Hitler Writes From The Grave

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

Sean Smith:

Well, imprisoning or killing off all the Socialists he could get his hands on would be a small hint. It isn't often you wipe out fans of your ideology.

Or the fact that his OPPOSITION to Hitler within the party in 1926 was the anti-capitalist "Socialist Wing" of the party led by Gregor Strasser and Goebbels (the former cut down to size and discredited, the latter co-opted by Hitler).

Ford competes with GM, Kerry competes with Dean, etc. Competition doesn't equate with disagreement of the rules of the game.

I could go on, but why bother? I don't have the time to butt my head against your a priori convictions. It's like I'm talking to a liberal or something... how ironic.

"Ooh, the Nazis had a big bureaucracy and the word "Socialist" in their name, they must be just like Democrats!"

At this point I have to agree. You're better off retiring from this thread if you need resort to the low road of dismissive hostility to denigrate those who hold an opinion contrary to yours.

 

[RON in PA]

Agricola and Sean Smith: Thank God that that some have a knowledge of history and politics, as for Cool Hand please go back to school.

 

[agricola]

coolhand,

you said a while back that the Nazis had been:

...universally accepted as such (socialist) by leading proponents of socialist theory

do you have these names yet?

meek,

no - the original post is deeply flawed anyway, not only from a historical viewpoint (Hitler's biggest mistake was attacking the USSR) but also from the standpoint of Godwins Law. Coolhands' views are also deeply flawed when one considers an even elementary level of historical knowledge of the period.

 

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

Ron in PA:

Agricola and Sean Smith: Thank God that that some have a knowledge of history and politics, as for Cool Hand please go back to school.

Again, it's a real shame that some don't have the maturity to maintain a difference of opinion without the resort to some really childish rhetoric.

 

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

Agricula:

do you have these names yet?

We are assigning different meanings to the phrase "accepted by." By that I meant that leading proponents of socialist theory did not raise any strong objection to the Nazi's description of themselves as socialists. You'd expect proponents of socialism to do exactly that, as do you, but such comments appear to be absent from the record from the 1920's and 1930's.

I'd be interested in seeing you to cite a reference or two distinguishing the Nazi's brand of socialism from that practiced by so many other socialist regimes to the extent that it may no longer properly be called socialism, and public comments from noted socialists of the 1920's and 30's denouncing the Nazi's form of socialism as not genuine.

 

[ARperson]

I am just wrapping up a rather lengthy (those Brits do get rather wordy) biography of Hitler. This is my first foray into the Nazi mindset, but who better to study than the creator of the Nazi party?

The book admittedly is old (1960's publish date), but I also rest easy knowing that it was a time when political correctness was not in fancy and lots of documentation was easily available (Nuremburg trial documents, diaries and memoirs of those close to Nazi party members, etc) and taken for nothing more than what they were. I know it's not an all-encompassing work, but it has done a fairly good job of describing the man and the mind. With that background, here's my input into this dicussion.

Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: 'sO-sh&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1837
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Main Entry: Na·zism
Pronunciation: 'nät-"si-z&m, 'nat-
Variant(s): or Na·zi·ism /-sE-"i-z&m/
Function: noun
Etymology: Nazi + -ism
Date: 1934
: the body of political and economic doctrines held and put into effect by the National Socialist German Workers' party in the Third German Reich including the totalitarian principle of government, state control of all industry, predominance of groups assumed to be racially superior, and supremacy of the führer

It's hard to deny that the Nazi party was socialist at least in part. What I've seen of this discussion is that both sides are arguing the black and white sides of the argument. "Yes, Nazis were classic socialists." and "No, they were statist, not socialist."

You're both right, and wrong. They were whatever they needed to be to keep Hitler in power. Hitler was maniacally nationalistic in his devotion to Germany (odd for being born in Austria). And he was deeply embarrassed and decidedly pissed off at the loss Germany suffered in 1918. While a thorough reading of history will show that he used this loss and subsequent economic downturn to turn the people away from the republican/democratic version of government installed after 1918, in the end it was a means to an end. The end being absolute power in his hands and his hands alone.

He created a platform for the Nazi party as a means of gaining support. How many people would actually get in line behind a man that said I want absolute power and I want you to help me get it?

There were true socialists in the Nazi party, but since true socialism didn't jive well with Hitler's aims, eventually those Nazi party members were "removed."

