Fórum Defesa Brasil

Carlos Mathias escreveu:

Boa sorte!

soultrain escreveu:

Carlos Mathias escreveu:

Boa sorte!

Contribuam, todos a favor e contra porque isto parece um dialogo com um autista.

Todos os nazistas eram contra o «Grande Capital». Os nazistas nos anos 30 odiavam muito mais a América que a Russia, que consideravam como uma aliada. Os americanos chamavam Hitler de ditador, enquanto que os comunistas russos chamavam Hitler de patriota alemão.


Obviamente que sei o que estou a dizer.

As relações entre comunistas e nazistas, e entre o exército vermelho e a Wermacht eram as mais estreitas pelo menos até 1940.
O regime nazista poderia ser Keynesiano se não fosse o discurso revolucionário dos lideres da nacional-socialistas.

O Nazismo tem origens na esquerda, exactamente como o fascismo italiano. O medo da Russia, levou a que a separação se tornasse mais evidente tendo os nazistas assumido um cariz mais nacionalista e racial.

Não há nada nas teorias de Keynes, que afirme que as pessoas devem ser dedicadas ao estado, que o estado está acima de tudo e que o individualismo deve ser completamente abolido e substituido por um espirito de «pertença» ao todo nacional, como pretendiam os nazistas. Bastaria ver os filmes oficiais do regime nazista, produzidos pela famosa Leni Riefenstall e comparar com os filmes da propaganda soviética.

Afirmar que a Alemanha Nazi era «capitalista» é um anacronismo e um disparate sem fim, resultado de uma visão rançosa e ultrapassada do mundo, daqueles que não entenderam ainda que tanto o Nazismo como o Comunismo foram ideologias que serviram para permitir a elites corruptas e criminosas, chegar ao poder e mante-lo.

Naturalmente que, a esquerda a nível mundial fica irritada com esta obvia identificação da ditadura nazista com os principios que a esquerda ainda hoje defende.
É desagradavel aceitar o verdadeiro Hitler, e as verdadeiras ideias de Hitler, porque elas são mais uma demonstração do falhanço das ideias marxistas-leninistas.

LeandroGCard escreveu:

soultrain escreveu: Contribuam, todos a favor e contra porque isto parece um dialogo com um autista.

E é, por isso estou fora. Já disisti há tempos de discutir com este pessoal da direita deslumbrada.

Leandro G. Card

A somar a isto, os proprios nazistas chamaram o seu movimento de NACIONAL SOCIALISTA.
Ninguém apelida um movimento da massas de SOCIALISTA, apenas para parecer bonito.

Eles eram socialistas, porque acreditavam na socialização da economia e na estatização dos meios de produção. Não puderam estatizar rapidamente a economia para evitar o colapso, mas esse era o objectivo:

O MESMO OBJECTIVO DA RUSSIA COMUNISTA ! ! !

Uma ditadura social, controlada pelo estado, e livre dos capitalistas.

NADA, ABSOLUTAMENTE NADA, SEPARA COMUNISTAS E NAZISTAS para lá do grupo social ou étnico que cada um dos grupos decidiu exterminar.
Os comunistas russos assassinaram 36 milhões de russos vistos como burgueses anti-revolucionarios e os nazistas alemães assassinaram 6 milhões de judeus

Summary

Many conservatives accuse Hitler of being a leftist, on the grounds that his party was named "National Socialist." But socialism requires worker ownership and control of the means of production. In Nazi Germany, private capitalist individuals owned the means of production, and they in turn were frequently controlled by the Nazi party and state. True socialism does not advocate such economic dictatorship -- it can only be democratic. Hitler's other political beliefs place him almost always on the far right. He advocated racism over racial tolerance, eugenics over freedom of reproduction, merit over equality, competition over cooperation, power politics and militarism over pacifism, dictatorship over democracy, capitalism over Marxism, realism over idealism, nationalism over internationalism, exclusiveness over inclusiveness, common sense over theory or science, pragmatism over principle, and even held friendly relations with the Church, even though he was an atheist.



Argument

To most people, Hitler's beliefs belong to the extreme far right. For example, most conservatives believe in patriotism and a strong military; carry these beliefs far enough, and you arrive at Hitler's warring nationalism. This association has long been something of an embarrassment to the far right. To deflect such criticism, conservatives have recently launched a counter-attack, claiming that Hitler was a socialist, and therefore belongs to the political left, not the right.

