The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

The Nazis were not Conservative

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Emilrose has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 5/22/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 1,086 times Debate No: 102714
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (16)
Votes (0)





TheUnexaminedLife will be taking to this debate, good luck to him.

Normal rules apply: first round acceptance, second opening arguments, third rebuttals and fourth closing arguments. 10,000, characters, select winner voting system, BoP is on me.

To clarify, I am arguing that the Nazis were *not* Conservative economically, politically, and socially.



1.) the National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) was a political party in Germany that was active between 1920 and 1945 and practised the ideology of Nazism.


1.) the inclination, especially in politics, to maintain the existing or traditional order.

1b.) a political philosophy or attitude that emphasizes respect for traditional institutions and opposes the attempt to achieve social change though legislation or publicly funded programs.


2.) Social conservatism is a group of political ideologies centred on preserving traditional beliefs, attitudes and philosophy. The aims of social conservatism vary from organisation to organisation, and from country to country.


Thanks Emilrose for this debate and good luck to her,

As all political parties must, the Nazis drew on both conservative and socially progressive, non-traditional, means in order to function as a government. I will aim to make lucid some of the more conservative tropes in Nazi policy (particularly in their ideology) during the 20th century, thereby proving how the Nazis were conservative.

Debate Round No. 1


Thanks Con. I would note that I am not just arguing for minor elements of non-Conservatism here, but that the Nazi party, were not Conservative at all--thus Con will be arguing the opposite.
Now, onto my opening arguments.

C1.) Socialist policies of the Nazi Party

As stated in the definitions, economic policy (along also with political viewpoints) is to be included and weighed on in this debate, and used a significant example in determining on whether the Nazi were Conservative; or at least 'Conservative' enough to be referred to as such.


After 15 long years of WW1, Germany had inevitably been left in a state of economic depression and decline; this being one the key factors as to why Hitler had such mass appeal in the first place. Hitler's policies in combating this depression and rejuvenating the quality of life in Germany--which had obviously suffered--were, largely speaking, very socialist and certainly not did correspond with usual conservative handling of economics, which is generally to maintain the status-quo, privatize, and cut public expenditures.

On the contrary, Hitler adopted very non-Conservative approach when he became chancellor of Germany. From 1933-1945, Hitler made these key steps:

•Introduced public work schemes

•Enhanced worker benefits

•Introduced state-funded childcare

•Further nationalized the health care system

•Built new schools and hospitals

Starting with the public work schemes and benefits, Hitler devised a strategy to diminish the high unemployment rates in Germany, and actually give people advantages for their labour; these would include a regular weekly wage, a detailed plan of activities--including trips to the cinema/theatre, picnic outings, evening classes, and free holidays...which I'm sure as Pro is aware, is a particularly socialist concept and practice *and* that would be ideologically compatible with a Conservative government.

German youth was particularly emphasised on; they partook in trips, club activities, youth groups, etc.

Governmental help was also given to farmers, enabling them to produce more (1.)

Regarding the Nazi party as a whole, and not just its leader, there were some members (such as Gregor Strasser) who were explicitly socialist and not afraid to admit so. In the early years Strasser played a key part the management of the Nazi party; he was eventually killed in a purge as Hitler felt threatened by him, but nevertheless, he said this to say in an extract from 'Thoughts and Tasks of the Future':

'We are Socialists, enemies, mortal enemies of the present capitalist economic system with its exploitation of the economically weak, with its injustice in wages, with its immoral evaluation of individuals according to wealth and money instead of responsibility and achievement, and we are determined under all circumstances to abolish this system! And with my inclination to practical action it seems obvious to me that we have to put a better, more just, more moral system in its place, one which, as it were, has arms and legs and better arms and legs than the present one!'

Further stating:

'We have to learn that in the economy of a people it is not profit, not gain, which are important – but only satisfying the needs of the members of this people! This and nothing else is the task of a national economics! We have to learn that the ideas 'world trade', 'balance of trade'--'export surplus'--are ideas of a declining epoch which have in the end reduced themselves ad absurdum, because they violate the eternal law of organic life and were born out of speculation, not out of necessity, not out of the soil! We have to learn that it is a betrayal when speculative production, with all its means of touting and advertising, creates an artificial need, a betrayal of human labor, of human life!'

In essence, this is basically a summary of the 'Nationalsozialismus' (National Socialism) ideology that was held by the Nazis, which, was of course not a form of Conservatism.

