Another issue I believe was economic; the Nazi economic engine wasn’t designed for long haul peacetime conditions, but needed to plunder other countries to fuel itself. Mind I am not necessarily in favor of this hypothesis, but it is something I’ve seen mentioned in a few books.
This is the most preposterous thing I’ve ever read on the SDMB. Hitler was a Marxist like Martin Luther King Jr. was a Klansman.
From NJTT: “Hitler?! We are talking about Hitler here? The man who preached the triumph of the will, and, to an extent matched by very few others in human history, sought to bend the universe to his own will?”
Ayn Rand (philosophically, anyway).
I’ve heard this too, even likening their party to a ponzi scheme. It wouldn’t be the first government to solve domestic issues with foreign confrontation, but I agree, I’d like to see more convincing evidence that Hitlers hand was forced.
Hitler was not a historical determinist but like Marx he was an economic determinist. He believed that there were finite resources and conflict over the resources was inevitable. Nations that won the conflict would prosper and those that lost would starve and die. He saw it as his mission to make sure that Germany was a winner country and not a loser country.
That hardly makes him a Marxist.
Right. A lot of political philosophies are determinist or focus on social forces as the movers of history. It’s not exclusive to just Marxism.
Nazism also sees the world as fundamentally an arena of competition between “races” defined in allegedly biological terms as hereditary bloodlines. Marxism sees the world as fundamentally shaped by conflict between classes, defined in terms of their relationship to the means of production (i.e., the bourgeoisie own the means of production, in other words, factory owners and the like; the proletariat on the other hand have only their labor, which they trade for wages from the bourgeoisie).
And Ronald Reagan saw the world as fundamentally shaped by the conflict between ideologies. Does that make Reagan a Marxist? If so, that would be damned inconvenient for him - like Hitler, he thought Marxism was the side he was fighting against.
First of all, Hitler headed the NAZI (i.e. National SOCIALIST Party). The underpinnings of the party were the German “volk” (people) who were destined to be the “master race”. History was on the side of the “volk”-the only thing keeping them from their rightful place (at the top of mankind) was:
-hhe “Jews” -the so-called “culture destroyers”
-the “inferior races” (like the slavs-the “sub-humans”)
History dictated a titanic struggle for the master race; Hitler saw this as the war with the USSR (which was led by Jewish bolsheviks). So Hitler was indeed a Marxist, insofar as his idea of history and struggle were concerned.
Let it go. This isn’t really on topic anyway, and other posters already demonstrated that you are completely wrong.
And Kim Jong Il was the head of the DEMOCRATIC People’s REPUBLIC of Korea. I guess that makes him ideologically tight with Ben Franklin or something. The Nazis were about as socialist as they were good friends to the gefilte fisch industry.
Besides, Marxism and nationalism are wholly antithetical to begin with - the Internationale, remember ? “Workers of all lands, unite !” ? That’s written on Marx’ tombstone, BTW. I think he might have meant it. And Bakunin can go sit on it and rotate, you can tell him I said so.
ETA: sorry Marley, was that last post written with your mod hat on ?