[Turing_Machine]

"It is hardly a war if only one side is doing all the murdering, incarcerating and driving people into exile."

Losing a war doesn't make it not a war.

So you're arguing that Communists don't do exactly the same thing when they take power?

[rmk2]

Please read my comment and the part quoted again. I have made no such claim, and I have, in fact not even touched upon such arguments.

My whole argument is based around the fact that you are trying to equate things that are in fact very distinctly different. The whole point is that the history of Weimar Germany is everything but an internal fight, unlike both historical events you mentioned.

The German Left and the German Right leading up to 1933 are very distinct groups, with specific affiliated cultures, outlets, forerunners etc. Equating the events leading up to fascist rule in Germany with the in-group fighting you mention is a) misleading and b) void of any historical precedent. The two distinct blocs have never been a coherent group that then splits into two factions. They have never been united and have always been very easy to tell apart. Bismarck's Sozialistengesetze are just one of the many examples of the clear and effective divide between the Left and the Right, both in the Kaiserreich and subsequently during the Weimar Republic.

I know you are trying to make an overly generalised point equating left and right, however, this does not make your view any more substantiated. Historical evidence, recent (and not-so-recent) scholarship, as well as cultural history suggest that the equation you make is a crass reduction -- and thus oversimplification -- of the actual, very complex historical process for the sake of the popular argument that left and right are the same, and that any conflict between them is an internal conflict.

[Turing_Machine]

"the popular argument that left and right are the same, and that any conflict between them is an internal conflict."

They are, and it is.

The only useful distinction here is that between liberty and slavery.

[rmk2]

If you selectively quote, why not at least make an effort instead of just quoting what seems to reinforce your point of view, ignoring the critique of your standpoint?

There doesn't seem to be a point trying to argue with you, since you already decided that you are right and therefore beyond critique.

If you can actually argue your point instead of just off-handedly quoting wrongly equated wikipedia articles then please do, since I'd be interested in hearing you out. Otherwise, what's the point?