Evil Right Wing Fascism will eventually win

[philosopher]

How do you know it is a small sample size?

How do you know it was statistically significant to justify your conclusion?

Burden of proof, buddy. Goes the other way...

I don't. And neither do you. But I do trust the U.S. and British government in collecting a sufficient amount of samples for their surveys. After all, they were the ones responsible for the de-nazification.

It's a matter of trust. Who do you believe the most? The ones collecting data/surveys or your own gut-feelings?
I'd definetely go for the first one.

Btw. more to read here:

Despite fluctuations, the percentage of Germans describing National Socialism as a good idea badly carried out remained at a fairly high number – starting at 53 per cent in November 1945, dipping to a low of 42 per cent in July 1946, and rising again to 55 per cent by August 1947. Those regarding it as a bad idea rose from 41 per cent in November 1945 to 48 per cent in July 1946 but dropped once more to 35 per cent in August 1947. Another way of describing this trend is to say that, in the period from November 1945 to July 1946, the average number of people who thought National Socialism basically a good idea was 48 per cent; between December 1946 and August 1947 it was 52 per cent.

In July 1947, opinions on this issue were related to attitudes toward democracy, individual liberty as against economic security, and the responsibility of Hitler and his advisers for his acts. People who tended to excuse National Socialism were most ready to pick flaws in the working of democracy (42%), to choose security (70%) rather than liberty (22%), and to throw the blame for Hitler's acts on his advisers (32%) rather than on Hitler himself (25%), with another 37 per cent blaming both.

In August 1947, the population groups containing the largest proportion of persons describing National Socialism as a good idea badly carried out were persons with eight years of education (60%), those under 30 (68%), Protestants (64%), LDP/DVP party adherents (68%). More West Berliners (62%) held this view than Hessians (61%), residents of Wuerttemberg-Baden (60%), and Bavarians (50%); Bavarians led the list of those who rejected Nazism as a bad idea (38%), followed by West Berliners and Hessians (33%), and residents of Wuerttemberg-Baden (31%).

http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/sub ... nt_id=4094

Nazism is a despicable ideology, in principle, in theory and ideology. It matters not how it was carried out/applied, when the ideology itself is despicable.

Anyone who favors such an ideology deserves no human rights themselves. Why should they?

[philosopher]

Even if they had interviewed every single person in Berlin in 1946 (3 million people), that only represents 4% of the 65 million Germans.
Even if you could interview a representative sample you can't get from "X was good idea badly implemented" to "we support Hitler".

The majority of Germans favored Hitler in the 1930's when he got elected.
It means the majority supported his ideology.

Isn't that enough?

[Logik]

The majority of Germans favored Hitler in the 1930's when he got elected.

Isn't that enough?

How many goal posts are you going to shift till your argument works?

[philosopher]

The majority of Germans favored Hitler in the 1930's when he got elected.

Isn't that enough?

How many goal posts are you going to shift till your argument works?

None. The ones answering in the U.S. conducted surveys we must assume were also the ones electing Hitler in the first place.

The results are all here for anyone to witness:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_1932 ... l_election

The nationalist right wing parties got more than 50 % of the votes, and the biggest was the NSDAP with more than 37 %.

[Logik]

Several polls were made in the years 1946-1960 showing that Hitler enjoyed support from 50+ % of the German population.

None of the polls show that.

Some of the polls support "A majority in the years 1945–49 stated National Socialism to have been a good idea but badly applied".

That is agreement with policies, disagreement with implementation.
That is not the same as supporting Hitler.

[Logik]

None. The ones answering in the U.S. conducted surveys we must assume were also the ones electing Hitler in the first place.

And one must also assume that the people who voted for Hitler in 1930 are also the same people who said National Socialism was a good idea, badly implemented in 1946.

You are equating supporting National Socialism with supporting Hitler.

[philosopher]

Several polls were made in the years 1946-1960 showing that Hitler enjoyed support from 50+ % of the German population.

None of the polls show that.

Some of the polls support "A majority in the years 1945–49 stated National Socialism to have been a good idea but badly applied".

That is agreement with policies, disagreement with implementation.
That is not the same as supporting Hitler.