(2.) Gregor Strasser and the Rise of Nazism, by Peter D. Stachura, p. 54

C2.) Political Ideology and Practice

Nazi political ideology is of course heavily related to their economic policies, which in terms of relation to socialism, has already been covered in some detail. However I will look at some of the less economic areas of their politics.

Firstly, I'd note that Adolf Hitler, who was primarily responsible for the Nazi party, was a very creative and unpredictable man who absolutely despised the idea of submitting to authority fact, he was a social outcast and a non-conformist. While living in his home country of Austria, he liked to visit art galleries, museums, the opera, etc. During earlier years, Hitler had virtually no responsibilities what so ever...a few years later, he would make a small living by selling his art on the streets but this was relatively it; he was by no means 'Conservative' with lifestyle, with belief, or with anything. This matters somewhat as this is a timeline of who he would become and what kind of beliefs he would adapt.

Pre and in particular post-formation of the Nazi party, his beliefs were fantastical, unrealistic, spiritually and philosophically mixed--they cannot simply be defined 'as nationalistic' as what Hitler was a hybrid of various ideas, some of his own sand others from philosophers and groups that he'd been influenced by--and naturally this was injected into the core of the Nazi Party, as it was his project.

In terms of similar ideology, the predecessor to Nazism was a movement in Austria and Germany in the late 1800-early 1900's known as 'Ariosophy', which incorporated elements of German paganism and mysticism, and spiritualised the concept of the Germanic race being the best and most purest.

So, Nazis were not influenced by any particular conservative (political) beliefs at all; their leader spent his younger adults years as an artistic, ideologically impressionable man living without base in Vienna, and the ideology itself had roots in a mystic cult.

Concerning the later practice of Nazism, this is also far from 'conservative', which as I pointed out previously, is really about maintaining the status-quo and resistance to change--everything the Nazis were not.

After spending mid-late 1930's changing policies and laws within Germany, their next move was to invade Poland and enact the policy of 'Lebensraum' (living space.) for Germany.

There was no legitimate defensive military reason for this, it was exclusively as a result of the desire to conquer and control. The eventual plan was to do this to all of Europe. Given how expensive war generally is and how little Germany gained monetarily from it (not speaking in germs of labour, etc.), there was no *conservative* motivation as such, Germany was unable to trade properly, had fantastical ideas, and wanted to establish a pure race across Europe...none of these ideas were practical or beneficiary in the long-term, and were neither conservative in ideology or in practice.

Taking the example of invading Russia, once more this was largely ideologically-motivated, and with very little to gain as it would later transpire.

There are also other viewpoints (such as Nazi attitude on abortion) that were not conservative; indeed the practice wasn't encouraged for German women, but for non-German women (I.E Jews, some Slavs, gypsies) was the rule.

The Nazis strongly believed in sterilization, which from a purely politically-Christian perspective, is not a conservative practice. Hitler additionally encouraged the use of contraceptives in Eastern territories.

Another non-economic and arguably liberal policy that was passed was the anti-hunting, known as the 'Das Reichsjagdgesetz', which sought to control how many animals could be killed per year. This was followed by the Reichsnaturschutzgesetz, which was a law specifically put in place to conserve and protect certain animals; this later even included the killing of fish. In fact, Hitler himself maintained a largely vegetarian diet.

Anti-smoking laws were also passed, smoking advertisements were decreased, and an actual tobacco tax was introduced. (things that are still considered taboo and extremely debatable today)

C3.) Social Beliefs

This too is well-connected to some of the political beliefs I've stated, but I'm aware that Con will be including the social beliefs of the Nazis as a main part of his case, so will review it briefly here.

The social beliefs of the Nazis were grandiose at best. Once again, we have the desired dominance of the pure 'Aryan' race at centrefold, the belief that the very weakest in society should be removed or at best punished, and the belief that Germany genuinely could govern all of Europe. None of these ideals were based in reality and within 6 years of bloody war, were shown as impossible to achieve.

Socially, the Nazis did not have a conservative vision--their beliefs were not practical or realistic, rather they were within the realms of an unreachable fantasy.

And although Nazi social beliefs were indeed explicitly racist and discriminatory, this still doesn't effectively show how they were overall a Conservative party; as racism and discrimination aren't exclusive to Conservatism by any means. In fact, if you look at modern day Republicanism in the U.S; this pretty much promotes the inclusion of other races and people from varying backgrounds, providing that they adapt to a national way of life--and this is generally the outlook of Conservatve parties in Europe and other western countries. It is about proceeding with caution, both economically and in other respects, which, as I have well noted--is the opposite to what the Nazi party entailed, especially when it came to politics and social beliefs.


