Hitler Was A Socialist, (And Not A Right Wing Conservative)

click me^–>

[First published August 22, 2005] What is socialism? It is a politico-economic philosophy that believes government must direct all major economic decisions by command, and thus all the means of production for the greater good, however defined. There are three major divisions of socialism, all antagonistic to each other. One is democratic socialism, that places the emphasis on democratic means, but then government is a tool for improving welfare and equality. A second division is Marxist-Leninism, which based on a “scientific theory” of dialectical materialism, sees the necessity of a dictatorship (“of the proletariat”) to create a classless society and universal equality. Then, there is the third division, or state socialism. This is a non-Marxist or anti-Marxist dictatorship that aims at near absolute economic control for the purpose of economic development and national power, all construed to benefit the people.

Mussolini’s fascism was a state socialism that was explicitly anti-Marx and aggressively nationalistic. Hitler’s National Socialism was state socialism at its worse. It not only shared the socialism of fascism, but was explicitly racist. In this it differs from the state socialism of Burma today, and that of some African and Arab dictatorships.

Two prevailing historical myths that the left has propagated successfully is that Hitler was a far right wing conservative and was democratically elected in 1933 (a blow at bourgeois democracy and conservatives). Actually, he was defeated twice in the national elections (he became chancellor in a smoke-filled-room appointment by those German politicians who thought they could control him — see “What? Hitler Was Not Elected?”) and as head of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, he considered himself a socialist, and was one by the evidence of his writings and the his economic policies.

To be clear, National Socialism differs from Marxism in its nationalism, emphasis on folk history and culture, idolization of the leader, and its racism. But the Nazi and Marxist-Leninists shared a faith in government, an absolute ruler, totalitarian control over all significant economic and social matters for the good of the working man, concentration camps, and genocide/democide as an effective government policy (only in his last years did Stalin plan for his own Holocaust of the Jews).

I’ve read Hitler’s Mein Kampf (all online here) and can quote the following from Volume 2:

Chapter VII:

In 1919-20 and also in 1921 I attended some of the bourgeois [capitalist] meetings. Invariably I had the same feeling towards these as towards the compulsory dose of castor oil in my boyhood days. . . . And so it is not surprising that the sane and unspoiled masses shun these ‘bourgeois mass meetings’ as the devil shuns holy water.

Chapter 4:

The folkish philosophy is fundamentally distinguished from the Marxist by reason of the fact that the former recognizes the significance of race and therefore also personal worth and has made these the pillars of its structure. These are the most important factors of its view of life. 

If the National Socialist Movement should fail to understand the fundamental importance of this essential principle, if it should merely varnish the external appearance of the present State and adopt the majority principle, it would really do nothing more than compete with Marxism on its own ground. For that reason it would not have the right to call itself a philosophy of life. If the social programme of the movement consisted in eliminating personality and putting the multitude in its place, then National Socialism would be corrupted with the poison of Marxism, just as our national-bourgeois parties are.

Chapter XII:

The National Socialist Movement, which aims at establishing the National Socialist People’s State, must always bear steadfastly in mind the principle that every future institution under that State must be rooted in the movement itself.

Some other quotes:

Hitler, spoken to Otto Strasser, Berlin, May 21, 1930:

I am a Socialist, and a very different kind of Socialist from your rich friend, Count Reventlow. . . . What you understand by Socialism is nothing more than Marxism.

On this, see Alan Bullock, Hitler: a Study in Tyranny, pp.156-7; and Graham L. Strachan “MANUFACTURED REALITY: THE ‘THIRD WAY’”

Gregor Strasser, National Socialist theologian, said:

We National Socialists are enemies, deadly enemies, of the present capitalist system with its exploitation of the economically weak … and we are resolved under all circumstances to destroy this system.

F.A. Hayek in his Road to Serfdom (p. 168) said:

The connection between socialism and nationalism in Germany was close from the beginning. It is significant that the most important ancestors of National Socialism—Fichte, Rodbertus, and Lassalle—are at the same time acknowledged fathers of socialism. …. From 1914 onward there arose from the ranks of Marxist socialism one teacher after another who led, not the conservatives and reactionaries, but the hard-working laborer and idealist youth into the National Socialist fold. It was only thereafter that the tide of nationalist socialism attained major importance and rapidly grew into the Hitlerian doctrine.

See also his chapter 12: “The Socialist Roots of Naziism.”

