Message from @Deleted User
Discord ID: 448452038389530625
No that isnt cause libertarians and liberals are a totally different position now, both mainstream
@Deleted User Nope, he sure as hell was the leader.
'pre hitler nazi party' sympathisers just isnt a big enough list to be assumed automatically without you mentioning it
And nationalsocialism on the strasserists front is an entirely different basis than Nazism
@Deleted User National socialism is nazism you dumbass.
Nazism is literally just the basis of being a Nazi
Nazi being short for national socialist
No one is saying otherwise
What is being stated is that Nazis werent fascist
And the fascist side of the group took power and used the rhetoric of their origins to maintain power
@Deleted User They sure as hell are fascist, and you cannot prove otherwise.
That's like calling trump a republican
Let me guess if trump became dictator
You would say he defined republicans
Because he was "their leader" and he was in power
Not really.
It's the same fucking situation
Hitler brought support for the Nazis and he was a figurehead
Nothing more
But they didn't have a leader
It was a committee
Power was spread out
Hell strasser had more support than did hitler at many points
The thing is that hitler wasn't the presidential nominee of the republican party.
He was actually for the Nazis
He ran for the Nazis over and over
And to appease the group
They let him be vice chancellor
He was the leader for the NSDAP and was elected president.
When the chancellor died
Guess who took power
He was not the leader
@Deleted User You got any proof?
Literally half the party hated him
Strasser alone
The brothers were both very powerful heads of the party along with rohm
They held more power than hitler before he became chancellor
Again, I need a citation for that
The sa was the muscle of the party