From the onset, the Socialist Nationalist party presented themselves as redolent of a time before the WW1 armistice. They appealed to the deep-rooted and conservative ideations within the German people in attempt to bring about a resurgence in national glory and pride.

‘Obviously, there would have been nationalistic and anti-Semitic reaction to defeat on the battlefield, to the Communist threat, and to the Treaty of Versailles.’ (1) And, this was reactionary conservatism: although in methodology the National Socialists may have employed many novel practices, at its essence it was a profoundly traditional party and sought to restore Germany to a national glory after its defeat in WW1.

What this immediately meant was distancing itself from the Weimar Republic. Firstly, we see the restoration of the sovereign leader. The last Kaiser of Germany and a committed anti-Semite, Wilhelm II, was extricated was from his duties after 1918 and lived out the rest of his life in exile. Taking up his stead, under the 1933 Enabling Act, Hitler as the German Fuhrer took up the traditional role of monarch, fulfilling a national expectation. We see the same trajectory occurring in modern day Russia with Putin acting as its de facto and constitutional monarch, taking up the vacuum left by Soviet dictatorship after 1991 and the Tsar before that. Both are similarly militaristic figures, governing a people habituated and coerced into accepting authoritarianism.

From the onset, Hitler denied the defeat of Germany in WW1: he attributed its technical loss as a betrayal by the government, the November Criminals, and saw the Treaty of Versailles as the Allied exploitation of the Fatherland. Which is was. Versailles crippled Germany to prevent it regaining strength and power rival to the Allied Empires. Indeed, the national and economic growth of Germany continually led to acts of oppression by Allied states. From the second Boer War to the Moroccan crises, tensions between Germany and the Allies (Britain especially) was rising. And indeed, naval rivalry was a notable factor for tension between Britain and its antagonist state. Germany itself prior to WW1 was a highly industrial and militaristic country, placing pride in its army and navy. It was a rising power, a threat to the British Empire, and had further ambitions of growth. And obviously, Hitler’s proliferation of the German military from the public marches to the remilitarisation of the Rhineland and ambitions of lebensraum, reasserted this great German pride in their military and its desires for expansion and colonisation. The paper that the Locarno Treaties, the Kellog-Briand Pact and Munich Agreement could have been drawn up on toilet paper for how seriously they were taken. What we saw after WW1 was the multilateral proliferation of weapons under the guise of peace. There is a line of Thomas Paine I find quite pertinent here: ‘Wearied with war, and tired with human butchery, they sat down to rest, and called it peace’ (p161). Recharging Germany from WW1, Hitler merely ensured that Germany stood up again and continued with the European boxing match it had been grounded by.

And, this was fundamentally the aim of Hitler: to bring back a great Germany, a Grossdeutchland. The land of great philosophy and music and culture from Wagner and Nietzsche to Goethe and Beethoven, would be restored in a great Reich lasting for 1000 years. In the 18th century, the government implemented a policy of Germanification in order to create a national unity and hierarchy of races within the Prussian states. The German race, the Aryans, were deemed superior in this hierarchy and the Jews inferior. Hitler personally saw the cultural achievements of Germany as a mark of its superiority. Hence an explanation was needed to why they lost the war. The British may have been of some noble blood but were by no means as purely Aryan as the Germans: Hitler needed a scapegoat. And, who better than the long-hated Jews? Anti-Semitism had been a feature of German culture since the Middle Ages. This arose partly as a Christian persecution of the Jews deeming them as totally ‘other’, as dehumanised heretics or monsters. A fervently pious state, even after Luther founded the humanist faiths (exemplified by Max Weber) creating such Pietistic households as Kant’s, there was always an underlying resentment of the those who denied and killed Christ. Interestingly Hitler proclaimed himself Catholic in Mein Kampf, and was endorsed by the Catholic Church throughout his autocratic regime. It was the artists, Expressionist directors like Fritz Lang, who actually opposed Nazism—many fleeing to Hollywood. Not the Church. Hitler appealed to the traditions of German faith and racial hierarchy. He continued elevating the German people and oppressing and eradicating rival ethnic and racial communities under his rule.

