Best case where Godwin becomes a non-antiargument because you are talking about a socialist totalitarian in both cases right?

"First they came for the Socialists..."

Hitler was right-wing.

It was a socialist party. It does not reflect on socialism in general, but don't equate racism, natinalism etc... to necessarily extreme right:

"Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei": National Socialist German Workers' Party

"Its precursor, the German Workers' Party"

"The party was created as a means to draw workers away from communism and into völkisch nationalism.[7] Initially, Nazi political strategy focused on anti-big business, anti-bourgeois, and anti-capitalist rhetoric, although such aspects were later downplayed in order to gain the support of industrial entities, and in the 1930s the party's focus shifted to anti-Semitic and anti-Marxist themes."

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party

"Nazi political strategy focused on anti-big business, anti-bourgeois, and anti-capitalist rhetoric" that's the socialist rhetoric. The part where Hitler was against communism is the part where he saw communists occupying his own socialism-based plans. Stalin, total strategy genius, let the guy go destroy Europe for him and then he kept half of it for himself.

Sounds like Trump.

Hitler was NOT right-wing, please! His party was national socialist workers party. He learned from the best, his friend Stalin. Then they do what communists do best betray themselves and kill adversaries. Nobody, nobody come even close to kill even a fraction of the number of communists killed by other communists http://louderwithcrowder.com/myth-busted-actually-yes-hitler...

So no, nobody is coming for you in a free society that is not marxist

> So no, nobody is coming for you in a free society that is not marxist

Then we can tell the people disappeared in militar dictatorships in the Latin countries in the 50s-70s than they were prosecuted by marxist governments.

School of the Americas was marxist, was not?

Why was this downvoted? It is historically accurate. The US-sponsored, anti-communist Latin American dictatorships killed and tortured a huge amount of people.

Honest question: is this taught in World History classes in American schools?

Because is largely exaggerated. All killing is immoral and I don't like utilitarian arguments myself but those dictatorships killed a fraction of the people than most think. Example, in Argentina where I was born, for decades it was believed that there where 30000 missing, but now the official number turns out to be a bit less 7000. Even people coming from the left-wing that, in an exemplary way did a self revision and lived their mature days trying to recover intellectual honesty have recognised that the 30K was a fabrication to amplify marxist propaganda https://vimeo.com/95210051

> Because is largely exaggerated

Exagerated what, the lie you wrote that only on Marxists regimes you can be persecuted?

the problem is that you see Mrxists even in the extreme right.

> All killing is immoral

It seems that not for you when youi minimize and deny anmy killing frok your side

Perhaps Videla was a hero for you, or Pinochet, or Stroessner.

Someone please explain to me how the workers controlled the means of production in Nazi Germany.

And, by the way, linking to an article where it is said that social democracy is the same as national socialism means that nor the author of the article nor you knows anything about communism, Nazism or social democracy

Hitler wasn't left-wing or right-wing. He mixed elements of both.

However in this case it's appropriate. We are talking violent, oppressive world leaders. I would offer that Godwin doesn't apply here.

Exactly. Communist propaganda and cultural war was so good and effective that many will miss the part that we are talking about a socialist totalitarian in both regimes so appealing to Godwin is a non-antiargument and a fail to reason itself

It's still anecdotal evidence and distracts.