Well, they may not support Hitler as such - I admit.

But if they support the overall policies of the NSDAP, you still prove my point in the OP:
Mainly that people generally favors Right Wing Fascism above Liberal Democracy.

[Logik]

But if they support the overall policies of the NSDAP, you still prove my point in the OP:
Mainly that people generally favors Right Wing Fascism above Liberal Democracy.

People generally favored National Socialism. Hitler had great economic policies put in place that dragged the German economy out of the post-WW1 slump!

That you have renamed it to Right Wing Fascism is still you moving goalposts.

With political ideologies (as with anything), it's not what you call it. It's how you implement it on the ground.

That's why you still have teenagers debating if something is "true" Capitalism or "true" Socialism.
It's masturbatory.

[FlashDangerpants]

Several polls were made in the years 1946-1960 showing that Hitler enjoyed support from 50+ % of the German population.

Please show your evidence for this highly unlikely claim. You have form for bullshitting. It's well known that in that period Germans were extremely reluctant to discuss Hitler at all, there would have been no realistic way to take a survey of his popularity at that time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denazification

The U.S. conducted opinion surveys in the American zone of occupied Germany.[85] Tony Judt, in his book Postwar: a History of Europe since 1945, extracted and used some of them.

A majority in the years 1945–49 stated National Socialism to have been a good idea

Source:
Judt, Tony (2007), Postwar: a History of Europe since 1945, Pimlico, p. 58, ISBN 1446418022

You left a bit off the end there, it actually said "A majority in the years 1945–49 stated National Socialism to have been a good idea but badly applied."
Also...

In 1952, 25% had a good opinion of Hitler.
In 1952, 10% of Germans thought that Hitler was the greatest statesman and that his greatness would only be realised at a later date and 22% thought he had made 'some mistakes' but was still an excellent leader.
In 1953, 14% of Germans said they would vote for someone like Hitler again.

But it looks like mister Logik has you all tied up on that issue. So what about all the not rightwing despots out there? Your entire theory is based on cherry picked data points. Why didn't you include Venzuela in that list for instance?

Britain hasn't become a fascist state because the Tories managed to salvage a minority government after the Brexit snafu lost them their majority in parliament.
Turkey had never been a stable democracy before Erdogan. There was a short period where it looked like one when he was PM, but in retrospect that was just a moment in time where the economic background for emerging markets was temperate, and the foreign policy situation in the region was abnormally positive etc. Erdogan's hard man act today is just a reversion to mean in a state that has always been ruled that way.
The same applies to Orban, to the extent that Jobbik is apparently now drifting to centrist liberalism.
Trump is not more right wing or racist than some relatively recent predecessors such as Nixon. Historically his hatred of immigration and imports is really more of an old (very old) Democratic party position that would have been recognizable to any workers union of the 20s through to the 70s.

[Logik]

Please show your evidence for this highly unlikely claim. You have form for bullshitting. It's well known that in that period Germans were extremely reluctant to discuss Hitler at all, there would have been no realistic way to take a survey of his popularity at that time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denazification

The U.S. conducted opinion surveys in the American zone of occupied Germany.[85] Tony Judt, in his book Postwar: a History of Europe since 1945, extracted and used some of them.

A majority in the years 1945–49 stated National Socialism to have been a good idea

Source:
Judt, Tony (2007), Postwar: a History of Europe since 1945, Pimlico, p. 58, ISBN 1446418022

You left a bit off the end there, it actually said "A majority in the years 1945–49 stated National Socialism to have been a good idea but badly applied."
Also...

In 1952, 25% had a good opinion of Hitler.
In 1952, 10% of Germans thought that Hitler was the greatest statesman and that his greatness would only be realised at a later date and 22% thought he had made 'some mistakes' but was still an excellent leader.
In 1953, 14% of Germans said they would vote for someone like Hitler again.

cherries.png (207.68 KiB) Viewed 2784 times

[philosopher]

But if they support the overall policies of the NSDAP, you still prove my point in the OP:
Mainly that people generally favors Right Wing Fascism above Liberal Democracy.

People generally favored National Socialism. Hitler had great economic policies put in place that dragged the German economy out of the post-WW1 slump!

