Many on the boards may remember an excellent debate called Was Adolf Hitler Politically Left Or Right?, Hitler: Politically Left Or Right? which actually won the 03-04 Category for Best History Topic and had our friend Wertz win Best Individually Researched Post. Well unfortunately i never got the chance to put in my two cents on that one but was inspired by a recent exchange in another topic.

KivrotHaTaavah


nighttimer


Now in attempt to put my own contentions into the debate and sway others from taking the other thread off topic, I want to create this new topic fashioned after the earlier one.

Question(s) for Debate:

1) What was the political leanings of Adolf Hitler, the Nazi Party, and National Socialism?

Question(s) for Debate:

1) What was the political leanings of Adolf Hitler, the Nazi Party, and National Socialism?



I think it's pretty well understood he was a fascist. Like they teach in poli-sci class, communism and fascism are closer than than they are far apart. Command economies, limited freedom, central command, etc.

The further you get away from extremism, the easier it is to tell what your leanings are.

1) What was the political leanings of Adolf Hitler, the Nazi Party, and National Socialism?

I agree with the idea that the political spectrum is basically circular in nature as it moves towards extremism it devolves into a type of monarchy/fuedalism.

My definitions and thoughts on it goes like this:

When we are talking political systems, and we have to divorce it somewhat from the visceral feelings about the evils that occur as soon as a system starts to completely de-evolve into a cult of personality of a type of monarchy.

Because of the evils that occur when the despot finally erases all checks and balances in whatever system they are working in- the words "socialist" and "fascist" cease to be a definition of an economic and political system, and becomes something, a boogeyman if you will, that is simply a curse word you hurl at someone when you are not debating anymore.

So, I like to actually define the system, before it becomes something you call someone instead of saying something bad about thier mother!

Okay- that being said- I think of socialism as this- workers eventually, in the ideal of the philosophy, control means of production, management has little control beyond administrative duties, but policy is decided by the rank and file producers of goods and services. It is centrally controlled, like federal control, over keeping management from exploiting the "employees"

Fascism, is the axial opposite. Management is under control, making benevolent good business decisions that is more eficient to the dynamics of the day to day needs of an economic system, because the managers are more informed of the overall systems instead of day to day operations.

Those are the ideals, that, of course, have never been achieved in either system- human beings are corruptable, so therefore, the system is corrupted.

When Lenin took over, he started some reforms in Soviet law, but achieved no real substansive case law whatsoever in the constitution or day to day management of the society- he died. Stalin took over. His great hero was ivan the terrible, and ruled under that model. Stalin never even tried any kind of socialism- he simply practices Czarism with different terms for the same thing- a serf farmer, laboring for the Czar on Czar lands at the Czars pleasure, now became a "collective farmer" that labored for stalin on stalin's lands at the Stalin's pleasure.

the only difference is that Stalin was an avid inustrialist- so he got that serf a tractor!

Believe it or not, Stalin was as brutal as several Czars- he didn't actually behave that for outside the norm for several Czars. Ivan the Terrible, Peter the Great, Catherine the Great, and a couple Nicholaus's- all had monster purges- Peter the Great "built St Petersburg on the bones of slaves"- English Horn may be even able to quote the exact phrase for me.

Now- Hitler- you almost have "two hitler goverments"- pre-1939 (I think I have the right year, I haven't looked it up in a while) and post 1939, there was a period where he approached true fascism, with the factory owners and such a type of "oligarchy" for a short time.

Then, as he siezed total control, he de-evolved into his own Monarchy- or Kaiser if you will- because his word was aboslute, just like a king, and he had favored advisors that administered goverment- just like kings before him.

So to me, Hitler, post 1939 was just another king, no different from other territory grabbing despots like Ghengis Khan, Attilla the Hun, etc etc.

So the real comparison is more towards an ancient empire, with industrialization to throw us off as a distraction, and more sophisticated propaganda that uses different terms- but, in actual practical terms and day to day living- you are living under the whim of a monarch. It is a command economy, led by a supreme monarch, emperor or Kaiser- whatever you want to call it.

Fascism, for the short time Germany actually lived it- is right wing, Socialism, as the early christian church practices it, was the only case of actual socialism that I have found- were it was actually practiced. It would be called left wing

So I think that Hitler, for a short time, flirted with fascism, before a quick devolvement into monarchy.

I am glad that you started a new history thread, Leder.

The (political) ideology of National Socialism was centered around the fact that the German "race", labelled as the Arian race, was superior to all other races in the world. This philosophy of a pure and superior race was used to legitimise the exploitation, torture and killing of people of different "races". This view was closely linked with the philosophy of extreme nationalism (with its racist and anti-semitic aspects) that flourished during the end of the 19th century. Another aspect of this philosophy was the fact that it placed group concerns above individual concerns and reject individualism. (One nation, one people, one will)

Besides nationalism, Nazism had incorporated some aspects of Sociaal-Darwinism (natural selection and the survival of the fittest principles). For Nazi's this implied that elimination of the socially weak, based on (pseudo-)scietifical and biological research data, was justified in order to purify the German "race".

In what way could National Socialism be seen as a form of Socialism? This has been a point of some discussion among scientists. Some belief that the influence of socialism can be seen in the economic policy of the NSDAP, which stressed anti-capitalism, a large welfare state and a strong grasp of goverment on economic issues. Besides that, Hitler, during a speech in 1922, stressed the point that Marx' class struggle was in essence the same as the Nazi's race struggle.

