What's the difference between Hitler's "National Socialism" and Stalin's "Socialism in one State"?
> both persecuted minorities and homosexuals
> both had free education and healthcare
> both were empires that attempted to conquer the world
The only difference that I can see is that Russian National Socialism lasted 70 years as opposed to the flimsy 13 years of the German regime
Now, if you think my reasoning is wrong, I'd like to hear it
Other urls found in this thread:
wintersonnenwende.com
ub.edu
townhall.com
jstor.org
mises.org
youtu.be
youtu.be
twitter.com
...
>both were empires that tried toconquer the world
Neither were, at most they wanted to spread their own ideologiesall over it
And Stalin's communism didn't last 70 years really, it was chamged quite a lot when he died.
> both persecuted minorities and homosexuals
> both had free education and healthcare
The same went for Sweden at the time
> spread their own ideologies
> not conquering
You never heard of "Neo Conservatives"?
> both persecuted minorities and homosexuals
(Citation needed)
I think there's quite a big difference, really. They want to take control of it, directly or indirectly, while conquering for me more is like when you take direct control of something.
Stalin was actually expansionist. Hitler just wanted all of Germany back.
And a bunch of non-German majority lands in Poland and Czechoslovakia.
As your country fills up with immigrants, don't you feel as though someone has direct control over this?
In Germany you were only in danger if you were against the regime or Jewish.
In Russia everyone was in danger.
National Socialism had a soul, Russian socialism was brutal and dehumanizing
Look up Poland before and after world war I.
Most of what Hitler wanted was Polish land, and the Czech land was a part of Austria-Hungary anyway, so a part of the planned Greater Germany before 1871.
Attacking Russia was expansionistic though.
[THIS POST UNAVAILABLE IN EU MEMBER STATES DUE TO THE HATEFUL AND/OR VIOLENT NATURE OF ITS CONTENT. ANY DELIBERATE ATTEMPT TO ACCESS CENSURED CONTENT WILL RESULT IN PROSECUTION TO THE FULLEST EXTENT OF THE LAW UNDER CONSPIRACY AND ACCESSORY GUIDELINES FOUND IN EU RESOLUTION #3648.]
Look up Russia before world war 1.
Stalin almost only took land that had belonged to Russia before the war, apart from parts of OstPreussen.
Why do you think the Soviet ones lacked a soul while the National Socialists had one though?
>> both had free education and healthcare
Not true for Nazi Germany.
>Non free healthcare
Literally worse than Hitler.
>Australia
I didn't say that Stalin was expansionistic. I just said that Hitler wasn't really.
Ah, sorry then. Thought you were agreeing with that guy before me about both parts.
Thats because Hitler got smashed, and Stalin ran into resistance. They both actively worked to increase their empires. I'm not actually interested in what they said, but what they did
Nazis was going to prop up their country on the use of slave labour from jews and non nationals, while creating an ideal nation.
Russians crush their own people to make their nation more powerful.
None of this "was going to" shit
I dunno, Stalin managed to make Russia go from a feudal nation to an Industrial one during his reign.
National Socialism was a response to Jewish aggression, from both outside and within Germany. Hitler's economic policy of issuing interest free loans let his country recover from the treaty of Versailles miraculously. Out of fear and jealousy, the Soviet Kikedom invaded East Prussia first and gruesomely killed some German peasants.
>the Soviet Kikedom invaded East Prussia first and gruesomely killed some German peasants.
Source?
this. NatSoc was 100% Jew free. The JewSSR was one big kikefest.
One was run by Jews and did their bidding. One was run by White men and did their own bidding.
Stalin was a kike puppet until shortly before he got ill and died.
They did. Germany persecuted gypsies and slavs, and Russia persecuted believers. Both persecuted Jews and JWs
How many times has this been answered? What are you shilling for that you want this discussion over and over and over?
>natsoc appropriated then redefined "socialism" as new deal capitalism without investment bankers
>communism was anti-capitalism, anti-property, anti-religion, anti-nation, anti-ethnicity, etc.
can't boycott commies easily...
until next time you ask....
>Sup Forums isn't one person so requesting Sup Forumsacks to answer for popular opinions on Sup Forums is wrong
>All Jews are though so using a book one single guy wrote to criticize all Jews works all well
And the Soviets weren't anti-nation or even anti-ethnicity, Stalin may very well have used more nationalist propaganda than the tsars did.
