National Socialism: the clue’s in the name

15 February 2013

12:51 PM

15 February 2013

12:51 PM

How can conservatives ensure they always lose? A good place to start is to concede every lie of the left.

The Conservative Party appears to be doing what it can in this regard. Take their decision to strike Rachel Frosh from their candidates list for the great crime of… linking Nazism to socialism.


Frosh committed her thought crime on Twitter. Thanks to a left-wing stink being kicked up on the same medium, her career – including twenty years in the NHS – is now apparently nullified overnight. She has had to step down from her role as a Police and Crime Commissioner and now she cannot stand for the Conservatives at an election. A party spokesman has said: ‘these comments are completely unacceptable and it is right that she has stepped down’.

Clearly the Conservative party has taken the view that they do not want anyone involved in politics or policing who takes a view on history that is actually correct.

It is neither an insult to all of the left, nor an attempt to exonerate all of the right, but rather a statement of historical fact that National Socialism had its origins in socialism. If the Conservative party’s apparatchiks look hard enough they will even find a clue in the name. But evidently they are too busy giving in to left-wing twitter-mobs to have time for such a bland and useless thing as historical truth.

Subscribe to The Spectator today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Get more Spectator for less – just £12 for 12 issues.

Show comments
  • Walter Kazm

    National Socialist German Labour Party . Sounds rather socialist to me

    • bengeo

      Mmmmm… similar to the north Korean Social Democratic Party!

      Which is obviously very democratic.

      • Petra Thompson

        Of course, what you don’t want is for people to actually look at the polices of the National Socialists. 10% about race; 90% about socialism.

        • bengeo

          How do you know what I don’t want? I might want you, sweetie!

  • Fak_Zakaix

    The comments below shows how the post-war education failed lamentably.

  • zanzamander
  • Howard Roark

    For historical dates, details, and quotes that Frosh was speaking truly I’d suggest all read Jonah Goldberg’s “Liberal Fascism- The Secret History of the American Left From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning” Within this book one will find many dozens of quotes for example of British Socialists praising the Fascisti in Italy or Nazis in Germany from their very earliest days right through to the day Germany and Britain declared war on each other in 1939.

  • bengeo

    This is the propaganda believed by all Americans, nurtured in ignorance. They refuse to separate political left from right, all socialists are fascists, all fascists are socialists. You are either a libertarian or a fascist. You are either for us, or against us.

    The clue is in the word, you see? Fascist and socialist, they are spelt differently. Different words. See? It is easy really.

    • Petra Thompson

      My what a simple world you live in. Outside of Goldilocks and the 3 Bears it is slightly more complex. Mussolini was a socialist until the day he died.

      • bengeo

        Same simple world you live in. Go back to the 1970s and find me someone who would have happily joined both the National Front and the Young Communist League at the same time.

        • Petra Thompson

          “Go back to the 1970s and find me someone who would have happily joined both the National Front and the Young Communist League at the same time”. Easily done. Fascists flock together. It’s the totalitarianism that socialists, nazis, communists and fascists like.

          • bengeo

            I didn’t think you would be able to. No problem, the point is made.

  • stephen rothbart

    Astonishing that David Ward gets a mild slap for being an insensitive anti-Semite and Rachel Frosh gets kicked out.

    Doesn’t Cameron want to win the next election, or did he think she was accusing him as being like the Nazis by comparing the Nazis to socialists?

  • Raman

    It was the ONLY form of socialism ever supported by the Daily Mail and the rich. Some socialism, indeed.

    • Petra Thompson

      I suppose the famous communist spies from Cambridge were all barrow-boys before they went up to the varsity?

  • brokky

    The Nazis were certainly socialists, just look at who they helped in the Spanish civil war.

    • Petra Thompson

      The words “clutching” and “straws” come to mind. The Labour government helped George Bush in Iraq, therefore the Labour Party are christian fundamentalist Americans.

  • Steve

    And lets not forget the Fabians advocated Eugenics which was much loved by the Left and practiced by Left Wing big State tyrants such as Hitler and Stalin. Then of course we have Pol Pot another left wing fanatic !!!

  • Davey12

    Watch a video of George Galloway giving a speech then watch Hitler, scary.