The views that link the Nazi-party with Socialism have been contested by numerous writers, scientists and modern socialists. First of all they point out that Hitler's comparison between race and class struggle is a false statement. The goal of the race struggle was not to divide the national wealth among the German people, but to subdue and eliminate non-German people. Its basic goal was to provide "Lebensraum" for the superior German "race", not social equality. They also point out to the fact that reference to socialism in National-Socialism was purely done for propagandistic reason to get more support for their party among the German people. The Nazi's had little or no socialistic ideals, which is illustrated by a letter of Otto Strasser(a socialistic nationalist) in " Der Nationale Sozialist" of july 4th 1930. In this letter he urges German socialists to leave the NSDAP. The anti-socialistic nature of the Nazi party is further illustrated by the fact that during the "Night of the Long Knives" in 1934, the leader of the "left" wing within the party, Ernest Rohm, was assasinated.

KivrotHaTaavah


KivrotHaTaavah, as you can read in my post it is inaccurate to simply equate Hitler with Socialism or "left"-wing political parties.

Editted to insert a link to Strasser's letter

phirst off let me quickly elaborate on the leanings of Stalin as a way to segue into those of Hitler.



Yet by all means Stalin was worse than any Czar, because, unlike the Czars, Stalin ruled directly over an entirely 'equal' (though some more than others) russian, belo-russian, etc. population. The Czars directed their mandates, military maneuvers, taxation and reform policys through the gentry, which was essentially an upper middle class bureaucracy. The serf reforms of the 1860's slowly eliminated this bureaucracy, the revolutions of 1917 finished it off, and left Lenin's successor, Stalin, with two traditions: 1.) the autocratic I-am-the-state tradition of Imperial Russia and 2.) the Soviet Union's urgent desire to transform itself into an the industrial superpower in which Marx envisioned his revolution. From that, Stalin's totalitarianism arose, coupled with an understandable fear of the outside world.

Ironically, I think Hitler follows a similar pattern: he drew from many traditions, replacing a Weimar government that was dislike by conservatives and monarchists, and also communists and Nazis. Above all, he stressed an extention of civil services and a renewed (rascist) nationalism. So, to align him with the left is to recognize the distopian centralization of his state, but to align him with the right is to recognize his nationalism as cruelly darwinian. Maybe by even comparing the two we are smearing conservatism and liberalism, potentially fine traditions in their own regard, with pessimistic warnings that all liberalism leads to bureaucracy-by-SS-troopers; and that all nationalism leads to some vague militaristic notion of the nation being placed over the very lives of its citizenry.

The real question is where you place either of these traditions over time- they seam to weave in and out like DNA strands. For example, prior to the 1840's nationalism was associated with the French Revolution, and I think Marx arguably drew a lot of his rhetoric of the masses from the echos of exactly that nationalist fervor.
And I think any one of us could point to an area where the two parties have quietly swapped roles since the 1980 election, for example, Barry Goldwater=Reagan=Bush=Bush, with issues get rolled around into new shapes like playdoh.

Renger:

My point was not to say that Hitler is the living embodiment of all things socialist, but only that his politics were of the left and not the right [to the extent that one can make a principled distinction in that regard, but more on this point below]. Fascism and Hitlerism are otherwise taught to our children as being of the right. That premise is, as stated, quite simply false. Both Mussolini and Hitler considered themselves socialists. If you or anyone else wishes to dispute their socialist credentials, fine by me, but please do not accomplish that disputation by placing those two over on the right with me. Thanks.

And "race" is otherwise no stranger to socialism, just ask all those Cham, Sino-Khmer, Viet-Khmer, Chinese, and Vietnamese who were residents of Kampuchea during the reign of Pol Pot & Co. Do you wish to claim that Pol Pot & Co. were not socialist? And, no, I am not saying that racism is an exclusive socialist phenomenon since, to take the same nation and people, the preceding rightist regime of Lon Nol was equally racist with regard to the Viet-Khmer and Vietnamese residents of Kampuchea. So racism is a human trait, and says nothing at all about whether one might otherwise be found on the left or the right.

And, again, my point was not that Hitler defines either socialism or the left, only that it is utterly false to claim that Hitler has anything whatsoever to do with the right. And if you check, you should find that the former USSR was the first voice claiming that Hitler was of the right. You can see why, i.e., maybe some, most, don't make the distinction re racism [that racism is a human trait not exclusive to either left or right], and so some, most, associate socialism and Hitler and then what does that say about the socialist USSR? That's why we have the false proganda and for a rather valuable lesson, simply note how effective that propaganda has proven to be. And, sorry, but I don't think that there is any legitimate debate. To give a similar circumstance, consider David Duke. He's on the right. But I don't think that the GOP letter to Duke asking him to reform his racist views changes the fact that David Duke is on the right. So too with the letter from the one German socialist that you noted. I believe that China and the USSR also had their differences, and eventually disowned each other, but that didn't make either government any more or less socialist in nature.

And regarding Ernst Rohm, he was purged, just as the cadre of the Eastern Zone, the North Zone, and the Northwest Zone were purged by the Central Zone [Pol Pot, Ieng Sary, Khieu Samphan, et al] and the Southwest Zone [Ta Mok et al.]. One of those purged was Hu Nim, who was one of the most recognized Khmer leftists, both before and after the CPK [Communist Party of Kampuchea] takeover of Kampuchea. Is your claim that because a known leftist was purged, that Pol Pot, Ieng Sary, Khieu Samphan, and Ta Mok were not leftist socialists themselves? If so, the claim is both false and absurd. So the fact that a German socialist said that some other[s] were not socialist does not mean that those other[s] were not socialist. They might simply have had a different vision of socialism, and so they were purged because the two competing brands of socialism were deemed irreconcilable and they were otherwise viewed as a danger to the supremacy of the one competing group. As I have already posted here by way of a link to an RJ Rummel article, the three broad strands of socialism are indeed mutually hostile, so no surprise that some socialists made war on some other socialists and, again, such war does not make them any less socialist. Sorry, one more. Ever hear of Trotsky? So those who wanted him dead were not socialists, is that the claim? Lastly re Ernst Rohm, sorry, but it was not his leftist ideals that killed him. Instead, Ernst Rohm was killed only because his SA was in competition with Hitler's wing of the Nazi Party, their visions were irreconcilable, and Hitler otherwise knew that the only threat to his vision of hegemony was Ernst Rohm and his SA.