Von Mises in his Human Action (p. 171) said:

There are two patterns for the realization of socialism. The first pattern (we may call it the Lenin or Russian pattern) . . . . the second pattern (we may call it the Hindenburg or German Pattern) nominally and seemingly preserves private ownership of the means of production and keeps the appearance of ordinary markets, prices, wages, and interest rates. There are, however, no longer entrepreneurs, but only shop managers … bound to obey unconditionally the orders issued by government.

This is precisely how Hitler governed when he achieved dictatorial power.

In a previous blog, i referred to John J. Ray’s piece (“Hitler Was A Socialist”, and I was asked who he is. He has a Ph.D. in psychology, but taught sociology for many years. His fulsome bio is here. His article on Hitler is excellent and well researched. He has a blog on “dissecting leftism.”

Link of Note

“Myth: Hitler was a leftist By Steve Kanga

(note: A liberal activist, Kanga apparently shot himself to death outside of the office of anti-Clinton billionaire philanthropist Richard Mellon Scaif, February 8, 1999. It was ruled a suicide.)

Kanga says:

Many conservatives accuse Hitler of being a leftist, on the grounds that his party was named “National Socialist.” But socialism requires worker ownership and control of the means of production. In Nazi Germany, private capitalist individuals owned the means of production, and they in turn were frequently controlled by the Nazi party and state. True socialism does not advocate such economic dictatorship — it can only be democratic. Hitler’s other political beliefs place him almost always on the far right. He advocated racism over racial tolerance, eugenics over freedom of reproduction, merit over equality, competition over cooperation, power politics and militarism over pacifism, dictatorship over democracy, capitalism over Marxism, realism over idealism, nationalism over internationalism, exclusiveness over inclusiveness, common sense over theory or science, pragmatism over principle, and even held friendly relations with the Church, even though he was an atheist.

Here you have a taste for how the left maintains its myth, as in conflating democracy and socialism. That is, true socialism “can only be democratic.” Right, like the Democratic People’s Republic of [North] Korea, or the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.
Universal Archive
Democratic peace Q&A/FAQ

67 Responses to Hitler Was A Socialist, (And Not A Right Wing Conservative)

  1. cantueso says:

    Well, these definitions are always shifty. However, traditionally the extremes of left and right have been close to each other in their insistence on the moral authority of the government, whereas in the center the government is seen as a more or less neutral organizer and arbiter.

    It is important to understand that Hitler was deeply sentimental, but only intermittently, so that anytime he could take anybody off guard. His values were those of the extreme right.

    Where on the extreme left there is “the People”, on the extreme right there is “your Fatherland” and in either case not much about “the Law”.

  2. rudyrummel says:

    Yes, definitions can be shifty. That is why what definition are used must be theoretically sound, conceptually tight, and empirically grounded in history and sociology. Saying this, as study of Hitler shows that he was a self-proclaimed National Socialist, also a fascist (fascism was and is socialist), and on the center of a scale from communist to monarchist. Communism is the end point of a scale from communism to libertarianism. And Monarchism is the end point of a scale from Monarchism to Libertarianism. Thus, political ideologies form a triangle within which all ideologies can be located. The left right scale just does not do it theoretically conceptually, and empirically, although popular among intellectuals and the chattering class

  3. ethanmang says:

    cantueso is an idiot they dont shift, the left wing blames the right wing for its misfortunes fascism was born of the far left and remains so.

    now as for nazism it was national socialism instead of international. Meaning? it was very left wing they say nazi’s destroyed the left wing it merely replaced it and then destroyed the right.

  4. ethanmang says:

    as for rudyrummel there are several difference between fascism and socialism and what it boils down to is fascism is more of a cult of the state, its like a state worship, in fascism talking bad of the state or the military is treason, it has happened in America under Woodrow Wilson, he broke the American constitution by placing acts such as the Sedation Act.

    Fascism is a cult of the state and works to make everybody equals which in that case is a branch of socialism, it takes an extreme pride in its military and the becomes involved in bussiness, it doesnt like individual freedom rather it prefers the state to think of itself as one whole body, FDR did this as well this his blue eagle program, fascism has been here but through liberals who were not called liberals until the 1930’s rather they called themselves progressives meaning liberals dont even know who they are. real progressvism inside America is fascist not socialist.
    Now calling fascism right wing is simply idiotic now that we have this all done, its called right by the left because of its right left wing, its closer towards the middle but possibly one of the most dangerous, all forms of left wing government are oppressive and it makes no sense why they say “individual freedom is useless now” and “the constitution is useless inside today’s day and time. Karl Marx was an idiot and we should all learn to accept that.