    • moderate Guy

      George Galloway’s speeches do sound better in original German.

  • Fergus Pickering

    Churchill thought the Nazis so evil he fought them. The Labour Party meanwhile advocated pacifism.

    • Andy

      That is true. George Lansbury who was leader in the 1930s was a pacifist and Clem Attlee voted against the Navel estimates in 1935 for example.

    • Daniel Maris

      But he was quite keen on the Italian Fascists to begin. And favoured the oppression of 400 million Indians, among other colonial people, to deny them political freedom. (I say that as someone who thinks Churchill a friendly giant of politics and history).

      • Fergus Pickering

        What on earth have Indians got to do with it?

        • moderate Guy

          I thought they all got smallpox.

          • bengeo

            No, that is yer Red Indian. Not yer real Indian, is it? Not yer pukkha Maharaja Indian, is it Rodney?

            • moderate Guy

              Yeah, some people say they all look alike though. Not me, you understand.

              • bengeo

                Wouldn’t want to get them mixed up though mate, and end up with a grizzely bear vindaloo would yer? Haha!

        • Daniel Maris

          Don’t they get a vote? We are talking here about the ambiguities of political labels. Was Winston a democrat? Yes if you’re a Brit, no if you’re an Indian. If you were an Indian he was a colonial oppressor.

    • kieran

      A lot of the Conservatives at the time advocates appeasing Hitler, I am sad to say.

    • moderate Guy

      Didn’t wanted to fight their soulmates.

    • James Rufus

      A lie: Hitler, a man of the Right, supported Franco in the Spanish civil war…the British Labour party demanded intervention…whilst the CONservaties were applauding Franco and Hitler

  • paulus

    She is not wrong as all forms of socialism is a secular actof faith and when one has a blind faith in any creed it is by definition intolerant. They seek identity by defining themselves against the other, that is why they appear so rabid and veracious. Its worth is so self evident.

    All meaningful human interaction is reduced and viewed through a prism, a prism that locks and enslaves them as surely as a narcotic devalues a meaningful human life. It is
    unmitigated evil.

  • Adam

    Reminds me of the ‘Democratic Republic of the Congo’ – the clue is in the name, right?

    • Petra Thompson

      Such a feeble argument. Look at Hitler’s 25 Theses. You will see they are 90% similar to the policies of the British Labour Party throughout the 20th century. They bare almost no resemblance to a British Conservative Party’s policies in the 20th century.

      • Wessex Man

        I can never fully forgive my cousin for hitting the kerb and not running down Michael Foot thirty years or more ago when I was teaching her to drive!

      • Petra Thompson

        Adam says:”The point is that its silly to try to compare either side of modern politics to Nazis”

        That never stops the looney left like you from saying the BNP are nazis, or that the EDL are nazis, or that Golden Dawn are nazis, or that the Hungaria party Fidesz are nazis. I think that the BNP and Golden Dawn are close to being Nazis (i.e. they are racist socialists).

        The whole point of Jonah Goldberg’s book “Liberal Fascism” is that because the truly socialist nature of fascism and nazism have been denied for the last 70 years, the fascist agenda has been allowed to continue unimpeded.

        You want to declare, by fiat, that the National Socialists were diametrically opposed to socialism. They weren’t. They were very close neighbours to other socialists from the 1930s (the Fabians were eugenicists, Stalin was conducting genocide before Hitler). Soviet communism was Russian nationalism. Even the most famous anarchists were nationalists (Kropotkin, Proudhon, Bakunin).

        • Adam

          Yes, and ‘the left’ are also wrong in comparing ‘the right’ to Nazis. I don’t think I ever said otherwise. The comparison only really serves to demonstrates the flaws in the left-right dichotomy – surely the biggest problem with the Nazis wasn’t their economic policy?

        • James Rufus

          The National Socialists had a capitalist economy you ignorant fool. Krupp, Flick, Thyssen etc.

  • Michael Fitz-Gibbon

    Conservatives should get their mothers to read this to them, since they’re mostly an illiterate bunch.

    • Colonel Mustard

      Well, you would say that wouldn’t you.

      Actually, the linked article is pretty stupid and shows a complete ignorance of the political imperative of the NSDAP. But of course leftists would push that line. Distancing themselves from their own crimes and blaming every ill on someone else is part of their DNA.

