It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Round 3. Zenlover28 vs. The Vagabond: Nazi NWO

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 11:55 PM
The topic for this debate is "A German voter for the Nazi party prior to WWII would have beleived that they were voting against the NWO.".

Zenlover28 will be arguing the pro position and will open the debate.
The Vagabond will argue the con position.

Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.

No post will be longer than 800 words and in the case of the closing statement no longer than 500 words.

Credits or references at the bottom do not count towards the word total.

Editing is Strictly forbidden. This means any editing, for any reason. Any edited posts will be completely deleted.

Opening and closing statements must not contain any images, and must have no more than 3 references. Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only one image and no more than 5 references can be included for each post.

Responses should be made within 24 hours, if people are late with their replies, they run the risk of forfeiting their reply and possibly the debate.

Judging will be done by a panel of anonymous judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. One of the debate forum moderators will then make a final post announcing the winner.

This debate is now open, good luck to both of you.

posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 02:53 PM
Thanks again to Nygdan for his continued hard work on these debates. And, Vag i'm going to wish you the best of luck too.

Opening Argument:

The National Socialist German Workers Party or the Nazi Party was the main political force in Germany after the fall of the Weimar Republic in 1933. After a slow struggle for power the Nazi party catapulted to victory in the 1933 elections without the majority of the vote due to manipulation and conspiracy. The Reichstag fire which was blamed on terrorism by Communists began the elimination of support for the Communist party and therfore lead to Nazi domination of the legislature. I will be arguing how the events that lead up to Nazi control of Germany were merely the result of manipulation of the people and the Cabinet by Hitler and the Nazi Party.

I will present factual information in my argument to explain how this supposed terrorist act sealed the fate of the German people and the voters of the Nazi Party. Also, I will present a timeline of the events and how the Nazi party became so popular through manipulation and gradual habituation of the people. The voters trusted the Nazi government because the Nazi government played on their fears. And each situation that presented itself was thoroughly disguised by the party at an attempt to separate the government from the people. As the government drifted away from the people the gap became so large that no one was able to see what was going on behind the scenes. So, to sum up my opening argument I want to state that the German voters that voted against Communism were voting against it out of fear probably more so than they were voting for the Nazi Party.

posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 04:37 AM
Moderators, Judges, I thank you again for your time and effort. Good luck to Zenlover. Engarde!

Before I begin, I emphasize that the topic is A German Voter... Would Have Believed.... No defense of Nazism or its true aims is implied.

My opponent asserts that Nazism was merely an alternative to Communism. She will likely continue with a history of Communism's expansion and examples of rule by fear in Nazi Germany, taking the term NWO for granted.

In this post I will lay the foundation for discovering the undeniable truth: That those who voted for the Nazi Party consciously supported the foundation of a New World Order. I will:
  • Define the term New World Order in the relevant historical context. and
  • Explain the socio-political climate of Germany between the reformation of the Nazi Party the end of parliamentary government in Germany.

As the debate progresses I will elaborate on these initial points with ample demonstration that the Communist boogeyman is not an adequate explanation. (though this may become less necessary as my opponent finds that position untenable and begins to lean more and more on alternative arguments, such as coerced voting or perhaps even suggesting that the Nazis won a plurality in parliament with no platform at all.)

Given this topic, we must define this term in its historical context, not its modern one which arose chiefly after WWII.

New World Order, as a semi-popular term, was born in discussion of the League of Nations. In the 14 Points Speech, given during WWI, President Wilson says of Germany:

We wish her only to accept a place of equality among the peoples of the world, -- the new world in which we now live, -- instead of a place of mastery.

He continues his description of this "new world" with these words:

What we demand (snip) is that the world be made fit and safe to live in; and particularly that it be made safe for every peace-loving nation which, like our own, wishes to live its own life, determine its own institutions, be assured of justice and fair dealing by the other peoples of the world

So Nazi voters believed they would receive from the NSDAP.
They sought to reject all foreign control, and in Germany, even a fellow countryman can be a “foreigner”.