>believers in Russia
>minority
Hitler's "National Socialism" and Stalin's "International Socialism"
>"Socialism in one country"
>International
Unless you mean that Stalin wanted to spread the ideology all over the world, which Hitler wanted as well or at least make Democracy perish.
The initial aggression was from "Poles." It was an ongoing thing for a long time before 1939.
wintersonnenwende.com
The concept of world revolution was rejected by Stalin at some point. Right after he shot every kike in the government I belive.
And? That doesn't mean they didn't crush themselves to achieve it.
You said the soviets attacked Prussia first, that one is only about Poland right?
>communism is bad because its like fascism
The irony.
How did they crush themselves though?
there is literally no difference, that's why Hitler and Stalin were allies until 1941
One goy is Russian, the other goy is German, thats it
wrong.
After WW2 Stalin purged every powerful Jew there, and sent heaps to gulag. They just called them 'rootless cosmopolitans', but everyone knew it was synonymous with Jew.
Haven't you ever heard of the Doctors' Plot
>American education
enslaving their own people, massacres and shit
Not everyone
Beria wasn't Jewish, he was Georgian
National socialism didn't oppose private property. There still were private companies in Germany, actually the most important companies were German(Porsche, Krupp, Volkswagen, Siemens, etc)
Also Germans were racist.
Shit, always thought he was Jewish for some reason.
he still hung onto the Judeo-Bolshevik ideology, didn't he?
this, explain this cunt
He rewrote it to fit his needs. There was almost nothing left from the Lenin's idea.
post ww2 Russia (particularly post-Stalin) = ethno-nationalistic militaristic socialiism
One was juden free, the other was created by juden.
>the Soviets weren't anti-nation
Tell me, was it Russia, or the Soviet Union? Were there ethnic nations, or was ethnic association frowned up? Was Communism a nationalist, or internationalist movement?
>Sup Forums inst one person blah blah
Its true, the same shills ask the same questions, over and over. It's perfectly reasonable to ask them why, I'm curious too. Are they stormfags who just want this discussed endlessly, or are they ancaps who want to keep pushing the Ayn Rand myth that communism and fascism are identical?
>all Jews blah blah
Sven, go study, your English is terrible.
>“’Socialist’ I define from the word ‘social’ meaning in the main ‘social equity’. A Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency.
>Our adopted term ‘Socialist has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false.”
-- Adolf Hitler 1938
Sources:
-----------
>Against the Mainstream: Nazi privatization in 1930's Germany (Germa Bel)
ub.edu
>townhall.com
>jstor.org
>mises.org
>Rodney Martin - The Economic Plan of the NSDAP
youtu.be
>German Economic Miracle of the 1930's
youtu.be
>Tell me, was it Russia, or the Soviet Union? Were there ethnic nations, or was ethnic association frowned up? Was Communism a nationalist, or internationalist movement?
I don't really see how Stalin became anti-ethnicity by giving the different groups of the Soviet union rights. It's not like he wanted them all to mix and create a new ethnicity or culture from that.
>Its true, the same shills ask the same questions, over and over. It's perfectly reasonable to ask them why, I'm curious too. Are they stormfags who just want this discussed endlessly, or are they ancaps who want to keep pushing the Ayn Rand myth that communism and fascism are identical?
Just because it exist different opinions here that don't mean there exist any views a majority of the users here share.
from what I can understand socialism means wealth distribution right?
so in that case
Communism/Socialism = distributing wealth according to government needs
National Socialism = distributing wealth according to nations needs
This
I used the wrong phrase, but many Polish leaders were crypto Jews, and none of them were killed when the Soviets invaded.
Hitler actually was among his people, unlike faggot Stalin who is superimposed behind his flags
Very little. Stalin didn't adopt pseudo-scientific racism though, and his expansionism was opportunistic.
Look at Germany before 1700
Oh, you are right. No such thing.
> pseudo-scientific racism
Do tell us how all the races are intellectually the same, and provide studies.
That National Spcialism is a polar opposite to Stalin's Communism. In Mein Kampf Hitler mentions more than once the dangers of Marxism/Communism an why Europe must be protected from this ideology at all costs.
>Not knowing that NatSoc is just new Judaism
Pleb.