Hitler was what he had to be to realize his dreams. He was strongly anti-Communism (he used the term Bolshevism). He was strongly anti-capitalism, a lot in part because capitalism and democracy routinely go hand-in-hand, and democracy was not something he praised too highly. I'm sure I don't have to mention anti-Semitic/Jew/Judaism/even religion in general.

Hitler opposed many groups that shared his beliefs because those groups were in the way of his gaining absolute power. On the flip side, he attempted in a few cases of allying himself (and the Party) with groups he fanatically opposed in principle as a pragmatic way of gaining absolute power. He tried once for a coalition with the Catholics as a means of gaining a (true) majority of seats so that he might be appointed Chancellor.

So you can discuss the socialist (or non-socialist) nature of the Nazi party all you want. But you absolutely cannot discount that the Nazi party was Hitler and Hitler was the Nazi party (period) and everything was else window dressing. And when seen in that light, it becomes fairly obvious that the Nazi party wasn't anything at all but a fluid set of beliefs picked up or dropped at will to suit one man's needs.

 

[agricola]

arperson,

sort of - but my argument is that just because a philosophy shares some similarities with another, it does not make it a classic example of the other. Nazism is not socialism, as is clear.

coolhand,

you said:

The same Nazis who described themselves as socialists, and who met every definition of the term, and who were universally accepted as such by leading proponents of socialist theory. The idea that the Nazis were not classic socialists is pure rubbish.

who were these "leading proponents of socialist theory" that accepted the Nazis - which is the only coherent reading of what you wrote.

As my references to back up my argument, I present the history of Germany from Jan 30th 1933 to May 7th 1945, which should be more than enough.

 

[Dain Bramage]

Of course, the reason for all this wrangling and debate distills down to who gets pinned with the Nazi or Fascist legacy, the liberals or the conservatives. The answer, obviously, is neither. Even latter-day Nazis share little with Hitler's party except a deep hatred along racial, ethnic, and religious lines.

I agree with ARperson; the Nazis were a unique product of their time, and are basically dead as a political force. Totalitarianism, of which they were a branch, is not dead and probably never will be.

If anything, Nazism is the mud-ball thrown at your opponent, and the liberals would be the ones falling down if that crutch was broken.

Socialism, on the other hand, is still sprouting branches. I find it interesting that some on this board strive so hard to separate it from Fascism, as if preserving some essence of lily-white purity. Socialism can well stand on its own, unmatched, blood-stained pedigree.

Now, I'll leave it to Ag to try and cleave modern European socialism from its Marxist origin. I've seen paintings done on pin heads and toothpicks, so I'm sure it can be attempted.

 

[ARperson]

Nazism is not socialism, as is clear.

Clear to whom?

I agree, but only to the extent that Nazism was whatever Hitler wanted it to be. But you have to remember what Hitler believed in his core belief system (which is born out mostly in his Mein Kampf sp?). Most of his core values and beliefs were socialist, though they had a decidedly nationalistic (yay Germany) bent. Ergo, most of Nazism's platform structure is based on the same tenets of socialism.

Here's the way I see it: it's the square vs. the rectangle idea. You can call a square a rectangle, but you cannot call a rectangle a square. In the same vein, you can call Nazism socialism, but socialism is not Nazism.

A square is a rectangle by strict definition, but it is a special form of a rectangle. Likewise, Nazism is socialism by definition (control by the government and various other "stuff"), but Nazism is a special form of socialism with a special emphasis on superiority of the state (nationalism), not just state-regulation. However, as we all know, not all socialism is Nazism.

For the sake of argument, how is it not socialist?

 

[agricola]

arperson,

i) because it does not come from the same historical roots as socialism - it stems more from romanticist, volkisch movements and personages of Germany, Austria and the UK (Houston Stewart Chamberlain especially);

ii) because it did not recognize either the equality of man under law (significant groups of course being excluded) nor the rights of these groups - indeed, the only advantages groups under the Nazis were those deemed "racially valuable" - everyone else was reduced to the level of slaves, or worse. In that sense, Nazism did not define or accept the "class struggle" - one of the central tenets of socialism; but rather the "racial struggle", in which strong races (who created great nations) were pitched against weaker races (who created weak or fragmented nations), as well as parasitical races (who lived off the host, usually stronger nations).

iii) also, much of Mein Kampf is a rail against socialism, and could most closely be paralleled to a kind of "racial Platonism" - Hitler frequently refers to the promotion of people based on ability as "racial comrades", and cites that the valuable must be promoted for the good of the folkish movement / state.