Their goal was an New World Order under which they would be subject to no Prussian dictator, no backroom dealing nor whim of the League of Nations, no banking conspiracies and no international puppeteering in the name of global Communism. To be free, they felt that they needed to impose a New World Order on their own terms: a social democratic worker's utopia.

It is no surprise at all the Nazism found its foothold, and its fuhrer, and the fervor for the Beer Hall Putsch in Bavaria, one of proudest and most culturally distinct Lander in Germany.

Germany occupies militarily untenable ground and as the birthplace of the Protestant Reformation has been heavily factionalized and fought over, both among the many minor rulers within itself and outside powers. A nation born of Catholic conquest, raised amidst holy wars, and come of age as a confederation of 39 sovereign states, having less than 100 years of true unity behind it (which ended in humiliation brought upon them by the ambitions of Prussian rulers) was hard-pressed to trust foreigners with their future.

The nationalist platform of the Nazi Party appealed to a segment of a generally isolationist nation which sought peace through strength, not unlike Roosevelt‘s “big stick“ policy which won over an isolationist American public.

To that segment of the German electorate, German history made it completely clear that there would be an NWO; the only question was to whom it would belong.

It was not merely a question of voting against the Communists who from 1930 on were only the 3rd largest party in Germany.
Why did 20-37% of the German voters embrace the Nazis in the elections between 1930 and 1932? (The relevant elections, before Hitler was in power, which my opponent conveniently ignored in her sources)

Why did they take their support away from the Social Democrats, only to give it to a splinter group of that very same party: the Nazis, when either of those options meant Socialism but not Communism?

The answer is that keeping the Communists out was not enough. It was nationalism which ultimately gave the Nazis a plurality in 1932. Nazi voters were not content to merely resist incorporation into a foreign NWO, Communist or otherwise. They saw that an NWO was coming, one way or another, and they were determined to have it on their terms.

Non-Integrated References:
Timeline including the first major election of the NSDAP, in 1930
Discussion German Factionalism, relevant to their isolationist views

MS Word: 783

posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 12:45 PM
First off, I find it amusing how you completely misrepresented my opening argument. I wouldn’t presume to know where my argument is leading if I were you. Also, I am working under the assumption that the New World Order of that time is not the NWO of today as well. I do not see in my opening argument where I stated differently? My debate is based on “factual” information, not a conspiracy theory.

Secondly, your assertion that I conveniently ignored the elections of 1930-32 means that you really had no comprehension of my opening argument at all or it was an attempt to misrepresent it. I do believe I stated that I would be presenting, “a timeline of events”. Also, I never limited my argument to Communism as I stated “how the events that lead up to Nazi control of Germany were merely the result of manipulation of the people and the Cabinet by Hitler and the Nazi Party”.

Now, I will begin my timeline. Before World War I Germany was a great economic and military power. Germany took an imperialistic course as did many powers at that time. The definition of imperialism is as follows:

Imperialism is a policy of extending control or authority over foreign entities as a means of acquisition and/or maintenance of empires, either through direct territorial conquest or settlement, or through indirect methods of exerting control on the politics and/or economy of other countries. The term is often used to describe the policy of a country in maintaining and dominating over distant lands, regardless of whether the country calls itself an empire.

After the German Revolution in 1918 a Republic was proclaimed and the German Communist Party was formed. One year later, the German Worker’s Party (National Socialist German Workers Party, NSDAP, Nazism) was created. During that year, the Weimar Republic (Communism) began. Germany became the cultural capital of the world instead of the great imperialistic nation that it once was. Economic hardship was spread vast throughout Germany due to the Treaty of Versailles, which virtually ended the previous German empire, economically and militarily.

Between 1925 and 1929, the Nazi party did not do well in the elections, however this would soon change as the Nazi Party would manipulate the German voters through fear, propaganda and the great speaking skills of Adolph Hitler. But, the Nazi propaganda would not present their true ideology to the common voter. It would mislead and portray their ideology in a way that portrayed sensitivity to the farmer’s economic plight or the industrialists need to once again dominate the economy. This is the primary reason the Nazi party began doing better in the elections of 1930-32. However, they still didn’t have the majority of voters in their hands, so they needed more than just propaganda against the Jews, Communism and the economic struggles that embraced Germany. This is where the Reichstag fire sealed the fate of Germany.