  5. ethanmang says:

    as for saying hitler supported capitalism that is retard research him he hated it, but he realized that the rich were funding him so he kept capitalism around realizing its how the would make all of this money before making his final blow to its engines and having it crumble…

    which by the way is terrible because capitalism is an awesome system we all have to work up don’t we?

    so save up and move onto the next level.

  6. John Bryans Fontaine says:

    It’s Revisionist Orwellian doublespeak to claim that Hitler and the nazis were on the polital left. The Truth is that Hitler and the nazis were politically far right and loathed all those on any segment of the left.

    Hitler only used the term socialism because he believed the ideology was right-wing and opposed to Marxism:

    1. ‘NATIONAL’ AND ‘SOCIAL’ ARE TWO IDENTICAL CONCEPTIONS. It was only the Jew who succeeded, through falsifying the social idea and turning it into Marxism, not only in divorcing the social idea from the national, but in actually representing them as utterly contradictory. That aim he has in fact achieved. At the founding of this Movement we formed the decision that we would give expression to this idea of ours of the identity of the two conceptions: despite all warnings, on the basis of what we had come to believe, on the basis of the sincerity of our will, we christened it ”National Socialist.’ – Munich speech, April 12th, 1922

    Hitler and the Nazis despised ALL politics on the left, and also they were funded by major german industrialists and also supported by the right-wing, anti-union, anti-semitic Henry Ford.

  7. […] a Socialist, not a Right Wing Conservative August 22nd, 2005 Democratic Peace Blog Hitler Was A Socialist, (And Not A Right Wing Conservative) (LINK) What is socialism? It is a […]

  8. Bite me says:

    Nazis were ideological conservatives. They were as right-wing as they come.

    Why are americans so dense?

  9. willcobbett says:

    Hitler was radical, not conservative.

    The photo – I can’t see a Talmud, Torah or menorah anywhere – how is she Jewish, by simply looking at the pic? She could be Slav Atheist, Czech catholic, Gypsy or anything else. Germans killed plenty non Jew (more than Jews) so really the pic only illustrates man’s inhumanity to man.

  10. R.Milne says:

    Hitler’s Germany was capitalist and imperialist. Hitlers loyalties lay with big business, he regarded free enterprise as an expression of ‘might is right’. Big business funded Hitler, this brought him into confrontation with the socialists and nationalists within the party.

    Gregor strasser and Ernst Roehm (leader of the brown shirts) called for a completion of the revolution, condemning Hitlers new allegiances with the right. They both subsequently died as a result of the infamous ‘night of the long lives’ in 34, this night consolidated power for Hitler.

    Hitler could then do what he really wanted to do with Germany, become the Fuhrer, turn his back on socialism and accelerate programs like eugenics. Having said that post 34 nazi-germany still advocated elements of socialism, nationalised healthcare, education, peasant land rights, improved factory conditions etc. This was partly to appease an expectant German nation, and partly due to left-nazi’s still within the party.

    So no, Hitler was not a socialist, Hitler was anything he thought he needed to be.

  11. Ksig says:

    Nancy Pelosi and Rush Limbaugh are neither accurately compared with Hitler if you apply any perspective at all. There is political philosophies and then their is the proclivity to dominance. If you consider Hitler on the same side of the fence as conservatives you might as well through him in the same boat as George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. Nazi Germany was not a rule of law and attenuated government. It was a dictatorship; and our own (U.S.) constitution is engendered in limited government and more often than not the right pursue limited government (anti-gun control, limited government influence in the capitalist system, low taxes, and overall self determination of the individual rather than dependence on the government).
    If you consider Hitler in the same arena as the modern left you are flawed as well. Hitler would not have cared for affirmative action, illegal immigrants voting (our any one for that manner), and he would not have been a big friend of lawyers (this unfortunately puts the biggest bastard of humanity on the same side of the fence as many of us). The point I am trying to make is that comparing Hitler to today’s political movements is like comparing a red Corvette to a cherry because they are both red.
    The only real philosophical comparison to Hitler and the left is possibility in the abortion debate in the belief that people have the right to kill the unborn for the benefit of the others. If you are open minded of enough to consider this do a little bit of research on Margaret Sanger the founder of Planned Parent hood. Named the Birth Control League, its newsletter (The Birth Control Review) often featured articles by Prof. Dr. Ernst Rudin, head of Nazi Germany’s eugenics program in the April 1933 edition and in other articles promoted eugenic concentration camps.
    Now you know.

  12. Rob G says:

    Good god this again? Aparrently the American Right can’t aknowledge the darkness at it’s edges, the left does so while the right hides behind Orwellian Double Speak (btw Orwell was a socialist, just a side note) claiming that it is a holy and pure state, not the social Darwinist nightmare that dwells in it’s doctorine, Capitalism is a perfect system for a murderous organisation, people only value for what they own and how much money they have, rather than as human beings, the poor then become sub-human, having not enough possesions to matter, who then cares if these nonpoeple die.

  13. […] as factual. The class warfare is pure Marxist, and the Hitler was a conservative pure fantasy. Hitler Was A Socialist, (And Not A Right Wing Conservative) DemocraticPeace Blog The marriage of corporate Germany & the German government is where we are now heading. a […]

  14. rudyrummel says:


  15. die-HARD socialist says:

    You have a mistake in the first sentences. Socialism is not “dictatorship of the government” it is rule of worker unions which are internally managed by democracy.

    PS: Leninism and Stalinism are considered right-wing proto-fascist ideologies by most real socialists

  16. Tamara says:

    This is an excellent article. I am currently reading “Liberal Fascism” and there are eerie similarities in the way our government is currently using its “benevolence” to gain control over the most mundane of our behaviors for the “common good”….

  17. John Combs says:

    Hitler was a pragmatist whom was whatever he needed to be at the time. But the Nazi movement was essential a leftist one.

  18. wolfgang Freiheit says:

    Many conservatives accuse Hitler of being a leftist, on the grounds that his party was named “National Socialist.” But socialism requires worker ownership and control of the means of production. In Nazi Germany, private capitalist individuals owned the means of production, and they in turn were frequently controlled by the Nazi party and state. True socialism does not advocate such economic dictatorship — it can only be democratic. Hitler’s other political beliefs place him almost always on the far right. He advocated racism over racial tolerance, eugenics over freedom of reproduction, merit over equality, competition over cooperation, power politics and militarism over pacifism, dictatorship over democracy, capitalism over Marxism, realism over idealism, nationalism over internationalism, exclusiveness over inclusiveness, common sense over theory or science, pragmatism over principle, and even held friendly relations with the Church, even though he was an atheist.


    To most people, Hitler’s beliefs belong to the extreme far right. For example, most conservatives believe in patriotism and a strong military; carry these beliefs far enough, and you arrive at Hitler’s warring nationalism. This association has long been something of an embarrassment to the far right. To deflect such criticism, conservatives have recently launched a counter-attack, claiming that Hitler was a socialist, and therefore belongs to the political left, not the right.

    The primary basis for this claim is that Hitler was a National Socialist. The word “National” evokes the state, and the word “Socialist” openly identifies itself as such.

    However, there is no academic controversy over the status of this term: it was a misnomer. Misnomers are quite common in the history of political labels. Examples include the German Democratic Republic (which was neither) and Vladimir Zhirinovsky’s “Liberal Democrat” party (which was also neither). The true question is not whether Hitler called his party “socialist,” but whether or not it actually was.

    In fact, socialism has never been tried at the national level anywhere in the world. This may surprise some people — after all, wasn’t the Soviet Union socialist? The answer is no. Many nations and political parties have called themselves “socialist,” but none have actually tried socialism. To understand why, we should revisit a few basic political terms.

    Perhaps the primary concern of any political ideology is who gets to own and control the means the production. This includes factories, farmlands, machinery, etc. Generally there have been three approaches to this question. The first was aristocracy, in which a ruling elite owned the land and productive wealth, and peasants and serfs had to obey their orders in return for their livelihood. The second is capitalism, which has disbanded the ruling elite and allows a much broader range of private individuals to own the means of production. However, this ownership is limited to those who can afford to buy productive wealth; nearly all workers are excluded. The third (and untried) approach is socialism, where everyone owns and controls the means of production, by means of the vote. As you can see, there is a spectrum here, ranging from a few people owning productive wealth at one end, to everyone owning it at the other.

    Socialism has been proposed in many forms. The most common is social democracy, where workers vote for their supervisors, as well as their industry representatives to regional or national congresses. Another proposed form is anarcho-socialism, where workers own companies that would operate on a free market, without any central government at all. As you can see, a central planning committee is hardly a necessary feature of socialism. The primary feature is worker ownership of production.