      And I mentioned the resort to pejoratives above and here you come to demonstrate the genre.

      • Michael Fitz-Gibbon

        The facts have it, guys. Hitler and the Nazis despised actual socialism, hated the Communists, and certainly weren’t liberal. Stop rewriting history.

        • Steve

          Thanks for that gem Michael here was me thinking Hitler wanted to increase the power of the State but all the time he wanted to reduce it, well according to you anyway.

        • Andy

          It is you that is rewriting history. The Nazis described themselves as Socialists. What they might not be is a Socialist like you, but that doesn’t make them any less of a Socialist than you, nor you more a Socialist than they.

    • Steve

      Michael, answer me this mate, do you think the Nazis advocated a Big State or a Small one ? Once you answer that think about this Left=Bigger State, Right=Smaller State, now what camp do the Nazis fall into ? Think hard about it and don’t phone a friend.

  • LaszloZapacik

    ‘a statement of historical fact that National Socialism had its origins in socialism.’

    But of course there’s no need to provide any actual evidence of this ‘fact’ in this article, is there?

    • Colonel Mustard

      Ah, yes, here comes the socialist demanding evidence. Strange that it is never required for your own assertions and accusations.

      The truth is out there. National Socialism is socialism with the mask off.

    • Petra Thompson

      “of course there’s no need to provide any actual evidence of this ‘fact'”

      It is hard to grasp the stupidity and ignorance of people who have access to the internet, yet are incapable of even a modicum of personal research. So, for people like you who need to be spoon fed, here you go.

      Do those policies not sound far more like Michael Foot than Margaret Thatcher?

      • Adam

        Why rely on a list of principles when we can look at what happened in practice?

        • Petra Thompson

          “socialism requires worker ownership and control of the means
          of production.”

          Yawn. The Labour Party in Britain describe themselves as “a socialist party”. They have rejected nationalisation (control of the means of production). The are part of the Socialist International. They are part of the Alliance of Socialists in the EU.

          Can you actually engage your brain with reality, rather than just cut and paste links like an unthinking automaton?

          • Andy

            Quite right. Goebbels noted in his diary ‘in the final analysis. . . . it would be better for us to go down with Bolshevism than live in eternal slavery under capitalism’. The Nazi’s, like the Labour Party and many on the Left, argued that capitalism damaged nations ‘due to international finance, the economic dominance of big business, and Jewish influences’. The later point is now discretely hidden behind the curtain of ‘anti-Zionism’ and being anti-Israel.

          • Adam

            The irony is killing me. You do realise that you pasted a link in exactly the same fashion directly above? Speaking of engaging a brain….

  • hangmansknotinn

    I can’t believe someone has been sacked for deriding Socialists. Are things really that bad?

    • Colonel Mustard

      Yes. Towards the creation of the single party state those who dissent must first be demonised and then criminalised.

      • Shazza

        Possibly to be known as One Nation Labour – the EUSSR, the new ‘Workers’ Paradise’; remember Daddy Ralph Milliband and his great love of the USSR Be afraid, be very afraid.

  • PChandler

    Socialism is Nazism, Facism and the most murderous of them all: Communism!.

    Anything else is historic revisionism, like holocaust denial

  • Mike Barnes

    So by this logic, Cameron is a Conservative, because the clue is in the name, he’s the leader of the conservative party, he’s a conservative, everything he does is conservative.

    He wants gay marriage, gay marriage is therefore conservative.
    He gives away foreign aid, foreign aid must be conservative.

    This ‘the clue is in the name’ stuff is going to be pretty useful the next time some UKIP nutter claims Cameron is not a true tory.

    He must be, the clue is in the name!

    • Petra Thompson

      Look beyond the name. Look at the socialist policies in Hitler’s 25 Theses. Most would have been found in any Labour Party manifesto of the 20th century. These days you will find the closest resemblance is with the BNP’s policies.

  • Roy

    Brilliantly true.