Look, there are elements of Nazi philosophy that could be termed "socialist" - that does not make it into socialism; no more than an egg balanced on a bar of Dairy Milk is a chocolate cake.

 

[dischord]

Of course, the reason for all this wrangling and debate distills down to who gets pinned with the Nazi or Fascist legacy...If anything, Nazism is the mud-ball thrown at your opponent,

Ding-Ding-Ding!

The problem with throwing "Nazi!" around is that it makes people stop listening to you -- they either dismiss it as mindless hyperbole or look at you like a kook.

Whether you are right or wrong is beside the point. Discrediting a policy by connecting it to the Nazis -- be it gun control, state-controlled industry or building good roads -- amount to nothing but an ad hominem argument. The fact that you can write paragraphs to support the connection only makes it a really complex ad hominem.

Remember, it is possible to be correct (gun control is bad) but still advance your correct position with invalid, illogical arguments. People on the fence or only nominally against you likely will see only your invalid argument and perhaps be pushed to the opposing side. In any event, they'll stop listening to you, and you'll have driven off a potential ally.

The only people "convinced" (if that's the right word) by the Nazi argument typically are those already convinced. But what's the point of "convincing†the Amen corner when you drive away the undecided?

Think of your reaction to the anti-Bush people flinging "Nazi" the next time you apply "Nazi" to a gun control group. The way you react to the anti-Bush people is the way most people react to you.

 

[ARperson]

agricola

It seems to be that you're saying that because Nazism isn't 100% socialism, it isn't socialism at all.

That's like saying that because Evan Bayh-D (Indiana's junior senator) doesn't vote Democrat on every issue he isn't a Democrat at all.

What faulty logic.

It's clear that Nazism has some of the main elements of socialism in its platform. So we're not incorrect in stating that Nazism was socialism. But perhaps it would be better if we just say Nazism was socialist. Because clearly Nazism cannot be socialism or it wouldn't have a different name.

Again, Nazism was a different form of socialism, but was socialist in nature nonetheless.

So what are we arguing here?

 

[agricola]

arperson,

no - it doesnt have the "main elements of socialism" in it. It has certain similarities, on a surface level, but it is fundamentally different from anything recognizably socialist, for reasons already cited. if something has similarities, but is not the same as a thing, then it is not that thing - to me, it seems as if you are trying to co-opt the Nazis into an attack on socialism generally by saying "look, all the worlds evil men were socialists", when the only correct statement is "look, all the worlds evil men were men".

have you read Mein Kampf by the way?

 

[moa]

Hitler and the Nazis original underpinnings was a Pan-German movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Hitler and the Nazis adopted socialistic platforms because that is what sold at time politically.

To upstage the Communists, they even highjacked the Red banner and stuck a swastika on it.

Other than all the socialist benefits that Hitler used to acquire support among the German masses was also the concept of national and Germanic pride, which at the time was a great attraction after the loss of WWI and the pillaging of Germany by the victors.

The Nazis also presented to the German masses, especially to the middle class, stability in era of close to 40 political parties, numerous strikes of all kinds, and significant political violence. The Nazis could eventually muster 4 million stormtroopers (SA).

I agree with ARperson.

 

[Orthonym]

It's collectivist vs. individualist!

And boy! were the Germans collectivists! Just look up any reference about WWII memorials. The Americans, British, French, Italians etc buried their dead soldiers in individual graves with individual headstones. The Germans went for mass graves and big lugubrious monuments.

 

[Dorrin79]

Orthonym -

Bingo!

the common point in Nazism, Socialism, Communism, Social Democracy, etc. isn't the specific policies or philosophical origins thereof, but rather the fact that all these systems of government are at the root collectivist

The opposite of collectivism is individualism, which this country was founded on (and to be fair, has been upheld to varying degrees in many other governments)

Most of the argument in this thread has been over semantics and origins - at the end of the day you have to look at the philosophical underpinnings - the core principles, if you will. When you do, you will see that there is very little difference between Nazism, Socialism, Communism, or any other collectivist, statist system.

