By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Was Hitler a Socialist?

Recently someone made a thread about 'Rape Culture' in the US and linked a video from Steven Crowder in the OP. I didn't knew who Steven Crowder is so I clicked a little bit through his channel and came across this video.

I found that very interesting because I remembered that I saw people on this website with the same theory.

To put it short, he's wrong and I found a greate response video which explains, better than I ever could do myself, why he's wrong.

I think the main reason why someone would believe in something so strange is a misconception and oversimplification of the political left and right into "more power for the government" and "less power for the government".

There are tons of credible scientific material about Hitler and the third Reich and it's hard to believe Steven Crowder haven't seen any of it when he did his research for this video and his article. It seems to me that Crowders intent for this video was to discredit a political views he disagrees with by drawing a line between them and the Nazi regime.

Around the Network

No, Hitler was an artist. 

He was a progressive.

On some level, I don't think it matters.  

People like to thrust that claim, to demonize socialists.  

Hitler was a monster because he was a racist nationalist, not because he was a socialist.  

Nighthawk117 said:
He was a progressive.

In what sense was Hitler and the Nazi party progressive?

Around the Network

Who gives a shit. Somehow classifying someone in history as a socialists, progressive, communist, conservative, liberalist, ect doesn't all then equate anyone of that as the next Hitler.

Any the above I listed and others, if you go extreme enough, you end up with a Hitler or Stalin or other person in history that did mass genocide. It's never where they fall on the spectrum of any sort of philosophy, party, ect. It's when someone becomes extreme do those things happen.

Edit: If he was a socialist, that doesn't mean I expected Bernie to become the next Hitler. If he was whatever Trump is, doesn't mean I expect Trump to start doing what HItler did, ect.

Anytime someone brings up someone is the next Hitler or someone else, they lose all manner of discussion I planned to have with them. There is no reasonable discussion you can have with someone who says taht.

He was a racist fascist. Economic system doesn't factor in to why he was a shit heel and crashed and burned.

MrWayne said:
Nighthawk117 said:
He was a progressive.

In what sense was Hitler and the Nazi party progressive?

Progressive: Favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially in political matters.

Fits him quite well.  I'm not saying he wasn't brutal in his methods.  But, he got things done.

Left and right extremes have things in common, but he’s still fascist.

Last edited by S.Peelman - on 08 October 2018

S.Peelman said:
Both extremes have things in common, but he’s still fascist.

Is it just me or did you just say socialism was an extreme ? I'm sincerely not sure I understood well (not a native english speaker). In any way, Hitler was not a socialist, he was classified as extreme right (European terminology) and banned socialist parties in the country during his "reign". Socialism promotes inclusion, tolerance and a certain control of the state over the economy to prevent the abuses of capitalism. Hitler did all the opposite, even for the last argument, as he turned the economy into a war economy, made by and for the nazis and their ideology.