This is sort of the key portion of your latest pass at this:
“You mention Ian Kershaw’s contention that the Nazis, once in power ignored all of the socialist provisions in their 25 point manifesto. They did not; and Kershaw’s claim is contested by Shirer, Beevor and Davies amongst hundreds of others. The Third Reich even gets his own section in Donald Sassoon’s ‘One Hundred Years of Socialism.’”
And then you later falsely assert, of the radical planks in the early Nazi platform, that “Hitler implemented all of them to a greater or lesser extent.”
I’ve never read Sassoon or Antony Beevor but the latter is a military historian, so is of no relevance (and if his inclusion here strikes the reader as merely empty name-dropping on your part, the reader is paying attention).[*] William Shirer, however, not only doesn’t “contest” my interpretation; he offers it:
“A good many paragraphs of the party program were obviously merely a demagogic appeal to the mood of the lower classes at a time when they were in bad straits and were sympathetic to radical and even socialist slogans… They were the ideas which Hitler was to find embarrassing when the big industrialists and landlords began to pour money into the party coffers, and of course nothing was ever done about them.”
“…the ‘inalterable’ party program had sounded ominous to them [the German capitalist class] with its promises of nationalization of trusts, profit sharing in the wholesale trade, ‘communalization of department stores and their lease at a cheap rate to small traders’ (as Point 16 read), land reform and the abolition of interest on mortgages. But the men of industry and finance soon learned that Hitler had not the slightest intention of honoring a single economic plank in the party program — the radical promises had been thrown in merely to attract votes.”
Hitler simply ignored the radical portions of the platform once in power. That’s the public record and there’s no disagreement among historians on this matter. The reason I singled out your passage, the one I quoted above, as the key one in your latest pass is because not only does Shirer join every other historian in agreement with me on this point, I had already quoted Shirer’s agreement in my previous post, the one to which you were allegedly replying. As with so much of the rest of what you’ve written, this indicates you not only don’t care about the facts in this matter, you aren’t even paying attention anymore, if, indeed, you ever were.
Most of the rest of what you’ve written above is more nonsense — quoting from the Nazi platform the planks that were never implemented, false strawmen (“You use them to claim that the [fascist] rhetoric measures the practise. It never does.”), ignoring the fact that the fascists aggressively liquidated everyone who could have created a socialist state, including those in their own ranks who believed in their own faux-“socialist” notions, continuing to run in circles regarding your insistence on stripping the definition of fascism and Bolshevism of all substance then insisting they’re the same, offering an ideological, rather than historical, redefinition of “socialism” because the real thing doesn’t suit your purposes, etc. For the third time, I directly quoted your own words and refuted them, only to see you essentially deny having ever offered them (and deny having denied this).
Collectively, this makes it rather difficult for me to justify continuing this. I think I’ve adequately covered my own perspective (for readers who are interested, I’d just written a piece on this subject here on Medium before taking part in this exchange). I’ve certainly demonstrated your own lack of knowledge of the subject and frequent dishonesty — your deployment of a fake “quote,” your plagiarism of Wikipedia, your misuse of sources, etc. Readers can decide who knows the subject. If this exchange inspired someone — particularly someone as ill-informed as you — to begin reading about this, perhaps it hasn’t been in vain, but at this point, it’s hard to see much of a point in continuing.
[*] Peter Davies, the other historian you reference, is the principal author of the Routledge Companion to Fascism & the Far-Right” which I have read, and from the inconsistent and improvisational nature of fascist economic policy to refuting the ideological claim that state intervention = “nationalization” to fascism as, in fact, a phenomenon of the far right to the fact that fascist corporativism was a repudiation (rather than, as you falsely claim, a form) of socialism to fascism’s fundamental (and violent) anti-socialism (which you deny), Davies and his co-author Derek Lynch agree with me. You’d do well to read Davies rather than just engaging in the empty, entirely uninformed dropping of his name.