DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
True Left
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Questions & Debates
*****************************************************
#Post#: 32667--------------------------------------------------
Re: Russia betrayal to the anti colonialism action
DIR By: antihellenistic
Date: May 28, 2026, 5:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> We must let everyone express the values most spontaneous to
their biology so that we can see as clearly as possible who
holds which values, and then prohibit those with inferior values
from reproducing. This is National Socialism
--- End Quote ---
The method you describe is based on your own theory, not on how
the National Socialist regime historically operated. While it's
certainly a good way to easily uncover the true nature of a
person or group, it's a mistake to assume it's the brainchild of
Hitler's National Socialism. Hitler is historically known for
implementing a centralized government and not for implementing
the concept of "free will" to his controlled citizens as you
believe. If you're going to engage in academic discussions, be
honest.
#Post#: 32668--------------------------------------------------
Re: Russia betrayal to the anti colonialism action
DIR By: 90sRetroFan
Date: May 28, 2026, 5:07 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
In Hitler's words:
--- Quote ---
> The anti-Semitism of the Christian-Socialists was based on
religious instead of
> racial principles. The reason for this mistake gave rise to
the second error also.
> The founders of the Christian-Socialist Party were of the
opinion that they could
> not base their position on the racial principle if they wished
to save Austria,
> because they felt that a general disintegration of the State
might quickly result
> from the adoption of such a policy.
> ...
> It was obvious, however, that this kind of anti-Semitism did
not upset the Jews
> very much, simply because it had a purely religious
foundation. If the worst
> came to the worst a few drops of baptismal water would settle
the matter,
> hereupon the Jew could still carry on his business safely and
at the same time
> retain his Jewish nationality.
> ...
> It was anti-Semitic only in outward appearance. And this was
worse than if it
> had made no pretences at all to anti-Semitism; for the
pretence gave rise to a
> false sense of security among people who believed that the
enemy had been
> taken by the ears; but, as a matter of fact, the people
themselves were being led
> by the nose.
>
> The Jew readily adjusted himself to this form of anti-Semitism
and found its
> continuance more profitable to him than its abolition would
be.
--- End Quote ---
In Hitler's actions:
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_hygiene
--- Quote ---
> During the 1930s and 1940s, institutes in Nazi Germany studied
genetics, created genetic registries and researched twins. Nazi
scientists also studied blood, and developed theories on the
supposed racial specificity of blood types, with the goal of
distinguishing an "Aryan" from a Jew by examining their blood.
> ...
>
HTML https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/78/Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-1986-044-08%2C_Stein-Pfalz%2C_Eva_Justin_bei_Sch%C3%A4delmessung.jpg
> Eva Justin checking the facial characteristics of a Romani
woman, as part of her racial studies
> ...
> Theories on racial hygiene led to an elaborate sterilization
program, with the goal of eliminating what the Nazis regarded as
diseases harmful to the human race. Sterilized individuals,
reasoned the Nazis, would not pass on their diseases to their
children.
> ...
> sterilization medicine and research soon became one of the
largest medical industries.[2]
>
> In Nazi propaganda, the term "race" was often interchangeably
used to mean the "Aryan" or Germanic "Übermenschen", which was
said to represent an ideal and pure master race that was
biologically superior to all other races.[3] In the 1930s, under
eugenicist Ernst Rüdin, National Socialist ideology embraced
this latter use of "racial hygiene", which demanded Aryan racial
purity
> ...
> the National Socialists enacted the Nuremberg Laws, which
legislated racial purity by forbidding sexual relations and
marriages between Aryans and non-Aryans as Rassenschande (racial
shame).
> ...
> A key aspect of National Socialism was the concept of racial
hygiene and it was elevated to the primary philosophy of the
German medical community
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 32673--------------------------------------------------
Re: Russia betrayal to the anti colonialism action
DIR By: antihellenistic
Date: May 28, 2026, 10:58 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> In Hitler's words:
>
> ....
--- End Quote ---
This is the meaning of "free will" :
--- Quote ---
> the ability to decide what to do independently of any outside
influence:
>
> Theories of criminal liability presume that we exercise free
will.
>
> Will artificial intelligences become endowed with free will?
>
> of your own free will No one told me to do it - I did it of my
own free will.
--- End Quote ---
Source :
HTML https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/free-will
--- Quote ---
> freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by
prior causes or by divine intervention
--- End Quote ---
Source :
HTML https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/freewill
Hitler's regime historically disciplined racially "unhygienic"
people not by enforcing rules based on the principle of "free
will." They enforced them by disseminating authoritative values,
denying freedom to groups with differing beliefs and values.
Even the historical information you provide about how Hitler's
regime identified populations deemed "unhygienic" did not use
any mechanism based on the principle of "free will." So,
governing society based on adherence to the principle of "free
will" is what you believe in, not what Hitler believed in. Let
me try again to give you a historical example of how Hitler
controlled society. He didn't allow any individual or group to
have free will in their interactions in social and economic
relations :
--- Quote ---
> I want everyone to keep what he has earned subject to the
principle that the good of the community takes priority over
that of the individual. But the State should retain control;
every owner should feel himself to be an agent of the State. . .
. The Third Reich will always retain the right to control
property owners
>
> We will do what we like with the bourgeoisie. . . We give the
orders; they do what they are told. Any resistance will be
broken ruthlessly. . . You just tell the German bourgeoisie that
I shall be finished with them far quicker than I shall with
Marxism - Adolf Hitler
--- End Quote ---
Source :
Secret Conversations with Hitler: The Two Newly-discovered 1931
Interviews Page 32 - 33 and 36
HTML https://books.google.co.id/books?redir_esc=y&hl=id&id=EyxoAAAAMAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=retain+control
--- Quote ---
> From 04:10 to 07:04
>
> "With around 32 million members by 1938, DAF was the largest
Nazi organization, which evolved into its own empire with vast
financial resources, but without real authority over social and
economic policy. DAF had no authority over wage scales, which
was the core power of labor unions. Instead, starting May 19,
1933, what were called public trustees for employment controlled
labor contracts through state coercion."
