To celebrate the attempt to end the worst tenure of any modern German leader, I shall address a few misconceptions and myths about Hitler and the Nazis that seem to pervade the discussion of both:
False. This gets tossed around a lot, and there are a few specific variations on it regarding German economic recovery after the Great Depression and Germany’s ability to dominate the continent militarily at least for a few years which I’ll address in depth below.
The premise gets a number of other things wrong. For one, people seem to forget that Jews weren’t the only targets of the Nazi regime, and not actually the first to be interned in concentration camps. Dachau, the first concentration camp to be set up by the Nazis, contained political prisoners before any others, and while it’s true that Jews were singled out and received the brunt of persecution, some people conveniently forget the first few lines of Niemöller’s poem:
Hitler cemented his power after the Enabling Act of 1933 by systematically rooting out the leftist opposition to the Nazis, a process historians refer to as the “Gleichschaltung” as it sought to bring all aspects of society in line with Nazi ideology, starting with political parties and going on to smash trade unions, pressuring the churches to not get involved (or outright interning members of certain sects such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses), nationalizing of or swapping editors in the media, and creating an indoctrination system for children by making Hitler Youth membership mandatory and establishing Napola schools. Hitler’s persecution was by no means limited to Jews and had a negative impact on German society as a whole, though some more than others.
Secondly, there is an unhealthy infatuation with the alleged efficiency of dictatorial regimes (because they supposedly do away with the “waste of time” that parliamentary debate is). They are not, as NiS and I have explained elsewhere. The Nazis are a fairly decent example of this in practice. Hitler believed in “social Darwinism”, the philosophy that “survival of the fittest” should be applied to human society and that the strong dominating and exterminating the weak leads to the most efficient society and applied this to German society as well as his party and government.
The application thereof in the Nazi party is best demonstrated by the setting up of rival “security” services, namely the Sturmabteilung (SA) and the Schutzstaffel (SS). Both were militant organizations of the party intended to intimidate opposition through terror and violence. Both ended up competing for the same essential function, a conflict that was resolved (with Hitler’s blessing) via the Röhm Putsch: The SS interned and/or liquidated SA leadership in a concerted action and eliminated the SA as a competitor, ending Ernst Röhm’s dreams of replacing the Wehrmacht with the SA entirely. The SS would later go on to create a complementary military, the Waffen-SS, and squabbled with the Wehrmacht for recruits and resources, culminating in Heinrich Himmler claiming all foreign volunteers (and conscripts).
Hitler’s government was similar. He let his underlings compete for his favor, best demonstrated by Hermann Göring, the Commander-in-Chief of the German Luftwaffe and later Reichsmarschall. Göring jealously guarded his pet project of the Luftwaffe to the detriment of other ministries, the Wehrmacht, and the SS. While setting up the Luftwaffe during rearmament, he engaged in financing and industrial projects counter to the policies of the Economics ministry under Hjalmar Schacht, culminating in the latter’s resignation. He also removed competitors for authority by implicating them in scandals (Blomberg-Fritsch affair), freeing himself up from potential oversight. Once in charge of running the Luftwaffe, Göring successfully redirected equipment and manpower to the detriment of the Heer and later Waffen-SS. In fact, Göring managed to incorporate the paratroops (Fallschirmjäger) into the Luftwaffe rather than the Heer, going so far as to have an entire armored corps along with a paratrooper-Panzergrenadier division by the end of the war. At a time when airborne operations were impossible for the Luftwaffe, Hermann Göring succeeded in diverting necessary resources to his Luftwaffe because of his close relationship with Hitler. While this is the most glaring example, it’s representative of the endemic competition and subsequent waste of resources in Hitler’s regime.
So no, Hitler was not a good leader even if you ignore the holocaust.
The premise gets a number of other things wrong. For one, people seem to forget that Jews weren’t the only targets of the Nazi regime, and not actually the first to be interned in concentration camps. Dachau, the first concentration camp to be set up by the Nazis, contained political prisoners before any others, and while it’s true that Jews were singled out and received the brunt of persecution, some people conveniently forget the first few lines of Niemöller’s poem:
First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Hitler cemented his power after the Enabling Act of 1933 by systematically rooting out the leftist opposition to the Nazis, a process historians refer to as the “Gleichschaltung” as it sought to bring all aspects of society in line with Nazi ideology, starting with political parties and going on to smash trade unions, pressuring the churches to not get involved (or outright interning members of certain sects such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses), nationalizing of or swapping editors in the media, and creating an indoctrination system for children by making Hitler Youth membership mandatory and establishing Napola schools. Hitler’s persecution was by no means limited to Jews and had a negative impact on German society as a whole, though some more than others.
Secondly, there is an unhealthy infatuation with the alleged efficiency of dictatorial regimes (because they supposedly do away with the “waste of time” that parliamentary debate is). They are not, as NiS and I have explained elsewhere. The Nazis are a fairly decent example of this in practice. Hitler believed in “social Darwinism”, the philosophy that “survival of the fittest” should be applied to human society and that the strong dominating and exterminating the weak leads to the most efficient society and applied this to German society as well as his party and government.
The application thereof in the Nazi party is best demonstrated by the setting up of rival “security” services, namely the Sturmabteilung (SA) and the Schutzstaffel (SS). Both were militant organizations of the party intended to intimidate opposition through terror and violence. Both ended up competing for the same essential function, a conflict that was resolved (with Hitler’s blessing) via the Röhm Putsch: The SS interned and/or liquidated SA leadership in a concerted action and eliminated the SA as a competitor, ending Ernst Röhm’s dreams of replacing the Wehrmacht with the SA entirely. The SS would later go on to create a complementary military, the Waffen-SS, and squabbled with the Wehrmacht for recruits and resources, culminating in Heinrich Himmler claiming all foreign volunteers (and conscripts).