That you have renamed it to Right Wing Fascism is still you moving goalposts.

With political ideologies (as with anything), it's not what you call it. It's how you implement it on the ground.

If you want to discuss ideologies, you ought to have at least a definition of those ideologies that makes them different from any other idelogy.

Hitler's economic policies was nothing special that nazism should take credit for.

What makes nazism different from any other ideology is the combination of the whole:

* Private companies working for the government, eventually subsidized, with the purpose of strengthening the government and improving its economy in order to have enough money for the military (Fascism - also known as Corporatism).

* Implementation of a Surveillance & Police State (Authoritarianism).

* Eugenics - this was implemented in various democratic countries too, like Sweden. But the extend it was applied in 1930's-40's Germany was special in that they executed everyone with deficits. Yes, I do know that Ancient Greece did this as well, not only Sparta but Athenians left newborns with deficits to the wolves. But still, we're talking the middle of the 20th century, not ancient world, which makes the Eugenics and Compulsory Euthanasia so special.

When you sum it all up, it's nazism.

People liked nazism because of all this. The 1930's German Population liked when handicapped was killed, in order to save money for a military dictatorship. This was their reason to vote for the NSDAP.

[FlashDangerpants]

If you want to discuss ideologies, you ought to have at least a definition of those ideologies that makes them different from any other idelogy.

Hitler's economic policies was nothing special that nazism should take credit for.

What makes nazism different from any other ideology is the combination of the whole:

* Private companies working for the government, eventually subsidized, with the purpose of strengthening the government and improving its economy in order to have enough money for the military (Fascism - also known as Corporatism).

* Implementation of a Surveillance & Police State (Authoritarianism).

* Eugenics - this was implemented in various democratic countries too, like Sweden. But the extend it was applied in 1930's-40's Germany was special in that they executed everyone with deficits. Yes, I do know that Ancient Greece did this as well, not only Sparta but Athenians left newborns with deficits to the wolves. But still, we're talking the middle of the 20th century, not ancient world, which makes the Eugenics and Compulsory Euthanasia so special.

When you sum it all up, it's nazism.

People liked nazism because of all this. The 1930's German Population liked when handicapped was killed, in order to save money for a military dictatorship. This was their reason to vote for the NSDAP.

You just tried to throw together a functional definition of Nazism without even hinting in the direction of antisemitism. What is the point of any of the stuff you are doing here?

[Logik]

If you want to discuss ideologies, you ought to have at least a definition of those ideologies that makes them different from any other idelogy.

Before you can discuss the difference between things, first you need to be upfront about what you are trying to achieve and what your values are.

Why are some differences important? Why are other differences unimportant? Why do you like some ideologies and dislike others?

How do you decide which is a 'better' and which is a 'worse' ideology?

[philosopher]

You just tried to throw together a functional definition of Nazism without even hinting in the direction of antisemitism. What is the point of any of the stuff you are doing here?

Sorry, of course the racist ideas is amongst the other stuff that adds to the nazism.

But for me, an Authoritarian Eugenist Facist regime is enough to say it is nazi.

Racism only adds worse to that regime.

[philosopher]

If you want to discuss ideologies, you ought to have at least a definition of those ideologies that makes them different from any other idelogy.

Before you can discuss the difference between things, first you need to be upfront about what you are trying to achieve and what your values are.

Why are some differences important? Why are other differences unimportant? Why do you like some ideologies and dislike others?

How do you decide which is a 'better' and which is a 'worse' ideology?

This is a trick-question. If I attempt to answer any of your questions, ie. "How do you decide which is a 'better' and which is a 'worse' ideology?" we will eventually end up with you questioning ethics and morality, since you'd probably say something like "Morality is subjective" - which it is, since no moral values have any intrinsic value.

I don't believe in killing the disabled.
I don't believe in conscription (or any other forced labor).
I don't believe in totalitarianism.

I believe in welfare.
I believe in personal liberty first, economic liberty secondary (or lower).
I believe in security - including social security.
This is why I've decided that any ideology that does not meet 100 % of those criteria is by definition bad, immoral and un-ethical.