  • global city

    Trotsky explained all perfectly clearly, why don’t the Tory authorities accept the word of the foremost authority on the issue?
    Completely within the prism of socialism it goes from (Left) Internationalists, global revolution, etc, whilst those who believed that revolution could grow from country to country, or just in one country were dismsissed as (Right) Nationalists. His main problem with their approach was not some betrayal of some internationalist inclusivity, but that if a revolution confined itself to a single country at a time they would always be overwhelmed by the local bourjoise. The whole Left/Right thingy is just internal schism wanking of the commies, sub Life of Brian stuff.

  • Webwrights

    Gods, I despair sometimes. This is as risibly, knuckle-draggingly absurd as the case of the aide to the Mayor of Washington DC who was pilloried and hounded out, about 15 years ago, because he had (correctly, of course) used the word ‘niggardly’ about a budget. He was eventually reinstated. I hope the Tories man up quickly and reinstate Ms. Frosh. Shame on them and on her cheap-jack, opportunist persecutors.

  • Colonel Mustard

    “We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.” –Adolf Hitler, Quoted in John Toland, “Adolf Hitler”, p224. But they embraced capitalist industry and harnessed it to their aggression, whilst enjoying the power and trappings of capitalist wealth, just like today’s British champagne socialists and NGO apparatchiks. And they created a politicised bureaucracy that snooped and regulated within every walk of life, just as New Labour did.

    They imposed a one party state with the arrogant presumption that everyone should think as they did – ideological and doctrinal conformity – another British socialist trait. Blair described the Labour party as “Nothing less than the political wing of the British people as a whole”, the very words could be imagined from Hitler with ‘NSDAP’ replacing ‘Labour’ and ‘German’ replacing ‘British’. An aspiration perhaps still reflected in Miliband’s ‘One Nation’ boast. Miliband means one nation of people who think Labour. Blair and his fellow travellers worked hard to turn the civil service into the executive wing of the Labour party and the police into the armed wing of the Labour party just as the NSDAP politicised and controlled the civic and judicial infrastructure, the police and even the armed forces. The NSDAP also saw themselves as a “movement” rather than a party which is exactly how Labour described themselves as recently as 2012.

    Labour are indeed the Nazis of our time because they cannot envisage true plurality in politics but seek instead to always transform it into a fundamental moral contest in which they must emerge supreme. Everyone who does not share their ideology and doctrine is an enemy to be first demonised and then destroyed. Their faith in their “cause” is almost religious and brooks no dissent. Challenge it and the pejoratives quickly come into play – as we see even here.

    • Sue Ward

      What a fabulous, passionate and articulate piece. I salute you Colonel!

      • Fergus Pickering

        I too. Could the Speccie actually employ you? Instead of…. fill in the blank.
        Not Mr Murray of course.

    • SonofBoudica

      Wonderfully put.

    • sarahsmith232

      perfect description of the Neo-Fascist, Totalitarian, New Labour movement.

      the white working-class in East London were guilty of decadesof challenging the Labour party’s multi-cultural totalitarianism with persistant BNP and Conservative voting. Labour responded to this in the way that they’ve learnt from their earlier Fascist masters – state sponsered ethnic cleansing. anyone that’s seen their handiwork will know – job done, the whites have been wiped out.

    • Simeon Howell

      Nicely Put

    • Nicholas chuzzlewit

      Well said Colonel. Churchill, although pilloried at the time, was absolutely right when he said that a “Gestapo apparatus” was indispensable to a Socialist government.

  • Dino Fancellu

    The Conservatives are a dead brand, they have set the controls for the heart of the Sun and seem bent of self annihilation. They have been taken over by Common Purpose, by the Left, to the extent that any truth that isn’t from the Left is an unforgivable thought crime. That is why there is no Tory party any more, simply the Cameron Party. After a lifetime of voting Tory I’ll be voting UKIP.

  • Steve

    Again as I have said time and time again l’ve never once viewed any footage from the Nuremberg rallies and thought these guys are all for reducing the power of the State. The fact is National Socialism is a Collectivist Totalitarian ideology based on race as opposed a Collectivist Totalitarian ideology based on class ( Communism). That’s what distinguishes them. They are both left wing ideologies . This action by Camerons party is another reason not to vote for them next time.

  • C Cole

    An utter disgrace, but perhaps now she’ll stand for a decent party. Can yoU thinK of one that mIght fit the bill, Perchance?