The Reichstag fire took place on February 27, 1933, a week before the 1933 elections. The Nazi party proclaimed that the fire was clearly the work of the Communists (who were later acquitted) and the party leaders were arrested. Hitler who had already secured his spot as Chancellor four weeks prior to the fire proceeded to persuade President Von Hindenburg to sign the Reichstag Fire Decree and later the Enabling Act which gave Hitler legislative powers. It was through the Reichstag fire that the Nazis gained control of Germany. Hitler held an election in March and the Nazis obtained 43.9% of the votes.

So, I’ve explained my factual timeline of events to tell you this. In no way, did a voter who voted for the Nazi Party believe they were voting for a New World Order. On the contrary, those who began voting for the Nazi party prior to 1933 wanted to be a great power once again and they yearned for the days of old when Germany was this ‘great power’ full of economic vitality. The Nazi ideology that had been portrayed to the public sympathized with their plights. The political New World Order that Woodrow Wilson had envisioned for Germany went against that and was the reasoning behind the backing of the Nazi party. They wanted to preserve the old way of life and not embrace the new way of life. Those who voted after the Reichstag fire did so because of the previous reason stated, out of fear or requirement.

External Sources:

posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 11:37 PM
My opponent has continued, as I predicted, to focus on rule by fear in Germany after 1933.

A clarification of the topic is necessary. The topic does not stipulate a voter in 1933, which is good because it was not 1933, but 1930-32 that laid the foundation for Nazi power.

Here is a detailed timeline
It was in April of '32 that Hitler came in 3rd in the presidential race, proving his party's national viability. Three months later in July the Nazis won their largest legitimate election to the Reichstag and became vital to the formation of a coalition government. It was in November of '32 that new elections were called, and the Nazis, though they slipped, remained too strong to ignore. This left Hindenburg with no choice but to make Hitler chancellor, and from that position Hitler embarked upon the campaign of corruption which my opponent emphasizes.

If German voters in 1932 had not placed their trust in the Nazi platform, the subsequent treachery never could have worked for the Nazis. The question is not how they consolidated power, but what the voters believed when they gave power to the Nazis to begin with.

Why did they do this?

There was more at stake than former glory. Hitler promised them an entirely new order: the dominance of a racially defined Germany over the entire world. Racial definition was key here. The Prussian military establishment of the German Empire had brought ruin upon the people, and according to Hitler in Mein Kampf had been manipulated by a Jewish banking conspiracy. To build a New World Order, they also demanded a new domestic power structure which would be strictly loyal to the so-called “Aryans”.

Rise of Hitler (click into the “Mein Kampf” section)

Hitler bitterly recalls the end of the first World War, saying the German Army was denied its chance for victory on the battlefield by political treachery at home. In the second volume of Mein Kampf he attaches most of the blame to Jewish conspirators

This bastion of the old order, the Prussian generals, continued to be influential even under the Weimar Republic, which contrary to my opponent‘s mischaracterization, was not run by communists, but by the more moderate Social Democrats who had become bitter enemies of the Communist KPD.

Every Weimar election up until 1932 resulted in a Social Democrat plurality in the Reichstag. The Social Democrat Party was critical to the coalition governments which ruled (albeit ineffectively) the Weimar Republic. They collaborated with Centrists and sometimes Liberals and Nationalists(DDP and DVP) but never with the Communist KPD.
Rejecting the communists would have required nothing more than continuing to vote Social Democrats in. It was such a government, backed by the weakened but still influential military, that put down Communist uprisings in 1919.

(same link as above, but click into the “War ends in defeat” section)

In Berlin and Munich, left-wing Marxist groups proclaimed Russian-like revolutions, only to meet violent opposition from right-wing nationalist Freikorps along with regular Army troops.
The leaders of the new German democracy had made a deal with the German General Staff which allowed the generals to maintain rank and privilege in return for the Army's support of the young republic and a pledge to put down Marxism and help restore order.

