The point I was making was apparently something that slid right over your narrow point of view is simply that you can give anyone 5 minutes and Wikipedia can say Hitler wore pink bunny splits and snorted cocaine with Madonna. It never has been and never will be accepted as a legitimate source of debate in any academic setting or even common sense though apparently neight apply to dealing with your logic. When the opponent views socialism as the right instead of the left which Hitler proclaimed himself as a socialist then you have a skewed way of thinking..
But if you want some sources then:
Davidson, Gienapp, Heyrman, Lytle, and Stoff
Alan Bullock, Hitler: A Study in Tyranny, paperback, p. 41
ibid., p. 80
Thomas Sowell, The Economics and Politics of Race, p. 83
ibid., p. 85
David Welch, The Third Reich:
Politics and Propaganda, p. 103
7C.C. Aronsfeld, The Text of the Holocaust, p. 23
Take your mindless rhetoric elsewhere because when your opponent has actually bothered to read the topics which you espouse false knowledge of then they can only conclude that you are an misinformed idiot who is running their mouth when they should be using their mind. Google and wikipedia are hardly solid sources of knowledge but hey someone printed it online so it has to be correct, is that the logic?
May 06, 2022