I didn’t mean to give the impression that I was comparing Putin’s rationalizations to Hitler’s given the circumstances you pointed out about Germany being carved up by the treaty of Versailles. That was not my intent, as you said, collectivism is as collectivism does, turning over the means of production to the workers, as well as the countries natural resources within it’s borders is just rhetorical flourish from the party. The real goal of commie throwbacks like Putin is world domination: what’s mine is mine and what’s yours is going to be mine too.

Hitler just chose to opposite route of the old Soviet Union which was collectivizing their nation first and then grabbing land…
celtnik on August 29, 2008 at 3:45 PM

Russia already HAD a giant mass of relatively unexploited land and resources. That’s what the main thrust of Mein Kampf was about: Hitler salivating over Russian land and making up insane rationalizations for taking it. Stalin merely faced the issue from the opposite direction – but with the same ultimate goal.

In a way, Hitler’s apologists are correct about one thing: it isn’t technically correct to call him a “Socialist.” The Nazis and Fascists were RABIDLY Socialist. Maoist china was the closest thing to Communism anyone’s ever tried on a national scale on this particular planet. And the Soviet Union used elements of both systems pretty much equally.

Hitler and Stalin were nothing but two gang leaders fighting for turf…

Precisely correct. Ideology; shmideology. Collectivism is as collectivism does.

Anyway, Putin is using some of the same tactics today, he has tried to nationalize industry and the press and has now set his sites on Georgia for it’s natural resources. All of these points seem to be lost on Pat Buchanan.
celtnik on August 29, 2008 at 3:45 PM

It’s not at all fair to compare Russia’s rationalizations regarding Georgia to the ones Hitler used. Russia wasn’t carved up by foreign powers; it did all of the invading and all of the cutting itself. For Russia to now call itself a “Peacekeeper” as begins to re-divide and re-conquer its empire is a conceit that would have made Hitler blush.

Of course we could have (and as it turns out now should have) stepped in much, much earlier. We gambled on Russia’s better nature; assuming they were reforming on their own into a civilized nation. Instead it turned out they were just regrouping from their economic catastrophy, and consolidating in the hopes of another try at expansionism.

Stupid? OK, sure. But there was one benefit: No one but a complete braindead fool could possibly fail to see now what Russia is up to.

Essentially, this is a new Pearl Harbor. I’m not ashamed to admit I’m personally glad the carnage happened to Georgians instead of Americans. But if we don’t act stop this now, I will be very, very ashamed.

17. We demand a land reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to confiscate from the owners without compensation any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.

celtnik on August 29, 2008 at 3:45 PM

That was directed against the East Elbian junker class. The issue was rendered moot when Hitler secured their support/neutrality. Keep in mind that the NSDAP had a Strasserian wing to pander to before they were purged from the party in order to make the so-called reactionaries happy, especially the aforementioned Prussians serving as Wehrmacht officers.

Anyway, Putin is using some of the same tactics today, he has tried to nationalize industry and the press and has now set his sites on Georgia for it’s natural resources. All of these points seem to be lost on Pat Buchanan.

celtnik on August 29, 2008 at 3:45 PM

Yes, the crusade against the Soviet Union was all about resources and territory needed by Germany. Alfred Rosenberg considered the Slavs an unequal Aryan race and protested their destruction. Hitler was a pragmatist, not an ideologue.

The German people never suffered forced collectivization because Hitler had more pressing issues at the time, such as fighting wars on multiple fronts. Any nation that has no problem taking other countries land will eventually confiscate that of the private citizen. Again, see point 17:

17. We demand a land reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to confiscate from the owners without compensation any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.

Hitler just chose to opposite route of the old Soviet Union which was collectivizing their nation first and then grabbing land, i.e. Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and the Baltic States etc. Hitler and Stalin were nothing but two gang leaders fighting for turf, which is what you get when you have basically a one party system where the worst thugs get into politics promising a glorious new “workers paradise”, even though most of the party apparatchiks never did an honest days work in their life. I’m sure your familiar with the origins of the phrase “Arbeit Macht Frei” as a slogan backing a program of large public works programmes to end unemployment.

