The straight dope on the Nazis: were they left or right/liberal or conservative?

Great Debates
21

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERnazi.htm

In Europe, as the poster **Henrichek **notices, the idea of Nazis as liberal or on the left is peculiar; to the majority in Europe the Nazis were the extreme right. An extension of Fasism.

To me the Nazis were a lot of things but the socialist part of their name was mostly a joke. Back then the German Social Democrat Party (SDP) **was **the socialist party. They did not use the word socialist on their name as in the past they had been banned for being socialists.

I have seen that the Nazis were described as a group that just did whatever was needed to gain power, adopting some socialist ideas early in the game was something that they did to gain followers. Once the Nazis took power the German communists and socialists learned how “socialist” the Nazis were in practice.

22

The reality was that big capitalists still kept their business, the Faustian bargain (that included slave labor furnished by the Nazis) allowed them to survive the war.

Hitler returned the Banks to the owners that had lost them during the Wiemar republic. The German capitalists found that the Nazis were better for them than the socialists or the communists.

And as syndicalist leaders usually ended in concentration camps, I have to conclude that the idea that trade unions were equal to the capitalists in fascist states to be also a joke.

:rolleyes:

23

GIGObuster’s explanation more closely matches with everything that I was taught about Hitler in high school in the Fifties. Hitler’s ideas were considered extreme Right Wing (not to be confused with the Conservatives of the time – who were merely cautious and traditional. And also not to be confused with Republicans; Ike was somewhat of a liberal.)

The day that Rush Limbaugh went before a large audience and talked on and on and on and just got a glazed look in his eyes was really creepy for me. He was quite taken with himself. It wasn’t what he said that sounded like Hitler. It was the seduction of power at work.

Whatever Hitler’s plans for German were, remember that they didn’t apply to women. So right from the start, half the population is left out. And then the plans for the new Germany didn’t include all types of “undesireables.” What do you call a system of government that plans for so few of its citizens? You certainly can’t call it liberal. Liberals want equal rights for everyone.

24

As a stopgap measure to get the employment statistics back up, then as a measure to militarize society prior to reintroducing conscription (and later to provide paramilitary training to youths prior to military service proper. By the time my father was drafted to the Reichsarbeitsdienst in 1943 it was mostly about paramilitary drill, with a scientific approach to digging the remnant of an initial public works role.

Irrelevant as this was common to all center-left/center-right goverments since the 19th century - something nobody was opposed to.

Also not an issue of contention between Left and Right in Germany.

As propaganda, not economic policy.

More a cronyization of economy.

Like universal health insurance, universal old age insurance was not considered a right/left issue but simple common sense.

By abolishing the unions?

The rich did nicely out of Nazism.

State intervention was limited to confiscating Jewish property (mostly to the benefit of cronies not the state) and the (incompetent) building up to a war economy.

Postwar Germans thought otherwise. The center-right CDU at first (in their first programme, in 1947) considered capitalism discredited by the Third Reich, only later came around to free-market economics.

25

Strange, I’ve generally seen left=Commies and right=Nazis in such things. It’s truly bizarre to call what the Nazis did in actual practice a socialist worker’s party or to call the USSR a socialist republic. Or for that matter that matter to consider East Germany or North Korea to be democracies. Totalitarianism in practice bears little resemblance to what its particular flavor’s ostensible ideals are and as has been said doesn’t fit neatly into left or right. Nazism on paper may have been devoutly anti-capitalist, but in practice Hitler could have given a shit about Krupp or Junkers abandoning capitalism and embracing socialism as long as they churned out weapons for him. Stalin could have given a shit about the USSR’s progress towards a worker’s paradise, all he really cared about was being in control. I doubt Kim Jung Il loses any sleep over North Korea not actually being a democracy, or a republic, or the plight of the workers in the name of socialism.

That’s an awfully productive thing to do, equating Obama with Mussolini. Well at least the trains ran on time.:rolleyes: Good thing we’re out from under the heel of Bush who was pretty much a Nazi.:rolleyes:

26

Well, it’s pretty ridiculous to call the Nazis liberal (or conservative, for that matter). I’d even question the word fascist as applied to them, though they’re definitely in the same constellation.