And you wrote:

"In this letter he urges German socialists to leave the NSDAP."

What would socialists be doing in a party of the right? And it's socialists, plural, as opposed to the one, single, solitary, socialist who wrote the letter. What does that say about the socialism of the Nazi Party, that socialists were found members of the same?

Lastly, and again, the man himself, Hitler, said that he was a socialist. Why do you and some others ignore what the man claimed as his own political identity? Hitler was on the left, and his only rightist tendancy is that he was slightly to the right of communism. And to bring Rohm back into the discussion, wasn't it Rohm who spoke of a National Bolshevism? So Rohm was killed not because Hitler was on the right, but because Hitler the socialist was to the right of Rohm, the Bolshevist, and because Rohm represented a threat to Hitler. As Rohm himself wrote in a letter:

"Hitler can't walk over me as he might have done a year ago; I've seen to that. Don't forget that I have three million men, with every key position in the hands of my own people, Hitler knows that I have friends in the Reichswehr, you know! If Hitler is reasonable I shall settle the matter quietly; if he isn't I must be prepared to use force - not for my sake but for the sake of our revolution."

Oh, and go and learn what this means: Gemeinnutz vor eigennutz...

It means, common use before private use. That idea is not an idea of the right. But it was one of the slogans espoused by Hitler and the German leftists of his day. And so let me again report Hitler's own words:

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions..."

Nazism is simply a brand of leftist, racist, ideology. No more, and no less. And, yes, deny it you might like, but even leftists can be racists. As Prof. Antony Flew so aptly wrote:

"Many of his [historian George Watson's] findings are astonishing. Perhaps for readers today the most astonishing of all is that 'In the European century that began in the 1840s, from Engels' article of 1849 down to the death of Hitler, everyone who advocated genocide called himself a socialist and no conservative, liberal, anarchist or independent did anything of the kind.' (The term "genocide" in Watson's usage is not confined to the extermination only of races or of ethnic groups, but embraces also the liquidation of such other complete human categories as "enemies of the people" and "the Kulaks as a class.")"

And to again report on where the Big Lie originated, as Tom Wolfe wrote:

"Fascism' was, in fact, a Marxist coinage. Marxists borrowed the name of Mussolini's Italian party, the Fascisti, and applied it to Hitler's Nazis, adroitly papering over the fact that the Nazis, like Marxism's standard-bearers, the Soviet Communists, were revolutionary socialists. In fact, 'Nazi' was (most annoyingly) shorthand for the National Socialist German Workers' Party. European Marxists successfully put over the idea that Nazism was the brutal, decadent last gasp of 'capitalism.'"

And so there is no reasonable dispute, from Hitler's My Struggle [Mein Kampf]:

"The bourgeois is about to leave the historical stage. In its place will come the class of productive workers, the working class, that has been up until today oppressed. It is beginning to fulfill its political mission. It is involved in a hard and bitter struggle for political power as it seeks to become part of the national organism. The battle began in the economic realm; it will finish in the political. It is not merely a matter of pay, not only a matter of the number of hours worked in a day-though we may never forget that these are an essential, perhaps even the most significant part of the socialist platform-but it is much more a matter of incorporating a powerful and responsible class in the state, perhaps even to make it the dominant force in the future politics of the Fatherland."

Sorry, Renger, but Hitler was not of the right, but of the left. Again, I did not say that Hitler defines the left, but he was certainly not the rightist that more than a few leftists so falsely and maliciously claim him to have been.



drewyorktimes:

No, you are incorrect. Nationalism is also not a rightist trait. Just ask those who ran purportedly Democratic Kampuchea. Very few have been more national than they. And they who ran DK were patently leftist, and speaking of things "cruelly Darwinian," please see my avatar, in my signature line below, and then simply consider that few have been more "cruelly Darwinian" than those socialist leftists who ran Democratic Kampuchea.

Let me leave you with a brief glimpse of their nationalism, from the Communist Party of Kampuchea's annotated party history:

"On the party's ninth anniversary, all committee members must compete to:

--combat the external enemy, the imperialists, above all the American imperialists and their lackeys THIEU [and] KY, THANOM [and] PRAPHAT the aggressor pirates; combat the traitors LON NOL, SIRIK MATAK, CHENG HENG, IN TAM and SON NGOC THANH, who are selling our country and our people...."

Selling our country and our people.........to whom? To those American imperialists, the external enemy? So, being sold out by one's own to imperialist foreigners. It doesn't get any more nationalist than that. So socialists can be rather rabid nationalists, lethally so.

And though I have already reported above that racism and nationalism are not a left or right phenomenon, please note the rather apt comparison, i.e., Lon Nol and Sirik Matak selling out their fellow Khmer to foreigners, with Hitler's claim that the Jews had sold out Germany to foreigners.