>
> Reference: Benz, A Concise History of the Third Reich, p. 32.
>
> The implication is that DAF had no real power, and therefore,
it could be dismissed. The narrative used should be ‘Hitler
destroyed labor unions because he was a capitalist,’ not ‘Hitler
had 32 million people in his labor union because his party was a
workers' party.’ Such a narrative is not allowed because it
contradicts the ideology held by most historians.
>
> From 12:54 to 17:56
>
> "Yes, I am the 'leader' in my factory; my workers are
'followers.' But I am no longer a manager. Once I was told I
wasn’t fulfilling my duties to the Party. By accident, one of
them overheard me grumbling about some new bureaucratic
regulations and immediately reported me to the Party and the
Labor Front office. Other Party members came to tell me about it
and warned me that I should be careful in the future. So, it has
come to the point where I can’t even speak in my own factory. I
cannot hire the workers I want... I’m not allowed to hire anyone
unless they can show their 'workbook' and permission from the
Employment Exchange to change jobs."
>
> Reference: Herr A. Z., quoted from Reimann, The Vampire
Economy, p. 109.
--- End Quote ---
Source :
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXIoVEKIpMg
--- Quote ---
> "Both governments [Nazi and Soviet] reorganised industry into
larger units, ostensibly to increase state control over economic
activity."
>
> "The Nazis reorganised industry into 13 administrative groups
with a large number of subgroups to create a private hierarchy
for state control."
>
> "The state therefore could direct the firms' activities
without acquiring direct ownership of enterprises."
--- End Quote ---
Source :
Tooze, Wages of Destruction, page 112.
--- Quote ---
> The only person in Germany who still has a private life is a
person who's sleeping.
--- End Quote ---
Source :
Robert Ley, Head of the German Labour Front, quoted from Evans,
The Third Reich in Power, p 107.
So, you do have an explanation of the solution to the social
problems that occur, but it is not appropriate if the solution
you explain can be considered based on historical facts about
how the Hitler regime and German National Socialism operated.
#Post#: 32675--------------------------------------------------
Re: Russia betrayal to the anti colonialism action
DIR By: 90sRetroFan
Date: May 29, 2026, 12:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
"He didn't allow any individual or group to have free will in
their interactions in social and economic relations :"
Not this **** again. In Hitler's words:
--- Quote ---
> I absolutely insist on protecting private property.
> It is natural and salutary that the individual should be in
> spired by the wish to devote a part of the income from his
work
> to building up and expanding a family estate. Suppose the
> estate consists of a factory. I regard it as axiomatic, in the
> ordinary way, that this factory will be better run by one of
the
> members of the family than it would be by a State functionary
> providing, of course, that the family remains healthy. In this
> sense, we must encourage private initiative.
> ...
> A man who, within the framework of such an organisation,
> consented to pay a thousand marks for a Persian rug that's
> worth only eight hundred, would prove that he's an imbecile,
> but there's no way of stopping him.
--- End Quote ---
Sounds like free will to me.
Furthermore, in our previous debate, you supported banning
gambling:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/re-national-socialists-were-socialists-3223/msg30840/?topicseen#msg30840
--- Quote ---
> the socialist standpoint, A recognizes that the gambling house
is exploitation and a source of income uncertainty, and A would
put an end to the gambling itself while helping B who has failed
in the game.
--- End Quote ---
Contrast your position with Hitler's postion on gambling:
--- Quote ---
> In the same way, one can't
> stop a gambler from losing his money at gambling, or from
> taking his own life when he has lost his money. One might
> relevantly wonder whether the State, which is the main bene
> ficiary of gambling, should not make itself responsible for
the
> cost of the suicide's funeral ! We should bear in mind, in
fact,
> that more than half of the profits of gambling—whether
> lotteries or games of chance played in the casinos—goes into
> the coffers of the State.
> In addition to the material profit the State derives from
them,
> I think I can say that, from a purely philosophic point of
view,
> lotteries have their good side. Tangible realities are not
enough
> to ensure men's happiness. It's not a bad idea to keep alive
in
> them the taste for illusions, and most of them live on hopes
> which to a great extent cannot become reality. It seems to me,
> therefore, that the best part of a lottery is not the list
imme
> diately proclaiming the winners. On the contrary, the results
> should be dragged out, for a year if possible—a year in which
> the gambler has leisure to nourish his illusions and forge his
> dreams of happiness. The Austrian State knew about this, and
> used the system very intelligently. This explains why, even in
> the most difficult times, there were always so many happy
> people in that country.
> The origin of the lottery goes back doubtless to the beginning
> of the eighteenth century, when an astute minister wondered
> why the profits of gambling should not go into the State's
> coffers instead of going to swell private purses. When the
State
> uses the money it wins thus for some good purpose—to build
> hospitals, for example—the affair takes on a colouring of
> idealism. Gambling first of all sustains the gambler's hopes.
> When chance has given its verdict, and if the gambler is there
> after comparable to a man who has made an unlucky bet, he
> still has a consolation, that of having contributed to a good
work.
> I studied the question of gambling, as regards Wiesbaden,
> with Gauleiter Wagner. What gives the lottery its pleasant
> character is not to be found, unfortunately, in roulette and
other
> games of chance played in the casinos. But if we'd withdrawn
> the authorisation for gambling at Wiesbaden, that would have
> done a considerable wrong to that thermal resort without any
> profit to the inveterate gamblers, whom this measure would
> obviously not have amended. They'd simply have gone and
> gambled somewhere else, on the other side of the frontier—to
> the profit, that's to say, of the French. Speaking of that, I
> enquired how much foreign currency the gambling at Wies
> baden might bring us in, and I told myself that even a hundred
> thousand marks in foreign money (it's not much, when one has
> it) is quite a sum when one is poor. I drew the conclusion
from
> all this that gamblers can be useful to the State, by losing
their
> money—and especially foreign gamblers, when they lose in
> their own currency.
--- End Quote ---
I agree with Hitler, of course.