For instance, consider how Mussolini placed fascism with respect to liberalism:

Right and Left, however, are useful categories. And you only need to look at who supported Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco to get an idea of whether they were Right or Left.

Franco drew his support from the military, the Catholic Church, the religious, and well-off landowners. He opposed secularist forces, trade unions, and socialist parties. Mussolini got support from patriots/nationalists, his primary financial backing came from armaments firms, and the party that most consistently partnered with him was the pro-Church Italian People’s Party. And the Nazi’s Enabling Act was strongly opposed by the left-wing Social Democrats and Communists and supported by the Catholic Center Party and the conservative German National People’s Party (the party of the junkers and wealthy industrialists). If you look at the areas that the Nazis were strong in during the Weimer Republic, those areas in the present day support parties broadly acknowledged as conservative or right wing. Nazis/fascists, of course, were always the most anti-Communist of all the parties and explicitly believed in using government policy to re-enforce traditional gender roles.

The proof’s in the pudding, as they say. Look at who opposed the Nazis and by and large they were the Left; look at who supported them, and they were by and large the Right. If you want to say Nazis and fascists weren’t right-wing, then you at least have to concede that right-wingers and conservatives saw them as supporting their interests.

27

The fact that a President generally regarded as progressive does some right wing things doesn’t make those right wing activities progressive. It’s fair to call the War Industries Board progressive (note that Wilson abolished it after the war), but certainly not Palmer raids (aimed at leftists according to your link) and jailing of communists and socialists. I have little doubt that Wilson was supported more by the right than the left on the latter issues.

The economic policies of Hitler were not what made him a monster. It was the police state, the persecution of minorities and unpopular groups, and the nationalistic military aggression that caused the atrocities. These are all cases of extremist right wing policies.

28

Hey Sam, here’s a question: do you think people calling for torturing enemies of the state is more or less Nazi than supporting universal healthcare?

Question two: do you think invading countries using fake provocations is more or less Nazi than minimum wage legislation?

Question three: The Nazis supported exercise programs to ensure that the populace was healthy. Is Richard Simmons more or less a Nazi than Hitler, who did drugs and never exercised?

29

When a party becomes virtually synonymous with the government itself, you might say that party politics is effectively prohibited, leaving only the more primitive politics of personal loyalty. In this light, the sole official party can hardly be evaluated as left or right, IMO.

The Nazis did have the words “socialist” and “worker” in their name, and, in the beginning, did show a noticeable populist streak. At the same time, they were always opposed to Social Democrats and Communists, so they tended to be considered politically conservative. Despite much distaste on either side, this circumstance fostered an alliance of sorts with the old aristocracy and the newer moneyed interests who feared expropriation by a possible Socialist or Communist regime. At the same time, I believe that for many Nazis, the heritage of the aristocracy resonated strongly with their nativist and nationalist tendencies.

At any rate, in 1934 came the Night Of Long Knives, when numerous political enemies and undesirables were eliminated. Among those were many within the party who leaned towards actual socialist policies.

30

Liberal? Really?

The term has truly been bastardised, hasn’t it.

31

Before the holocaust and the war, the liberal west’s view of fascism in general was quite different. Benito Mussolini started his political life as a socialist, and he and Lenin were mutual admirers. Mussolini had hundreds of positive articles written about him in American left-wing magazines like the New Republic. The New Deal itself took a lot of ideas from Mussolini’s brand of fascism, and the Roosevelt administration had several overt admirers of Mussolini. Even today, the ‘third way’ politics of the left are directly related to Mussolini’s corporatism.

Even the word totalitarianism was thought of differently before WWII. In its original conception, totalitarianism meant that the the totality of human life would be protected by the state - jobs, health care, education, day care, retirement, etc. The argument in favor of totalitarianism was that the failure of left-wing policies was the result of their incompleteness - that only until everything was covered by the government would you have the kind of unity of purpose and comprehensive planning that could make the whole system work. It wasn’t until the horrors of WWII were exposed, and later the horrors of the Soviet Union, that ‘totalitarian’ became synonymous with evil.