The primary basis for this claim is that Hitler was a National Socialist. The word "National" evokes the state, and the word "Socialist" openly identifies itself as such.

However, there is no academic controversy over the status of this term: it was a misnomer. Misnomers are quite common in the history of political labels. Examples include the German Democratic Republic (which was neither) and Vladimir Zhirinovsky's "Liberal Democrat" party (which was also neither). The true question is not whether Hitler called his party "socialist," but whether or not it actually was.

In fact, socialism has never been tried at the national level anywhere in the world. This may surprise some people -- after all, wasn't the Soviet Union socialist? The answer is no. Many nations and political parties have called themselves "socialist," but none have actually tried socialism. To understand why, we should revisit a few basic political terms.

Perhaps the primary concern of any political ideology is who gets to own and control the means the production. This includes factories, farmlands, machinery, etc. Generally there have been three approaches to this question. The first was aristocracy, in which a ruling elite owned the land and productive wealth, and peasants and serfs had to obey their orders in return for their livelihood. The second is capitalism, which has disbanded the ruling elite and allows a much broader range of private individuals to own the means of production. However, this ownership is limited to those who can afford to buy productive wealth; nearly all workers are excluded. The third (and untried) approach is socialism, where everyone owns and controls the means of production, by means of the vote. As you can see, there is a spectrum here, ranging from a few people owning productive wealth at one end, to everyone owning it at the other.

Socialism has been proposed in many forms. The most common is social democracy, where workers vote for their supervisors, as well as their industry representatives to regional or national congresses. Another proposed form is anarcho-socialism, where workers own companies that would operate on a free market, without any central government at all. As you can see, a central planning committee is hardly a necessary feature of socialism. The primary feature is worker ownership of production.

The Soviet Union failed to qualify as socialist because it was a dictatorship over workers -- that is, a type of aristocracy, with a ruling elite in Moscow calling all the shots. Workers cannot own or control anything under a totalitarian government. In variants of socialism that call for a central government, that government is always a strong or even direct democracy… never a dictatorship. It doesn't matter if the dictator claims to be carrying out the will of the people, or calls himself a "socialist" or a "democrat." If the people themselves are not in control, then the system is, by definition, non-democratic and non-socialist.

And what of Nazi Germany? The idea that workers controlled the means of production in Nazi Germany is a bitter joke. It was actually a combination of aristocracy and capitalism. Technically, private businessmen owned and controlled the means of production. The Nazi "Charter of Labor" gave employers complete power over their workers. It established the employer as the "leader of the enterprise," and read: "The leader of the enterprise makes the decisions for the employees and laborers in all matters concerning the enterprise." (1)

The employer, however, was subject to the frequent orders of the ruling Nazi elite. After the Nazis took power in 1933, they quickly established a highly controlled war economy under the direction of Dr. Hjalmar Schacht. Like all war economies, it boomed, making Germany the second nation to recover fully from the Great Depression, in 1936. (The first nation was Sweden, in 1934. Following Keynesian-like policies, the Swedish government spent its way out of the Depression, proving that state economic policies can be successful without resorting to dictatorship or war.)

Prior to the Nazi seizure of power in 1933, worker protests had spread all across Germany in response to the Great Depression. During his drive to power, Hitler exploited this social unrest by promising workers to strengthen their labor unions and increase their standard of living. But these were empty promises; privately, he was reassuring wealthy German businessmen that he would crack down on labor once he achieved power. Historian William Shirer describes the Nazi's dual strategy:

"The party had to play both sides of the tracks. It had to allow [Nazi officials] Strasser, Goebbels and the crank Feder to beguile the masses with the cry that the National Socialists were truly 'socialists' and against the money barons. On the other hand, money to keep the party going had to be wheedled out of those who had an ample supply of it." (2)

Once in power, Hitler showed his true colors by promptly breaking all his promises to workers. The Nazis abolished trade unions, collective bargaining and the right to strike. An organization called the "Labor Front" replaced the old trade unions, but it was an instrument of the Nazi party and did not represent workers. According to the law that created it, "Its task is to see that every individual should be able… to perform the maximum of work." Workers would indeed greatly boost their productivity under Nazi rule. But they also became exploited. Between 1932 and 1936, workers wages fell, from 20.4 to 19.5 cents an hour for skilled labor, and from 16.1 to 13 cents an hour for unskilled labor. (3) Yet workers did not protest. This was partly because the Nazis had restored order to the economy, but an even bigger reason was that the Nazis would have cracked down on any protest.