It was these factors which made Hitler’s patriotic and xenophobic speeches so popular in Germany: he spoke and they followed, feeling a deep resonance with what he was saying. Though he was an animated speaker, his speeches were never vaudeville precisely because of this. He was never Charlie Chaplin, despite emulating the star’s moustache, for what he said had a deep resonance with Germany’s past from which he hoped to change its future. The Nazi party was born of Germany: it did not invent itself but festered and grew into the latest manifestation of German culture. Hitler was stooped in its history and culture; he liked Wagner, Lang’s dystopian film, ‘Metropolis’, and read the works of Nietzsche (edited by his Nazi sister). With all this cultural prowess around him, his time spent fighting in WW1 and deep-seated beliefs in Aryan superiority, he simply could not tolerate Germany’s humiliation and tragic decline. He had to fulfil the aims of Germany at the turn of the 20th century, to become an expanded power of superior blood, and would not take no for an answer.

In short, the Nazis belonged to a German tradition in their values and some of their practices and all new methods of governance they implemented under their regime were always engaged under this backdrop of tradition and conservatism. They simply progressed and followed the trajectory of pre-WW1 Germany, overcoming all and any infirmities imposed onto them.


(1) Hitchens, C. (1999) Imagining Hitler (p.648 of ‘Arguably’)

(2) Paine, T. (1791) Rights of Man (p.161)

Debate Round No. 2



As expected, Con has placed particular emphasis on the social side of this argument and much less on the economic; which is a key part of political conservatism--which matters precisely because the Nazis were a political party.

Con begins by including a quote from 'Imagining Hitler', but this, along with the other quote used, doesn't necessarily prove that the Nazis were indeed Conservative. The assertion that the Nazis were a 'traditional' party is misguided; it was established under an overwhelming myriad of propaganda, driven largely by the determination of Adolf Hitler and the skill of mass-manipulation of Josef Goebbels.

Similarly to many European countries, Germany had issues with anti-Semitism...but there is a difference between historic persecution (middle ages-to Holy Roman Empire era) and the events of the Holocaust. Some attitudes towards Jews among certain members of society had obviously remained; but they were pretty much exclusive to individual people and not a particularly binding factor within German society at that time.

Some Germans and Jews had intermarried; and 'mischling' was used as a term to describe one of both German and Jewish ancestry. In fact, under the Weimar Republic (1919-1933), Jews enjoyed a comparatively comfortable lifestyle in Germany; being quite notably involved in its political and social affairs.

Jewish politicians such as Hugo Preub, Walther Rathenau, Isaac Wolffson, Otto Landsburg, Hugo Hasse, had roles in the German parliamentary. Even prior to the Weimar, pre-WW1, there were 10 Jews among 192 delegates in the city of Hamburg (3.) see Jewish Involvement in Imperial Germany and the Weimar Republic

So, pre-WW2, Jews had made significant progress in Germany and were a large part of its middle-class...they were both economically and socially, rather integrated. There were Jewish economics, Jewish philosophers, Jewish activists, Jewish teachers snd university lecturers, Jewish physicians, Jewish businessmen, etc. During WW1, Jews also drafted in as soldiers for the German army. According to this Wikipedia article based on a 'Judenzahlung' (Jewish census), around 100,000 Jews fought for Germany. And 18,000 of those personnel were awarded with a 'Eisernes Kreuz' (Iron Cross), which was a German wartime medal. (4.)

Many of these Jews had actually volunteered, which does somewhat lead one to the question of why they would volunteer in a country, that at the time, had such negative prevailing attitudes against them. The answer is that things were getting better for Jews in Germany, and had been since the 1800's more or less.

However, Con is correct in his points regarding the economic strife in Germany post-WW1 and the crippling effect that the Treaty of Versailles was having; but the blame was not immediately directed to Jews themselves, least not by the general German public.

Despite the progress that had been made and the fact that Jews were living relatively safely in Germany, the Nazi party did unfortunately come to power--this can blamed on a few things. As mentioned previously, the determination of Hitler, along with the assistance of his propaganda chief, played a very significant role. Hitler was actually dissuaded (getting imprisoned, failed coups, etc.) many times, and rejected by most fractions of German society--who when confronted with it, saw his ideology as outdated and extreme.

Venturing back to how the Nazis were not conservative, though...even their rise itself was a radical one. Hitler was neither trained in or had any experience in politics. Never had Hitler espoused any particularly mainstream conservative views, instead, they were almost exclusively radical and to the extreme of the political and social spectrum.

Once again if we assess conservatism in its historic and modern context, it really is the practice of what is in essence the maintaining of things how they are...the cutting back of social expenditures and the practice of social caution.