The split between socialists/communists and fascists really didn’t have much to do with their actual social policies, but was more an artifact of the tension between fascists in western Europe and the Soviet Union. This forced socialists and communists into one camp, and fascists into the other.

Had Hitler not come along and permanently married fascism with racism and genocide, I think fascism today would be considered by the left to be a decent experiment in using state power to correct the ‘flaws’ of the market.

One major difference is that the left, particularly in America, has generally been internationalist whereas fascism is an explicitly nationalist philosophy. And in fact, this difference describes the biggest split between communists/socialists and fascists - Communism is an internationalist philosophy, seeking to unite people by class around the world. Fascism is national socialism, seeking to unite all the people in a country under one national banner, breaking down the barriers of class.

However, both philosophies are interventionist, require strong, central governments with powerful leaders, and seek to use the state as the vehicle of ‘progressive change’.

I’ve said for years that modern American liberalism is much closer to fascism than it is to communism, and I stick by that. When I see liberals marrying their progressive views with isolationism and a desire for trade tariffs, coupled with the kind of corporatist ‘third way’ politics that Mussolini championed, the parallels get even stronger.

Forget the Nazis - comparisons to them are a distraction, because Nazism was a peculiar outlier of Fascism unique to its time and place. Comparing any modern philosophy to Nazism would be like comparing modern communists to the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. They’re a perverted offshoot of a philosophy that died out after creating immense horror, and really have no analogues in other political movements.

But fascism in general is a more interesting comparison. Fascism was not always related to anti-semitism. In the early part of the 20th century, fascism was just another of several statist grand experiments. The U.S. flirted with it in WWI and during the New Deal. It was a time when people were open to such ‘grand experiments’.

The chief opponents of fascism in America were not the liberals. The primary opponents were the libertarians and the Jeffersonian classical liberals, who were suspicious of any ‘grand experiments’ and hostile to the intrusion of the state into private life in any way shape or form.

Today, when I look at someone like Hugo Chavez, I see a Mussolini, not a Lenin. The technical differences between socialism and fascism aren’t really what matters here. Whether the state outright owns the means of production or simply exerts control over it doesn’t matter a whole lot in the end. What matters is the assertion of the state over the individual, the scapegoating of foreigners and certain elements of society, the propaganda, the elevation of the leader to mythical status, etc. And yet, the American left doesn’t seem to have much of a problem with Chavez. Why is that?

32

:rolleyes:

Yeah, forget that the opinions showed by you had no evidence.

The Krupps and other rich guys in Germany are glad that some people in America ignore who the Nazis did favor.

And as I have learned on previous discussions, your opinions on Chavez are also coming from the right wing echo chamber. Even I have issues with Chavez, but when many of the points mentioned against Chavez are exaggerated I have to dismiss many of those points.

33

The Nazis can’t really be viewed as liberal or conservative to be honest, at least not how we Americans use the terms.

Americans honestly tend to equate “liberal” with “Democrat.” That tends to mean: Pro-Choice, pro-SSM, anti-big business, pro-environment, pro-taxation et cetera, pro-Social Welfare.

“Conservative” is equated to “Republican” which tends to mean: Pro-life, pro-Religion (note I don’t list the Democrats as “anti-Religion”), anti-big government, anti-taxation, anti-Social Welfare (limited).

Both of these definitions really aren’t quite the same as the more “neutral” “political science” definitions of these terms.

For example in political science someone who is against gay right’s wouldn’t really be termed liberal or conservative. In San Francisco someone supporting gay rights (ignoring all other things) could be said to be “conservative” since that is the status quo in San Francisco. Whereas someone supporting gay rights in Texas would be liberal.

In post-WWI Germany there were a ton of major political factions.

You had:

  1. Communists - Genuine communist radicals. They wanted sweeping changes in Germany, collectivization, et al. Basically they wanted to repeat what Lenin did in Russia. Most associated with the KPD (Communist Party.)