Hitler’s government was similar. He let his underlings compete for his favor, best demonstrated by Hermann Göring, the Commander-in-Chief of the German Luftwaffe and later Reichsmarschall. Göring jealously guarded his pet project of the Luftwaffe to the detriment of other ministries, the Wehrmacht, and the SS. While setting up the Luftwaffe during rearmament, he engaged in financing and industrial projects counter to the policies of the Economics ministry under Hjalmar Schacht, culminating in the latter’s resignation. He also removed competitors for authority by implicating them in scandals (Blomberg-Fritsch affair), freeing himself up from potential oversight. Once in charge of running the Luftwaffe, Göring successfully redirected equipment and manpower to the detriment of the Heer and later Waffen-SS. In fact, Göring managed to incorporate the paratroops (Fallschirmjäger) into the Luftwaffe rather than the Heer, going so far as to have an entire armored corps along with a paratrooper-Panzergrenadier division by the end of the war. At a time when airborne operations were impossible for the Luftwaffe, Hermann Göring succeeded in diverting necessary resources to his Luftwaffe because of his close relationship with Hitler. While this is the most glaring example, it’s representative of the endemic competition and subsequent waste of resources in Hitler’s regime.
So no, Hitler was not a good leader even if you ignore the holocaust.
This one is often used to support the “good leader” myth. There are a number of things that are wrong with this. First and foremost, the term “Superpower” doesn’t apply. A Superpower denotes a country with the global geo-political influence and power projection that the United States and Soviet Union had during the Cold War. Germany never approached that kind of influence (no true dominant global power projection to speak of), so at best qualified as a “Great Power”.
Secondly, there is the assumption that Germany wasn’t already a Great Power, or that Hitler was the one that turned it into this. This isn’t true either, as it falsely measures the Great Power status via the military conquest of Europe rather than other equally valid criteria. Furthermore, Germany straddled and straddles a unique position in Europe. Its location is fairly central, it’s one of the most populous European countries and is arguably the most populous European country that can still be counted as Western. On economic terms, it isn’t hard to see Germany’s potential for playing a dominant role in European politics regardless of who was at the helm. I’ll go further in depth on the economic aspect in the myth below this one.
Thirdly, people tend to neglect that Hitler turned Germany into an occupied and divided country with its infrastructure and cities bombed to pieces. Germany was in ruins by the end of Hitler’s rule and it is unacceptable to forget that when determining whether a country is a Great Power or not because of the rule of one man.
Secondly, there is the assumption that Germany wasn’t already a Great Power, or that Hitler was the one that turned it into this. This isn’t true either, as it falsely measures the Great Power status via the military conquest of Europe rather than other equally valid criteria. Furthermore, Germany straddled and straddles a unique position in Europe. Its location is fairly central, it’s one of the most populous European countries and is arguably the most populous European country that can still be counted as Western. On economic terms, it isn’t hard to see Germany’s potential for playing a dominant role in European politics regardless of who was at the helm. I’ll go further in depth on the economic aspect in the myth below this one.
Thirdly, people tend to neglect that Hitler turned Germany into an occupied and divided country with its infrastructure and cities bombed to pieces. Germany was in ruins by the end of Hitler’s rule and it is unacceptable to forget that when determining whether a country is a Great Power or not because of the rule of one man.
Many people credit Hitler with turning the economy around after the Great Depression. He doesn’t deserve it.
The Nazis were appointed to the government at a time marked by massive unemployment. The thing is though that unemployment dropped the year they took power, not even taking into account that the Enabling Act wasn’t passed until a few months later and any policies would have taken a year or so realistically before yielding serious results regarding the economy and yet another for that to have an effect on the job market:
So basically, the Nazis were not responsible for causing the recovery; it was already under way and hardly unexpected given Germany’s geographical position and demographics.
This isn’t to say that the massive investment in infrastructure and armaments didn’t help or speed up recovery, but it wasn’t exactly as great as many people pretend it is. There are, again, a number of misconceptions and a good deal of cherry-picking involved.
Firstly, let’s address misconceptions about the Autobahn. The first proper Autobahn in Germany was opened by Konrad Adenauer, then Mayor of Cologne and later first Federal Chancellor of Germany, in 1932 (construction started in 1929) and connected the cities of Cologne and Bonn, ergo a year before the Nazis took power. It was the only Autobahn out of a bunch of planned by the Reichstag to reach completion, mainly because the day that the Reichstag had finally managed to agree to finance them and was going to vote on that (July 18th, 1930), the NSDAP (Nazi Party) and KPD (Communist Party) sabotaged the vote by failing to attend (Cologne-Bonn was built only because it secured municipal financing).
But then the Nazis took power and began an ambitious project to build multiple Autobahns across Germany. They were going to grow by a thousand kilometers every year and create endless amounts of jobs. The projected goals weren’t met. Apart from the first few years, the ambitious objective of an extra thousand km each year remained utopian; in total, the Autobahns reached a total length of 3 896 km before construction was finally halted in 1943. The Autobahn never employed more than 60 000 workers, plenty of which already had jobs (thus it didn’t actually create that many). Indeed, there were routine complaints by the Autobahn organizers that there were never enough workers available for the Autobahn; they already had jobs elsewhere!
So basically, if it hadn’t been for the Nazis, the Autobahn could have been built at a time when it actually would have provided much needed jobs and stimulus, rather than after the economy was already in an upswing.
The armaments industry had a bigger impact on the job market, as did the reduction of female employment (and subsequent purging of women from the unemployment statistics) and the reinstitution of the draft. Now, we can’t really credit this with aiding the German economy either, despite the noticeable effects it was having. There are a few reasons for this:
First off, the entire process was financed by a credit-swap scam. Economics minister Hjalmar Schacht created the Metallurgische Forschungsgesellschaft m.b.H. (MeFo for short) to circumvent limits on how much the Reichsbank could lend out to the government. Using this, the Nazis managed to run a debt of 12 billion Reichsmark. The year the first payments were to be made? 1939, the year the Nazis attacked Poland and began plundering Europe for food and finances (just consider the tax placed on the French for which they were meant to fund their own occupation). So the entire rearmament was funded by debt and the looming economic collapse was hidden by WWII.
Which brings us to the second point: WWII. Rearmament had no other purpose than to fight WWII, specifically wars with France and the Soviet Union. Hitler outlined as much in Mein Kampf (even if his hopes that the UK would join an alliance with Germany and Italy turned out to be utterly unfounded) and then to everyone’s surprise, followed through on that. When the goal of rearmament is a war of aggression, whatever job growth it creates is ethically indefensible. If you buy a gun and then shoot the owner of the gun shop that sold it to you with it, you don’t get a pat on the back for having given him a sale.