So, again, why vote Nazi? Why not Social Democrat? Those who voted Nazi were rejecting the old order as well by embracing the Nazi alternative to the SDP. As I said, they wanted a New World Order of Aryan dominance, and this required a new order at home. Prussian power and perceived Jewish influence therein had to end, and the Aryans had to rule the world. The SDP, though not Communist, was ineffective, was entangled with the remainder of the old order, and had formed a coalition before with the DDP- the party of Jews as their detractors labeled them.


The Democrats were a left-wing liberal party, and, along with the Social Democrats, the political party most committed to maintaining a democratic, republican form of government. The party was attacked by some for being a party of Jews and professors (and, indeed, Jews formed one of its most loyal constituencies).

My opponent has been able to deny this only by mistakenly claiming that the Weimar Republic was a communist regime, avoiding sources which discuss the rise of Nazi politicians in the Reichstag before Hitler was in a position to corrupt the process in their favor, and attempting to characterize Hitler’s vision of Aryan supremacy as a mere return to former German might. He does this using Wikipedia, an unreliable source which anyone, myself included could edit on a whim. Of his last 4 references, 3 were edited in the past 24 hours and 1 bears a disputed neutrality tag. “Factual” information?

*voice of doom cuts in*
Will Zenlover continue to give loose histories from Wikipedia? Will Adolph Hitler’s own words introduce the Nazi vision for a New World Order? Find out tomorrow. Same Vagabond Time, same Vagabond Channel!

MS Word 796

posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 04:21 PM
I would have thought that you would have grasped my true intentions in relation to my earlier post where I stated "Weimar Republic" (Communism). My intent here was to connect the two in relation to what the Weimar Republic represented at that time by the threat of Communism. Perhaps, I should have been more clear for you and put “threat of Communism”, however I thought you would understand my intentions as I make it clear in my argument that the Weimar Republic as a whole was against Communism. My apologies for lack of clarity.

I would also think that since your resources are far superior to mine that your research would have informed you of the fact that yes, the Communist Party of Germany or the KPD did in fact hold seats in the Parliament and was becoming an integral political force in Germany. A Communist uprising was becoming more and more of a threat to Germany and this is proved by the number of seats the party was gaining year after year. Beginning in 1920, they held four (4) seats and leading up to the period before the Reichstag fire in 1933, they held one hundred (100) seats. The KPD was gaining ground not only on the Social Democrats, but the Nazi party as well. This was a huge factor in the propaganda that Hitler and the Nazi party presented to the voters in an attempt at manipulation through fear of Communism.

Also, your attempt at clarification of the argument with your detailed outline, served no purpose other than a further attempt at misrepresentation of my argument. The intent of the clarification is an attempt to only mislead by adding dates that are not relevant.

Now on to your argument which has now contradicted itself in the meaning of New World Order:

Representation of New World Order now:

Hitler promised them an entirely new order; the dominance of a racially defined Germany over the entire world.

Previous representation of New World Order:

We wish her only to accept a place of equality among the peoples of the world, -- the new world in which we now live, -- instead of a place of mastery.

What we demand (snip) is that the world be made fit and safe to live in; and particularly that it be made safe for every peace-loving nation which, like our own, wishes to live its own life, determine its own institutions, be assured of justice and fair dealing by the other peoples of the world

Their goal was an New World Order under which they would be subject to no Prussian dictator, no backroom dealing nor whim of the League of Nations, no banking conspiracies and no international puppeteering in the name of global Communism. To be free, they felt that they needed to impose a New World Order on their own terms: a social democratic worker's utopia.

I do not believe world domination fits into your earlier representation of New World Order.