 

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

Agricola:

Again, my point is that acceptance of an idea or statement doesn't require active affirmation, it requires only silent assent. The absence of any statements from leading proponents of socialist theory of the time opposing the Nazi's self-description of themselves as socialists is evidence that they accepted it as true.

Much better evidence that the Nazi's were not true socialists would be provided by quotes from leading socialists of the period arguing vociferously that the Nazis were not true socialists. Such proponents would have had a strong motive to maintain a preferred public perception of their political philosophy. Such opposing comments seem to be absent.

I'd like to see such quotes, i.e. statements denying the Nazi's were socialists, from these members of the socialist camp made prior to 1938.

 

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

Dorrin79:

Bingo!

the common point in Nazism, Socialism, Communism, Social Democracy, etc. isn't the specific policies or philosophical origins thereof, but rather the fact that all these systems of government are at the root collectivist

The opposite of collectivism is individualism, which this country was founded on (and to be fair, has been upheld to varying degrees in many other governments)

Most of the argument in this thread has been over semantics and origins - at the end of the day you have to look at the philosophical underpinnings - the core principles, if you will. When you do, you will see that there is very little difference between Nazism, Socialism, Communism, or any other collectivist, statist system.

Excellent post.

Collectivism, as embodied in Socialism/Nazi-ism, Communism, etc., seems to go hand-in-hand with the extremes of violence against a population as well.

 

[MeekandMild]

FYI Godwins Law is SATIRE, like the Ministry of Funny Walks and Vikings who sing about Spam.

 

[agricola]

coolhand,

Or you could just come out and say that you made it up... the "explanation" of yours is quite frankly laughable. Acceptance, of something as outrageous as that, requires public, vocal, approval, as anyone with an ounce of common sense knows.

for a start, the Nazis never styled themselves as "socialists" - they were always at pains to distance themselves from marxists / socialists / Democrats, as the series of posters below shows:

http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/posters1.htm

socialist opposed the Nazis and Fascists before the mainstream parties, including in the US, as this history of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade shows:

http://www.english.upenn.edu/~afilreis/88/abe-brigade.html

heres an article from the Daily Herald, which places Hitler squarely on the right:

The reactionary movements which flourish in Bavaria are at present not quite so formidable as appears on the surface. They are divided into various sections and they do not appear to agree well together. Nevertheless, here is a movement which may make trouble in the future. It is based on the old officers of the Prussian Army migrated to Bavaria and using the weakness of the peasant government in Munich to rally the impoverished middle classes and rentiers, ruined by the inflation, round the Pan-German Nationalist and anti-French flag. Their cry is "Down with the Socialist and Jewish towns of Northern Germany; Down with France." This philosophy is also the basis of the other forces of the Right in Bavaria, namely German Fascism. Herr Hitler has built up a force estimated at about 30,000 armed men, but he is keeping them in the background and is for the moment concentrating on trying to convert some of the less stable elements of the working classes in the Bavarian towns to his National Socialist programmes.

The Majority Social-Democrats in Munich with whom I have spoken tell me that they have to fight for their ordinary liberties and rights of propaganda just as under the Hohenzollem regime. Their newspapers are continually being suppressed by so-called police simply for publishing information about the illegal activities of Herr Hitler and his armed bands.

The Social-Democrats are, however, not without their means of defence. Not long before I was in Munich, there had been a parade of the Social-Democratic fighting organizations on the great Theresa meadow outside the town. Several thousand workers marched past with Red Flags. They were unarmed, but could defend themselves if need be. I had the impression that the industrial centres of Bavaria could, with the aid of the railwaymen, suppress a Hitler rising if they acted promptly.

heres part of a speech by Clement Attlee, later to become the first Labour Prime Minister (admittedly from 1940, but it shows his views):

Successful violence bred more violence. Ruthless cruelty became rampant. We are now faced with the danger of the world relapsing into barbarism. Nazism is the outstanding menace to civilisation, not only because of the character and actions of the men who are in absolute control of a great nation, but because of their ideas which are openly in conflict with all the conceptions upon which civilised life is based. They do not accept as valuable the virtues which are in this country accepted as desirable by all, even by those who honour them with very little in their actions.

Our Western civilisation has been built up in the main on the acceptance of the moral standards of Christianity. Even those who find themselves unable to accept Christian dogma accept in the main its ethical standards. In our everyday intercourse we assume that most men are honest, truthful and kindly, and in general we are not disappointed. We do not expect that we shall be violently attacked or maltreated by our neighbours. This mutual confidence is the foundation of a civilised peaceful life.