Anyway, Putin is using some of the same tactics today, he has tried to nationalize industry and the press and has now set his sites on Georgia for it’s natural resources. All of these points seem to be lost on Pat Buchanan.

Sounds like socialism to me.

celtnik on August 29, 2008 at 2:24 PM

Rhetorical twist to gain support.

The war economy required increased interference, but that is true of all war economies. The people never suffered forced collectivization, though, and they had a good life apart from being bombed in a failed attempt to destroy their excellent morale.

GermanAtheist on August 29, 2008 at 1:51 PM

Rhetorical twist to gain support. Leonard Peikoff makes clear the triviality of the differences:

“Contrary to the Marxists, the Nazis did not advocate public ownership of the means of production. They did demand that the government oversee and run the nation’s economy. The issue of legal ownership, they explained, is secondary; what counts is the issue of CONTROL. Private citizens, therefore, may continue to hold titles to property — so long as the state reserves to itself the unqualified right to regulate the use of their property.”

Typcical of leftists today. From the party platform:

12. Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in life and property, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as a crime against the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits whether in assets or material.

13. We demand the nationalization of businesses which have been organized into cartels.

14. We demand that all the profits from wholesale trade shall be shared out.

15. We demand extensive development of provision for old age.

16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle-class, the immediate communalization of department stores which will be rented cheaply to small businessmen, and that preference shall be given to small businessmen for provision of supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.

17. We demand a land reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to confiscate from the owners without compensation any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.

Sounds like socialism to me.

It’s sad to watch a mental disease progress…

landlines

I agree, I have seen Pat school Rachel Maddow on Tucker Carlson’s old show on MSNBC over comments she made regarding one of Clarence Thomas’s decisions. Justice Thomas voted against a previous ruling because the courts decision was not based on previous precedent, or the Constitution for that matter. Then he had to explain the concept of stare decisis to her and asked her where Madison had placed anything remotely resembling the courts previous decision in the Consitution. Maddow, not knowing what stare decisis is, or probably who James Madison was for that matter, looked like a complete fool. Then he goes and writes crap like this. I seriously wonder if he has some kind of bi-polar disorder.

Property,

Check. “Marxism is anti-property; true Socialism is not.”

gun

Wehrmacht issue.

states rights,

Nope, no more Kleinstaaterei.

free market capitalism

“I absolutely insist on protecting private property… we must encourage private initiative.”

celtnik on August 29, 2008 at 12:20 PM

To sum up Nationalsocialist economics, though: “The basic feature of our economic theory is that we have no theory at all.”

MadisonConservative on August 29, 2008 at 12:05 PM

Are you rueing the day you crossed Pat Buchanan yet? I was told there would be rueing.

It’s sad to watch a mental disease progress…

I beg to differ, Mussolini was a hard core socialist who got most of his ideas straight from Das Kapital. He even used to write for an Italian Socialist newspaper.

I have also read the 25 points of the NSDAP, otherwise known as the National Socialist German Workers party and It doesn’t appear to me to be a paeon to Property, gun and states rights, nor and celebration of free market capitalism. But don’t take my word for it, let’s see what the Fuhrer had to say.

“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”

(Speech of May 1, 1927

Josef Stalin. Adolf Hitler.

Same s***, different labels.

MadisonConservative

Or Same whore, different dress. I find that a little catchier

The usual nonsense. Socialism/Communism and Fascism/Nationalsocialism/Christian-Nationalism are entirely different ideological currents, who only ever seem alike from the point of view of Protestant liberal-capitalists.

GermanAtheist on August 29, 2008 at 11:45 AM

Josef Stalin. Adolf Hitler.