And then consider the purge of all of those DK cadre who had links to the Vietnamese Communist Party. Was their Vietnamese-influenced communism/socialism not pure enough and so they just had to be purged? Or were they national traitors via their association with the dreaded Vietnamese? Re the purge of the Eastern Zone by the Central and Southwest Zones, the self-professed socialist named Michael Vickery writes, in his Cambodia 1975-1982:

"Yet the purge was by far the most violent event of the entire DK period. The reason given by the DK authorities is unambiguous. It was not incompetence or mistreatment of the population, but treason, and moreover treason in favor of Vietnam, the most heinous of all treasons."

So, again, even leftist socialists can be blind nationalists who kill and devour their own, believing them to be traitors to the nation. And that's what some, Renger, choose to deny. That's the only reason why the matter has any import at all, since as I've said, nationalism and racism otherwise know no political creed. But since some apparently cannot accept the notion that a socialist can be a racist nationalist, they must deny that a socialist ever was any such thing. And so they claim the souls in question to be "rightist." Sorry, but that won't work with those who ran Democratic Kampuchea, since they were in fact socialists who wrote, in their official organ, Revolutionary Flags, of their dictatorship of the proletariat and their clash with the capitalist and other various oppressing classes. From Revolutionary Flags, special issue, Sept-Oct. 1976:

"I. CONCERNING SOCIALIST REVOLUTION IN EVERY AREA

AIM

To grasp the correct traits of the Socialist Revolution which stands on class struggle between the proletarian and capitalist classes; between the proletarian class and various oppressing classes; between the collective property of the proletarian class and the individual property of the various oppressing classes; between the socialized goods and the individual ones. Based on this understanding, we seek to build our party, our cadre and our party members continually struggling to destroy and extirpate the traits specific to the capitalist class, and the traits specific to the various oppressing classes..."

Now note that they got right what Hitler got wrong, i.e., class struggle and not race struggle. Maybe Renger and some others might wish to explain just how Democratic Kampuchea stands as some more superior example or model than does Hitler's Germany.

Lastly, I could care less about the timing of the tradition. I simply look to the results of the ideology in practice. What does one say of the former USSR and the gulags and the murder? What does one say of the death of millions upon millions of Chinese under the dictatorship of Mao? What does one say of DK? The one thing that we can say about all of those regimes is simply that their wake is marked by a rather stark horror.

Sorry, one more. Hitler was not even a nationalist. The Aryan race is not synonomous with Germany and Germans, but embraces Austrians, etc. So by "nationalist" Hitler did not mean Germany and Germans, but the Aryan race. That was the essence of Hitler's nationalism.

I want to thank KivrotHaTaavah for his contribution because it was both insightful and I tend to agree with most if it. However, what I do disagree with is that Hitler had little elements of the right. In my view, Hitler borrowed from both the left and the right in order to achieve political supremacy.

The tenets of National Socialism most certainly have many of the qualities of true socialism including centralized power, a command economy, and social programs (which in this case were aimed specifically for the Aryan Race). It also has many facets of a fascist government. What this truly implicates is that the difference between fascism and socialism are null. They are basically two sides of the same coin....different means to the same ends. While on the one hand many on the left like to propose socialism as a means for social justice and equality, the other hand of fascism tries to accomplish the same goals or their own percpetion of those goals. Both forms of government eventually lead to the manifestation of power in a central body and the creation of tyranny. This is because despite any intentions for good, centralized power is bound to fall into the wrong hands eventually.

This puts things in perspective when discussing the entire political spectrum. In my mind, there is no right v left but rather collectivism v liberalism. Fascism, socialism, communism all fall under the umbrella of collectivism while democracy and republican ideals fall under liberalism.

Now many may contend that this is wrong based on the fact that Hitler hated communists and that the Nazis fought the Soviet Union. But this argument is flawed. Nazis, socialists, and communists fought for power, for prominence. Its the same reason different forms of communists (Maoists, Marxists, Trotskyists) fought for power in Latin American revolutions. To many, it would appear that their main principles are not all that different. And its true. But the tiny differences that seperate the groups equal a vying for power.

So to conclude my views on the matter, the left and the right can fight all day over whether Hitler was a fascist or a socialist but that point is mute because fascism and socialism is essentially the same. The means may differ as well as the goals...but the end remains tyranny.

First off KivrotHaTavaah I would like to point out that I never said that the political ideology of Hitler or his Nazi party were "right-wing" or right-wing inspired in the modern sense of the word. I only tried to explain what the basic principles were of the Nazi's during the 30's and 40's and tried to explain that it has little to do with Socialism, eventhough the term Social-Nationalistic German Workers Party implies this connection.

As a matter of fact I do not and will not compare the Nazi's with any modern day political party. Such a comparison will result in anachronisms, which should be avoided in any historical analysis / debate.

So what were the beliefs of Hitler?

Already during his stay in Vienna (1907 - 1913) Hitler developed his ideological principles: antisemitism, antiparlementism and nationalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler

During WWI he served in the German army and received some decorations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler

Hitler, like many German conservatists, nationalists and ex-military leaders, was a strong believer of the Dolchstosslegende after the defeat of Germany in 1918 and the signing of the Treaty of Versailles.

After WWI Hitler remained in the army, which was mainly engaged in suppressing communist uprisings that broke out in different parts of Germany.

In 1919 Hitler became active as a political officer in the Bavarian Reichswehr Group. A key purpose of this group was to create a scapegoat for the outbreak of the war and Germany’s defeat. Hitlers task was to lecture soldiers, who fought during WWI, on politics and blamed ‘international Jewry’, communists and politicians of the parties of the Weimar Coalition (Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD), German Democratic Party (DDP) and the Catholic Center Party).