Taking a brief look at one of the primary enemies of Nazi Germany during WW2, Britain, the leadership at that time was a Conservative one--led by Winston Churchill. Overall, he was heavily dissuaded from taking any military action against Germany. Other members of the Conservative Party were reluctant to confront the threat of Nazi Germany and it was, more or less, only until the annexation of Poland and the direct threat of Germany towards other parts of Europe (including Britain itself), that various forms of action were taken...further diplomatic talks initially and then declaration of war two days later. The economic policies of Conservative Britain, were also strikingly different to that of the Nationalsozialismus Party, which may be why Britain voted for a socialist government in 1945, after Germany had been defeated.

Anyway, the point here was to demonstrate that neither the origins or practices of the Nazi Party were Conservative, which has practically been sufficiently proved by me in terms economic and political policies alone...but I will extend my rebuttals further about the social elements of the Nazi party and proceed to closing arguments in round four.


As I read your opening argument, it struck me that we were merely emphasising two different sides of the same coin. I emphasised Nazi nationalism and you, Nazi socialism. Thus, the propositions we are arguing about is whether or not the Nazis were born from nationalism first, with socialism just being a means to its success (1), or whether its nationalism was just a means for establishing its socialism (2), or whether both were integral to its ideals and methodologies (3). To argue that all three options are false, is an untenable position. All permit a degree of conservatism, unless you argue that nationalism at the time was not linked to it.

What I am trying to establish is that the National Socialist party was born out of a conservative reaction to the Weimar period within Germany, evident in how some of the tropes and policies of the regime reverted back to some strong and conservative background beliefs. Of course, change occurred in this period of history but it was change trying to restore Germany to some of its traditional values and then amplify these methodologically to constitute a great Third Reich.

Prior to 1933, the Jews as you drew attention to were not socially impotent; indeed, they were one of the wealthiest social demographics (this was no ungrounded stereotype). But, just because some Jews did well under Weimar, does not mean that the anti-Semites in Germany did not exist or were sparse in number. Hitler undeniably united and unified the hatred of Jews in this period, especially after 1933, but he did not devise these beliefs himself. He adopted a long-standing and underlying xenophobia in factions of the German nation itself. This is undeniable when we take into account that Nietzsche wrote out against anti-Semitism; he died when Hitler was around eleven, and coincidentally had a mental breakdown which he would not recover from at the time of Hitler’s birth. Anti-Semitism was not new and existed prior to Hitler: it was a traditional, conservative prejudice that the Nazis took up and amplified. They appealed and resonated to the traditional factions of German society in its nationalistic desire to make Germany great again, and encouraged others by propaganda to give in to their control.

Some in Germany, as you say, may have deemed “his ideology as outdated and extreme” but this is exactly my point. He was born from the traditional, conservative side of German culture, not all of Germany itself; that “outdated” bit was conservative and sought to preserve certain traditional values like its militancy, its culture and Aryan supremacy as laid out in the policy of Germanification. WW1 as well as the 1917 Russian Revolution, caused a reactionary conservativism in Germany to call for a right-wing restoration of values after their loss under the Weimar period. These people existed as localised factions in Germany, much as racists exist today, with Hitler drawing on their traditions. It was even quite popular in academia:

‘Their anti-republican ideology, antisemitism and anti-Marxism were expressed in their activities in right-wing antisemitic university circles. Those circles provided the soil from which grew the Nazi terror and genocide of the 1930s and 1940s.’ (1)

And under a ‘gradually radicalising process’ (2), the Nazis united underlying anti-Semitism in Germany as a scapegoat at the rate that the nation was devastated by post-war positions and increasingly afraid of left-wing Marxism. The nationalised holiday resorts introduced in Germany in this period were by no means left-wing Marxist, emphasising worker “benefit” and recreational time. They, at their heart, were redolent of an idyllic image of Germany where workers could go on holiday, not restricted by their mass poverty. But, more sinisterly, what we have here is the control and manipulation of the non-working hours to extend state control into the family corpus. The socialist mechanisms, nationalising the means of production and other such industries, was to get right under the skin of the German volk in so that they could be more easily manipulated. You will find that the ‘Strength through Joy’ holiday organisation that you state was a mark of socialism, was too likewise dominated by Hitler’s propaganda staff. It was a tool for nationalism and not for progressing socialism for-itself. It regulated the recreational time of the worker as a mode to strengthen their nationalism, their sense of being a part of German tradition and identity, as well as to gain further worker acceptance which could be utilised in later years by the Nazi party.