Same s***, different labels.

logis on August 29, 2008 at 11:01 AM

The usual nonsense. Socialism/Communism and Fascism/Nationalsocialism/Christian-Nationalism are entirely different ideological currents, who only ever seem alike from the point of view of Protestant liberal-capitalists.

I guess the fact that Hitler and Mussolini shared identical ideologies was completely lost on these tools.
MarkTheGreat on August 29, 2008 at 7:17 AM

Those ideologies were well received here as well. The aristocracy in this country were in awe of the fascist nations efficiency and “improvements” in their society. And if we are to take Smedley Butler at his word, people wanted to actually put it into practice here as well.
LevStrauss on August 29, 2008 at 8:45 AM

During Columbus’ time, only the total retards REALLY thought the world was flat; likewise, by the early thirties, anyone with half a brain knew Socialism/Communism was a complete crock. At the very beginning of the Industrial Revolution, Karl Marx (as it turns out foolishly) looked at how efficient big factories were and figured that if you could just produce everything in one place, you could get infinite economic production. But Socialism was completely and unquestionably discredited as an economic theory right around the same time phrenology was discredited as a medical diagnostic technique.

Ever since then, collectivism has been a RELIGION. And, through no coincidence, its primary tenet is exactly the same as that of Islam: “Sure life is Hell now. But once the last bastion of opposition has been destroyed, and everyone is united under a single yoke, the world will (somehow, magically) turn into a Worker’s Paradise.”

The philosophy of Socialism is greed incarnate; nothing more than that and nothing less than that. Trying to appease Socialists by letting them steal “just a little bit” of land without a fight is like trying to put out a fire by dribbling gasoline on it.

Bullshit. Italy jumped in with Hitler just before or just after the fall of France. Mussolini was being opportunistic. He thought he could grab parts of France, the Meditteranean and take British posessions in Africa.

kangjie on August 29, 2008: “Pat did it before there was alt conservative media to defend him.
I say again he deserves your respect(wrong or right)

Amen Kangjie.

I have found myself disagreeing with Pat most of the time lately. I think Pat might be too much of a ACTUAL conservative for too many people’s taste.

True conservative view: strong defense with no foriegn entanglements.

Why I am responsible for Great Britain’s post-WWI foreign policy?

The most major development here is Russia’s basically psuedo-annexing of the two seperatists regions within Georgia (South Ossetia and Abkhazia succeeded with help from Putin due to Georgia’s introduction of troops into the region and Russia formally recognizes the split) This is probably an issue we need to work with Russia on and not completely isolate them and humiliate. It seems we are acting as if Russia drove tanks through the heart of Germany and now occupies unprovoked. Reality is something different.

I actually compare this with Gemany’s position before WW2:

*Germany still smarting from the ultimate humiliation after the “great war” and stripped of all rights.

*Russia humiliated after the collapse of Soviet Union and exertion of power by it’s former enemy.

*Germany sees huge economic gain through massive industrialization and a sense of nationalism grows.

*Russia is going through a huge economic boom and gains political power through the high price of oil and Russia’s own exploration and investment in becoming a major supplier..nationalism is on the rise.

Russia is becoming bold and has now struck a chord with it’s citizenry by making right what they percievied as a wrong (losing of territory to the west). This is a military move comparable to Germany’s first move which served as an awakening of sorts.

Now if this cannot be worked out with Russia and the two rebel enclaves are not restored to Georgian authority, we would be right to isolate and rattle our sabres. The stakes are just too high at this point to force Russia into a corner and make them fight when nothing else has been tried.

I guess the fact that Hitler and Mussolini shared identical ideologies was completely lost on these tools.

MarkTheGreat on August 29, 2008 at 7:17 AM

Those ideologies were well received here as well. The aristocracy in this country were in awe of the fascist nations efficiency and “improvements” in their society. And if we are to take Smedley Butler at his word, people wanted to actually put it into practice here as well.