Furthermore, why would a voter choose to vote for the Social Democrat party when they were receiving the blame for the loss of World War I and Germany’s agreement to the Versailles Treaty which is the primary reason Germany lost its “great power” in the world? Do you realize what Germany lost because of the signing of this treaty? Germany lost 13 percent of their territory, 10 percent of the population, 15 percent of arable land, 75 percent of iron and 68 percent of zinc ore, 26 percent of coal resources, the entire Alsatian potash and textile industries, and the communications system built around Alsace-Lorraine and Upper Silesia, along with huge amounts of ships, shipping facilities and railway rolling stock (External Source 2).

The Treaty of Versailles lead to economic hardship and the remaining population was thrown into poverty and starvation because of it and the Depression. The Social Democrat majority was not solving the problem. But, Hitler and the Nazi propaganda presented itself in a way that would solve the problem by giving voters hope that Germany could get back to the “great power” it once was. This would not be a New World Order in the political meaning that the League of Nations had intended, it would lead back to “domination” and “imperialistic” rule and the Social Democrats were not offering that hope because they were attempting to embrace the new.

External Source 1:

External Source 2:

External Source 3:

posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 07:51 PM

Originally posted by Nygdan
The topic for this debate is "A German voter for the Nazi party prior to WWII would have beleived (sic) that they were voting against the NWO.".

Zenlover28 will be arguing the pro position

Contrary to Nygdan’s assumption, Zenlover has come nowhere near that position. She has instead given history lectures (and apologies for the inaccuracy or ambiguity thereof) supporting the position that Nazis voted only against poverty, boogeymen, and threats of violence from Hitler.

It has amused me to entertain Zen’s “tactic” of avoiding the subject because I have been able to control both sides of the debate. My opponent, now with only 35% of the total allowed words on her side of this debate remaining, has no solid position, and should adopt one, is saddled with the fact that I have already established it for her in a light which demonstrates at least equal truth to the counter-claim that Nazis were voting FOR an NWO of their own as much as AGAINST anyone else’s.

She tries to create illusions of contradiction by portraying Wilson’s vision for an NWO to something of German character; this is answered below by Hitler himself.

Now I shall trust my opponent to hold up her end of the debate, in hopes that she will at last attempt to engage on-topic at some appreciable length.
I will now demonstrate through the words of Mein Kampf that the establishment of a New World Order of their own was not only a necessity of preventing one specific other NWO from arising, as I have already established, but a paramount concern because ANY other order than theirs would, according to their ideology, be necessarily corrupted by the “Jewish” banking conspiracy.

Mein Kampf scapegoats the Jews by implicating them in the corruption of many systems. The Jews, if anything, serve mainly to put one face on a wide variety of economic and political targets of the Nazi agenda.
It is not merely the Jews, but all institutions to which Hitler ascribed their influence that Nazism sought to eliminate. The elimination of these influences required the rise of a New World Order to replace all that would be eliminated.
According to Nazism, the "Jewish state" is limited by no border, but reaches throughout the world. Jews, as merchants, acquired and monopolized capital and thus through usury became the owners of the land, creditors of the government, and masters of international commerce.

The institutions compromised by the Jewish conspiracy, according to Mein Kampf included:
  • German government since unification

    Anyone who systematically follows the old Reich's line of political development is bound to arrive... at the realization that even at the time of the unification... the inner decay was already in full swing

    the time of the first Germanic state formation may be viewed as the beginning of a new and this time lasting Jewification of Central and Northern Europe.

    It is thanks to the German princes that the German nation was unable to redeem itself for good from the Jewish menace.

  • Both Capitalism and Communism

    First, he used the bourgeoisie as a battering-ram against the feudal world, then the worker against the bourgeois world.

    the Jew keeps up an outcry against international capital and in truth he means the national economy which must be demolished in order that the international stock exchange can triumph

  • American Government and the League of Nations

    whether we liked it or not, we would have to wage wars in order to arrive at pacifism. This and nothing else was what Wilson, the American world savior, intended

    (Pacifism, to Nazis, meant the subjugation of Aryans under a "false" doctrine of equality and non-dominance)

  • The outside world in general

    there took form in our new movement, the tendency not only of halting the decline of the German people, but of creating the granite foundation upon which some day a state will rest which represents, not an alien mechanism of economic concerns and interests, but a national organism

None of these institutions were acceptable to Nazism because of perceived manipulation by Jewish capital. Their New World Order, to assure them the very benefits which Wilson spoke of (according to their definition, rather than his), had to be dominated by a network of alliances between Aryan nations, constructed by Germany, on German terms, to the exclusion and conquest of all the Germans deemed impure. This New World Order would be built upon the service of Non-Aryans to a centralized Socialist economy, dictated not by capital but by Aryans forcing them to produce real goods. Currency was forever ruined in the eyes of the Nazis, and with it any order but their own.