Daily reminder Stalin was a manlet who had to change his name to "Man of steel" because he's a beta faggot with a shrunken hand.
No wonder he advocates for MUH OVERREACHING GUBBERMENT
Except he ethnically cleansed and massacred the Crimeans Tatar and the Chechan's from their lands and filled it with loyal ethnic russians
one was actually national capitalism (hitler) with some socialistic initiatives, based on social darwinism and racialist philosophy + some esoteric traditionalism. largely saw the people as the most important thing.
the other was hardcore economic socialism with some pseudo-nationalistic elements. people were secondary compared to ideology.
Something like National Socialism let to the state the possibility to nationalize something if it need to be put on track, when Communism have the principle that everything is should be nationalized to be keep on track?
Hitler's ideology identified race as the centre of the nation-state. Which is why he wanted to unite all german people (like the austrians) into one greater reich.
It followed Mussolini's fascism in that it saw the nationstate as of clear importance.
But that it's dealings with other nations should be based on the race of the occupants of said nationstate.
Therefore Hitler saw German aryans as god-tier, so the German state should be the greatest. Western Europeans would be high-tier, with Brits being the highest because Anglo-saxons came from Germany. Southern Europeans he saw as naturally lazy. Hitler regarded Slavs, Jews, Gypsies etc. as subhuman and wanted some to be exterminated (Jews), and others to be used as slave labour for the reich (Slavs).
Stalin arguably had no real ideology, but if anything he was a marxist. He viewed that the best way to achieve the endgoal of socialism was to build a strong state to resist external capitalist pressures. Stalin oppressed minorities more so for political reasons, rather than the ideological ones of Hitler.
They were pretty similar but nazi germany had much more economic freedom. Once you get past the rhetoric most authoritarian states are pretty much the same.
>muh turkic tatars & innocent chechens ;_;
>Stalin purges shitskins in european lands & fills them with eastern europeans
>britcuck complains specifically about this considering USSR
Nothing new from Britainistan. You deserve EU.
except hitlers germany was actually a good place to live whereas stalins russia wasn't.
National Socialism economic policy was admired by Keynes, it would be deemed radically socialist by todays standards
>keynesian economics
>socialism
lmao
What's the difference between Hitler's "National Socialism", Stalin's "Socialism in one State", and Clement Attlee's "Labour government 1945-51"?
>all persecuted minorities and homosexuals
>all had free education and healthcare
>all had empires that attempted to conquer most of the world
You've listed 3 vague similarities without taking account of the large differences.
[For example, the idealization of Aryans under Hitler versus Stalin's need to keep a multi-ethnic empire together, or that the USSR generally took factories into state-ownership whereas Nazis generally took them into state control, but left them in notionally private hands.]
I got this from the net.
I was actually pointing out the contradiction of saying Stalin was tolerate of ethnic minorities when he was one of the most brutal oppressors in their history
>he thinks authoritarian isnt just a meaningless buzzword
this
National Socialism deviated from Italian fascism and it's policy of Corporatism but essentially, all modes of production belong to the Nation-state. Hitler needed the leaders of industry on his side to prepare for war, he liquidated the Strasserites on their behalf because they were a threat to them
Stalin didn't believe in private property or small businesses. Hitler did
one had military support from a zionist influenced USA during a war, and the other did not.
Keynes is considered the romantic hero of Social democracy in todays liberal society. Just stating that Nazi economic policy would be conisdered far left by todays standards
differnce?
Stalin achieved something:
creating homogeneous nation states in Europe
Authoritarian is not a buzzword at all. It means a form of government where citizens are not involved in the decision making process and a central authority has absolute power. Nazi Germany and the USSR both obviously fit this description.
And yet private property and small businesses existed for the entire duration of the soviet union
every governent fit this description, thus it is meaningless
>Were there ethnic nations, or was ethnic association frowned up?
During the early period they've wanted to support all the small nations in the Union against Russian imperialism, but the policy was abandoned after a few years. Commies did not have a strong stance on nations, they've just pushed Russian patriotism.
>Was Communism a nationalist, or internationalist movement?
International, just like nationalism.
Stalin's won.
>5.4 ft manlet
>> both persecuted minorities and homosexuals
True only to an extent, homosexuals were persecuted but with minorities it was a mixed bag. For example, Tatars got rekt, while Yakuts did just fine.