(By the way, while I personally never gamble, I am a big fan of
gambling fantasy fiction, which was a major Counterculture-era
genre:
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFi6f7k9DJ0
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RV_QAjL1DfY
(BGM montage 8:10-9:19))
8)
#Post#: 32676--------------------------------------------------
Re: Russia betrayal to the anti colonialism action
DIR By: antihellenistic
Date: May 29, 2026, 1:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> Not this **** again. In Hitler's words:
>
> I absolutely insist on protecting private property.
> It is natural and salu[quote]tary that the individual should
be in
> spired by the wish to devote a part of the income from his
work
> to building up and expanding a family estate. Suppose the
> estate consists of a factory. I regard it as axiomatic, in the
> ordinary way, that this factory will be better run by one of
the
> members of the family than it would be by a State functionary
> providing, of course, that the family remains healthy. In this
> sense, we must encourage private initiative.
> ...
> A man who, within the framework of such an organisation,
> consented to pay a thousand marks for a Persian rug that's
> worth only eight hundred, would prove that he's an imbecile,
> but there's no way of stopping him.
--- End Quote ---
Sounds like free will to me.[/quote]
You use a single statement from Hitler, recorded in history,
that he "respected private property," while I present a
chronological record from year to year of Hitler's expressions
of thought, statements, and domestic and international political
actions that gradually destroyed private property, so your
conclusion about Hitler's thinking is invalid. Regarding the
practice of "gambling," Hitler is on record as admitting he did
not prohibit such games. But you cannot consider Hitler a source
of inspiration for the values ​​of maintaining
private property. There is no concept of private ownership in a
society that operates by means of coercion from the state and
political parties.
See again :
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/re-national-socialists-were-socialists-3223/msg31589/#msg31589
The important message from that link :
--- Quote ---
> According to the logic of the free market and the so-called
natural law of competition, Hitler argued that in many cases one
cannot expect individuals to act in the interest of the common
good. For example,
>
> one cannot expect a person who happens to produce nitrogen to
say, “I think it would be wiser now to sell it at a price 20
percent lower.” No—we cannot demand that of him. Such an action
can only be recognized as necessary from a higher standpoint,
and then one must say, “This must be done.” But we cannot expect
the individual himself to make such a decision.
>
> Or, for instance, if I demand that another person agree that
we in Germany should produce our own fuel, while that person
earns his livelihood from fuel trading—well, one cannot expect
him to say, “I think it is a splendid idea that you will produce
your own fuel.”
>
> The same applies to international rubber buyers or rubber
merchants who are then asked to decide whether Germany should
build Buna synthetic rubber plants. He will certainly say, “I
think that is madness—completely impossible.”
>
> In all such cases, there is a clear contradiction between
capitalist private interests and the general political interests
defined by the state. According to Hitler’s view, the state
always has both the right and the duty to enforce the general
political interest over capitalist private interests.
--- End Quote ---
Source :
Hitler: The Policies of Seduction by Rainer Zitelmann Page 215
HTML https://archive.org/details/hitlerpoliciesof0000zite/mode/2up?q=expect+a+man+who+happens+to+produce
See again :
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/colonial-era/national-socialism-is-revolutionary-not-reactionary/msg30185/#msg30185
The important message from that link :
--- Quote ---
> [Minute 17:41] "Germany remained a private economy, but
without the guiding signals usually associated with market
operations: prices set freely (unregulated), interest rates, and
exchange rate quotations. It was an economy without market
mechanisms, which was supposed to behave according to the wishes
of its new rulers. Prices are very important to the market:
their suppression and distortion lead to a command economy."
[Minute 18:09]
>
> Reference: James, The Nazi Dictatorship and the Deutsche Bank,
p. 12.
>
> TIKHistory explains:
>
> [Minute 18:09] "So this is a command economy, no private
market, everything controlled by the state, yet somehow it’s
'private'? Apparently, opening a dictionary and reading the
definition of 'private' is beyond the ability of these Keynesian
economists! And this book is full of contradictory nonsense – I
could literally be here for hours pointing out the differences.
However, the good news is that if you overcome the
contradictions and integrate the evidence it presents with other
sources, it actually supports the idea that the Third Reich
nationalized the industries, except in name. According to
Marxists and Keynesians, Hitler’s regime was supposed to be
capitalist." [Minute 18:53]
>
> [Minute 18:47] "According to Marxists and Keynesians, Hitler’s
regime was meant to be capitalist. So you might think that the
big banks in Berlin, like Deutsche Bank, would see profits
skyrocket. However, they didn’t. Profits plummeted between 1934
and 1935, becoming a fraction of the profits earned in 1933 or
the 1920s. This weakens James’ own narrative that the Nazis
didn’t really want to take over the banking industry. I mean, we
know they did because Schacht himself told us." [Minute 19:22]
>
> Reference: James, The Nazi Dictatorship and the Deutsche Bank,
p. 23-25.
--- End Quote ---
Source :
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0q16cq25SCY
So, you can't use Hitler as inspiration to fight for the
upholding of private property values; you can use John Locke and
Adam Smith as inspiration. Unless you're fighting only to allow
the practice of "gambling," then you can use Hitler as
inspiration. Don't bring certain figures into your struggle if
you don't know for sure what the figures believe he/she are
fighting for.
#Post#: 32677--------------------------------------------------
Re: Russia betrayal to the anti colonialism action
DIR By: 90sRetroFan
Date: May 29, 2026, 3:18 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Just because you can find a source that claims someone held a
certain view does not imply that particular claim is true, you
moron. Should we believe Jesus is what Paul said Jesus is? If
not, why should we believe Hitler is what Zitelmann etc. say
Hitler is?
When Judeo-Christians believe Paul's version of Jesus, all it
tells me is that they themselves like Judaism. Similarly, you
believing Zitelmann's version of Hitler tells me nothing except
that you yourself like communism.
"You use a single statement from Hitler, recorded in history,
that he "respected private property,""
You are so illiterate you fail at even quoting my quote
accurately. In the statement I posted, Hitler said:
--- Quote ---
> I absolutely insist on protecting private property.