  2. More moderate leftists, we might term them “Social Democrats.” They weren’t advocating social upheaval by any means, but they were definitely on the left end of the spectrum. Most associated with the Social Democrat party.

Unions were heavily intertwined with both 1/2.

  1. Centrists. Most associated with the Catholic Center Party, they had a strong base amongst German Catholics and were a somewhat “moderate” party. So much so that to my knowledge every single political coalition that ever governed Weimar Germany (up until the end) included the CCP. They could vacillated between monarchist and Republican elements with little problem.

  2. Monarchist/Capitalists. Most associated with the German National People’s Party (DNVP) and the Conservative People’s Party (a less aristocratic splinter party.) This group had the support of the major industrialists in Germany. They were staunchly anti-Communist and a large portion of them were in favor of a restoration of the monarchy. They almost universally viewed Versailles as a “stab in the back” and believed that Germany could have continued the fight in WWI and secured a less shameful peace. They were a brand of conservatism that was more upper class and “mainstream” they were the old guard.

  3. Nationalists. In a sense this group is hard to define as they were honestly ideologically neutral on many issues, or they lacked ideological consistency. What they were, universally, were extreme nationalists who believed in a “restoration” of German greatness. They were more lower class and working class than the Monarchist/Capitalists, and were especially impacted by the general plight of Germany following WWII. They were very much interested in a “better life”, and the political parties (the largest of which was the Nazi Party) that appealed to this group sold themselves in large part because they sold the idea that Germany could be great again and their miserable lives could be improved. The extremist messages that appealed to this group didn’t always appeal to the monarchist/capitalists, who probably weren’t looking for the kind of societal upheaval the nationalist’s were.

I think Hitler himself and the Nazi Party leadership were almost devoid of true ideology, they were more akin to serpents who were going to do whatever was necessary to gain power.

Understanding the Nazi party requires understanding why Hitler took it in the direction he did. In the era of the Beer Hall Putsch, in the infancy of the party Hitler was definitely more of an idealist who was desperately seeking power and was obsessed with the idea of German greatness. After the failed coup, Hitler became much more pragmatic. Where before he sort of saw himself as a “working class” reactionary who was definitely not in bed with the communists but definitely not desirous of a return to the monarchy or anything like that, he became someone who was much more concerned with how to gain power.

The biggest lesson he took away from his failed coup was that he needed the strong political support of the military. He had some limited military support with the Beer Hall Putsch but not near enough for what he wanted. He also began looking to the organs of “traditional” power in Germany, the landed aristocracy and the industrialists. While ultimately Hitler stomped on many of them just as hard as he stomped on other groups, initially he courted them aggressively and his biggest selling point to them was that he was staunchly anti-Communist and firmly committed to a renewed German greatness. This appealed especially to the industrialists who would make a fortune rearming the German military.

Hitler also became committed to the idea of taking control of Germany from within the legislative process, he felt that an armed coup was much less likely to succeed. Hitler’s party was only allowed to grow on this platform because of the institutional weakness of the Weimar Republic. The Nazi Party wasn’t the first or the only party that was staunchly in favor of a dissolution of the Republic and either a return to the monarchy or the formation of a new government. Compare this to America where no major political party that is in favor of the dissolution of the Union would have any political traction whatsoever (at least not since the 1860s.)

Hitler’s rise to power was sort of a balancing act between mass appeal and keeping the support of the “power base” (the conservatives.) For example the SA was seen as a group of thugs by the more conservative military groups and the industrialists. Hitler couldn’t do what he needed to do without the SA, though, so while he kept it around and put it to good use in getting power he was quick to turn on the SA once he had seized control of the government and no longer had any use for a paramilitary organization. This shows how much of an opportunist Hitler was. He had no interest in being a servant to the monarchists/industrialists/military leaders, and he also had no interest in being the “people’s man.” Hitler wanted absolute power over everything. Once he took command there was no place in the military for dissent, the conservative elements like the industrialists who thought Hitler could be controlled were quickly shown that they did exactly as he said and how he said it or their companies would be nationalized and they would be in danger of death or imprisonment.

