Wow. Just... wow. The only reason not to let Hitler be the absolute ruler of all of Europe was the fact that he wouldn't let banks charge interest? That's some grade-A insanity right there. And for the record, most of the holocaust victims were buried in mass graves, not cremated.

Though I will give your pile of Nazi apologism credit for one thing, in that your talking about Churchill's wanting to wipe out Nazism completely (which was bourne from nothing more than the fact that Chamberlain had tried talking the Nazis down and failed miserably, and by that point it was very much a "them or us" scenario) reminded me about something that happened when he first came to power. You see, Churchill was heading up a coalition government made up of members of his own Conservative party, and the Labour party, which was explicitly founded on socialist principles. The Conservative members of his cabinet, by and in large, advised him that he needed to act in the interests of the British people, which naturally meant signing a non-aggression pact with Hitler and then sitting back and letting him have his way with the rest of Europe.

The two Labour members of his cabinet (Clement Attlee and Arthur Greenwood), on the other hand? They pointed out that not only was there absolutely no way Hitler would ever actually honour such a pact, it would be a shameful act of cowardice to sit in London happily sipping tea while the rest of Europe burned. Seems kind of odd that two card-carrying socialists would be the ones advocating war with another "socialist" regime, while the conservative members of Churchill's cabinet were the ones advocating letting bygones be bygones.

(And no, I'm not saying that conservatives are Nazi apologists; I can actually somewhat understand why they'd have wanted to call a halt to hostilities given how hopeless the situation seemed when Churchill came to power)

But then there might be some connection between the structure of socialism (or any government, really) and who is 1) drawn to power, and 2) manages to gain it.

What I'm about to offer you is a simplified reduction, based on my personal studies into the subject. It may be reductive past the point of either utility or sense, to you, but in my opinion it captures the core essence of the problem with socialism: socialism of its nature requires economic planning; the nature of economic planning is directing individuals -- telling them what to do with their things and with their lives (i.e. it is contra personal freedom, or "liberty," because if people are free to do as they please, you cannot plan or control an economy); since people do not typically want to be controlled, they resist or disobey in small and large ways; thus socialism, in order to function, requires systems which routinely force people to act against their will, and address the consequences of their disobedience.

The more total the socialist or communist controls proposed, the more disobedience you may expect and the greater the force required (e.g. the collectivization of the Soviet farms was a massive project and required an equally massive and ongoing use of force to implement).

IMO, there are dire economic consequences for these sorts of activities, but setting that aside for a moment, just consider the type of person who is drawn to exercising control over other people in this manner. Consider the type of person who will be successful at it. I've known more than a few people who have considered Stalin an aberration of the Soviet system, and to have corrupted it. But I believe that Stalin was a product of that system, predictable, and not really very much out of step in this regard with either Lenin or Trotsky.

And as for economic classes or "corruption," in that sort of setting, where one group has essential control over another, you will have certain kinds of people turning to bureaucracy to be the ones doing to rather than being done to. They will wish to be the ones with their hands on the lever, or -- if you will -- the handle of the meat grinder. Again, based alone on the kind of person this is likely to attract, and the kind of person who is apt to flourish, corruption will be endemic.

The issue of a "mixed economy" is a complicated one for a number of reasons, and even the most socialist or communist system has never been "pure" (just as there has never been "pure" capitalism, or likely "pure" anything else), but if you look at those countries which have made the largest efforts to implement the ideas of Marx, etc., then I think you will see what I've described above play out, and the essential nature of socialism eventually revealed.