--- End Quote ---
"Protect" is not the same word as "respect".
Also, in the previous debate I had already posted:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/re-national-socialists-were-socialists-3223/msg31785/#msg31785
--- Quote ---
>
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany#Privatization_and_business_ties
--- End Quote ---
so claiming I have only "a single statement" is a lie. But since
you appear to be incapable even of clicking on a link:
--- Quote ---
> The Great Depression had spurred increased state ownership in
most Western capitalist countries. This also took place in
Germany during the last years of the Weimar Republic.[51]
However, after the Nazis took power, industries were privatized
en masse. Several banks, shipyards, railway lines, shipping
lines, welfare organizations, and more were privatized.[52] The
Nazi government took the stance that enterprises should be in
private hands wherever possible.[53] State ownership was to be
avoided unless it was absolutely necessary for rearmament or the
war effort, and even in those cases "the Reich often insisted on
the inclusion in the contract of an option clause according to
which the private firm operating the plant was entitled to
purchase it."[53]
--- End Quote ---
--- Quote ---
> Companies privatized by the Nazis included the four major
commercial banks in Germany, which had all come under public
ownership during the prior years: Commerz– und Privatbank,
Deutsche Bank und Disconto-Gesellschaft, Golddiskontbank and
Dresdner Bank.[57][53] Also privatized were the Vereinigte
Stahlwerke A.G. ('United Steelworks'), the second largest
joint-stock company in Germany (the largest was IG Farben) and
Vereinigte Oberschlesische Hüttenwerke AG, a company controlling
all of the metal production in the Upper Silesian coal and steel
industry. Shares in the Deutsche Reichsbahn ('German Railways'),
at the time the largest single public enterprise in the world,
were slated to be sold in the fiscal year 1934-1935. The
government also sold a number of shipbuilding companies, and
enhanced private utilities at the expense of municipally owned
utilities companies.[57] Additionally, the Nazis privatized some
public services which had been previously provided by the
government, especially social and labor-related services, and
these were mainly taken over by organizations affiliated with
the Nazi Party that could be trusted to apply Nazi racial
policies.[58]
--- End Quote ---
--- Quote ---
> The rhetoric of the Nazi regime stated that German private
companies would be protected and privileged as long as they
supported the economic goals of the government—mainly by
participating in government contracts for military
production—but that they could face severe penalties if they
went against the national interest. However, such threats were
rarely carried out in practice, and historians Christoph
Buccheim and Jonas Scherner state that "companies normally could
refuse to engage in an investment project designed by the state
without any consequences."[78] Private firms refused government
contracts and directions on many occasions. In 1937, de Wendel,
a coal mining enterprise, refused to build a hydrogenation
plant. In 1939, IG Farben denied a government request to
increase its production of rayon and refused to invest in a
synthetic rubber factory despite this being an important project
for the regime. Froriep GmbH, a company producing machines for
the armaments industry, successfully demanded cheap credit from
the Nazi government under a threat of cutting back investment if
its demand was not met.[79] The regime generally used monetary
incentives, such as guaranteed profits, to persuade businesses
to support its goals, and freedom of contract was generally
respected even in projects important for the war.[80]
--- End Quote ---
"So, you can't use Hitler as inspiration to fight for the
upholding of private property values; you can use John Locke and
Adam Smith as inspiration. Unless you're fighting only to allow
the practice of "gambling," then you can use Hitler as
inspiration."
I do not need your permission.
#Post#: 32680--------------------------------------------------
Re: Russia betrayal to the anti colonialism action
DIR By: antihellenistic
Date: May 30, 2026, 9:20 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> Just because you can find a source that claims someone held a
certain view does not imply that particular claim is true, you
moron. Should we believe Jesus is what Paul said Jesus is? If
not, why should we believe Hitler is what Zitelmann etc. say
Hitler is?
>
> When Judeo-Christians believe Paul's version of Jesus, all it
tells me is that they themselves like Judaism. Similarly, you
believing Zitelmann's version of Hitler tells me nothing except
that you yourself like communism.
--- End Quote ---
The historical validity of Hitler's thoughts lies with Dr.
Rainer Zitelmann, particularly the historical validity of seeing
how Hitler viewed the concept of private property and economic
system in historical records. Because his claims are based on
what Hitler said privately, which has been recorded in his
memoirs about Hitler's words in Table Talk (English and German
versions), Bormann Document (English and German versions),
Minister of Industry and War Albert Speer, Ministry of
Propaganda Joseph Goebbels, and foreign media such as the New
York Times, Times (London), Argus, and others. While you only
use tertiary sources like Wikipedia and some of Hitler's
recorded words to conclude that Hitler "supported private
property," the historical claims about Hitler's thoughts that
you present are considered "invalid."
--- Quote ---
> You are so illiterate you fail at even quoting my quote
accurately. In the statement I posted, Hitler said:
>
> [quote]I absolutely insist on protecting private property.
--- End Quote ---
"Protect" is not the same word as "respect".[/quote]
If people respect private property, they will not interfere and
will protect it. Hitler is recorded throughout his leadership in
history as destroying the sovereignty of private property of the
German people. I have shown historical evidence many times, but
you have not taken it seriously. So if you believe in the
protection of private property, you are not worthy of using
Hitler as a source of inspiration. The blunders you have shown
are already visible in the public forum you currently have.
Change immediately or you will continue to be seen as wrong in
conveying information.