    The Soviet Union failed to qualify as socialist because it was a dictatorship over workers — that is, a type of aristocracy, with a ruling elite in Moscow calling all the shots. Workers cannot own or control anything under a totalitarian government. In variants of socialism that call for a central government, that government is always a strong or even direct democracy… never a dictatorship. It doesn’t matter if the dictator claims to be carrying out the will of the people, or calls himself a “socialist” or a “democrat.” If the people themselves are not in control, then the system is, by definition, non-democratic and non-socialist.

    And what of Nazi Germany? The idea that workers controlled the means of production in Nazi Germany is a bitter joke. It was actually a combination of aristocracy and capitalism. Technically, private businessmen owned and controlled the means of production. The Nazi “Charter of Labor” gave employers complete power over their workers. It established the employer as the “leader of the enterprise,” and read: “The leader of the enterprise makes the decisions for the employees and laborers in all matters concerning the enterprise.” (1)

    The employer, however, was subject to the frequent orders of the ruling Nazi elite. After the Nazis took power in 1933, they quickly established a highly controlled war economy under the direction of Dr. Hjalmar Schacht. Like all war economies, it boomed, making Germany the second nation to recover fully from the Great Depression, in 1936. (The first nation was Sweden, in 1934. Following Keynesian-like policies, the Swedish government spent its way out of the Depression, proving that state economic policies can be successful without resorting to dictatorship or war.)

    Prior to the Nazi seizure of power in 1933, worker protests had spread all across Germany in response to the Great Depression. During his drive to power, Hitler exploited this social unrest by promising workers to strengthen their labor unions and increase their standard of living. But these were empty promises; privately, he was reassuring wealthy German businessmen that he would crack down on labor once he achieved power. Historian William Shirer describes the Nazi’s dual strategy:

    “The party had to play both sides of the tracks. It had to allow [Nazi officials] Strasser, Goebbels and the crank Feder to beguile the masses with the cry that the National Socialists were truly ‘socialists’ and against the money barons. On the other hand, money to keep the party going had to be wheedled out of those who had an ample supply of it.” (2)

    Once in power, Hitler showed his true colors by promptly breaking all his promises to workers. The Nazis abolished trade unions, collective bargaining and the right to strike. An organization called the “Labor Front” replaced the old trade unions, but it was an instrument of the Nazi party and did not represent workers. According to the law that created it, “Its task is to see that every individual should be able… to perform the maximum of work.” Workers would indeed greatly boost their productivity under Nazi rule. But they also became exploited. Between 1932 and 1936, workers wages fell, from 20.4 to 19.5 cents an hour for skilled labor, and from 16.1 to 13 cents an hour for unskilled labor. (3) Yet workers did not protest. This was partly because the Nazis had restored order to the economy, but an even bigger reason was that the Nazis would have cracked down on any protest.

    There was no part of Nazism, therefore, that even remotely resembled socialism. But what about the political nature of Nazism in general? Did it belong to the left, or to the right? Let’s take a closer look:

    The politics of Nazism

    The political right is popularly associated with the following principles. Of course, it goes without saying that these are generalizations, and not every person on the far right believes in every principle, or disbelieves its opposite. Most people’s political beliefs are complex, and cannot be neatly pigeonholed. This is as true of Hitler as anyone. But since the far right is trying peg Hitler as a leftist, it’s worth reviewing the tenets popularly associated with the right. These include:

    * Individualism over collectivism.
    * Racism or racial segregation over racial tolerance.
    * Eugenics over freedom of reproduction.
    * Merit over equality.
    * Competition over cooperation.
    * Power politics and militarism over pacifism.
    * One-person rule or self-rule over democracy.
    * Capitalism over Marxism.
    * Realism over idealism.
    * Nationalism over internationalism.
    * Exclusiveness over inclusiveness.
    * Meat-eating over vegetarianism.
    * Gun ownership over gun control
    * Common sense over theory or science.
    * Pragmatism over principle.
    * Religion over secularism.

    Let’s review these spectrums one by one, and see where Hitler stood in his own words. Ultimately, Hitler’s views are not monolithically conservative — on a few issues, his views are complex and difficult to label. But as you will see, the vast majority of them belong on the far right:

    Individualism over collectivism.

    Many conservatives argue that Hitler was a leftist because he subjugated the individual to the state. However, this characterization is wrong, for several reasons.

    The first error is in assuming that this is exclusively a liberal trait. Actually, U.S. conservatives take considerable pride in being patriotic Americans, and they deeply honor those who have sacrificed their lives for their country. The Marine Corps is a classic example: as every Marine knows, all sense of individuality is obliterated in the Marines Corps, and one is subject first, foremost and always to the group.

    The second error is forgetting that all human beings subscribe to individualism and collectivism. If you believe that you are personally responsible for taking care of yourself, you are an individualist. If you freely belong and contribute to any group — say, an employing business, church, club, family, nation, or cause — then you are a collectivist as well. Neither of these traits makes a person inherently “liberal” or “conservative,” and to claim that you are an “evil socialist” because you champion a particular group is not a serious argument.

    Political scientists therefore do not label people “liberal” or “conservative” on the basis of their individualism or collectivism. Much more important is how they approach their individualism and collectivism. What groups does a person belong to? How is power distributed in the group? Does it practice one-person rule, minority rule, majority rule, or self-rule? Liberals believe in majority rule. Hitler practiced one-person rule. Thus, there is no comparison.

    And on that score, conservatives might feel that they are off the hook, too, because they claim to prefer self-rule to one-person rule. But their actions say otherwise. Many of the institutions that conservatives favor are really quite dictatorial: the military, the church, the patriarchal family, the business firm.

    Hitler himself downplayed all groups except for the state, which he raised to supreme significance in his writings. However, he did not identify the state as most people do, as a random collection of people in artificially drawn borders. Instead, he identified the German state as its racially pure stock of German or Aryan blood. In Mein Kampf, Hitler freely and interchangeably used the terms “Aryan race,” “German culture” and “folkish state.” To him they were synonyms, as the quotes below show. There were citizens inside Germany (like Jews) who were not part of Hitler’s state, while there were Germans outside Germany (for example, in Austria) who were. But the main point is that Hitler’s political philosophy was not really based on “statism” as we know it today. It was actually based on racism — again, a subject that hits uncomfortably closer to home for conservatives, not liberals.

    As Hitler himself wrote:

    “The main plank in the Nationalist Socialist program is to abolish the liberalistic concept of the individual and the Marxist concept of humanity and to substitute for them the folk community, rooted in the soil and bound together by the bond of its common blood.” (4)

    “The state is a means to an end. Its end lies in the preservation and advancement of a community of physically and psychically homogenous creatures. This preservation itself comprises first of all existence as a race… Thus, the highest purpose of a folkish state is concern for the preservation of those original racial elements which bestow culture and create the beauty and dignity of a higher mankind. We, as Aryans, can conceive of the state only as the living organism of a nationality which… assures the preservation of this nationality…” (5)

    “The German Reich as a state must embrace all Germans and has the task, not only of assembling and preserving the most valuable stocks of basic racial elements in this people, but slowly and surely of raising them to a dominant position.” (6)

    And it was in the service of this racial state that Hitler encourage individuals to sacrifice themselves:

    “In [the Aryan], the instinct for self-preservation has reached its noblest form, since he willingly subordinates his own ego to the life of the community and, if the hour demands it, even sacrifices it.” (7)

    “This state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the ego to the conservation of the community, is really the first premise for every truly human culture.” (8)

    Racism or racial segregation over racial tolerance.

    “All the human culture, all the results of art, science, and technology that we see before us today, are almost exclusively the creative product of the Aryan.” (9)

    “Aryan races — often absurdly small numerically — subject foreign peoples, and then… develop the intellectual and organizational capacities dormant within them.” (10)

    “If beginning today all further Aryan influence on Japan should stop… Japan’s present rise in science and technology might continue for a short time; but even in a few years the well would dry up… the present culture would freeze and sink back into the slumber from which it awakened seven decades ago by the wave of Aryan culture.” (11)

    “Every racial crossing leads inevitably sooner or later to the decline of the hybrid product…” (12)

    “It is the function above all of the Germanic states first and foremost to call a fundamental halt to any further bastardization.” (13)

    “What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and reproduction of our race and our people, the sustenance of our children and the purity of our blood…” (14)

    Eugenics over freedom of reproduction

    “The folkish philosophy of life must succeed in bringing about that nobler age in which men no longer are concerned with breeding dogs, horses, and cats, but in elevating man himself…” (15)

    “The folkish state must make up for what everyone else today has neglected in this field. It must set race in the center of all life. It must take care to keep it pure… It must see to it that only the healthy beget children; that there is only one disgrace: despite one’s own sickness and deficiencies, to bring children into the world, and one highest honor: to renounce doing so. And conversely it must be considered reprehensible: to withhold healthy children from the nation. Here the state… must put the most modern medical means in the service of this knowledge. It must declare unfit for propagation all who are in any way visibly sick or who have inherited a disease and therefore pass it on…” (16)

    Merit over equality.

    “The best state constitution and state form is that which, with the most unquestioned certainty, raises the best minds in the national community to leading position and leading influence. But as in economic life, the able men cannot be appointed from above, but must struggle through for themselves…” (17)

    “It must not be lamented if so many men set out on the road to arrive at the same goal: the most powerful and swiftest will in this way be recognized, and will be the victor.” (p. 512.)

    Competition over cooperation.

    “Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live.” (18)

    “It must never be forgotten that nothing that is really great in this world has ever been achieved by coalitions, but that it has always been the success of a single victor. Coalition successes bear by the very nature of their origin the germ of future crumbling, in fact of the loss of what has already been achieved. Great, truly world-shaking revolutions of a spiritual nature are not even conceivable and realizable except as the titanic struggles of individual formations, never as enterprises of coalitions.” (19)

    “The idea of struggle is old as life itself, for life is only preserved because other living things perish through struggle… In this struggle, the stronger, the more able, win, while the less able, the weak, lose. Struggle is the father of all things… It is not by the principles of humanity that man lives or is able to preserve himself in the animal world, but solely by means of the most brutal struggle… If you do not fight for life, then life will never be won.” (20)

    Power politics and militarism over pacifism.

    Allan Bullock, probably the world’s greatest Hitler historian, sums up Hitler’s political method in one sentence:

    “Stripped of their romantic trimmings, all Hitler’s ideas can be reduced to a simple claim for power which recognizes only one relationship, that of domination, and only one argument, that of force.” (21)

    The following quotes by Hitler portray his rather stunning contempt for pacifism:

    “If the German people in its historic development had possessed that herd unity [defined here by Hitler as racial solidarity] which other peoples enjoyed, the German Reich today would doubtless be mistress of the globe. World history would have taken a different course, and no one can distinguish whether in this way we would not have obtained what so many blinded pacifists today hope to gain by begging, whining and whimpering: a peace, supported not by the palm branches of tearful, pacifist female mourners, but based on the victorious sword of a master people, putting the world into the service of a higher culture.” (22)

    “We must clearly recognize the fact that the recovery of the lost territories is not won through solemn appeals to the Lord or through pious hopes in a League of Nations, but only by force of arms.” (23)

    “In actual fact the pacifistic-humane idea is perfectly all right perhaps when the highest type of man has previously conquered and subjected the world to an extent that makes him the sole ruler of this earth… Therefore, first struggle and then perhaps pacifism.” (24)

    One-person rule or self-rule over democracy.

    “The young [Nazi] movement is in its nature and inner organization anti-parliamentarian; that is, it rejects… a principle of majority rule in which the leader is degraded to the level of mere executant of other people’s wills and opinion.” (25)

    “The [Nazi party] should not become a constable of public opinion, but must dominate it. It must not become a servant of the masses, but their master!” (26)

    “By rejecting the authority of the individual and replacing it by the numbers of some momentary mob, the parliamentary principle of majority rule sins against the basic aristocratic principle of Nature…” (27)

    “For there is one thing we must never forget… the majority can never replace the man. And no more than a hundred empty heads make one wise man will an heroic decision arise from a hundred cowards.” (28)

    “There must be no majority decisions, but only responsible persons, and the word ‘council’ must be restored to its original meaning. Surely every man will have advisers by his side, but the decision will be made by one man.” (29)

    “When I recognized the Jew as the leader of the Social Democracy, the scales dropped from my eyes.” (30)

    “The Western democracy of today is the forerunner of Marxism…” (31)

    “Only a knowledge of the Jews provides the key with which to comprehend the inner, and consequently real, aims of Social Democracy.” (32)

    Capitalism over Marxism.

    Bullock writes of Hitler’s views on Marxism:

    “While Hitler’s attitude towards liberalism was one of contempt, towards Marxism he showed an implacable hostility… Ignoring the profound differences between Communism and Social Democracy in practice and the bitter hostility between the rival working class parties, he saw in their common ideology the embodiment of all that he detested — mass democracy and a leveling egalitarianism as opposed to the authoritarian state and the rule of an elite; equality and friendship among peoples as opposed to racial inequality and the domination of the strong; class solidarity versus national unity; internationalism versus nationalism.” (33)

    As Hitler himself would write:

    “The German state is gravely attacked by Marxism.” (34)

    “In the years 1913 and 1914, I… expressed the conviction that the question of the future of the German nation was the question of destroying Marxism.” (35)

    “In the economic sphere Communism is analogous to democracy in the political sphere.” (36)

    “The Marxists will march with democracy until they succeed in indirectly obtaining for their criminal aims the support of even the national intellectual world, destined by them for extinction.” (37)

    “Marxism itself systematically plans to hand the world over to the Jews.” (38)

    “The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight.” (39)

    Realism over idealism.