Indeed, Hitler did instigate many socialist policies after the Enabling Act. Healthcare, education and worker employment measures were developed for the benefit of the German populous. But, all these institutions were highly regulative and merely modes of creating a dependence of people on their government so that they could be coerced and regulated, imbued with an image of German pride (of conservative romanticism) through them. How did Hitler create more jobs for the German people in this period? He had them proliferating German weaponry, enhancing its military, improving its national infrastructure as to improve its efficiency. He enlisted a large faction of the populous into the army to reduce unemployment and others, such as road builders, were merely preparing the geographical Germany for the oncoming war. Hitler didn’t have any of the money to introduce these measures, Germany was practically insolvent in this period, but rather hoped to pay for them by his imperialist conquests. Hitler’s socialist economy was highly war-orientated. His socialist means were just a mode for his nationalistic ends, unifying the German identity as traditional policies had done and improving economic efficiency as was occurring in the time prior to WW1. He was preparing them for war. Books like ‘Mein Kampf’ and 'Thoughts and Tasks of the Future' were simply of national propaganda. The National Socialists of course proclaimed the power of the people first before subjugating them as cogs in a military machine wholly dependent on the centralised government, who saw Europe through the lenses of social conservativism and ambition. The machine may have looked socialist but it was producing bigoted, right-wing and war-ready Germans. It was producing Germans in accordance with the worst traditions and factions of the German nation.

Take another example, a proclaimed Catholic, Hitler promoted the fecundity of German women. The Mother’s Cross awarded German women in accordance to the number of children they produced. It is hard not to draw parallels with the Catholic church here who, against contraception and abortion, have encouraged its members to have large families. For not only does this expand future numbers of the population, but it also creates a much larger workforce. Hence, Hitler drew here from a religious tradition to constitute his religious Nazism. Other races of women were not Aryan and thereby where excluded from this, encouraged to abort. This is basic biopolitics and population control. The xenophobic beliefs held by German government made these groups subhuman and thereby abortion was permissible for they were giving birth not to humans, but subhumans with no real soul or social value.

And responding to your other points, not wanting to conflate political conservatism with the Conservative party, the two being quite different things, mentioning that Clementee Atlee (a Labour socialist) was voted in government in 1945 fails to note how Churchill won the election replacing him instigating a Conservative majority that would last from 1951-1964. Throughout this debate, you’ve made the mistake of conflating ‘conservative parties’ with ‘conservatism’ as a political position. This is ludicrous; if you accept this position, you must also accept how conservative parties in the USA and UK alike can promote socialist policies undermining your position considerably. Additionally, Hitler as the young artist, may not have conformed to a traditional masculine role; this does not mean that he did not conform to conservative values. Indeed, his time in WW1 developed in him the most fervent and nationalistic values, helping him identify with a faction of the German people that pre-existed him. And from this, in later years he would harness the underlying racial and spiritual disdain in the German people to animate the people in loyalty and fear of him, ready for war.


(1) O. Heilbronner. (2004) German or Nazi Antisemitism? P.14

(2) U. Herbert. (2000) Extermination Policy: New Answers and Questions about the History of the “Holocaust” p. 27.

Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TheUnexaminedLife 9 months ago
and thanks to you as well
Posted by Emilrose 9 months ago
It's a shame, I wrote it most of it this morning but was late coming home. Neverthrless thanks for giving some thoughtful arguments again.
Posted by TheUnexaminedLife 9 months ago
Oh well, I guess we'll just have to leave it unconcluded ...
Posted by Emilrose 9 months ago
Dam :/ I apologise for the forfeit...I wrote my closing argument but didn't get online in time.
Posted by Emilrose 9 months ago
Shut up.
Posted by Nationalsocialist1488 9 months ago
The national socialists were pure conservatives, both socially and economically. This debate is a joke. You need to understand the difference between Marxian, leftist socialism and National Socialism. One hates Bolshevism (robbery of private property, and the other one admires it, in a social way also.
Posted by Emilrose 10 months ago
Okay, I'll stay with Conservative; just tweak it a little and then I'll send you the debate.
Posted by TheUnexaminedLife 10 months ago
No, I think conservative is an okay term if you ensure that you mean full political, social and economic conservationism. I don't think the Nazis can be defined as right-wing reactionaries. Perhaps traditionalism?
Posted by Emilrose 10 months ago
Okay, I mean I suppose I could change it to 'right-wing' though? But that would be covering politics/economics more than cultural elements. Also I'll accept the full BoP, just tell me what resolution you'd prefer)
Posted by TheUnexaminedLife 10 months ago
Yeah sure, it's been awhile since I argued about Nazis
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.