(Word Perfect 793)

posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 09:44 PM
My opponent has certainly amused me with his tactics of misrepresentation and now he has assumed that I was dodging the subject? No, he was. The simple truth of the matter is that I have controlled this entire debate and he didn't even realize it. My job is to argue the "pro" position that a German voter before World War II would not have known that they were voting for a New World Order. I laid out my timeline of events and I have made my argument clear and yet he has yet to grasp it. And here is why.

"Mein Kampf" , written by Adolph Hitler was published in 1925 and whether or not Hitler lays out his exact plans of the future genocide of the Jews can be debated. There is one sentence in the entire book that is dedicated to the genocide of Jews and it states clearly that "if 10,000-15,000 Jews had of been gassed that Germany would have won World War I". However, it is irrelevant to this debate because it is common knowledge that few people bought the book and read it PRIOR to 1933. Now, why is this relevant? It is most relevant to the argument I have been making and standing by because I did not want to veer off topic as my opponent has. My timeline ended after the Nazis seized control in 1933 for one reason and one reason only. There were no free and fair elections after Hitler took control in 1933 or prior to World War II for a German voter to vote in. I knew my opponent would bring up quotes from this book. I was waiting and he did it. What he has now done is another attempt at misrepresentation. The book sold few copies until 1933 after Hitler had seized control of Germany. IN fact the book was such a poor seller that Hitler could not get his second book which he wrote in 1928 published!

As Hitler states himself in the book "Majority can never replace men. The political understanding of the masses is not sufficiently developed to produce independently specific political convictions and to select persons to represent them". (External Source, 1) However, simply no one read it. If people had of read it perhaps what would follow would not have happened. After 1933, all political parties were banned as well as the formation of new parties. There simply were no free elections held because of the Enabling Act which I mentioned earlier in my argument. The Enabling Act gave complete control to Hitler and the Nazi Party because Hitler was the Chancellor. Elections went against the very ideology of the Nazi Party.

So, again a German voter before World War II would not have believed they were voting for a New World Order. As I have made clear in my argument which I stand by, the supporters of the Nazi party were manipulated through and through by Hitler and the Nazi Party. Support for the Nazi party clearly began rising in the early 1930's because of Hitler's propaganda and calculated manipulations. Because of continued disappointment with the Social Democratic Party and their failure to fight off Communism as well as their failure to restore the economy after the Versailles Treaty, Nazi supporters simply yearned for the old way of life. Hitler promised them this. That was his platform. He manipulated each and every person he encountered through whatever situation arose in order to convince them that he would bring back to Germany the "great power" that once was.

External Source 1: Hitler, Adolph. Mein Kampf/MyStruggle. Fredonia Books (NL) 2003.

External Source 2:

posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 11:39 PM
We shall now wrap up our exploration of the NWO which Nazi voters cast their ballots for. In light of my opponent’s criticism of Mein Kampf’s circulation, which was inevitable as she paraphrased wikipedia for us at length, I have a ready answer. No response to the criticism of the genocide argument is necessary because here my opponent just kept paraphrasing and summarizing the page, into a point which I never raised.

My opponent has acknowledged the orations of Adolph Hitler as a driving force in the growth of Nazism.
Preface to Mein Kampf.

Nazi Party would manipulate the German voters through fear, propaganda and the great speaking skills of Adolph Hitler

Hitler said

I know that men are won over less by the written than by the spoken word, that every great movement on this earth owes it growth to great orators and not to great writers. Nevertheless, for a doctrine to be disseminated uniformly and coherently, its basic elements must be set down for all time.