As you can see for yourself up to this point Hitler was not influenced by Socialism, but by nationalistic, conservative and antisemitic ideas of right-wing groups within the German army.

The connection between Hitler and a 'socialistic' political party happened in 1919 / 1920 when he was appointed as a Verbindungsmann (police spy) of an Aufklärungskommando (Intelligence Commando) of the Reichswehr, for the purpose of influencing other soldiers toward similar ideas and was assigned to infiltrate a small party, the German Workers' Party (DAP), which was thought of to be a possible socialist party.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler

It was during his first years in this party that he began to show his famous oratory skills. Hitler gained notoriety outside of the Party for his rowdy, polemic speeches against the Treaty of Versailles, rival politicians (including monarchists, nationalists and other non-internationalist socialists) and especially against Marxists and Jews. During these years the DAP also became infiltrated by many German nationalists (including many conservative and nationalistic ex-army officers) who shared Hitlers views. Because of this influx of nationalists Hitler was able to overtake the DAP and got appointed as Fuhrer on july 29th 1921. He also renamed the party; the DAP became the NSDAP. Because of his 'beer hall oratory', his antisemitism and his attacks upon social-democrats, socialists, liberals, monarchists, capitalists and communists Hitler attracted many adherents.

His leadership of the NSDAP, his agitation against the ruling parties and his antisemitism was the basis upon which he would later rise to become the leader of Germany.

Hitler was a populist, who took advantage of the political crisis in the Weimar Republic in order to gain political power. He was not influenced by Marxists / socialistic or liberal ideals (although he used some of their views as propaganda to inprove his popularity), but by the conservative, nationalistic and antisemitic ideas of frustrated soldiers and officers within the German army. He did not start a socialistic party, but misused the small national-socialistic party of the DAP as a springboard to jump to political power.

As I said before KivrotHatavaah, placing Hitler on the left-side of the political spectrum (as you so eagerly try to do) will lead to misconceptions (especially when you do not provide clear definition of what you think is left). The same applies if you try to place him on the right-side. Besides that using such concepts can lead to anachronistic views. Modern day (U.S.) definitions of Left and Right are not the same as German definitions during the interbellum. Even today definitions of 'left-wing' and 'right-wing' parties can differ per country, i.e. the Democrats are labelled left-wing in the U.S., but in Holland we would consider this Party as somewhere on the right side of the political spectrum.

In short I agree with Drewyorktimes when he wrote:

Personally, I've already answered this question and see no reason to return to repeat or expand upon it.

Attempting to evaluate Hitler's political leanings to claim he was a "liberal" or "conservative" is about as futile as trying to nail Jell-O to the ceiling. And pretty much as productive. But what the heck? Let's see if there's any entertainment value to the question.

I posted on Yahoo! Answers the question What was Adolf Hitler's political philosophy?. I got 19 replies. Some useful, most not and one that was pretty creepy.

"Kill and let Kill"

"Hitler was satans Child. and a liberal."

"He is a Nazi, a type of Socialist."

"He was neither liberal nor conservative, he was a totalitarian fascist. There are other categories out there than liberal and conservative. But if I had to choose one of the two he's be a classical conservative."

"He would be considered ULTRA conservative and he was an absolutist all or nothing."

"Hitler was a socialist. You will find many Liberals are socialist, but the definition of liberal and conservative makes this comparison meaningless. Liberal and conservative are only political labels when referencing a current political system. He would have been considered liberal in America, but conservative in the Soviet Union. Liberal in France, but conservative in Cuba. It all depends on what your base reference is."

"Hitler was a National Socialist, nicknamed Nazis."

"The same as Bush´s political philosophy."'

"Nazism was controlled by Satanists, who stayed behind the scenes. The swastika was the symbol of the Wheel of LIfe turned backward. It was an attack on all of humanity."

Most of the answers were probably comparable to what one could expect from a World History 101 class. They seemed to know enough to form an opinon, though most were pretty shallow and not very well thought-out or reasoned.

This response was. It was also the one that creeped me out the most.

Adolf Hitler's political philosophy was very simple and perhaps the most efficient one which is completely universal.

During this time, the Jews were sreading all over, or you can say they migrated to many countries. When Adolf Hitler entered politics, he had to do something to earn fame and power. Thus, he played a political trick which was a severe blow to Judaism and it's people, the Jews. Hitler warned that these aliens which belong to a different religion are taking over Germany and will soon destroy the true identity of the country.
The second plan in Hitler's mind was to seek revenge from the west which according to him was the only cause for the sad state of Germany. The Germans supported him naturally.

This is also similar to the migration problem in the USA by the Mexicans and Indians who are better workers and as well as very hard-working, both mentaly and physically. At one period of time or even till now most americans fear that these people will snatch all the opportunity from them and they will come in power.

In most cases Adolf Hitler had many good qualities in him. He was very logical and just. He gave the highest places to Scientists, Business people who contributed for the development of Germany and as well as the common citizens of Germany. The Children and Women were given top most attention in the areas of education, health, rights etc etc. The German V2 rockets, The Hindenburg are some examples to name a few.

In all conclusions, Adolf Hitler was a good man who was angered by both revenge and Jewish migration.

Brrrr....

To be honest Leder I think your arguments, as stated above, are completely flawed.

First of all your view that the difference between fascism and socialism are null is absurd.
Just look at what Mussolini, maybe the most famous fascist to date, had to say about this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

The fact that fascism was opposite to socialism is further illustrated by the fact that that during '20s and '30s of the 20th century numerous aristocrats, conservative intellectuals, capitalists and industrialists supported the fascistic movement and were eager to crush the socialistic movements that swept across Europe. Hitler and his ideas also belonged to this category.

