Ah...you are quite right. This IS about semantics, actually; the use of 'fascist' and "Nazi' BY THE LEFT when they refer to anybody to the right of Mao.
Well, if that's what this is all about, then I can assure you that I am also critical of that practice. These are terms that people throw around to stir up emotions and rile folks up. But the right has also done its share of red-baiting and "pinko" talk, so both sides are guilty of it.
To be honest, I've only observed it as a recent phenomenon that the left is now being associated with Hitler. This is relatively new, whereas during most of my life, the left has been commonly associated with communists, namely the Soviet Union and Red China. Hitler was seen as an enemy of communism, although he was also seen as just as bad (or even worse) than communist governments, except he was at the opposite end of the spectrum. He was at the far right, not the far left. That's how it has generally been accepted in the traditional political spectrum.
But some people have argued that the traditional spectrum is outmoded and try to find new and inventive ways of gauging one's political position and finding a way to chart it.
And I'm the one who isn't buying it. Modern conservatives...in fact, any conservative that has ever existed in the USA...do not share many, if any, of the fascist/Nazi beliefs or approaches to government. Yes, there ARE extremists who buy into Nazism and fascism...and racism...today. But they are not "conservatives.'
They're viewed as having some overlap. The key component of both Nazism and fascism is nationalism. That was their emphasis and focus. I don't think Hitler cared all that much "economic systems" as much as just supporting whatever was necessary to achieve his nationalistic aspirations, which a lot of Germans supported at the time and had been a prevalent ideal in German politics for generations.
But if we're talking about modern conservatives in America today, then I agree that they share very little in common with the extremist factions you mention. But by the same token, modern liberals, progressives, and even socialists can hardly be compared with the extremist factions which are under discussion here. I find it incredulous that there are those out there who expect people to believe that the typical Western democratic socialist is anything like Stalin or Mao or Hitler.
So, it's ludicrous when it comes from both sides.
You talk about 'semantics' but it is the LEFT which has been using semantics here to insult anybody who objects to its ideology. I'm simply pointing out that it is wrong.
Both sides do it, although I would agree that it's wrong, and two wrongs don't make a right. But I don't know if pointing that out does any good. The trouble with our adversarial political system is that both sides want to win so badly that they don't really care about what's wrong or what's right.
Some people think both sides should try to sit down, discuss their differences like civilized adults, and reach some sort of mutually beneficial compromise. But, forget those people. What do they know? Arguing is much more fun.
No. A German airdreamed about what would happen as a natural evolution of government. The 'communism' he described bore absolutely no relation to the communism that actually was put into place.
Well, maybe so. He never lived to see it. Regarding the communism that was put into place, it went through different stages. At the beginning, they may have genuinely believed that their revolution would spread to other countries and possibly even a communist world. When that didn't really pan out as expected, they ended up taking the course that they did.
To be sure, they were in a pretty dismal situation leading up to the Revolution and the years following. Widespread hunger, despair, and the devastation brought about by WW1 can bring people to the point of supporting whichever leader they think will make it better.
Yes, because they belonged to the communist party and thus opposed HIM, It wasn't because their beliefs were that violently in opposition to the things he actually did. Those communists were just as racist, for instance,as he was.
Perhaps, although the communists' official position was anti-racist and anti-fascist.
Hey. I'm not the one who claimed that his opposition to Communists happened before there were any dealings with Russia. That's insane, when one considers that Germany's eastern border was right up against Poland, and Poland was an important part of the 1917 revolution...and very much communist. "Dealings with Russia?" SERIOUSLY?
Well, it's a lot more complicated than that. If we're just talking about Hitler's opposition to communists, he would have likely been more concerned about communists within his own country first and foremost. In 1917, Hitler was on the Western Front and probably wasn't thinking much about Russia at that time. Although Germany was doing better on the Eastern Front, where the Russian lines were more or less collapsing and the country was in disarray. Opposition to the Tsar was widespread, but the Bolsheviks were only one of many factions at the time. When the Tsar abdicated, the Duma was to take control, call for elections, and set up a provisional government.
Poland was part of the Russian Empire at the time, although there's a history behind that as well. In any case, there was a growing movement towards independence, which they ultimately got after WW1. There were Poles and Germans, along with Americans, British, Japanese, and other Allied powers - all fighting on the side of the Whites against the Reds in the Russian Civil War.
But Hitler wasn't a part of that. In Germany, a communist government briefly took over in Bavaria, which was overthrown. Hitler was very much anti-communist because he saw them as a threat to his own country, and this was long before he had any direct "dealings with Russia."
If you're talking about
German dealings with Russia and not just involving Hitler, then that goes back centuries and centuries. The Germans and Russians have a long history of "dealings" with each other.