--- Quote ---
>
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany#Privatization_and_business_ties
>
> so claiming I have only "a single statement" is a lie. But
since you appear to be incapable even of clicking on a link:
>
> [quote]The Great Depression had spurred increased state
ownership in most Western capitalist countries. This also took
place in Germany during the last years of the Weimar
Republic.[51] However, after the Nazis took power, industries
were privatized en masse. Several banks, shipyards, railway
lines, shipping lines, welfare organizations, and more were
privatized.[52] The Nazi government took the stance that
enterprises should be in private hands wherever possible.[53]
State ownership was to be avoided unless it was absolutely
necessary for rearmament or the war effort, and even in those
cases "the Reich often insisted on the inclusion in the contract
of an option clause according to which the private firm
operating the plant was entitled to purchase it."[53]
--- End Quote ---
....[/quote]
I've provided a lot of information in your forum about the true
meaning of the alleged "privatization practices" by Hitler's
regime. The TIKhistory channel, with many more credible
historical sources, has answered your claim that Hitler carried
out "privatization." You should also see what he has explained,
as well as comments by Austrian economist and theorist Ludwig
von Mises and writer George Orwell on how the economy worked
under Hitler's regime. You may believe in the importance of
"private property," but if you use Hitler as a source of
inspiration for supporting the values ​​and norms of
"private property," you are studying political history
incorrectly.
--- Quote ---
> Minute 00:10 to 02:29
>
> TIKhistory Comments :
>
> The process of collectivizing the German people began as soon
as the Nazis seized power and developed progressively over time.
As outlined in primary sources such as Günter Reimann’s
The Vampire Economy, Adam Tooze’s Wages of Destruction,
and many others, Nazi Party officials and SA members would
literally walk into factories and businesses and take control
from the inside.
>
> References:
>
> 1. Mierzejewski, The Most Valuable Asset of the Reich, p. 4
>
> 2. Tooze, Wages of Destruction, pp. 111–113
>
> 3. Reimann, The Vampire Economy, Chapter 2
>
> 4. Temin, Soviet and Nazi Economic Planning in the 1930s, pp.
576–577
>
> TIKhistory Comments :
>
> This was not “privatization,” as claimed by the
British Keynesian magazine The Economist in 1936, which used the
term to describe German banks selling shares. That had nothing
to do with selling industry to private interests. Even worse,
other political commentators in the 1940s described this
government centralization of the economy as
“privatization,” which clearly isn’t how we
use the term today. Regardless, actual Nazi policies were not
privatization — I have no idea where the media got that
term from; they may have simply invented it.
>
> “The Party, furthermore, facilitated the accumulation of
private wealth and industrial empires by its most prominent
members and collaborators through privatization and other
measures, thereby intensifying the centralization of economic
and governmental affairs into an increasingly narrow group that
could be called the national socialist elite.”
>
> — The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1943
>
> References:
>
> 1. Bel, “The Birth of ‘Privatization’ and
the National Socialist German Party,” Journal of Economic
Perspectives, Vol. 20, pp. 187–194
>
> 2. Buchheim & Scherner, “Private Property in the Nazi
Economy,” p. 394
>
> 3. Kennedy, "Yes, They Were Socialists: How the Nazis Waged
War on Private Property," 07/05/2022
HTML https://mises.org/wire/yes-they-were-socialists-how-nazis-waged-war-private-property
>
> But the actual Nazi policy was called
“Gleichschaltung”. This means
“coordination” or “synchronization” - as
in, the synchronization of the economy and society into the
State. Everything was to be merged into one, becoming a social
state - the opposite of what is called
“privatization”.
>
> References:
>
> 1. Benz, “A Concise History of the Third Reich,”
pp. 28-30.
>
> 2. Evans, “The Coming of the Third Reich,” Chapter
5, Section 4.
>
> 3. Kershaw “Hitler Hubris” p. 479, p. 481.
>
> 4. Lindner, “Inside IG Farben,” p. 67.
>
> 5. Mises “Omnipotent Government,” p. 67, pp.
227-230, p. 251
>
> 6. Rausching, “The Revolution of Nihilism,” p. 9.
>
> "Business and professional associations, sports clubs, choral
societies, shooting clubs, patriotic associations, and most
other forms of organized activity were taken over - or more
often hastily placed under - National Socialist control in the
first months of the Third Reich. 'There was no more social life;
you couldn't even have a bowling club' that wasn't
‘coordinated’, is how one resident of Northeim in
Lower Saxony remembers it.
>
> Reference: Kershaw, "Hitler: Hubris," p. 479.
>
> Minute 03:04 to 03:48
>
> Private property rights, as guaranteed under Articles 115 and
153 of the Weimar Constitution [Reference: Text of the Weimar
Constitution], were effectively abolished by the Reichstag Fire
Decree of 1933.
>
> Articles 115 and 153 of the Weimar Constitution:
>
> Article 115: The home of every German is his sanctuary and is
inviolable. Exceptions may only be made by law.
>
> Article 153: Property is guaranteed by the Constitution. Its
nature and limits will be determined by legislation...
>
> Reference: Text of the Weimar Constitution
>
> Text of the Reichstag Fire Decree, February 28, 1933:
>
> “Decree of the Reich President for the Protection of the
People and the State”
>
> “On the basis of Article 48, Section 2 of the
Constitution of the German Reich, the following is decreed to
protect the people and the state from Communist acts of violence
endangering the state:”
>
> §1: Articles 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124, and 153 of the
Constitution of the German Reich are suspended until further
notice. Therefore, restrictions on personal liberty, freedom of
expression including freedom of the press, freedom of
association and assembly, and the privacy of postal,
telegraphic, and telephonic communications are permitted.
>
> Searches of homes, confiscation orders, and restrictions on
property are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise
prescribed.
>
> Reference: Text of the Reichstag Fire Decree, February 28,
1933
>
> TIKhistory Comments :
>
> "Many historians have overlooked this portion of the Reichstag
Fire Decree — either because they cannot explain it, or
they deem it irrelevant. But my question to them is: why
didn’t the Jews and other victims sue the Nazis for
stealing their property? Oh, right — because private
property rights had already been abolished. And where were they
abolished? In the Reichstag Fire Decree of 1933."
>
> “The Nazis viewed private ownership as conditional on
its utility — not as a fundamental right. If property was
not used to serve Nazi objectives, it could be
nationalized.”