"It means that you take the plain meaning of what I said and also interpret it to mean more things that were not said.  This can be either warranted or unwarranted.  An example of unwarranted might be, "o_O.Q:  I want less government" > "Final-Fan:  so you're saying you're an anarchist!"  When "all the stuff you added was wrong", that means unwarranted.  The result is a strawman.  "

this is weak finalfan, even from you its disappointing

to reiterate you asked me to list examples of how this "what you need to do is to do is liberate yourself from this idiotic notion that socialism is inherently good and that nothing bad can come out of it" is a strawman

i listed two examples here was one of them:

" That being the case, it seems completely antithetical to the ideals of socialism to EXPLICITLY AND DIRECTLY destroy the ability of the working community to collectively bargain with employers.  Your claim that socialists would do this because they are just too stupid to see that their polices have unintended negative consequences is beyond foolish when in the example it's not an unintended consequence but the entire fucking point of what they are doing. "

you refused explicitly to acknowledge that socialist policy can work against the citizens of a community since that's not the stated intent of socialists... are you seriously in denial that you are doing that here? how am i reading something into this that's not clearly stated here?

"How about when you implied the Tuskegee experiment was the result of socialism"

how was the tuskegee experiment funded and organised?

are you not aware that the tuskegee experiment was a social experiment carried out by the government with tax payer funding?

this is the ridiculous bias towards socialism clouding your ability to understand its pitfalls acting on you again i suppose

and dude all the stupid points about my grammer do nothing to advance this anywhere, it just puts a finer point on how weak your arguments are... well to me at least

who are you talking about?

Was Hitler a Shy boy ?　That's what I think, anyway.

i've read through it and i don't see an area where he states that the holocaust didn't happen

the implied admiration for hitler is a little odd though

questioning certain aspects of an event is not the same as denying its existence

i personally am not for or against his argument on gas chambers because i have not done the research but this tendency to what want to shut down people questioning things is not good

its religious thinking and leads nowhere good

Oh, I don't know. I'd say there's pretty clearly a denial of the Holocaust. The post is more than a "little odd," and though I didn't want to address it directly to give it attention, the fact that you're questioning it suggests to me that it might be worth looking at:

We can acknowledge the truism that "history is written by the victors," but that does not mean that these histories are necessarily lies. With respect to Hitler, I think there is plenty of evidence to support the general conception.

This is quickly moving in some sort of disturbing "conspiracy theory" direction. No reason for the millions of people who died in WWII has to be invented: the record is clear. On the one hand, Hitler and fellow nationalist regimes embarked on a program of militarism and belligerence. They "annexed" and invaded countries, in Europe, in Africa, in Asia, and thereby provoked the rest of the world into confrontation. Simultaneously, Hitler carried out programs to eliminate what he considered to be undesirables from society, up to and including extermination. That's the basic reason for the millions of people who died in the war.

Hitler did not need to be "made into a demon"; his words and actions were sufficiently demonic in themselves.

I agree that the war was not about concentration camps. It was a response to militaristic regimes that were intent on seizing more power, wealth and land.

And please note that the insinuation here, that the Jews themselves were responsible for WWII and orchestrated it from behind the scenes, has not gone unnoticed. You are revealing quite clearly who you are, and where you are coming from.

For those reading along, this is pretty clearly Holocaust denial, even if those exact words are not used. The concentration and death camps were no mere "work camps to support the war effort," and there is a mountain of evidence to support this.

Yes, Hitler was a nationalist. He also may have thought of himself as wanting what was best for "his people," but so what? His means to achieve his ends were psychotic, cruel and destructive, and in fact brought ruin to the Germans. Further, his conception of "his people" was narrowed by an extreme racist ideology such that he persecuted and oversaw efforts to outright exterminate several of the populations (not just Jewish) under his power.

You paint Hitler's flaw as some sort of heroism, but it was not heroism (or rashness or impulsivity) that led him to invade his neighbors, oppress populations within his own borders, betray his allies, and destroy the peace. Hitler was an utter monster, and in saying so the victors have written the history correctly.

Saying that millions couldn't have been killed in concentration camps because how would they get rid of all the bodies seems like pretty direct holocaust denial. I would think that if you claim the number of deaths in the holocaust are vastly artificially inflated that is still called holocaust denial. 

i didn't realise that the term holocaust denial means any questioning of the details of the event

if that's the case then i retract what i said and he is indeed a holocaust denier