There was no part of Nazism, therefore, that even remotely resembled socialism. But what about the political nature of Nazism in general? Did it belong to the left, or to the right? Let's take a closer look:

The politics of Nazism

The political right is popularly associated with the following principles. Of course, it goes without saying that these are generalizations, and not every person on the far right believes in every principle, or disbelieves its opposite. Most people's political beliefs are complex, and cannot be neatly pigeonholed. This is as true of Hitler as anyone. But since the far right is trying peg Hitler as a leftist, it's worth reviewing the tenets popularly associated with the right. These include:

Individualism over collectivism.
Racism or racial segregation over racial tolerance.
Eugenics over freedom of reproduction.
Merit over equality.
Competition over cooperation.
Power politics and militarism over pacifism.
One-person rule or self-rule over democracy.
Capitalism over Marxism.
Realism over idealism.
Nationalism over internationalism.
Exclusiveness over inclusiveness.
Meat-eating over vegetarianism.
Gun ownership over gun control
Common sense over theory or science.
Pragmatism over principle.
Religion over secularism.

tflash escreveu:Bem, Não gostei de uma coisa, caro Soul. Quando defendeu a esquerda e, bem, tirou de lá o comunismo não devia ter enfiado tudo no mesmo saco quando falou em direita.

Há direita com valores há muito e antes de haver esquerda. Esses valores não são o lucro e exploração. Uma coisa são ideais e outra coisa foram métodos muito eficientes para que esses ideais fossem assegurados. Aqui é que nós inserimos as ditaduras e nestas inserem-se aqueles que querem viver bem à custa dos outros mas isso é fugir ao tema.

Isto tudo começou com o debate à cerca da preparação ou não, da invasão da Alemanha pela Rússia. Eu acho os argumentos do colega pt válidos e bate certo com muita coisa.

A Rússia era um império. Melhor, queria ser "o" império já que culturalmente descende do império romano oriental. É precisa a primeira guerra e o agravar das condições de vida para os russos abdicarem do seu "César". Em 1916, a Rússia estava obviamente cheia de russos. Em 1919 continuava cheia de russos.

Aderiu ao comunismo, mudou de nome para união do mesmo modo que se chama deficiente à pessoa que antes era "aleijadinha". A "russificação" das repúblicas da união, a imposição da cultura russa e o enaltecimento dos heróis do império russo assim como das suas conquistas na cultura do estado não deixa dúvidas que assim é.

A Rússia queria expandir-se e não hesitou em dominar a Polónia quando lhe deram a oportunidade. Por que é que não iria invadir a Alemanha que até tinha um regime antagónico ao seu?

Porque é que durante a guerra fria, estavam a por-se a jeito de o fazerem no resto da Europa? Para mim, bate tudo certo.

Quanto aos apoios, volto a dizer, o anti-semitismo era normal. O próprio Churchill não gostava nada de judeus. Os nacionalismos no mundo inteiro pregavam a superioridades das suas respectivas nações.

O Nazismo era na altura uma politica nova e atractiva. Tem que se dar algum desconto (não todo, obviamente)

FoxTroop escreveu:tflash, eu estava apenas na varanda a assistir e não tinha intenções de me meter. Observa bem o que o PT escreveu sobre esse tal plano. Depois vê no mapa as posições da unidades soviéticas e lê sobre a doutrina de combate deles. O próprio PT acaba a afirmar que não entende muito bem o plano/tese, pela limitação estratégica que apresenta (não tem profundidade para o que é um ataque a uma nação, para mais uma como a Alemanha em 40's) e também sublinha que é apenas uma tese embora a tente apresentar como facto histórico.

Querer acreditar que Estaline vai invadir a Alemanha logo nos inícios de 40 bate de chofre com demasiadas evidencias em contrário. Desde logo a muito pouco airosa prestação dos soviéticos perante meia dúzia de gatos finlandeses. Estaline poderia ser muita coisa, mas não era estúpido e soube sempre tirar as devidas ilações dos acontecimentos (ao contrário de Hitler).

Depois, a profunda reorganização do Exército soviético em curso, que ainda demoraria uns bons anos a ser concluída se a guerra não tivesse começado. Convém lembrar que os altos quadros eram relativamente muito jovens devido ás purgas feitas por Estaline.

Estaline sabia perfeitamente que o seu Exercito não era par para a Werchmat, que demoraria anos a transformação de todos aqueles números em algo realmente potente e capaz. Um ataque à Alemanha..... só em sonhos e jogos de guerra no Estado-Maior.