Secondly, republican ideals do not fall specifically under liberalism or did you forget all those anti-liberal nations like the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), People's Republic of China or the Democratic People's Republic of Korea? A republic is a form of government and has nothing to do with political ideologies like liberalism, conservatism, socialism or communism. As a matter of fact it doesn't even have anything to do with democracy.

Thirdly, a centralized government will not inevitably lead to tyranny. A lot of European countries have strong centralized governments and, as should be common knowledge, are not tyrannical states. Centralized governments have the ability to solve difficult problems like social/economic inequalities and are (as seen in Europe) an important factor in creating universal healtcare and welfare. Your view that central governments will eventually and inevitably fall in the wrong hands and result in tyranny, makes as much sense as saying that a weak, decentralized government will eventually lead to anarchy.

Fourthly, I have the strong feeling that you only associate the word socialism with tyrannical countries like the former USSR, China and Korea to proove you point. But in case you conveniently forgot socialism is also an intricate element of many democratic countries in Europe. Socialistic parties and organisations fought for voting rights for women, fought for a decent universal healthcare for everyone, made sure every kid has the opportunity to go to high schools and colleges etc etc etc etc etc. To simply equate socialism with fascism and tyranny is highly inaccurate.

What you should have said is that there is a big difference between dictatorial nations and democratic nations, instead of completely trashing a political ideology like socialism. Political ideologies in a country ruled by an oligarchy monarch or dictator tends to get abused and corrupted in a very negative way. This applies to the USSR under Stalin, China under Mao, Korea under Kim il Sung, Spain under Franco, Italy under Mussolini, Germany under Hitler. These same ideologies within a democratic framework will evolve in a different way. Parties with these ideologies will do their best in creating a better, healthier and free democratic society.

I think i already illustrated why this was. Power. Two sides of the same coin. Socialism can be considered a left wing collectivist ideology while fascism a right wing collectivist ideology. Where the power is focused in the government. Whenever power is so centralized, it doesnt matter what you call it because its fundamentally tyranny. Individualism is the ideology that is on the opposite side of both fascism and socialism.


Right you are. There can be a tyrannical republic and a despotic democracy. However, these forms of government are the means to an ends (liberalism). Protection of individual rights is most prominent in these forms of government as power is dispersed among the people instead of being concentrated.



Is it not logical to say that when power is concentrated in a central government that the individual choices made by the people will be hindered? If an arbitrary power in government is making all the decisions, then obviously the individual is left with none. Freedom is about choice and responsibility. When you take that away, there is tyranny. Whether or not that tyranny is benevolent is another matter. A monarch in the Middle Ages could have been a very compassionate and caring despot...but a despot nonetheless.



Social Democracy in Europe is an attempt to mend the concepts of socialism and democracy, now labeled "the welfare state." Ill agree that the countries in Europe are not tyrannical but i would also argue that they are not socialist in the historical sense of the word. Thats not to say that certain groups aren't trying. Further, i am not discounting the intentions of many socialist parties, but i find their intentions naive. Socialism implies centralization and economic control where a single body makes arbitrary decisions about what is good for the populace in order to bring about a certain social justice. However these concepts are obviously subjective which means someone with power must make moral decisions for others. If i make a run to the market and want to buy a gallon of milk, perhaps there is a law that states the store can only sell quarts of milk. You and others may see this as just since it allows more people to buy a limited supply of milk. But on the same token, its a denial of liberty and when you translate these policies to every aspect of the economic and social fabric of a nation...there is a loss of freedom and tyranny.


Well it is my belief that true socialism and every other collectivist ideology is dictatorial. Individualism is the only check on the power of government and tyranny.

I think your view is still inaccurate and simplistic. The historical context in which ideologies like fascism and socialism are grounded are more complex. You can argue that socialism = collectivism = tyranny all day, but then you are forgetting under which appaling conditions people (men, women and children) had to work in 19th / early 20th century industrial complexes. You are also forgetting the fact that socialism formed the basis of the liberalisation of the poor and oppressed working force and created fundaments on which modern day democratic societies rest. Liberty isn't so nice if you have to work like a slave so you can just barely stay alive, liberty isn't so nice if you do not have the right to vote. The emancipation of the working class (through collective actions) has paved the way to liberty and participation for all the people in society, not just the rich and mighty. The fact that some took on extreme forms and eventually lead to tyranny (like the former USSR) does not minimise the importance of socialism in liberating the ordinary, working class people from the oppressive rule of the capitalists and industrialists.

True liberty and individualism could only occur after socialism freed the working class from the yoke of the industrialists and capitalists. Evidently this is a historical fact that you conveniently leave out of the equation in order to proove your point.

Again, as I told you before, the fact that fascism was supported by aristocracy, conservative intellectuals, capitalists and industrialists (the old ruling elite that had oppressed the working class for so long in order to enrich themselves even more) is a clear indication that this ideology was founded as a reaction against socialism. You can try and sqeeze fascism into the same category as socialism but that doesn't change the clear fact that they are fundamentaly different ideologies.

As I showed before the fascist leader Mussolini had no sympathy with socialism. Hitler, who was a from the middle class family and was mainly influenced by conservative nationalistic and anti-semitic groups within the German army, also had little sympathy with the emancipation struggle of the poor working class.



No that is not logical. If a nation is founded on strong democratic principles, with a proper system of democratic checks and balances, a central government will not lead to hindrance of individual choices. A strong central government and liberty do not exclude eachother. (I will once again refer to my own little country Holland, or perhaps a bigger country like France or Germany.) You are looking at this from a very black-and-white perception.



