hitlerites "unlikely?" Otto Strasser actually did lead some of the more radical leftist Nazisin a split in 1930; the Black Front.
Your next statement:
Indeed. Thanks for repeating what I said again...
WTF are you on about?
I'm not agreeing with you or repeating something you've already said. I'm quite clearly arguing the
opposite of what you're claiming. Unless you're going to claim you meant that Hitler didn't have firm control of the state until 1934 - he'd established near-total control by March 1933, and certainly before the Night of the Long Knives - or that Hitler kept the SA as long as they "served his purpose," and they just happened to do so until he blew his brains out? Technically the SA still existed under the Flensburg government.
I think you may have Germany confused with France (Proudhon, Blanqui, etc).
Nope. I suggest you read up on the history of socialism. There were proponents of it - at least in a primitive form; so far as I know Marx and Engels redefined socialism somewhat, though there are plenty of reds on these boards who would know the history of socialism in far greater detail than I - in Germany since
at least the War of the Sixth Coalition against Napoleonic France. Possibly earlier; I do not know much about the period preceding the French Revolution, aside from Frederick II of Prussia's Wars. Even then, I think Dachs is the expert on these boards, no myself; I know the diplomatic backgrounds of those wars, but not that much about what was happening on the ground.
Capitalism isn't an ideology. Liberalism is. There's no such thing as Capitalist parties, for instance. Capitalism is an economic system.
Do you have Aspergher's or autism? I'm not trying to insult you - my brother-in-law has Aspergher's - but you pick the oddest arguments surrounding individual words. I'm the first to claim that semantics matters - after all, I took a few semiotics classes at university - but it helps if you actually understand the semantics you're arguing about.
Both capitalism and socialism are economic systems, yes. And while it would have been incorrect to refer to capitalism as an economic ideology one hundred years ago, the rise of Bolshevism and the legitimate threat to capitalist states posed by the USSR - or at least the
perceived threat - caused the defence of capitalism to become quite ideological in nature. Not everyone who believes in capitalism is a liberalist. Quite the opposite, in fact; it would be difficult to claim that
any Australian government prior to Hawke was economically liberal - Australia had probably the most protectionist government in the world - they were most certainly capitalists.
Still I could have worded that better. Would you prefer 'the ideology of capitalism?'
Not really. But Hitler standing for Chancellor without rightwing support would not make much sense, now would it? (And we were discussing cooperation, remember?)
Excuse me, again? While some of the Nazis' allies were doubtless centrists - some of them were members of the Centre Party, after all - the majority of the NSDAP's support came from right-wing nationalists who saw the Nazis as a useful bulwark against socialism. "Better Hitler than the Bolshevists."
Not at all. You're just making this up as you go along, don't you?
Either you're being facetious or you simply don't know what you're talking about. Half the men who tried to kill Hitler in the July 20 plot were old nobility. You yourself admitted that the nobility was in control of the officer corps of the
wehrmacht. How could the officers who aligned themselves with Hitler and the NSDAP be members of the nobility, many of whom - though not all - were monarchists, yet these people were "[n]ot at all" co-operating with Hitler?
What exactly are you trying to say, because either you don't know what you're talking about or you are wording your responses so piss-poorly that I can't figure out what you're trying to say.
The Night of the Long Knives got rid of those troublesome SA members mentioned earlier... And after the Reichskristallnacht their role was superseded by the SS.
The SS and SA served entirely different roles. The SS really began to come into their own after the Blomberg-Fritsch Affair, when Hitler allowed Himmler to expand the military role of the Waffen-SS, which was months before the
Kristallnacht.
As I said, Hitler used anybody he could use. Goebbels only needed a good talking to; dismissal wasn't in the air, as his propagandic qualities were far too useful for Mr H.
Are you referring to 1932 or 1938? Because in 1938 Goebbels broke down in tears and had to move in with Goering for nearly a week because he was so distraught by the end of his affair. He had to be talked out of moving to Japan with his mistress. Hitler was seriously thinking about dismissing him, and didn't trust him the same way for several months. A good talking to was needed, but he was still in danger of dismissal.