>
> Reference: Temin, Soviet and Nazi Economic Planning in the
1930s, p. 576
--- End Quote ---
Source :
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLHG4IfYE1w
Nevin Gussack's book The Nazi War against Capitalism also
clearly outlines the anti-private ownership character of
Hitler's regime's policies.. See also :
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/colonial-era/national-socialism-is-revolutionary-not-reactionary/msg29459/?topicseen#msg29459
--- Quote ---
> [quote]"So, you can't use Hitler as inspiration to fight for
the upholding of private property values; you can use John Locke
and Adam Smith as inspiration. Unless you're fighting only to
allow the practice of "gambling," then you can use Hitler as
inspiration."
--- End Quote ---
I do not need your permission.[/quote]
You will still look wrong when you use Hitler as inspiration to
uphold the values ​​of "private property", the
authority you have on this forum will not prevent anyone from
correcting the information. You can't compare Dr. Rainer
Zitelmann to Paul in presenting information, because Dr. Rainer
Zitelmann presents accurate information, and it is supported by
many political historians as well. In fact, you are the one who
deserves to be compared to how Paul disseminates information,
because you disseminate historical information about Hitler's
thoughts inaccurately.
#Post#: 32684--------------------------------------------------
Re: Russia betrayal to the anti colonialism action
DIR By: 90sRetroFan
Date: May 31, 2026, 8:17 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
"The historical validity of Hitler's thoughts lies with Dr.
Rainer Zitelmann, particularly the historical validity of seeing
how Hitler viewed the concept of private property and economic
system in historical records. Because his claims are based on
what Hitler said privately, which has been recorded in his
memoirs about Hitler's words in Table Talk"
Hitler's quote about protecting private property comes from
Table Talk, you moron. Here are some more Table Talk Hitler
quotes:
--- Quote ---
> I envisage the future, therefore, as follows : First of all,
to
> each man his private creed.
--- End Quote ---
Whereas you want to ban everything you yourself dislike.
--- Quote ---
> 2. In the event of a divergence between the interests of the
> State and private interests, an independent organisation shall
> settle the dispute in accordance with the interests of the
German
> people.
> The State could not be independent and possess indisputable
> authority unless those of us who had interests in private
under
> takings were excluded from the control of public affairs—and
> the simple fact of owning shares in a private company would
> be enough. Every person shall have the alternative of giving
> them up or of leaving the service of the State. Servants of
the
> State must not be in any way involved in financial
speculations.
--- End Quote ---
This implies that private companies and shareholders would
continue to exist, whereas you want to ban them.
--- Quote ---
> 3. A tax on private means.
> 4. A tax on commercial profits.
--- End Quote ---
This, in conjunction with the previously posted quote:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/russia-betrayal-to-the-anti-colonialism-action/msg32675/#msg32675
--- Quote ---
> A man who, within the framework of such an organisation,
> consented to pay a thousand marks for a Persian rug that's
> worth only eight hundred, would prove that he's an imbecile,
> but there's no way of stopping him.
--- End Quote ---
is precisely my argument in the previous debate:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/re-national-socialists-were-socialists-3223/msg30576/?topicseen#msg30576
--- Quote ---
> When a consumable (and hence non-resaleable) product is priced
above its actual value, it is still a good thing when it is
bought, as it makes the buyer poorer, which is what the buyer
deserves. The only problem is that the seller profits
excessively, which can be remedied by taxing the seller
sufficiently to offset this.
--- End Quote ---
which you disagreed with, advocating instead banning the more
expensive restaurant.
Back to Table Talk:
--- Quote ---
> the power monopoly must be vested in
> the State. That does not exclude the participation of private
> capital. The State would offer its securities for investment
by
> the public
--- End Quote ---
This implies private capital would continue to exist, whereas
you want to ban it.
And, as you already admitted, you want to ban gambling whereas
Hitler did not.
"While you only use tertiary sources like Wikipedia"
Wikipedia lists its own sources. Check them if you want.
"The TIKhistory channel"
OK then, you go and edit Wikipedia yourself using the TIKhistory
channel as your source and see what happens.
"You will still look wrong"
If so, then you would look better by comparison, so why are you
complaining?
The only reason you would want me to abandon my interpretation
is because you feel threatened by it.
#Post#: 32686--------------------------------------------------
Re: Russia betrayal to the anti colonialism action
DIR By: antihellenistic
Date: June 1, 2026, 2:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> Hitler's quote about protecting private property comes from
Table Talk, you moron. Here are some more Table Talk Hitler
quotes:
>
> [quote]I envisage the future, therefore, as follows : First of
all, to
> each man his private creed.
--- End Quote ---
Whereas you want to ban everything you yourself dislike.
--- Quote ---
> 2. In the event of a divergence between the interests of the
> State and private interests, an independent organisation shall
> settle the dispute in accordance with the interests of the
German
> people.
> The State could not be independent and possess indisputable
> authority unless those of us who had interests in private
under
> takings were excluded from the control of public affairs—and
> the simple fact of owning shares in a private company would
> be enough. Every person shall have the alternative of giving
> them up or of leaving the service of the State. Servants of
the
> State must not be in any way involved in financial
speculations.
--- End Quote ---
This implies that private companies and shareholders would
continue to exist, whereas you want to ban them.[/quote]
There can be no protection or respect for private property if
individuals cannot have the will to determine the plans for
production, distribution, and consumption. Under Hitler's
regime, the state determined the plans for production,
distribution, and consumption. You need to read Table Talk
correctly.
--- Quote ---
> On December 10, 1940, Hitler declared that the individual did
not have “the right to dispose completely freely of that which
must be invested in the interest of the national community. If
he disposes of it personally in a sensible manner all the
better. If he does not act sensibly then the National Socialist
state intervenes” (Bouhler 1941, 345).