No, what you do not realise is that an ideology like socialism in a democratic society is differently than socialism used by a dictatorial regime. Socialistic parties in European democratic societies still uphold their basic social principles. (social equality (between men and women, the rich and the poor), universal healthcare and welfare, and in general support a strong government that makes sure these changes can be realized). There is nothing inherently evil or fundamentaly wrong about this Leder, it does not severly impose restrictions on personal liberty as you try to proove. What it is, it is just a different way of solving the problems that have risen in society. You think that personal liberty is the only solution to improve society, and you (like many Americans) despise too much governmental involvement. I do not see it that way. I think a strong democratically elected government is better able to protect the the economically and socially weak within society and fight social inequalities. I also cherish individual liberties, but I also have the opinion that too much focus on individualism can have a destabilizing effect on society. (it can create a "me, me, me, me, don't bother with the rest" mentality)



Well and it is my belief, which is grounded in a historical reality, that socialism (collectivism) has paved the way for individualism.

I find it fitting that my 1000th post here at would be in this topic. Renger, i understand that you have listed yourself as a socialist and I respect that. I mean no disrespect in my views towards yours but I simply framing the situation the way that I see things just as you are doing with your beliefs.


I do not see what one thing has to do with the other unless you are making the argument that the ends justify the means in the sense that in order to counteract the horrible conditions of the 19th and earl 20th centuries that certain individual liberties needed to be given up. I am not disputing the conditions in the factories and that there was exploitation going on...but the remedy to that was not socialist programs but a respect for the rule of law and individual rights.



I wouldn't so much call it a fact as i would a falsehood. No government in odern times has ever confined itself to the "individualist minimum" as many have made provisions for the poor, the ill, and the weak... and there is nothing wrong with that. There is a line however of how much the government should decide for my life. I can't speak intelligently about the history of your country and a few other European histories but to use the United States as an example, one can see how the labor unions in this country have grown weak and impotent. And this is not due to corporate power squashing unions, it is because the individual workers choose not to participate in the unions because the corporations are treating them fairly. It is in the interest of the employer to have healthy, productive employees. Numerous studies have been done on the subject that support the argument that when an employer treats its workers with respect and dignity that production levels rise. This is a situation where it is in the individual interest of the employer to treat his/her workers well if for no other reason than greed. And if those workers are treated poorly, they now have numerous legal avenues to take as well as the option of quiting and moving on.


Well to address the latter part of the sentence, individual liberty implies the right to vote and the right to a say in government. In the case of the former, Ill agree that life situations are not always fair. But what exactly is fair? Is that not a subjective moral decision? Is it fair to rob Peter to pay Paul? If i work my whole life and make a decent wage and another gentlement works just as hard but doesn't have as much to show for it...is it fair to take from my wages and give to him? Would that be a promotion of social justice?


Emancipation is a funny word used in this context. If we are discussing the traditional system of socialism then it is almost comical. However, under the assumption we are talking about the modern welfare state, then there is just a blatant misconception of what liberty actually is. Liberty implies freedom from coercion. The ability to carry out my will instead of the will of another. Socialism demands freedom from want, hunger, or need, and that collective efforts should be put towards that goal. However, in order to achieve that is ultimately necessary to sacrifice individual liberty. Income redistribution and government control of the economy are examples.



Well the basis for nations such as the Soviet Union, Mao's China, and Nazi Germany were to bring about more social justice for the very people you speak. Hitler played on the racist sentiments of a poor nation and promised to bring about what he and other Nazis saw was justice. The Jews were ruining the country and the only way to stop them was to grant government the power to do what needed to be done. The democratic process is too slow and inefficient to do what the Nazis wanted to bring about. This situation is much more difficult in a nation devoted to individual liberty where the powers of government are dispersed among bureacracy and the people. When the people hold the government accountable for their actions and have say over what functions a government may have, then the opportunity for despots to gain power is low.



Once again i would find your definition of historical fact to be incorrect. But both of our assumptions once again rest on different concepts of freedom and liberty. I do not understand how you can say true individualism can only be achieved through collectivist efforts...seems to be an obvious contradiction.

Collectivism



So if my individual goals are in conflict with the feelings of society, would not government's coercive powers need to be used to stop me? To quote George Orwell who can be found on that very wikipedia entry: "It cannot be said too often - at any rate, it is not being said nearly often enough - that collectivism is not inherently democratic, but, on the contrary, gives to a tyrannical minority such powers as the Spanish Inquisitors never dreamt of."



No. They are different means to the same ends. Socialism implies that the poor, working class of the populace use government's coercive powers to bring about justice. Fascism is the same thing except that it is supported by the upper classes as your mentioned. Both ideologies are of a collectivist nature that want to use the power of government to bring about their own moral goals. Just because the two groups are opposed in their ultimate beliefs of what they want to achieve does not take away from the fact that they plan on using the same methods to coerce people into following their beliefs.



Just as many socialists have no sympathy or regard for the middle and upper classes. Again, what connects socialism and fascism is the fact that they both involve government empowerment over that of the individual. Socialist and fascist goals can only be achieved by disregarding liberty.



I am agreeing with you. Democratic checks and balances implies a dispersion of power. The strength of the central government obviously is not very strong if it is hindered by seperation of powers, checks and balances, and in certain systems federalism. When i say central government i mean the true essence of the word, government control.


If you reread my previous post you will see that I do not deny the intentions of those who want to bring about social justice. I disapprove of the methods that are used to bring socialism to reality. You see nothing wrong with taking money that one individual made and giving it to someone else who did nothing to earn it. I think there is somethin wrong with that. Why should I have to pay for the healthcare and welfare of others? Should that not be a decision i could make privately with charitable donations? Yes it could, but what if I choose not to donate...then obviously i must be forced to.