  • Youbian

    That is exactly the problem with Cameron and co. I don’t care how much they are constrained by the coalition on policies they could still have the courage of their convictions and fight left wing lies. Oops I forgot. They don’t have convictions and that’s the problem.

  • Sue Ward

    How many times do Labour politicians compare Conservatives to Nazis and nobody bats an eyelid? I despair of the Conservative Party; Rachel Frosh should receive and immediate apology and be reinstated forthwith.

    • David Davis

      I doubt if she’d want to go back after this. Socialists _are_ Nazis, all of them, all the time, and have been always. They invented it. Read my lips.

  • therealguyfaux

    Of course, point out the “Socialist” in the NSDAP name, and you’ve committed the cardinal violation of Godwin’s Law, which is the debating equivalent of a deliberate handball by a field player in the penalty area- you’re gone! Done and dusted!

    Of course, the Left can always trot out (pun intended) the Orwellian chestnut about how regimes can disguise their intentions with the deliberate misuse of a term they believe most people do (or at any rate, should) find “benign,” like “socialist,” but of course this leaves them wide open on the score of the use of “democratic,” as in East Germany historically or North Korea today. The Left then have to resort to all kinds of jesuitical nonsense about how those regimes truly reflect the wishes of their governed, hence are “democratic,” only maybe not the kind you’re used to. But Heaven forbid you then tell them, OK then, so Nazis were Socialists, only not the kind YOU’RE used to– sauce for goose and gander, innit? But of course, since they control the debate in Academe and Media, they get to define the terms.

    Once we recognise that it’s all just Abbott & Costello, with them as Abbott, the whole picture is clear. Unfortunately, too many people are unwitting Costellos.

  • Bill Quango MP

    The Nazis were not socialists. Its silly to try and pretend they were. They had some socialist policies, as any party seeking election would. But they were never socialists in ideology.
    Its like saying Al Capone was a philanthropist because he donated cash from his bootlegging cash to local orphanages and organsied a kind of food aid in his ward. He was still just a gangster.

    And the clue isn’t really in the name. Anymore than the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is a democracy.

    • Bill Kenny

      National Socialist German Workers Party, then go and read what they said about themselves and how they revelled in socialism. Facts are chiels that winnae ding.

      • Bill Quango MP

        Thanks, I have read.
        It doesn’t matter what they said they’d do
        , but what they did.

        The NSDP were only socials in that they favoured the big state. But they believed the individual must serve the state. That isn’t socialism.

        I wouldn’t say nazis were socialists myself. But, as others have pointed out, it annoys the bedwetters, and it’s the sort of twisted propaganda device they use all the time (London families being DEPORTED, just yesterday)
        So maybe it’s worth repeating, even if its only to upset the Toynbee set.

        • Steve

          And what they did was reduce the power of the State and grant more freedoms to the individual….oh wait …no in fact they did the oppositte, they build a huge State, thats what they did Bill, a huge totalitarian, centralised, State !!!

          • Andy

            Sort of thing Gordon Brown wanted.

        • Colonel Mustard

          It’s not just worth repeating but true! And you have it inverted. It is the socialists of modern Britain who resemble Nazis. They implement the same intolerant doctrine towards dissent and attack rather than argue or persuade. Their politics is warfare without weapons, pursued to destroy their perceived enemies, real or imagined, by any means possible, foul or fair, which includes the copious use of propaganda and misrepresentation. For a socialist there is no room for a diversity of political views, equally respected, however much they might bleat about diversity and equality.

          And I disagree that modern British socialists do not believe the individual must serve the state. They transformed the public sector into a nannying, hectoring, regulating bureaucracy that sees itself as controlling the individual rather than serving him. This reversed traditional British concepts of public service and duty. The duty has been transferred to the individual, to comply with the doctrine and regulations as set out by the official, increasingly officiously! And over that they laid political ideology and doctrine, easily accommodated by a public service that is overwhelmingly socialist and union driven anyway.

          They had everything almost complete for a NSDAP one party type state, except the people. And they worked hard to transform them too, by seizing control of education and pursuing policies of mass immigration.

        • Petra Thompson

          “they believed the individual must serve the state. That isn’t socialism.”

