In historical context: no.
If used without historical context or as a means of propagating/condoning it: yes.
The main aspects of national-socialism is a hatred against capitalism and race warfare (as opposed to class warfare in communism, everything else was pretty much the same). Most of their economic policies where interventionist and purely socialist (expropriation without compensation, price topping, deciding who does business where, nationalized industries, etc).The term 'best' is doing a lot of heavy lifting there! Every company needs political intervention where its States that regulates the conditions for the market to exist. Its the contradiction with capitalism where it wants to remove regulation yet requires the State to regulate conditions in order for it to exist. The Nazis had the whole economy harnessed for one reason: war, and its armed forces. If youre on about specific party based intervention, TBH the only companies they specifically acted against were anything owned by Jewish people. I didnt say they were the same, its just not the opposite.
The main aspect of Nazism was race and attempting to establish a 'racial' state with Jewish people at the bottom of the hierarchy. In terms of its relationship with capitalism, it said one thing while performing the other basically. Your definition of what constitutes socialism needs reworking tbh. If the point your making was that the Nazis were somehow socialist a la their full title, its an old trope and in general its not a good idea to put a lot of faith in the words of Nazi's! They were populist and the 'socialist' was put in there as a means of mass appeal i.e. pro union etc and they claimed to be the party for workers when they were anything but. Once they got into power, socialists and unions were the very first to be targeted as they provided the most meaningful resistance. All unions was banned apart from the official organization for workers. They were also the first inmates in the concentration camps in the 1930's.The main aspects of national-socialism is a hatred against capitalism and race warfare (as opposed to class warfare in communism, everything else was pretty much the same). Most of their economic policies where interventionist and purely socialist (expropriation without compensation, price topping, deciding who does business where, nationalized industries, etc).
Doesn't matter if they only applied these policies onto jews and foreign companies, these policies are still anticapitalist in their nature.
^thisNo. The nazi find my imagery offensive
I do not. I've learned about world war 2 and the injustices but I don't find political propaganda from something which ended decades before I was born offensive.
And those neo-communists keep saying, "Well, America kept interfering with those countries trying to practice communism, so they never got a fair chance!" F*%($*ing Morons. Those communists COULD have tried to do all those wonderful things that was supposed to make communism great even while America was trying to interfere. Those communists chose tyranny, wealth and power, instead.If it's for historical or collection purposes then I guess it's cool. People nowadays don't even know what national-socialism is or the implications of that radical anticapitalist ideology. Also lots of people go around waving communist flags and nobody bats an eye, which is weird considering the latter has a shitton more dead people on their back.
like every dictator, if you use them out of their context, it becomes offensive.In historical context: no.
If used without historical context or as a means of propagating/condoning it: yes.
From my perspective, nazi propaganda actually made good things implicitly.I do not. I've learned about world war 2 and the injustices but I don't find political propaganda from something which ended decades before I was born offensive.
Kills the immersion? You mean, "makes the enemy look less evil than it truly was!"When video games/movies censor the swastika in WW2 games, it kills the immersion for me.
All politicians want is wealth and power regardless of the economic or political system in place. The dangers of all forms of socialism (be it national-socialism, fascism, communism or cultural marxism) is that these ideologies give a golden ticket for politicians to do whatever they want while claiming to be doing it "for the greater good of the society". This gives them way more power than normal, a false sensation of legitimacy and a wildcard to attack anyone that opposes them (if you're against me, you're against the common folk). This is why the nazis would send people to gas chambers: because those people are enemies of the society we want to build for the better of the rest of us. It's also why communists would happily send homosexuals (and businessmen, clerics and intellectuals) to concentration camps: we want to build a new society with nothing but hard workers, so there's no place for "bourgeois degenerates", only tough and manly workers.And those neo-communists keep saying, "Well, America kept interfering with those countries trying to practice communism, so they never got a fair chance!" F*%($*ing Morons. Those communists COULD have tried to do all those wonderful things that was supposed to make communism great even while America was trying to interfere. Those communists chose tyranny, wealth and power, instead.