Just saying your argument is grounded in historical reality doesn't make it so.

First off, Leder congratulations with your 1000th post, it is a milestone, may many posts follow.

I read your post and had the feeling we are getting completely off-topic here. Although I would gladly discuss our different political views and ideals, I suggest we start another thread. In the mean time, before the watchfull eye of Jaime finds out that we digress too much from the topic at hand, I would like to get back to the questions that started this history thread.

What were the political leanings of Hitler and his Nazi's?

In answering this question we should try to avoid our modern day perceptions about politics and try to place Hitler and his ideologies within an objective historical context. (one of the first things I learned during my History study).

In order to get a good understanding of this historical context (which is of course a European/German context in this regard), we need to look at the cultural / political developments that preceded the rise of Hitler. If we look at European developments during the early 20th century, the rise of socialistic movements, with its Unions is a conspicuous element. This is why I brought socialism to the forefront in this debate and (as I will explain later on) why I challenged your assertions.

In order to understand the historical reality of 20th century Europe politics we need to take some time to analyse socialism so that we can form an objective, realistic opinion. In order to do so we should ask ourselves a few questions: When did socialism came into existence? Why was it so popular? How did it develop itself? What influence did it have on society?

The term socialism was first used in the context of early 19th century Western European critics who attacked the social inequalities which were partly a result of the ongoing industralisation. In 1848 Europe witnessed its first social movement. Its main goal was improving the social position of the working class, but the method to do so divided its members. Some believed that extinction of private employers was the only solution (Socialism), others believed that bargaining with employers could produce better results (Trade unionism). Although the social movement could not effect a social revolution and was internally divided, it was strong enough to terrify the possessing (upper and middle) classes.

After the faillure of 1848 the workers movement fell apart. Unionists and Socialists (strongly influenced by Marx's ideas) each followed their own way for a while.

It was only in the last decades of the 19th century that both movements would again unify themselves. In the 80's, after Socialists had begun founding political parties in order to have more chance of promoting their cause. Because of the rapid growth and succes of these parties, their revolutionary Marxian view of Socialism turned into a less revolutionary 'parliamentary socialism". * It was this change of view that allowed the political (intellectual) Socialists to reconnect themselves with the Unionists and its members.

*(as a sidenote the only party that did not follow this path was the Russian Socialistic Party, since Russia did not have a parliamentary government).

Under the influence of revisionists like the French socialist Jean Jaures and the German socialist Bernstein, most socialists and social-democrats began to part from the old Marxian views and began to lay the foundations of a new and realistic socialist movement.

Palmer & Colton, A History of the Modern World, 623, 624.

The introduction of this new socialist ideology lead to a fracturing of the old socialist movement. The really revolutionary spirits accused the members of this new direction as opportunists and founded their own fraction based on revolutionary syndicalism. The Orthodox Marxists tried to revive the old Marxist principles and accused the democratic socialist of betrayers for petty bourgeois ends. Under the guidance of Lenin they formed a group of uncompromising Marxists, known as Bolsheviks.

At the beginning of the 20th century Socialism was divided in three different movements. The Social-Democratic movement was strongest in industrialized democratic countries like Germany and France. The Syndicalists found their supporters in European countries that lacked a strong labour unions, like Italy and Spain, while the Bolsheviks / Orthodox Socialists were infuential in countries who lacked parliamentary institutions, like Russia.

--- As a sidenote ---

Socialism is often misunderstood by a lot of people. In your posts you also showed a lack of understanding the complexities and diversities of this political ideology. Only one movement of socialism (the Marxism-Leninism / Bolshevism branch) has upheld the idea of violent social revolution and dictatorship of the proletariat. (Stalinism (USSR) and Maoism (China) are products of this view and have lead to awful totalinarian regimes). In Europe after WWI mainly the social-democratic ideas influenced the socialist movement. It is this movement I talked about in my previous posts. It is this branch that emancipated, via democratic ways, the working class and paved the path to modern day (European) individualism. It was through their collective efforts and pressure that universal suffrage (for men and women) came into existence, that important basic rights for the working class were introduced (like social insurance, factory regulation, minimum wages or maximum hours). These important changes are still the foundation upon which modern day liberal (Western) European societies rest.

---------------------------------

As I argued before there is no connection with Hitler's ideology and the socialist movement of Germany during the interbellum. I am not the only one with this argument, as a matter of fact it is widely held by the historical community.

Hitler did not followed a socialist ideology, but followed some type of radicalism which had many similarities with ideologies of frustrated 'right-wing' army officers of that time. His antipathy towards socialistic and democratic ideals are well known. Hitlers radical ideologies would later turn into totalitarianism.



Totalitarianism was a distinct and new philosophy that appeared after WWI, that drew heavily upon historical nationalism and displays an anti-democratic nature. It cannot be compared to conservative, liberal and socialist parties because in general they had all accepted democracy and worked within this playingfield to securing their specific goals.* Mussolini's fascistic movement and Hitler's Nazi party both destroyed the democratic constitution of their countries and both imposed their will (as self-proclaimed absolute leaders) upon the population. Totalitarianism can not be connected to a specific democratic political leaning, whether it is left or right. Every political ideology that has embraced democratic values (whether it is collectivistic or liberal in nature) are opposed to this ideology.

(* The fact that Russian Bolsheviks adopted a totalitarian regime will not disprove this point. Russia never developped a strong democratic political structure and was thus susceptible for totalitarian ideas)