          The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics also believed that the individual must serve the state. All collectivisms subjugate the individual (as does islam). The communists in Russia, China, and Cambodia had no trouble with exterminating vast numbers of individuals. America is one of the few countries in the world that enshrines the rights of individuals. No socialist ever does. Any appearance that they do is just flimsy PR.

          • Vindice

            Obviously you deserve a lot of recommends Petra

          • Andy

            Which is why the left loaths America so much.

            • David Lindsay

              If it is real hatred of America that you want, then it is at the core of the core of the Right in Britain, in the Commonwealth and on the Continent.

              As long as you do not actually call it by the S-word, then America has always been rather good at Socialism. The only America that anyone now alive can remember is the land of big municipal government, of strong unions whose every red cent in political donations buys something specific, of very high levels of co-operative membership, of housing co-operatives even for the upper middle classes, of small farmers who own their own land, and of the pioneering of Keynesianism in practice.

              In stark contrast to our own Premier League, the National Football League maintains the equal sharing out of ticket and television revenue, and there is still the hard salary cap for players, as well as the very extensive welfare provision. The 2011 Super Bowl champions, the Green Bay Packers, have a not-for-profit model of community ownership which has had to be banned from spreading for fear that it would otherwise prove so popular. The Packers have never moved out of a Midwestern city of only 102,313 people as of the 2000 census. The National Basketball Association and Major League Baseball more than do their bit, too. In all three cases, displaying the name or logo of a commercial sponsor on the kit would be considered the very height, or depth, of sacrilege.

              America still had enough Faith, Flag and Family by the 1980s to restrain neoliberal economics then and subsequently. We did not, so we could not. Comparing their giant sporting interests to ours makes the point. God Bless America. Games that still begin commonly with the Lord’s Prayer, and which invariably begin with the National Anthem, could never become what their counterparts have become here in a country where many people probably no longer know the words to the Lord’s Prayer and where most people now alive have probably never known all of the words to the National Anthem.

              That is the America which long led the world in protecting high-wage, high-skilled, high-status jobs, both against the exportation of that labour to un-unionised, child-exploiting sweatshops, and against the importation of those sweatshops themselves. Until very recently, that America led the world in “not seeking for monsters to destroy”. Once the universal public healthcare option has come to be, then everyone will say that it is as American as apple pie. As, indeed, it is. ObamaCare is in fact less Socialist than the scheme that was proposed by Richard Nixon.

              That is America, the most successful example of non-Marxist, and where necessary anti-Marxist, Socialism in the world. No one alive can remember America as anything other than that. The only thing missing was universal public healthcare. And even that has now been taken care of. So much so that the last Presidential Election was between the man who delivered ObamaCare and the man who delivered RomneyCare, with no opponent of the principle on the ballot. Romney, remember, was the choice of millions of registered Republicans. Well, of course he was.

              • Wessex Man

                Very interesting David Lindsay, the bit abo zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

                • David Lindsay

                  Beyond you, obviously. No wonder you like Murray so much.

        • Schutzstaffel

          You sir are a Liar, Do not speak for 80 million folk of the Reich state. Do your research…….

    • Peter Jackson

      Mussolini was a socialist, so was Mosley so was Quisling. Mitterand served the Vichy regime. There’s a pattern emerging

      • Andy

        I believe Mussolini was a communist, but he was certainly Left Wing. Mosley was a Labour MP.

        • Tom Tom

          Mosley had been a Conservative MP

          • Andy

            But was a Labour MP far longer and held office under a Labour Government.

            • Jonathan

              Don’t forget member of the Fabian Society too.

              • Andy

                Thank you for reminding me !

              • FrenchNewsonlin

                Hasn’t the Fabian Society morphed into Common Purpose or is that merely a subsidiary operation?

          • Peter Jackson

            He sat as a Concervative for about a year before defecting to Labour and served as a minister in the 1929 Labour Government

          • Steve

            Mosley is a fine example of someone starting out as a Conservative but moving ever leftward along the Political spectrum, first to Labour then to Fabian then finally to the extreme left with the blackshirts.