As for the masses who bought into his message and his loyal masses in the SA who, through organized thuggery helped him win elections, they were quickly shown that there would be no “people’s Germany” and many of the leaders of the SA came to brutal ends. Germany was going to serve the interests and desires of Hitler and any benefit this brought to the masses was mostly incidental. Much of the ideology that Hitler fed the masses once he had complete power was little more than brainwashing to insure he did not have to be concerned with internal dissent.

I can’t really see Hitler as being liberal or conservative. Sure, he was in bed with the industrialists. He was also in bed with the masses, the millions of dissatisfied veterans of WWI, many of the lower class. Once Hitler had power all he cared about was that you were someone he could trust and who did what he said. The industrialists who allowed themselves to become his tools profited, others didn’t. I.G. Farben for example did quite well under Hitler, whereas Fritz Thyssen’s company was nationalized and he himself imprisoned in a concentration camp. Thyssen was fairly typical of many of the industrialists who supported Hitler vigorously until they realized he could not be tempered or controlled.

34

I think I agree a lot with the post by Martin Hyde but there are some nits:

It is indeed that opportunism that makes me doubt any sincerity the Nazis leaders had regarding the socialist ideas they were using early.

I agree that Hitler was no liberal or conservative. He was a radical and his radicalism had the overwhelming support of the German industrialists, as it was mentioned before, the proof is in the pudding, one has to look at the groups that supported and opposed the Nazis to figure out what was the nature of their radicalism.

As for Fritz Thyssen:

That entry also points out that the company of Thyssen was only briefly nationalized, it seems then that it was only to keep it under control while removing the owner, and it was given to others that did not complain about the war. In any case, he got his company back after the war.

IMHO as Thyssen was part of the groups that told Hitler where to jump, (to get rid of the SA, the army of the masses) the episode just shows who then Hitler decided to support, too bad that Thyssen only opposed the war.

35

Cite?

Because he’s just not important enough to care about, obviously. You can’t have a problem with someone who doesn’t matter.

36

It wasn’t denationalized until after the war.

But one of the appeals of Nazism, more generally, was that it wasn’t “left” or “right”; that it dreamed of a new Germany where there wasn’t a left or right, but all Germans, joined together for the good of the German people. The whole idea behind the Gleichschaltung. If you get the chance, you should read Peter Fritzche’s books “Germans into Nazis” and “Life and Death in the Third Reich”. The first looks at the way the Nazis came to power, by shaping their message and appealing to the popular will and popular viewpoints; by being a spokesman for the “ordinary German”. The second looks at the way the Nazis got German society and language to change to embrace Nazi terms and Nazi concepts, and how ordinary, non-Nazi Germans changed their attitudes and manner of thinking to come in line with Nazi thinking.

37

Right. You take the economic corporatism & lose the belligerent warmongering nationalism, & fascism could be a pretty good deal.

OK, the massive cult of personality around the Leader is kind of a bad idea too.

And the subsumation of political discourse into a sort of corporo-monism.

Oh, never mind.

38

Of course that sounded nice to the Germans, until the ones that were on the left got arrested, killed or sterilized. (One very appalling example of how justice in Nazi Germany was setup can be seen in “Judgment at Nuremberg” where a baker got to be sterilized because, among other reasons, his parents belonged to the communist party)

Those books sound interesting, I will check them out. I’m also trying to find “The Arms of Krupp”, it is about the Holocaust and the Krupp’s involvement in it.

39

Maybe it’s because we like to have things organized and compartmentalized in neat little categories.

Whether they fit or not.

40

Well, if you were just an ordinary rank and file German citizen who had supported a leftist party, and you were willing to shut up about your views, you were fine. Remember, about 30% of the population had voted Communist or Socialist in the 1933 election. Even if the Nazis had wanted to, that was too many people to lock up. But, yea, the German label was used by the Nazis as both a label of inclusion and exclusion.

Here’s Fritzche on the Nazi’s appeal: