Why are National Socialists called "Nazis"?

[xejkh]

I once read this book by Ron Rosenbaum entitled Explaining Hitler, and in it he talked about this anti-Hitler journalist in the Munich Post called Kurt Gerlich (sp?).

Originally the National Socialists were Naso (as mentioned in earlier posts), but this bunch of journalists were so pissed with Hitler that they renamed his party “Nazi” because it sounded like a word that meant “country bumpkin” (or something derogatory) in some German dialect.

Though unpleasant the name stuck, and the National Socialists used it until the end of World War II. (the attempt to have a joke at the National Socialists’ expense backfired, it seems)

[everton]

*Originally posted by astorian *
Invariably, it’s those of us on the RIGHT of the political spectrum who are accused of being “Nazis” or “fascists.” And there IS a certain irony to that.

It seems strange to attempt to implicate modern-day liberals or democratic socialists as allies of Adolf Hitler simply because the German Nazi Party chose to include the word Socialist in their name.

Socialists of my acquaintance favour the communal ownership of the means of production and distribution, and an emphasis on social welfare policies. Fascism, on the other hand, is characterised by extreme nationalism/racism and the tendency to favour violent and military means to oblige their own citizens to accept their laws and neighbouring countries to accept their expansionist ambitions.

If you are on the right of the political spectrum in economic terms, so that you favour market deregulation and reduction of social welfare programmes, it would not be accurate to accuse you of being fascists. But people on the left and centre criticise the German Nazis on account of all that bombing and gassing not because they were free marketeers. By suggesting that Nazi = bad because Nazi = “socialist” is bizzare. Surely you’re not suggesting that their policies of genocide and forced annexation of neighbouring states were just footnotes of history, and that Hilter’s real crime was nationalisation of the banks?

When it comes to name calling, it seems surprising to me that anyone on the left is invariably accused of wanting to turn their own country into a dictatorial totalitarian regime simply because there are examples of such regimes that have claimed to be socialist. There is nothing remotely socialist about Stalin’s treatment of Ukraine or Castro’s expulsion of homosexuals for instance.

[Olentzero]

Damn, where’s that gobsmacked smiley when you need it? Nicely done, everton.

[CarnalK]

Of course I agree Crusoe (I was kind of making a sideways referral to the announcement at the top of the forums). If you can’t judge someone on the philosophy they hold then “having a philosophy” is meaningless.

Anyway, Everton hit that one bang on. I was under the impression that Hitler et al co-opted the term to win labour support and that the “night of the long knives” was to wipe out any true socialist leanings from the party(serious oversimplification I know).

[Crusoe]

Fair enought, point taken.

[astorian]

Either Everton is missing my point, or he’s a bit oversensitive.

My point was not that latter day socialists (Francois Mitterand, Olof Palme, whoever) had much in common with Hitler. They DIDN’T, any more than Barry Goldwater or Margaret Thatcher did. The fact remains, Hitler and his followers called themselves National Socialists… and yet, very rarely do historians or journalists use that term. They almost always use the term “Nazis.”

As I said earlier, I do NOT regard this as some kind of conspiracy by which left-leaning historians and journalists try to protect the good name of socialism (I suspect the original poster DOES regard it that way). I repeat, I think MOST people use the term “Nazi” simply because it’s short, pithy and catchy. But the end result is to dissasociate Hitler from socialism, which is MIGHTY convenient for folks on the left, who get to throw the perjorative “Nazi” at Republicans and capitalists!

Nor is this the only case in which scholars and journalists on the Left have used over-simplistic or just flat-out misleading terms to make conservatives look like the bad guys. Recall how, during the early days of glasnost and perestroika, it was common to see the far left wing of the Communist Party (the Stalinists, the folks most vehemently opposed to capitalism, the folks most wedded to socialism and most devoted to Marx) labelled as “conservatives.”
And just weeks ago, we saw a gay Marxist Dutchman being referred to as “far right.”

So, when people like the OP see that self-professed socialist Adolf Hitler is never referred to as a socialist, while self-professed Communists are widely referred to as “conservatives,” or even “the far right,” they start to wonder why.

Butto assuage Everton’s concerns, personally, I don’t see much that’s Hitlerian in the platforms of ANY of the major parties in the U.S., Canada, Japan, or any of the leading European democracies. Words like “Nazi” and “fascist” are thrown about way too easily and casually by people in all parts of the political spectrum.