Therefore I have had ready since my last post a list of Hitler’s speeches for which Mein Kampf served as an enduring written explanation.
Hitler’s Speeches

From the speech of 4-12-22, second in the list:

He is banished into his wilderness and one cannot feed oneself on diamonds. For a morsel of bread he gives millions in objects of value. But the bread is in the hands of the State Central Organization and this is in the hands of the Jews:

Here is an early assertion of a key principle of the Nazi NWO as I cited from Mein Kampf before, that the Nazi plan valued production of real goods above wealth. This principle undermines both Capitalism and Communism, as Hitler asserts Communism to be a revolution usurped by the “Jewish” bank conspiracy. If capital is to be eschewed and Communism is only a “Jewish” deception, then what alternative is there but a despotism of production? This is precisely what Hitler alludes to in Mein Kampf, which I reiterate was merely the comprehensive explanation of his many and widely known orations, by his own admission.

So the Left neither can nor will help. On the contrary, their first lie compels them constantly to resort to new lies. There remains then the Right. And this party of the Right meant well, but it cannot do what it would because up to the present time it has failed to recognize a whole series of elementary principles.

The Left is the enemy, and the Right has fundamentally mistaken reality, what is left but something wholly new?

What elementary principles have they missed?

they have never got it clear in their own minds that there is a difference or how great a difference there is between the conception 'National' and the word 'dynastic' or 'monarchistic.(snip) The form of a State results from the essential character of a people, results from necessities which are so elementary and powerful that in time every individual will realize them without any disputation

Again we get into government and social order as a pure distributor of necessities, that is to say, real goods. Where is any analogy to this in the old order- of collective need defeating politics and mechanisms of organization? Nazism requires an economic order never seen in the industrialized world.

And it works on an organizing principle unlike any other in the industrialized world: that culture is all important and that the race which can create culture must be supported by the labor of those who cannot, not out of self interest but out of compulsion by naked force, as beasts of burden. It’s communism without equality, it’s industrial rather than agrarian slavery, and it’s mercantilism without capital. An amalgam of analogies to be sure, but undeniably new as a whole and completely contrary to the order of the world as it then stood. By definition Nazism sought to impose a New World Order, and this is plainly seen in the most elementary examination of the Nazi economic platform.


7/28/22, 3rd on list

In general even in the early days both England and France had already been bound with the fetters of slavery... these States are fettered with Jewish chains

It doesn’t stop in Germany: Major political and economic powers are called Jewish pawns, and these must fall to provide German Security. The fall or fundamental change of Britain and France giving rise to a new economic system; how can this be called anything short of a New World Order?

(Word Perfect 790)

posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 07:56 AM
In closing, I have presented "factual" information in this debate to provide a timeline of events that led up to the rise of Nazi Germany. My opponent has consistently ridiculed my resources; however he has failed to grasp the fact that the information I have presented can be backed up legitimately by other resources including history books. I have researched every aspect of this debate and I have kept it logical and on topic because this is a very important part of German history. It is important that we all understand that Hitler and the Nazi party did not lay out their plans of genocide, global domination and dictatorship in full scale to the German voters prior to their takeover of Germany in a way that would relate to the New World Order that the League of Nations and President Wilson had in mind for Germany.

It is important to come away from this debate understanding that anti-semitism towards the Jews was already in full force before Hitler's propaganda began. They were pawns for the Social Democrats to blame for the loss of World War I; however that does not mean that the German voter wanted the entire Jewish population killed, perhaps they wanted them out of Germany, but not killed. I have not included the Jews in my argument because I really did not want them to become the subject of this debate. As they were far from the only driving force behind Nazi support and usually when a debate comes up on this topic the Jews dominate the subject because so many relate the Nazi Party to the genocide of Jews.

My opponent has done an admirable job of trying to misrepresent my argument because I think he understands that he can not rewrite history in a subject as touchy as this one. However, in attempting to misrepresent my argument, I feel he never really made one worthy of countering the facts.