    • Colonel Mustard

      The strain of authoritarian socialism they represented was reflected most closely by New Labour. The cliquish use and misuse of power whilst embracing corporate industry and profiteering, the desire to control and have a hand in everything and the authoritarian bureaucratisation and politicisation of the public sector – all NSDAP and New Labour traits. New Labour didn’t have the uniforms and torchlight parades or set up concentration camps but as incestuous criminal gangs go they were two cheeks on the same backside.

      • Andy

        Spot on !

        Nothing much has changed really. Most Socialists I know, and have met, are bullying and intolerant of any view save their own. They are almost always anti-semitic, which they usually excuse by saying ‘I’m anti-Zionist’. But they loath and hate Israel with a passion, which makes them seem rather unhinged.,

      • dalai guevara

        What an interesting analogy indeed – one would almost be inclined to agree, but then is held back by the fact that if your truly mindboggling simplifications applied, then a Tory today could simply be mistaken for someone who advocated ‘me me me Britain’, whereas the true conservative in value -the ‘social conservative’- would have to be a member of…the Green Party.

        Do Alan Johnson, Tessa Jowell or the late Robin Cook really strike you as members of an organistaion that favoured any of the values you attribute to them? I mean, are there not far more Peter Mandelsons in disguise around nowadays than there were ten yers ago?

    • gordon-bennett

      In their 19333 manifesto, the nazis wrote “We are socialists and mortal enemies of the capitalist system.”

      You can’t argue against that double assertion that they are socialists.

    • Andy

      It is ‘silly to try and pretend they’ weren’t Socialists. What you mean is that they weren’t your type of Socialist, but that does not make them any less of a Socialist than you. What they most certainly were not is conservatives and nor did they share any political philosophy with right-of-centre politics. They were a left wing creation.

    • Pete Fetherston

      …or Lib(eral) Dem(ocrats) who are neither liberal nor democratic.

    • Petra Thompson

      “The Nazis were not socialists.”
      Have a look at the National Socialist Workers’ Party’s 25 Theses, and tell us with this is not socialism.

      Who did Hitler form alliances with in WW2? The socialist Mussolini, and the communist Stalin. Franco (a genuine conservative) refused to join up with these revolutionary socialists.

      Even more interesting is to compare the National Socialists 25 Theses with the 50 Demands of the nazi-inspired Muslim Brotherhood. They map almost entirely to each other.

      • Bill Quango MP

        Lets keep it really simple.

        Why did the socialist Nazis desire to eradicate their communist neighbour ?

        If the Nazis were socialists, why not continue their non aggression pact with the USSR, or better yet, form an open alliance, and wage war on the democracies?

        Was Imperial Japan a socialist country too?

        Maybe America under Roosevelt was a socialist country? The US funded its World War II effort largely by raising taxes and tapping into Americans’ personal savings. Now, many people do say Roosevelt was a communist.

        but if he was, and the Nazis were, and the Russians were, then what was all that fighting about?

        I just don’t see what point is served by calling fascism ,socialism. It isn’t. Its fascism. You might as well say a snake is the same as a bird, because they both have a common ancestor.

        But saying a snake is a bird won’t make it fly any better.

        • Petra Thompson

          Let’s keep it really simple.

          It means nothing if one group of left-wingers wants to wipe out
          another. Shiite muslims and Sunni muslims have often been at war in the last 1000 years – on your
          logic they can’t both be muslims. Yet they claim they are, they have
          far more doctrinal overlap than either group does with buddhism.

          Mussolini was a socialist. Mosley was a socialist. Hitler was a socialist. Stalin was a socialist. They said so explicitly. Their policies were socialist. The overlap in their policies was far greater than any overlap with people like J.S.Mill, or Burke, or Hayek, or Margaret Thatcher.

          It is up to people like you to establish why they are not socialists when they say they are, and all the evidence points to them being socialists. For 70 years the Left has been allowed to re-define the National Socialists as “right wing”.

          Britain is governed by a single social democratic party: LibLabCon. It suits them to have the Nazis as a bogey man that can be used to scare voters from considering a truly right-wing party or a truly left-wing party (like the BNP).

          • Daniel Maris

            Hitler hated the social democrats. He was originally a pan German nationalist, influenced by Karl Lueger, leader of a reformist Catholic party (Lueger was himself not really a nationalist).

            You’ve done your homework on Islam but not on Hitler and National Socialism.