At no time in history have these standards been fully maintained in the relations between States. There have always been those who have been prepared to put apparent national interests before moral principles, but they have done it shamefacedly. Bad faith, lying and injustice have often marked international relations, but it has been left to the German
Government to make them its regular practice and to glory in them.

Similarly, there was formerly a definite world conscience which revolted against cruelty and atrocities. The wholesale
murder of innocent men, women and children was regarded as the mark of a barbarous people. Where such things happened under professedly civilised government there was an outcry in all countries, including the one whose government was responsible for the outrage. One can recall instances in our own history, such as the Amritsar massacre. Today in Germany, Czechoslovakia and Poland the German Government is indulging in wholesale massacre and torture of unoffending people. It not only admits it, it glories in it. At home and abroad, brutal cruelty is the mark of the Nazi regime.

It is essential to remember that civilisation takes long to build and is easily destroyed. Brutality is infectious. But there is something more than these outward expressions of the return to barbarism in the Nazi regime. There is a denial of the value of the individual. Christianity affirms the value of each individual soul. Nazism denies it. The individual is sacrificed to the idol of the German Leader, German State or the German race. The ordinary citizen is allowed to hear and think only as the rulers decree.

Here is testimony from a veteran of both the Spanish Civil War and the Second World War regarding his views on fascism:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/vote2001/in_depth/my_vote/john_dunlop.stm

Please try and stop inventing history.

 

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

Agricola:

coolhand,

Or you could just come out and say that you made it up... the "explanation" of yours is quite frankly laughable. Acceptance, of something as outrageous as that, requires public, vocal, approval, as anyone with an ounce of common sense knows.

for a start, the Nazis never styled themselves as "socialists" - they were always at pains to distance themselves from marxists / socialists / Democrats, as the series of posters below shows:

I'm dissapointd. I thought perhaps a reasoned, adult answer might make an impression on you.

Nothing shown in this thread indicates that the Nazi's distanced themselves from socialist theory, only that they repressed competing groups.

Distanced themselves from socialism, as evidenced in your mind perhaps by including "Socialist" in their party's name?

And how exactly does one go about "making up" another's lack of comment? The old Monty Python show was mentioned earlier in this thread, your concept seems taken straight from one of their sketches.

If you are going to show that socialists of the period did not accept the Nazi's self-description of themselves as socialists, then again, provide a quote or two from leading proponents of socialism from the 1920'3-30's denouncing the Nazi's. This thread has been up for several days now, you seem to be having difficulty finding any.

 

[agricola]

coolhand,

I would think that the good people here at THR would look at which of us has presented evidence, which have used facts in their case and decide accordingly. Certainly one side has refused to substantiate its allegations - indeed has tried to change a quite clear statement to mean something altogether ridiculous.

The evidence is there, posted for all to see - leading socialists in the UK, USA and across Europe fought against fascism and Nazism before it became cool to do so - indeed the US military coined the delightful phrase "premature antifascist" to describe them. German socialists and communists fought against the Nazis both before and after the seizure of power, and were imprisoned and executed for their pains.

Even in the UK, a man like Oswald Mosley (previously a Labour MP) was shunned by the entire socialist movement when he went over to create the British Union of Fascists - and there is far, far more in the Mosleyite platform that can genuinely be described as "socialist" than can ever be said of the Nazis.

Have you found the people who "universally accepted the nazis as socialists" yet?

 

[w4rma]

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Pastor Martin Niemöller
http://www.telisphere.com/~cearley/sean/camps/first.html

A big clue that the Nazis are/were not socialist are their first few targets for hate.

 

[moa]

"They call us barbarians. We are barbarians! It is an honorable title"

---- Adolf Hitler

I forget where this quote came from.

 

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

Ag:

Have you found the people who "universally accepted the nazis as socialists" yet?

You are deliberately feigning an understanding of my post contrary to that which I have gone to great lengths to explain to you as I would to an adult. My mistake.

Again, provide quotations from leading proponents of socialist theory of the 1920's and 30's condeming the Nazi's program as contrary to the tenets of socialist thought.

You might also ponder the differences between fascism and socialism before citing another supposed socialist opponent of the Nazis.