--- End Quote ---
Source :
Bouhler, Philipp, ed. 1941. Der großdeutsche Freiheitskampf:
Reden Adolf Hitlers. Vols. 1 and 2. Munich: Eher Verlag. Page 97
HTML https://archive.org/details/AdolfHitlerRedenDerGrodeutscheFreiheitskampf-BandIi/page/n97/mode/2up?q=verf%C3%BCgen
From writings :
Diese Leute haben die Möglichkeit - ich will Ihnen nur ein
Beispiel sagen -, aus ihrer Rüstungsindustrie 76, 80, 95, 140,
160 v. H. Dividende eiuzustreichen. Ja natürlich, sie sagen,
wenn diese Methoden um sich greifen, hört sich das auf. Da haben
sie vollkommen recht, das werde ich nicht dulden. Ich glaube,
daß 6 v. H. genügend sind. Aber von diesen 6 v. H. nehmen wir
auch wieder die Hälfte weg. Und von dem Rest müssen wir den
Nachweis wissen, daß das wieder im Interesse der
Volksgemeinschaft angelegt wird. Das heißt also, der einzelne
hat nicht das Recht, vollkommen frei über das zu verfügen, was
im Interesse der Volksgemeinschaft angelegt werden muß. Wenn er
persönlich darüber vernünftig verfügt, ist es gut. Wenn er nicht
vernünftig verfügt, dann greift der nationalsozialistische Staat
ein.
[size=8pt]English translations :
These people had the opportunity—I'll give you just one
example—to take 76, 80, 95, 140, 160 percent of the dividends
from their arms industry. Yes, of course, they say that if this
method becomes widespread, it will stop. They are absolutely
right; I will not tolerate that. I believe that 6 percent is
sufficient. But we will also take half of that 6 percent. And we
need proof that the rest will be reinvested for the benefit of
the national community. This means that individuals do not have
the right to fully use what should be invested for the benefit
of the national community. If they themselves handle it wisely,
that's fine. If they don't handle it wisely, then the National
Socialist state will intervene.[/size]
For Hitler, the formal maintenance of private ownership was not
important. When the state has the unrestricted right to
determine the decisions of the owners of the means of
production, the formal legal institution of private ownership no
longer means very much. This is what Pollock (1981a, 113) is
saying when he refers to the “destruction of all of the
essential traits of private ownership with the exception of
one.” The moment the owners of the means of production can no
longer freely decide the content, timing, and size of their
investments, the essential characteristics of private ownership
have been abolished, even if the formal guarantee of private
ownership still remains. We know that Hitler preferred a slow
erosion of existing rights and institutions in the political or
constitutional sphere as well. In the field of economics, the
formal legal title of ownership was relatively unimportant to
Hitler as long as the state was able step by step to seize the
actual power of disposal over the means of production and land
--- Quote ---
> The soil belongs to the nation, and the individual has only
the rights to the loan and the fruits of it. It is therefore the
duty of everyone to extract the maximum value from the good
earth. When Professor Hoffmann asserts that his property is the
most productive in his district, then that, I think, is a good
justification for his possession of it. The more he puts into
the earth, the more he will get out of it
--- End Quote ---
- Adolf Hitler, 3th September 1942
Source :
Hitler Table Talk : Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens Page 686
(Page 730 in the pdf format)
HTML https://ia601203.us.archive.org/8/items/HitlersTableTalk_1941_1944/Hugh%20Trevor-Roper%20-%20Hitlers%20Table%20Talk%201941-1944%20%28His%20Private%20Conversations%29.pdf
In his speech to leaders of the armaments industry at the end of
June 1944, Hitler spoke in favor of private ownership of the
means of production—in part because Speer had asked him to do so
in order to calm the industrialists—but also stated a
restriction:
--- Quote ---
> However—and now we differentiate ourselves from the liberal
state— these achievements of highly developed individuals must
also lie within the framework of the benefit to all . . . the
liberal state holds the view, everything is good which benefits
the individual and is useful to the individual, even at the risk
of it being harmful to the whole. The National Socialist state
on the other hand has the idea, or advocates the recognition,
that while the strength lies in the individual, the deed of the
individual, the creative action of the individual must still lie
in the sense of the benefit of the whole. . . . The highest
achievements of the individual, but corrected by the interests
of a community, which in the final analysis must by its actions
and its commitment under harsh conditions, in other words in the
war, also cover for and protect the achievements of the
individual. It is therefore now only sensible and natural that
the achievement of the individual is weighed to that degree to
which this achievement benefits the whole. This modification of
the concept of private ownership is not even the slightest
restriction of the individual, individual ability, individual
creativity, diligence and so forth, but, on the contrary, it
gives the individual the greatest possibilities to develop. It
attaches only one condition to this, that the development not be
permitted to proceed to the detriment of the community, in other
words, in the end, ahead of everything else stands the total
interest of the whole. (Kotze and Krausnik 1966, 339, emphasis
mine)
--- End Quote ---
All of these statements by Hitler have in common that they— as
he expresses it—modify the concept of private ownership. What
does this “modification” consist of? Hitler only recognizes
private ownership insofar as it is used according to the
principle of “common benefit ahead of private benefit,” which
means, concretely, insofar as it is used within the framework of
the objectives set by the state. For Hitler the principle of
“common benefit ahead of private benefit” means that, if it is
necessary in the common interest, the state has the right at all
times to decide how, when, and to what extent private ownership
is used, and the common interest is, of course, defined by the
state.
This caveat, however, removes several important characteristics
of private ownership. The moment the legal title of possession
and the factual right of disposal separate—in other words, when
the private person can, for example, no longer freely decide on
the nature, size, and timing of the investments to be made,
essential traits of private ownership have been abolished even
though the legal institution formally remains in force.
...
The principle of private ownership, however, underwent
substantial modifications with Hitler because he rejected the
owners of the means of production’s unrestricted right of
decision with regard to the nature, amount, and timing of
investments. Moreover, just as it can be ascertained that after
1935, and in particular after 1941–42, Hitler expressed his
criticisms of free market economics ever more fundamentally,
more sharply, and became a convinced adherent of state control
of the economy, Hitler’s increasing receptiveness toward
concepts of nationalization can also be established.