[everton]

*Originally posted by astorian *
Either Everton is missing my point, or he’s a bit oversensitive.

It’s a pity you think that. I’ll try to respond some of your points to make my position clearer.

The fact remains, Hitler and his followers called themselves National Socialists… and yet, very rarely do historians or journalists use that term. They almost always use the term “Nazis.”
<snip>
I repeat, I think MOST people use the term “Nazi” simply because it’s short, pithy and catchy. But the end result is to dissasociate Hitler from socialism, which is MIGHTY convenient for folks on the left, who get to throw the perjorative “Nazi” at Republicans and capitalists!

Another perfectly good reason why historians might prefer the term Nazis is because Hitler wasn’t a socialist, whatever he claimed to be. Also, I did state in my earlier post that people who use the term Nazi to refer to capitalists are making a straightforward mistake. I’m not surprised that you don’t like that, so I’d recommend you just to explain their error rather than dragging Hitler’s professed socialism into it. In any case, is “Communist” not used as a perjorative term in the USA?

Nor is this the only case in which scholars and journalists on the Left have used over-simplistic or just flat-out misleading terms to make conservatives look like the bad guys. Recall how, during the early days of glasnost and perestroika, it was common to see the far left wing of the Communist Party (the Stalinists, the folks most vehemently opposed to capitalism, the folks most wedded to socialism and most devoted to Marx) labelled as “conservatives.”

That’s not a mistake - they literally were conservative. Again it would be more helpful to explain the difference between conservative and capitalist rather than assigning the word conservative protected status. In this country Margaret Thatcher often preferred to use “Tory” (the traditional nickname of the Conservative Party) instead of Conservative because she felt her policies were too radical to be described by that word.

And just weeks ago, we saw a gay Marxist Dutchman being referred to as “far right.”

I agree with you that describing Pim Fortuyn as “far right” was misleading, but no more so than to describe him as Marxist. In Holland, of course, being gay is no obstacle to being either a conservative or a right winger. Maybe things are different where you are.

Words like “Nazi” and “fascist” are thrown about way too easily and casually by people in all parts of the political spectrum.

That’s also perfectly true, but misappropriating the term socialism is going to makes things worse, not better.

[Polycarp]

Hitler spun off a more-or-less-legitimate “national socialist” movement with a somewhat amorphous leadership structure including Ernst Rohm and two brothers whose names I forget (one of them became a Nazi leader). I.e., these were people who were (a) socialist in economic ideology, and (b) nationalist rather than internationalist in political stance.

The party name, including the “Arbeiter” (Worker) element, derives from those early days.

What Hitler made of the party was, rather obviously when you look through the history, in no way socialistic (unless you consider everything statist as socialistic).

[nicky]

Originally Hitler intended the NSDAP to be a workers party - however in the late twenties, after noticing some glimmerings of electoral success in the 1928 elections in rural areas, the Nazis decided instead to target the middle class.

The S.A. - the more “socialist” wing of the party - was dissolved in 1934 and its leaders killed. And Ernst Rohm was gay.

[lee]

*Originally posted by Captain Amazing *
**No, it’s not a racist statement. **

It’s not racist because Nazi is not a race. Nobody is born a Nazi any more than anyone is born Republican.

BTW Objectivity has nothing to do with giving equal time and credence to opposite points of view. Just because someone says that Nazis were bad or that Hitler was evil doesn’t mean objectivity calls for giving equal weight to those who would say otherwise. It calls for investigating which is the truth, finding facts and stating what you find. Fact, while the Nazi Party was in power, millions of people were put to death. Evidence? How about eyewitness accounts? How about the camps we found? How about the graves? Ever read any accounts of Mengele’s experiments? Ever read any of Mein Kampf? I have. I am thoroughly convinced that Nazis were bad, and that Hitler was evil.

Just because we have to allow those who are evil to express themselves doesn’t mean for a minute that we have to say their opinions are as good as anyone else’s. There are many areas where the truth is hard to discern. Which is the one true religion? I have yet to see anyone convince me that they have the truth of that matter locked up. BUT THIS MATTER IS DIFFERENT. We are not talking about fuzzy concepts. We are talking about a government that ran an efficient abattoir for the very citizens that any normal government swears to protect. Yes, if someone wants to say this is a good idea they may, as long as they obey the same laws that someone spouting the opposite opinion would, BUT we don’t have to pretend they are right. We don’t even have to stop and listen.