Not to mention that the end result of rearmament was the utter economic ruin of Germany, mass displacement of the population, and the irreparable sullying of the German reputation. The entire point of the lion’s share of the Nazi stimulus was preparation and waging of the Second World War, so cutting off the evaluation of what good it did for Germany before the fighting began is an intellectually dishonest assessment of Nazi economic policy.
The Nazis were appointed to the government at a time marked by massive unemployment. The thing is though that unemployment dropped the year they took power, not even taking into account that the Enabling Act wasn’t passed until a few months later and any policies would have taken a year or so realistically before yielding serious results regarding the economy and yet another for that to have an effect on the job market:
So basically, the Nazis were not responsible for causing the recovery; it was already under way and hardly unexpected given Germany’s geographical position and demographics.
This isn’t to say that the massive investment in infrastructure and armaments didn’t help or speed up recovery, but it wasn’t exactly as great as many people pretend it is. There are, again, a number of misconceptions and a good deal of cherry-picking involved.
Firstly, let’s address misconceptions about the Autobahn. The first proper Autobahn in Germany was opened by Konrad Adenauer, then Mayor of Cologne and later first Federal Chancellor of Germany, in 1932 (construction started in 1929) and connected the cities of Cologne and Bonn, ergo a year before the Nazis took power. It was the only Autobahn out of a bunch of planned by the Reichstag to reach completion, mainly because the day that the Reichstag had finally managed to agree to finance them and was going to vote on that (July 18th, 1930), the NSDAP (Nazi Party) and KPD (Communist Party) sabotaged the vote by failing to attend (Cologne-Bonn was built only because it secured municipal financing).
But then the Nazis took power and began an ambitious project to build multiple Autobahns across Germany. They were going to grow by a thousand kilometers every year and create endless amounts of jobs. The projected goals weren’t met. Apart from the first few years, the ambitious objective of an extra thousand km each year remained utopian; in total, the Autobahns reached a total length of 3 896 km before construction was finally halted in 1943. The Autobahn never employed more than 60 000 workers, plenty of which already had jobs (thus it didn’t actually create that many). Indeed, there were routine complaints by the Autobahn organizers that there were never enough workers available for the Autobahn; they already had jobs elsewhere!
So basically, if it hadn’t been for the Nazis, the Autobahn could have been built at a time when it actually would have provided much needed jobs and stimulus, rather than after the economy was already in an upswing.
The armaments industry had a bigger impact on the job market, as did the reduction of female employment (and subsequent purging of women from the unemployment statistics) and the reinstitution of the draft. Now, we can’t really credit this with aiding the German economy either, despite the noticeable effects it was having. There are a few reasons for this:
First off, the entire process was financed by a credit-swap scam. Economics minister Hjalmar Schacht created the Metallurgische Forschungsgesellschaft m.b.H. (MeFo for short) to circumvent limits on how much the Reichsbank could lend out to the government. Using this, the Nazis managed to run a debt of 12 billion Reichsmark. The year the first payments were to be made? 1939, the year the Nazis attacked Poland and began plundering Europe for food and finances (just consider the tax placed on the French for which they were meant to fund their own occupation). So the entire rearmament was funded by debt and the looming economic collapse was hidden by WWII.
Which brings us to the second point: WWII. Rearmament had no other purpose than to fight WWII, specifically wars with France and the Soviet Union. Hitler outlined as much in Mein Kampf (even if his hopes that the UK would join an alliance with Germany and Italy turned out to be utterly unfounded) and then to everyone’s surprise, followed through on that. When the goal of rearmament is a war of aggression, whatever job growth it creates is ethically indefensible. If you buy a gun and then shoot the owner of the gun shop that sold it to you with it, you don’t get a pat on the back for having given him a sale.
Not to mention that the end result of rearmament was the utter economic ruin of Germany, mass displacement of the population, and the irreparable sullying of the German reputation. The entire point of the lion’s share of the Nazi stimulus was preparation and waging of the Second World War, so cutting off the evaluation of what good it did for Germany before the fighting began is an intellectually dishonest assessment of Nazi economic policy.
I’d post something on this, but The Archregimancy has already done a more than fantastic job on it:
The Archregimancy wrote:Kusatsu wrote:
Hitler was a christian, and was raised Catholic. He did not regularly attend church (while campaigning for election he did, and with a passion) but he certainly believed in the bible, and even wrote so in Mein Kampf.
There have been at least two threads over the last two days that try to draw a direct link between Hitler and Christianity, and much of the debate has been spectacularly ill-informed. With the assistance of actual quotes - something which most people contributing don't seem to believe are necessary - I'll attempt to offer a more nuanced perspective.
Yes, Hitler may have been raised Catholic - but since Austria was a Catholic nation with a strong Catholic presence in education, it would have been unusual if he wasn't. Stating that Hitler was raised Catholic is stating the bleedingly obvious.
The real question is whether he remained Catholic/Christian.
On the question of Catholicism, we can state unequivocally that he was opposed to the Catholic church - and Christianity in general - once he was in power. One of the most recent scholarly biographies of Hitler is Ian Kershaw's highly praised two volume effort, and I offer you the following quote, emphasis added, from page 424 of volume 2, Hitler 1936-1945; Nemesis (which I pasted to another thread yesterday).
"Despite Hitler's own repeatedly expressed wish for calm in relations with the [Catholic and Lutheran] Churches as long as the war lasted - the reckoning with Christianity, in his view, had to wait for the final victory - a wave of anti-Church agitation, accompanied by an array of new measures, had taken place during the first half of 1941. The activism appears in the main to have come from below, as anti-Church radicals exploited wartime needs to try and break the vexing hold ... which the Churches continued to have on the population. But it certainly had encouragement from above, particularly through Bormann and the Party Chancellery. In a confidential circular to all Gauleiter in June 1941, Bormann had expressely declared that Christianity and National Socialism were incompatible."
Volume 1 offers more examples than volume 2, but regrettably that's in my office, and I'm typing this at home. Nonetheless, Kershaw offers several explicit example of the hostility of both Hitler specifically and Nazism generally towards Christianity; including Catholicism. A quick check of the index of either book will supply further examples.
What might Mein Kampf and Hitler's speeches have to say about his attitudes before he was in power? I've done an admittedly quick check, and certainly Hitler explicitly referred to himself as a Christian in some political speeches. However, I can't find a single example of Hitler explicitly referring to himself as a Christian that post-dates the Munich Beer Hall Putsch of 1923. This seems to signal a change in his willingness to say "I am a Christian".
Mein Kampf is a more nuanced issue. Anyone parsing the book will be able to find references to God and a creator. Here's a couple of typical examples (from the 1999 Mariner Books edition):
"The world has no reason for fighting in our defense, and as a matter of principle God does not make cowardly nations free.” (pg 622)
"What we have to fight for...is the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that our people may be enabled to fulfill the mission assigned to it by the Creator." (pg 125)
Attempts to find quotes that explicitly state that Hitler is a Christian, is supporting Christianity, or believes his values are compatible with Christianity or inspired by Christianity are harder to come by. I couldn't find one, though again my check was fairly brief. What you will find are individual quotes praising some aspect of historical Christianity rather than current Christian beliefs. An example might include:
"The greatness of Christianity did not lie in attempted negotiations for compromise with any similar philosophical opinions in the ancient world, but
in its inexorable fanaticism in preaching and fighting for its own doctrine."
Not so much a ringing endorsement of Christian faith that; more an attempt to use (or mis-use, depending on perspective) the rise of Christianity as an example of why Hitler believed negotiation should be rejected in favour of fanatical doctrinal belief.
The totality of the evidence, suggests that while Hitler was raised a Catholic, and was happy to state that he was a Christian in the earliest days of the Nazi Party prior to the Beer Hall Putsch, by the time he came to power his hostility towards both Christianity and Catholicism was overt. However, he considered winning the war more important than eradicating the Catholic and Lutheran churches, and delayed the 'final reckoning' with Christianity as a result. It may seem inconceivable to some of the younger contributors here, but an individual's personal beliefs and political perspectives can evolve over time.
However - and this is an important point - stating that Hitler was actively opposed to Christianity by the late 1930s is not the same as stating that he was an atheist. Here the evidence is at best ambiguous, and multiple interpretations are possible. There can be little doubt that, post-1936, Hitler believed that he had been chosen by 'providence' to lead Germany to inevitable victory (though by late 1944, he knew the war was lost). His public and private pronouncements often make reference to divine favour and a creator even while anti-Christian oppression was growing in Nazi Germany. While again the evidence is inconclusive, it's by no means unreasonable to assume that Hitler may have continued to believe in a divine presence even while eventually rejecting Christianity. Given that a significant number of people on NS express similar beliefs (summed up as "I was raised a Christian, but I'm not anymore, in fact I feel some hostility towards the Church, but I still believe in some sort of God") that surely shouldn't be too hard a possibility to grasp.
The Archregimancy wrote:ALMF wrote:
they say a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth. :palm:
is that what your trying to do?
Not at all. As GeneralHaNor has pointed out, I'm merely citing the latest academic work - all of it reputable - on Hitler's complex interaction with Catholicism.
But let's say the quotes I kept using in this thread aren't good enough for you; or perhaps my constant repetition of the same 2009 post suggests that I don't have anything else to add to the topic....
Maybe you'd instead like some citations from Michael Burleigh's The Third Reich: A New History, which also happened to be the winner the 2001 BBC Samuel Johnson Prize for Non-Fiction. Perhaps that might count as an additional reputable source?
Burleigh devotes an entire chapter to the vexed issue of the Nazis and religion ("Men of God", pp. 717-728).
The introductory paragraph, on page 717, reads (with emphasis added):National Socialism, like other totalitarian dictatorships, parodied many of the eschatological and liturgical attributes of redemptive religions, while being fundamentally antagonistic towards the Churches: rivals, the Nazis saw it, in the subtle, totalising control of minds. However, the overwhelmingly Christian character of the German people meant that that Hitler dissembled his personal views behind preachy invocations of the Almighty, and distanced himself from the radically irreligious in his own Party, even though his own views were probably more extreme. During the Weimar period, he periodically traduced the Roman Catholic Centre Party for engaging in coalitions with 'atheist internationalists' in the SPD. In reality, his views were a mixture of materialist biology, a faux-Nietzschean contempt for core, as distinct from secondary, Christian values, and a visceral anti-clericism.
Still on page 718, Burleigh states, in reference to Hitler's own speeches on the issue (again, my emphasis added):This is probably where things tended, with Greiser's Godless Warthegau [the previously Polish, and before that previously Prussian, region around Poznan] functioning as the laboratory for future policy. For policies inhibited by reasons of state in Germany and Austria, not to speak of France or Norway, could be implemented with radical impunity in occupied Poland, particularly since Roman Catholicism was so integral to a Polish nationhood the Nazis sought to extirpate. A densely rich spiritual scene was rapidly reduced to a desert. By 1941, almost all of the churches and chapels in the diocese of Posen-Gnesen were closed, and 11 per cent of the Catholic clergy had been murdered. Virtually all of the remainder had been deported or imprisoned. Many of them suffered martyrdom in Nazi concentration camps.
But what about all of those Hitler quotes about 'God' and 'the Almighty' you bleat? We've already partially dealt with these in my previous post, but Burleigh is even more explicit here. On page 719, he addresses this by noting that when Hitler said things like "the national government sees in the Christian denominations the most important factor for the maintenance of society" in his opening speech to the Reichstag, or when Protestants were told that the 'nominally Catholic' Hitler 'thought like a Protestant', this was just a short- to medium-term political tactic used to help gain and consolidate power in an overwhelmingly Christian country.
You want a quick one sentence summary of the above?
Newsflash! Totalitarian dictator says one thing in public for purely cynical political reason, then reveals his actual policy to his inner circle in private!
NSG must be overwhelmed with stunned amazement.
You asked me what I'm trying to do... In these posts, I'm not trying to associate atheism or anti-theism (not quite the same thing) with Hitler in order to associate atheism with Nazism. I consider that argument as misleading as stating that Hitler was Catholic or Christian, and associating Nazism with theism. The latter two arguments are generally stressed by atheists and theists who want to somehow associate Hitler's genocidal regime with their opponents. This is a distraction. Hitler carried out his atrocities because he was a fundamentally warped and evil man, which he probably would have been regardless of his beliefs (or lack thereof). But nonetheless Hitler was clearly opposed to Christianity generally and Catholicism specifically by the time he came to power, whatever his pre-WWI beliefs might have been.
In any case, the real mistake you seem to be making is in assuming that I'm trying to directly associate Hitler with atheism, and somehow attempting to traduce atheism by doing so. I'm doing no such thing, as my post at the top of this page makes clear, and as do other comments in my older Kershaw-based post. I consider arguing over the nature of Hitler's precise beliefs in an attempt to suggest that either atheism or theism contributed to making him an evil shit to be a distraction. In fact, I'm perfectly willing to accept that Hitler may have had some sort of nebulous belief in a form of divine 'providence', though short of bringing Herr Shicklgruber back from the dead, we'll never know either way, will we? Goebbels wrote in his diaries in 1939 that Hitler was simultaneously "profoundly anti-Christian" and "deeply religious", so his inner circle didn't find the two concepts entirely incompatible.
Nonetheless, that Hitler was anti-Christian generally and anti-Catholic specifically, and that he planned on a full-frontal attack on Christianity within the German Reich after achieving victory, and that the attack had already been launched in some geographic areas of the Reich, is entirely accepted and substantiated by the overwhelming majority of modern historians.
Now, if you have reputable academic sources that argue otherwise - and random unsubstantiated websites by non-academics with an axe to grind very much don't count - or if you can provide cited research of your own which might demonstrate why I should take you more seriously than Sir Ian Kershaw, Baron Bullock (who was also, as it happens, a vice-chancellor of Oxford University), Michael Burleigh, Albert Speer, Martin Bormann, and Joseph Goebbels, then you're very welcome to provide it here. In the meantime, I know whom I find more convincing.
This one gets thrown around a lot, mostly by Americans. Though occasionally by German idiots that really should know better. Part of the argument hinges on the Nazi party being the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, and that thus it must be leftist, as it is Socialist and for workers. Which is silly. No one is going to argue that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is democratic, for its people, or a republic simply because that’s what its name is. The real reason this gets tossed around is because pretty much everyone agrees that the Nazis were evil (hence why Godwin’s law is invoked so often), and no one wants to be associated with them.
So establishing whether the Nazis are leftist or not requires more than bullshit semantics that fit nicely on a poster. You have to determine whether their policies and behavior are leftist or not.
The Nazis and Leftist parties of Germany did not get along. At all. While there were some similarities (they generally appealed to the poorer masses rather than the wealthier middle and upper class Germans and thus rejected the system of government in the Weimar Republic), the Nazis blamed socialists and communists along with the Jews for the German defeat in WWI. The Nazis didn’t just oppose leftism; they opposed it violently in numerous battles on streets and in public places, typically ending with multiple injuries and the occasional death. When the Reichstag burned down in 1933, the Nazis used it to initiate a communist witch-hunt that made McCarthyism look red in comparison, culminating in the creation of the Dachau concentration camp.
In fact, Germany suffered through a civil war in the early days of the Weimar Republic, with bitter fighting going on between the far-right Freikorps and the communist revolutionaries that attempted to install a socialist republic in Bavaria among others before being crushed by the governing Social Democrats and the hired far-right groups that could be relied on to viciously combat the communists. After being dissolved in 1923, these members of these groups typically joined newer far-right organizations, such as the German National People’s Party (DNVP) paramilitary wing Stahlhelm or the Nazis’ own SA. In fact, Stahlhelm was merged with the SA after the Nazis took power in 1933 under the authority of its founder, the industrialist Franz Seldte. Seldte had been a member of the DNVP until switching to the Nazis in 1933, officially declaring the merger around the same time. The DNVP itself was run by Alfred Hugenberg, who single-handedly saved the Nazis from obliteration by donating a considerable amount of money while the party was facing disbandment over their looming bankruptcy. The DNVP would end up being one of the prime partners in the Nazi seizure of power in 1933, forming a coalition government with the Nazis and then voting in favor of the Enabling Act.
Furthermore, the Nazis had far more in common with conservative parties and organizations than with leftist ones. The Popes Pius XI and Pius XII (the latter having been the former’s Cardinal Secretary of State) helped pave the way for Hitler by urging the catholic Zentrum party to cease blocking the Nazis and vote in favor of the Enabling Act (the Social Democrats had been the only party to vote against, though the communist KPD would have as well had the Nazis not arrested all members that hadn’t fled already). Pius XI and Pius XII probably did this to work out the Reichskonkordat that was meant to guarantee the rights of Catholics in Germany while guaranteeing Hitler blessed silence from a powerful lobbying group, as well as because of their anti-communist views.
Regarding policies, there’s the 25 Point Program that was established in the 1920s. I shall go through it policy by policy to evaluate them based on two things: Are they more leftist or more rightist policies and did the Nazis actively pursue them?
Now the right to self-determination is a relatively neutral concept. What remains important though is that this was the excuse used to integrate Austria and the Sudetenland into Germany and subsequently wage war on Poland. However, the Nazis did not adhere to the concept of self-determination if other ethnicities were involved.
Hatred of the treaty of Versailles was a universal sentiment among almost all Germans and all parties. Hitler did end up revoking it after the Battle of France.
Imperialism. Definitely not in line with communism or socialism (or at least what these purport to be in favor of). That the Nazis pursued this is undeniable. The entire concept of Lebensraum was intended to gain territory in Eastern Europe for Germans.
A racialist classification runs counter to the internationalism inherent in communism and socialism. Definitely right-wing. Certainly the Nazis came up with all sorts of rules on what was a German and what wasn’t, the most prominent being the Nuremberg Race Laws. It turned out to be trickier to strip Jews of citizenship than the Nazis had thought, so while the Jews were generally granted second class citizenship status rather than full citizenship, it wasn’t until the Nazis created a law that removed citizenship from Jews leaving the territory of the Greater German Empire (such as those Jews being sent to extermination camps on trains) that mass stripping of citizenship by legal measures truly occurred. But for all accounts and purposes, the Nazis lived up to this.
Are the Minute Men leftwing? No? Neither is this. And yes, the Nazis stuck to it.
While the idea itself is generally neutral, making it a major campaign issue and throwing a hissy fit about foreigners infiltrating the government is something undoubtedly associated with the right. Now the funny thing is, the Nazis technically didn’t adhere to this, seeing as Hitler didn’t actually hold German citizenship (having been born an Austrian and then becoming stateless) February 1932. While he didn’t hold an office in the Reichstag until April 1933, party members attempting to gain him citizenship made several attempts to appoint him to municipal offices, a clear violation of the policy. Then again, you can argue that the racialist concept of the Nazi citizen included Hitler. In general, this was something the Nazis adhered to, purging the ranks of German bureaucrats of Jews with the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service, who were defined as non-citizens above.
Yes, we’ve heard this kind of talk before. Definitely rightwing. This was practiced in one form or another, seeing as the Nazis plundered Eastern Europe in order to feed German citizens as the Royal Navy strangled commerce.
“The boat is full” rhetoric is pretty much exclusive to the political right. Now, this was primarily a statement with which to gain votes; drastic as the Nazis were, they never really engaged in this universally and allowed non-German “Aryans” emigrate where practical (see William Joyce or foreign volunteers in the Waffen-SS).
Technically a neutral position to hold, though given the racialist context provided by the definition of citizenship, it’s rightwing. The Nazis didn’t really live up to this though.
While “Whoever doesn’t work doesn’t eat” is a phrase both communists and right-wingers can feel comfortable saying, the collectivist tone is something more in line with leftism. Then again, the demand of obedience to authority and the country has been a strong narrative during the Iraq War to say the least, but I digress.
This one is more leftist, even if the “breaking of interest-slavery” is an exclusively far right phrase stemming from the Nazi Gottfried Feder. Generally, it falls in line with the stereotype of Jewish usury. It’s evident that the Nazis, once in power, did not pursue this point. Indeed, Goebbels is alleged to have made a pun regarding the “breaking of interest slavery” (breaking being another word for throwing up in German) when asked if it wasn’t an inherently socialist principle.
Another more socialist principle. However, the Nazis didn’t adhere to this either, allowing businesses such as Krupp to freely produce weapons for them while profiting from WWII quite nicely themselves.
Another typically leftist demand that wasn’t implemented. In fact, confiscation of property and businesses did occur, but generally to Jews and occasionally political opponents, and was then sold to Germans cheaply in a process known as “Aryanization”.
Socialist. Also not implemented.
While generally a leftist proposal, it’s also typically German dating back to Bismarck attempting to undermine the Social Democrats he so ruthlessly hated. Generally speaking, the Nazis adhered to this while practical, though.
Definitely not a leftist policy. How well the Nazis adhered to this is debatable, but there certainly weren’t concerted efforts running counter to it.
This one’s a mixed bag. Land reform is a typically socialist idea, but the abolition of taxes on land is a more libertarian concept. Not that it really matters, since apart from the prevention of speculation on land nothing was ever implemented and thus ignored, and even then the speculation was only forbidden to Jews.
Tough on crime to the point of draconianism? Rightwing. While the Nazis didn’t implement the death penalty to the extreme extent that they promise here, they did have an entire court based solely on “truthiness” and routinely stuck criminals into concentration camps (and gave them green triangles).
Racialist and nationalist, therefore rightwing. Not actually pursued, though, because it’s mostly a bullshit point to appeal to the undereducated.
Universal education is generally more leftist, though the adamant opposition to public schooling is hardly an overly common rightwing principle outside of the US. State scholarship programs for gifted students are also commonly called for by businesses and the likes. Overall, it veers towards leftism, but it’s a fairly centrist position. However, the implementation thereof by the Nazis (as I’ve mentioned above) was a means of indoctrination and control, starting with mandatory membership in the Hitler Youth to the training of youths at the Napola institutions.
That mass gymnastics crap may only be seen in North Korea nowadays, but the infatuation with the body is hardly political. The stance on traditional gender roles and reduction of women to birthing machines is a primarily rightwing policy. Naturally, the Nazis implemented all of this.
Pretty much a neutral proposition given the context. The Nazis weren’t particularly keen on avoiding mercenaries during the war, however, despite their formation of a national army.
Curtailing of press freedoms is a totalitarian concept and happens in authoritarian regimes of either political flavor. As such it isn’t indicative of either leftist or rightist motivation, though the banning of foreign influence in the media is more rightwing. The opposition to art is legislating taste, which is political douchebaggery if anything. The Nazis certainly did heavily curtail and exert influence over the media even before paper shortages made it a necessity and went on to ban “degenerate art”.
Freedom of religion and non-denominationalism are a more leftist concept, though the Nazis certainly didn’t adhere to it even if we let the whole aspect of persecution of Jews slide. Jehovah’s Witnesses (referred to as “Bible Researchers”) received their own colored triangles (purple) and I recommend reading The Archregimancy’s posts I quoted above regarding the future of religion in Nazi Germany.
An authoritarian central government is mostly a totalitarian rather than leftist or rightist motive. They certainly did implement that.
So, in conclusion, the Nazis were right-wingers. Most of the points of their program overlap with the right, of those that don’t, the vast majority were ignored or given lip service at best. To claim otherwise comes from an unwillingness to take a closer look at how similar the right’s policies are to the Nazis. Which isn’t to say that something is bad simply because the Nazis did it. However, sharing so much common ground and then attempting to deny the similarities is vile and inexcusable rhetoric.
Further reading on the subject. (in German)
So establishing whether the Nazis are leftist or not requires more than bullshit semantics that fit nicely on a poster. You have to determine whether their policies and behavior are leftist or not.
The Nazis and Leftist parties of Germany did not get along. At all. While there were some similarities (they generally appealed to the poorer masses rather than the wealthier middle and upper class Germans and thus rejected the system of government in the Weimar Republic), the Nazis blamed socialists and communists along with the Jews for the German defeat in WWI. The Nazis didn’t just oppose leftism; they opposed it violently in numerous battles on streets and in public places, typically ending with multiple injuries and the occasional death. When the Reichstag burned down in 1933, the Nazis used it to initiate a communist witch-hunt that made McCarthyism look red in comparison, culminating in the creation of the Dachau concentration camp.
In fact, Germany suffered through a civil war in the early days of the Weimar Republic, with bitter fighting going on between the far-right Freikorps and the communist revolutionaries that attempted to install a socialist republic in Bavaria among others before being crushed by the governing Social Democrats and the hired far-right groups that could be relied on to viciously combat the communists. After being dissolved in 1923, these members of these groups typically joined newer far-right organizations, such as the German National People’s Party (DNVP) paramilitary wing Stahlhelm or the Nazis’ own SA. In fact, Stahlhelm was merged with the SA after the Nazis took power in 1933 under the authority of its founder, the industrialist Franz Seldte. Seldte had been a member of the DNVP until switching to the Nazis in 1933, officially declaring the merger around the same time. The DNVP itself was run by Alfred Hugenberg, who single-handedly saved the Nazis from obliteration by donating a considerable amount of money while the party was facing disbandment over their looming bankruptcy. The DNVP would end up being one of the prime partners in the Nazi seizure of power in 1933, forming a coalition government with the Nazis and then voting in favor of the Enabling Act.
Furthermore, the Nazis had far more in common with conservative parties and organizations than with leftist ones. The Popes Pius XI and Pius XII (the latter having been the former’s Cardinal Secretary of State) helped pave the way for Hitler by urging the catholic Zentrum party to cease blocking the Nazis and vote in favor of the Enabling Act (the Social Democrats had been the only party to vote against, though the communist KPD would have as well had the Nazis not arrested all members that hadn’t fled already). Pius XI and Pius XII probably did this to work out the Reichskonkordat that was meant to guarantee the rights of Catholics in Germany while guaranteeing Hitler blessed silence from a powerful lobbying group, as well as because of their anti-communist views.
Regarding policies, there’s the 25 Point Program that was established in the 1920s. I shall go through it policy by policy to evaluate them based on two things: Are they more leftist or more rightist policies and did the Nazis actively pursue them?
The Nazis wrote:1. We demand the unification of all Germans in the Greater Germany on the basis of the people's right to self-determination.
Now the right to self-determination is a relatively neutral concept. What remains important though is that this was the excuse used to integrate Austria and the Sudetenland into Germany and subsequently wage war on Poland. However, the Nazis did not adhere to the concept of self-determination if other ethnicities were involved.
The Nazis wrote:2. We demand equality of rights for the German people in respect to the other nations; abrogation of the peace treaties of Versailles and St. Germain.
Hatred of the treaty of Versailles was a universal sentiment among almost all Germans and all parties. Hitler did end up revoking it after the Battle of France.
The Nazis wrote:3. We demand land and territory (colonies) for the sustenance of our people, and colonization for our surplus population.
Imperialism. Definitely not in line with communism or socialism (or at least what these purport to be in favor of). That the Nazis pursued this is undeniable. The entire concept of Lebensraum was intended to gain territory in Eastern Europe for Germans.
The Nazis wrote:4. Only a member of the race can be a citizen. A member of the race can only be one who is of German blood, without consideration of creed. Consequently no Jew can be a member of the race.
A racialist classification runs counter to the internationalism inherent in communism and socialism. Definitely right-wing. Certainly the Nazis came up with all sorts of rules on what was a German and what wasn’t, the most prominent being the Nuremberg Race Laws. It turned out to be trickier to strip Jews of citizenship than the Nazis had thought, so while the Jews were generally granted second class citizenship status rather than full citizenship, it wasn’t until the Nazis created a law that removed citizenship from Jews leaving the territory of the Greater German Empire (such as those Jews being sent to extermination camps on trains) that mass stripping of citizenship by legal measures truly occurred. But for all accounts and purposes, the Nazis lived up to this.
The Nazis wrote:5. Whoever has no citizenship is to be able to live in Germany only as a guest, and must be under the authority of legislation for foreigners.
Are the Minute Men leftwing? No? Neither is this. And yes, the Nazis stuck to it.
The Nazis wrote:6. The right to determine matters concerning administration and law belongs only to the citizen. Therefore we demand that every public office, of any sort whatsoever, whether in the Reich, the county or municipality, be filled only by citizens. We combat the corrupting parliamentary economy, office-holding only according to party inclinations without consideration of character or abilities.
While the idea itself is generally neutral, making it a major campaign issue and throwing a hissy fit about foreigners infiltrating the government is something undoubtedly associated with the right. Now the funny thing is, the Nazis technically didn’t adhere to this, seeing as Hitler didn’t actually hold German citizenship (having been born an Austrian and then becoming stateless) February 1932. While he didn’t hold an office in the Reichstag until April 1933, party members attempting to gain him citizenship made several attempts to appoint him to municipal offices, a clear violation of the policy. Then again, you can argue that the racialist concept of the Nazi citizen included Hitler. In general, this was something the Nazis adhered to, purging the ranks of German bureaucrats of Jews with the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service, who were defined as non-citizens above.
The Nazis wrote:7. We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens. If it is impossible to sustain the total population of the State, then the members of foreign nations (non-citizens) are to be expelled from the Reich.
Yes, we’ve heard this kind of talk before. Definitely rightwing. This was practiced in one form or another, seeing as the Nazis plundered Eastern Europe in order to feed German citizens as the Royal Navy strangled commerce.
The Nazis wrote:8. Any further immigration of non-citizens is to be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans, who have immigrated to Germany since 2 August 1914, be forced immediately to leave the Reich.
“The boat is full” rhetoric is pretty much exclusive to the political right. Now, this was primarily a statement with which to gain votes; drastic as the Nazis were, they never really engaged in this universally and allowed non-German “Aryans” emigrate where practical (see William Joyce or foreign volunteers in the Waffen-SS).
The Nazis wrote:9. All citizens must have equal rights and obligations.
Technically a neutral position to hold, though given the racialist context provided by the definition of citizenship, it’s rightwing. The Nazis didn’t really live up to this though.
The Nazis wrote:10. The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually and physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all. Consequently we demand:
While “Whoever doesn’t work doesn’t eat” is a phrase both communists and right-wingers can feel comfortable saying, the collectivist tone is something more in line with leftism. Then again, the demand of obedience to authority and the country has been a strong narrative during the Iraq War to say the least, but I digress.
The Nazis wrote:11. Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of debt (interest)-slavery.
This one is more leftist, even if the “breaking of interest-slavery” is an exclusively far right phrase stemming from the Nazi Gottfried Feder. Generally, it falls in line with the stereotype of Jewish usury. It’s evident that the Nazis, once in power, did not pursue this point. Indeed, Goebbels is alleged to have made a pun regarding the “breaking of interest slavery” (breaking being another word for throwing up in German) when asked if it wasn’t an inherently socialist principle.
The Nazis wrote:12. In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
Another more socialist principle. However, the Nazis didn’t adhere to this either, allowing businesses such as Krupp to freely produce weapons for them while profiting from WWII quite nicely themselves.
The Nazis wrote:13. We demand the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).
Another typically leftist demand that wasn’t implemented. In fact, confiscation of property and businesses did occur, but generally to Jews and occasionally political opponents, and was then sold to Germans cheaply in a process known as “Aryanization”.
The Nazis wrote:14. We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.
Socialist. Also not implemented.
The Nazis wrote:15. We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.
While generally a leftist proposal, it’s also typically German dating back to Bismarck attempting to undermine the Social Democrats he so ruthlessly hated. Generally speaking, the Nazis adhered to this while practical, though.
The Nazis wrote:16. We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.
Definitely not a leftist policy. How well the Nazis adhered to this is debatable, but there certainly weren’t concerted efforts running counter to it.
The Nazis wrote:17. We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.
This one’s a mixed bag. Land reform is a typically socialist idea, but the abolition of taxes on land is a more libertarian concept. Not that it really matters, since apart from the prevention of speculation on land nothing was ever implemented and thus ignored, and even then the speculation was only forbidden to Jews.
The Nazis wrote:18. We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, profiteers and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race.
Tough on crime to the point of draconianism? Rightwing. While the Nazis didn’t implement the death penalty to the extreme extent that they promise here, they did have an entire court based solely on “truthiness” and routinely stuck criminals into concentration camps (and gave them green triangles).
The Nazis wrote:19. We demand substitution of a German common law in place of the Roman Law serving a materialistic world-order.
Racialist and nationalist, therefore rightwing. Not actually pursued, though, because it’s mostly a bullshit point to appeal to the undereducated.
The Nazis wrote:20. The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. The plans of instruction of all educational institutions are to conform with the experiences of practical life. The comprehension of the concept of the State must be striven for by the school [Staatsbuergerkunde] as early as the beginning of understanding. We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.
Universal education is generally more leftist, though the adamant opposition to public schooling is hardly an overly common rightwing principle outside of the US. State scholarship programs for gifted students are also commonly called for by businesses and the likes. Overall, it veers towards leftism, but it’s a fairly centrist position. However, the implementation thereof by the Nazis (as I’ve mentioned above) was a means of indoctrination and control, starting with mandatory membership in the Hitler Youth to the training of youths at the Napola institutions.
The Nazis wrote:21. The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.
That mass gymnastics crap may only be seen in North Korea nowadays, but the infatuation with the body is hardly political. The stance on traditional gender roles and reduction of women to birthing machines is a primarily rightwing policy. Naturally, the Nazis implemented all of this.
The Nazis wrote:22. We demand abolition of the mercenary troops and formation of a national army.
Pretty much a neutral proposition given the context. The Nazis weren’t particularly keen on avoiding mercenaries during the war, however, despite their formation of a national army.
The Nazis wrote:23. We demand legal opposition to known lies and their promulgation through the press. In order to enable the provision of a German press, we demand, that: a. All writers and employees of the newspapers appearing in the German language be members of the race; b. Non-German newspapers be required to have the express permission of the State to be published. They may not be printed in the German language; c. Non-Germans are forbidden by law any financial interest in German publications, or any influence on them, and as punishment for violations the closing of such a publication as well as the immediate expulsion from the Reich of the non-German concerned. Publications which are counter to the general good are to be forbidden. We demand legal prosecution of artistic and literary forms which exert a destructive influence on our national life, and the closure of organizations opposing the above made demands.
Curtailing of press freedoms is a totalitarian concept and happens in authoritarian regimes of either political flavor. As such it isn’t indicative of either leftist or rightist motivation, though the banning of foreign influence in the media is more rightwing. The opposition to art is legislating taste, which is political douchebaggery if anything. The Nazis certainly did heavily curtail and exert influence over the media even before paper shortages made it a necessity and went on to ban “degenerate art”.
The Nazis wrote:24. We demand freedom of religion for all religious denominations within the state so long as they do not endanger its existence or oppose the moral senses of the Germanic race. The Party as such advocates the standpoint of a positive Christianity without binding itself confessionally to any one denomination. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and around us, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our nation can only succeed from within on the framework: The good of the state before the good of the individual.
Freedom of religion and non-denominationalism are a more leftist concept, though the Nazis certainly didn’t adhere to it even if we let the whole aspect of persecution of Jews slide. Jehovah’s Witnesses (referred to as “Bible Researchers”) received their own colored triangles (purple) and I recommend reading The Archregimancy’s posts I quoted above regarding the future of religion in Nazi Germany.
The Nazis wrote:For the execution of all of this we demand the formation of a strong central power in the Reich. Unlimited authority of the central parliament over the whole Reich and its organizations in general. The forming of state and profession chambers for the execution of the laws made by the Reich within the various states of the confederation. The leaders of the Party promise, if necessary by sacrificing their own lives, to support by the execution of the points set forth above without consideration.
An authoritarian central government is mostly a totalitarian rather than leftist or rightist motive. They certainly did implement that.
So, in conclusion, the Nazis were right-wingers. Most of the points of their program overlap with the right, of those that don’t, the vast majority were ignored or given lip service at best. To claim otherwise comes from an unwillingness to take a closer look at how similar the right’s policies are to the Nazis. Which isn’t to say that something is bad simply because the Nazis did it. However, sharing so much common ground and then attempting to deny the similarities is vile and inexcusable rhetoric.
Further reading on the subject. (in German)
So yes, these are a number of misconceptions. Do you have any more? Criticism of my analyses?