I will leave this debate with an excerpt of some of the Nazi propaganda presented to the German population in 1932 prior to the Reichstag fire and subsequently Nazi Germany:

"He who wishes that everything should stay as it is in Germany gives himself over to despair. We do not mind if he casts his vote for the representatives of this system. But we want everything in Germany to change.

He who opposes class struggle and fraternal murder, who is looking for the way out of chaos and confusion, this man will vote for Adolf Hitler! He represents an awakening young German idealism, he is the spokesman for national activism, he is the bearer of the coming economic and social renewal. That is why we cry: Give Adolf Hitler power so that the German people once again receive what is its due. For freedom and bread!"

External source: "Wir wählen Adolf Hitler!" (We Are Voting for Hitler), Wetterleuchten. Aufsätze aus der Kampfzeit (Munich: Zentralverlag der NSDAP, 1939), pp. 269-270.

posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 03:33 PM

The voters trusted the Nazi government because the Nazi government played on their fears.

I stated “how the events that lead up to Nazi control of Germany were merely the result of manipulation of the people and the Cabinet by Hitler and the Nazi Party”.

In no way, did a voter who voted for the Nazi Party believe they were voting for a New World Order.

My debate is based on “factual” information, not a conspiracy theory.

That’s exactly the problem. Nazis were conspiracy theorists.
My opponent has given us plenty of factual information alright. She’s dang well recited everything Wikipedia says on the Nazis, but you can’t understand Nazi beliefs if you don’t understand the conspiracy theories about Jewish bankers ruling the world. The core of the Nazi agenda, far from what you learn in high school, is that the Nazi New World Order, was the only system that could not be corrupted by the Jews, not because of extermination, but because it emphasized real goods over capital.

She’s tried to prove that the Nazis were not voting for the NWO, but has done nothing at all practically, save a few throwaway sentences against communism, to prove that the Nazis voted against the NWO. She’s given no explanation as to why Communism could be considered a New World Order. Mein Kampf and Hitler’s other speeches make it clear that to those who voted Nazi, Communism wasn’t a New World Order- it was the same old Jewish conspiracy in new red clothes. The NWO wasn’t Communism, to the Nazis, it was National Socialism. National Socialism was to be a nation-centered drive for the production of real goods to sustain the people of a racially defined state and their culture.

I warned Zen.

Originally posted by Nygdan
The topic for this debate is A German voter for the Nazi party prior to WWII would have beleived (sic) that they were voting against the NWO. .

Zenlover28 will be arguing the pro position

She never figured out that she wasn’t even arguing her position. Most of the information for BOTH positions was able to come from my arguments because of this, and it clearly spells out that if her position has any credibility, then so does mine in equal measure, but that in fact, in the minds of Nazi voters (and their beliefs are the topic of this debate) that the realization of their NWO was the paramount concern. You have this from Hitler’s own mouth, both in speeches and the book which explained them.
Do you trust primary sources, or do you trust Wikipedia? Do you trust the side that counters attacks with evidence from those primary sources, or do you trust the side that says “you misrepresented” or “that’s just a conspiracy theory”? Do you really believe that Nazis were just voting in the name of the old political status quo?

(Word Perfect 485)

posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 09:08 PM
The judges will now review and make a decision.

posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 06:31 PM
The Vagabond wins! Good efforts from both competitors!

Some comments from the judges:

While Zenlover surely did have a good grasp of the history surrounding the Nazi rise to power, Vagabond was able to tailor this history more to the tune of the debate.

The Vagabond is one of the toughest debate opponents anyone can face on ATS, but I was disappointed to see him dance around the topic and go slightly overboard with the trash-talking.

I read back and forth between the two debaters, watching to see if they really and truly attempted to state facts for their arguements, or were just going to attack each other.

I see more of attacking each other, and then defending like a swashbuckling pirate vs a fencer.

What I see lacking, is that someone actually cracked open a book (one from the 1930's would be nice)...

new topics

top topics


log in