            • Petra Thompson

              And the Sunni muslims kill the Shia muslims. The Shia muslims and Sunni muslims both kill the Ahmadi muslims. They are all muslims.

              Just because the National Socialists hated the social democrats and the communists does not stop them all being socialists. Which is the entire point of this debate. If only 1% of Hitlers 25 Theses could be construed as socialist, then perhaps its a mistake to call the Nazis “socialist”. When 90% of his 25 Theses are socialist, then the Nazis were socialists, and them hating their nearest rivals means nothing.

              • Daniel Maris

                Yes, but Lueger was not a socialist. All the Muslims you quote for example revere their founder Mohammed and most agree on fundamentals of Sharia law (including Ahmadis despite all their blather).

                Lueger and Hitler did not revere Marx or any of the other founding fathers of socialism.

                I don’t doubt as I say there were socialistic currents in Nazism. But they are really to be found among the followers of Strasser and Roehm. Hitler’s creed is clear: social darwinistic racism. It is a strongly collectivist idea but not a socialist one. Islam is also a strongly collectivist idea in many ways but not a socialist one.

                • Andy

                  Hitler, and many leading Nazis described themselves as ‘Socialists’, and as Petra points out Socialism has many strands and variants. So who are you to say they weren’t Socialists ? It is perfectly plain that they self evidently were.

                  The Nazis drew their inspiration and philosophy from Left Wing politics and they were not of the Right in any and every way. Left wing academics have cleverly shifted Nazism from its proper home and historical context in an effort to whitewash the dark and evil philosophy in which so many of them believe.

        • Wessex Man

          Wasn’t living space, oil and grain amongst the reasons?

          • Bill Quango MP

            Not really. The Nazis imported far more grain and oil, under the non aggression trade pact, than they ever obtained through conquest.
            The war was an ideological one. Communists and Jews must be eradicated or they would overwhelm Germany.

        • Steve

          oh I see what you mean Bill thus by your “Logic” We and the Americans must be Communists because we sided with Stalin in World War two ? Dear God are you from Central office by any chance ?

          • Bill Quango MP

            No, that isn’t what I’ve said. That is the position I’m arguing against. It would be foolish to suggest that the USA and British Commonwealth were communists because they were allied to the USSR.

            Yet calling socialists Nazis, is exactly that position. They have socialist in their name! They babbled on and on offering socialist policies, {which is totally correct. Hitler was very New Deal. An opponent said “Hitler promises so much he must be planning to paint the black forest white and carpet the Danzig corridor!”}

            But their actions between, say, 1935 and 1945 were militaristic dictatorship.

            The arguments that they ‘said they were socialists’ matters little.

            Tony Blair said he was in favour of nationalisation before he was leader. Cameron was against gay marriage. Clegg was totally opposed to tuition fees. Obama wanted

            Its the actions that governments take that define them.

            And the Nazis were an evil, totalitarian, gangster economy.
            They were National Socialists. That’s the label.

            Anyway, all I was trying to point out is what is served by saying that the Nazis were so far right they were actually just the far left coming the other way?

            Even amongst the knowledgeable people on here there isn’t total consensus. of the wider public most have never heard of Heinrich Brüning or the pact of steel , the nazis are just the bad guys from Indiana Jones, and they would never have voted for Ed Miliband.

            • sarahsmith232

              do you not understand what it was the woman was trying to say?
              her joke wasn’t intended as a historically accurate statement, she was joking about how intolerant,, totalitarian and authoritarian socialists are.
              it was a good joke and it’s an e.g of how intolerant, totalitarian and political correct authoritarians are holding this country to ransom.
              no one dare speak their mind, a mortgage holder would be a fool to, it’s become a sackable, and as Colonal Mustard says, a now criminal offence to speak your mind. doing so might result in being, prosecuted and now having your children removed from your care.
              this is what she was joking about.

    • Tom Tom

      They were Socialist because they wanted to keep Workers away from the Communists and Hitler based his policies on “Socialism for Germans in The Nation “whereas Stalin built “Socialism In One Country. ” because noone else wanted to play.

    • Glenn Ludlow

      Wishing something were true, does not make it true.

      • Fergus Pickering

        J.M. Barrie thought differently.