The war was, of course, not the right time to implement radical
concepts of nationalization such as Hitler discussed in his
March 1942 table talks. He and other leading National Socialists
were well aware of this, and they were already having difficulty
dispelling industrialists’ fears of nationalization. In an
October 21, 1942, memo, for example, SS Führer Heinrich Himmler
states that “during the war” a “fundamental change of our
completely capitalistic economy is not possible.” Anybody who
fought against this would provoke a “witchhunt” against himself
(Himmler cited in Georg 1963, 146). Situations of war are the
worst possible times to provoke conflicts of domestic policy,
particularly with those groups on whom the effectiveness of the
war economy happens to depend. Nonetheless, it was Himmler’s SS
that—through its forced development of the SS plants that were
amalgamated in the gigantic Deutsche Wirtschaftsbetriebe
concern— was attempting to create the conditions for a radical
restructuring of the economic system and the reduction of
private capitalism.
The degree to which Hitler’s programmatic statements had become
the guiding principle of practical politics at lower levels of
government becomes clear here as well. According to Enno Georg,
the creation of as encompassing an SS concern as possible
extended the hope of being able, after the war, to direct the
economy of the Reich even more strongly than before, toward an
even more strictly organized “state command economy”:
There can hardly be any doubt, that with a longer continuation
of the National Socialist regime, the process of expansion of
the SS business enterprises would also have continued. The files
contain a large number of projects which were to be undertaken
after the war. But the longer such a development went on, the
more the structure of private business—whose forms and legal
rules the SS knew how to exploit opportunistically—would have
been eroded. With the increasing accumulation of SS businesses,
the path to a functional and structural change of important
sectors of the German economy was already being trodden. (Georg
1963, 146)
Actual development was therefore moving—under the motto “The
state commands the economy”—against private capitalism, and
Hitler welcomed this trend
Source :
Hitler’s Attitude toward Market and Planned Economy, Private
Property, and Nationalization - Journal of Libertarian Studies
Volume 26, No. 1 (2022): 1–51
HTML https://cdn.mises.org/files/2026-05/37757-hitler-s-attitude-toward-market-and-planned-economy-private-property-and-nationalization.pdf
--- Quote ---
> Whereas you want to ban everything you yourself dislike.
--- End Quote ---
There is nothing wrong with banning activities based on
individual initiative that do not follow the planned economic
and social programs of the state to achieve sensitivity and ease
of life.
--- Quote ---
> This implies private capital would continue to exist, whereas
you want to ban it.
--- End Quote ---
As long as the state can suppress the power of private capital
by imposing maximum taxes to prevent capitalist practices and
"free enterprise," private capital remains permissible. In other
words, good private ownership is private ownership that the
individual has no power to control. Once again, I provide a
historical factual account of the condition of private capital
in Hitler's regime.
--- Quote ---
> Buried under mountains of red tape, directed by the State as
to what they could produce, how much and at what price, burdened
by increasing taxation and milked by steep and never ending
“special contributions” to the party, the businessmen, who had
welcomed Hitler’s regime so enthusiastically because they
expected it to destroy organized labor and allow an entrepreneur
to practice untrammeled free enterprise, became greatly
disillusioned. One of them was Fritz Thyssen, one of the
earliest and biggest contributors to the party. Fleeing Germany
at the outbreak of the war, he recognized that the “Nazi regime
has ruined German industry.” And to all he met abroad he
proclaimed, “What a fool [Dummkopf ] I was!”15
--- End Quote ---
Source :
The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany
by William L. Shirer Page 261
HTML https://archive.org/details/B-001-014-606/page/260/mode/2up
--- Quote ---
> Wikipedia lists its own sources. Check them if you want.
--- End Quote ---
You rely on sources that lack detailed historical information
about Hitler's economic system and ownership views, and that's
the problem. Furthermore, what makes you so confident that
Wikipedia provides accurate information regarding Hitler's views
on ownership and economics? You haven't provided any solid
reasoning so far. My historical references about Hitler's views
on the concept of ownership and the economic system are
accurate, drawing from historians who have read Hitler's
thoughts from primary and secondary sources, as well as from
political scientists. So, the conclusion is, you can place a
high value on private property, but you cannot use Hitler as a
source of inspiration for that value.
#Post#: 32690--------------------------------------------------
Re: Russia betrayal to the anti colonialism action
DIR By: 90sRetroFan
Date: June 1, 2026, 7:51 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
"You need to read Table Talk correctly."
--- Quote ---
> the simple fact of owning shares in a private company would
> be enough. Every person shall have the alternative of giving
> them up or of leaving the service of the State.
--- End Quote ---
This implies Hitler allowed the existence of three types of
people:
1) those who neither own shares in a private company nor work
for the state;
2) those who own shares in a private company and who do not work
for the state;
3) those who do not own shares in a private company and who work
for the state;
whereas you, by being in favour of banning private companies
altogether, want only 1) and 3) to exist.
"You rely on sources that lack detailed historical information"
In my previous post, I used exclusively Table Talk, which is the
source you said you trusted:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/russia-betrayal-to-the-anti-colonialism-action/msg32684/#msg32684
--- Quote ---
> "The historical validity of Hitler's thoughts lies with Dr.
Rainer Zitelmann, particularly the historical validity of seeing
how Hitler viewed the concept of private property and economic
system in historical records. Because his claims are based on
what Hitler said privately, which has been recorded in his
memoirs about Hitler's words in Table Talk"
>
> Hitler's quote about protecting private property comes from
Table Talk, you moron. Here are some more Table Talk Hitler
quotes:
--- End Quote ---
Moron.
"what makes you so confident that Wikipedia provides accurate
information"
If you are dissatisfied with Wikipedia's information, go over
there and edit it. I am merely pointing out that multiple
mutually contrary interpretations of Hitler exist.
"My historical references about Hitler's views on the concept of
ownership and the economic system are accurate"
Thank you for proving your total ignorance by claiming you can
be certain that some references are accurate.
"drawing from historians who have read Hitler's thoughts from
primary and secondary sources, as well as from political
scientists."
Which is what Wikipedia also does:
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability
"you can place a high value on private property, but you cannot
use Hitler as a source of inspiration for that value."
I do not need your permission.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page