    Hitler was hardly an “idealist” in the sense that political scientists use the term. The standard definition of an idealist is someone who believes that cooperation and peaceful coexistence can occur among peoples. A realist, however, is someone who sees the world as an unstable and dangerous place, and prepares for war, if not to deter it, then to survive it. It goes without saying that Hitler was one of the greatest realists of all time. Nonetheless, Hitler had his own twisted utopia, which he described:

    “We are not simple enough, either, to believe that it could ever be possible to bring about a perfect era. But this relieves no one of the obligation to combat recognized errors, to overcome weaknesses, and strive for the ideal. Harsh reality of its own accord will create only too many limitations. For that very reason, however, man must try to serve the ultimate goal, and failures must not deter him, any more than he can abandon a system of justice merely because mistakes creep into it…” (40)

    “The same boy who feels like throwing up when he hears the tirades of a pacifist ‘idealist’ is ready to give up his life for the ideal of his nationality.” (41)

    Nationalism over internationalism.

    “The nationalization of our masses will succeed only when… their international poisoners are exterminated.” (42)

    “The severest obstacle to the present-day worker’s approach to the national community lies not in the defense of his class interests, but in his international leadership and attitude which are hostile to the people and the fatherland.” (43)

    “Thus, the reservoir from which the young [Nazi] movement must gather its supporters will primarily be the masses of our workers. Its work will be to tear these away from the international delusion… and lead them to the national community…” (44)

    Exclusiveness over inclusiveness.

    “Thus men without exception wander about in the garden of Nature; they imagine that they know practically everything and yet with few exceptions pass blindly by one of the most patent principles of Nature: the inner segregation of the species of all living beings on earth.” (45)

    “The greatness of every mighty organization embodying an idea in this world lies in the religious fanaticism and intolerance with which, fanatically convinced of its own right, it intolerantly imposes its will against all others.” (46)

    Meat-eating over vegetarianism.

    It may seem ridiculous to include this issue in a review of Hitler’s politics, but, believe it or not, conservatives on the Internet frequently equate Hitler’s vegetarianism with the vegetarianism practised by liberals concerned about the environment and the ethical treatment of animals.

    Hitler’s vegetarianism had nothing to do with his political beliefs. He became a vegetarian shortly after the death of his girlfriend and half-niece, Geli Raubal. Their relationship was a stormy one, and it ended in her apparent suicide. There were rumors that Hitler had arranged her murder, but Hitler would remain deeply distraught over her loss for the rest of his life. As one historian writes:

    “Curiously, shortly after her death, Hitler looked with disdain on a piece of ham being served during breakfast and refused to eat it, saying it was like eating a corpse. From that moment on, he refused to eat meat.” (47)

    Hitler’s vegetarianism, then, was no more than a phobia, triggered by an association with his niece’s death.

    Gun ownership over gun control

    Perhaps one of the pro-gun lobby’s favorite arguments is that if German citizens had had the right to keep and bear arms, Hitler would have never been able to tyrannize the country. And to this effect, pro-gun advocates often quote the following:

    “1935 will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future.” – Adolf Hitler

    However, this quote is almost certainly a fraud. There is no reputable record of him ever making it: neither at the Nuremberg rallies, nor in any of his weekly radio addresses. Furthermore, there was no reason for him to even make such a statement; for Germany already had strict gun control as a term of surrender in the Treaty of Versailles. The Allies had wanted to make Germany as impotent as possible, and one of the ways they did that was to disarm its citizenry. Only a handful of local authorities were allowed arms at all, and the few German citizens who did possess weapons were already subject to full gun registration. Seen in this light, the above quote makes no sense whatsoever.

    The Firearms Policy Journal (January 1997) writes:

    “The Nazi Party did not ride to power confiscating guns. They rode to power on the inability of the Weimar Republic to confiscate their guns. They did not consolidate their power confiscating guns either. There is no historical evidence that Nazis ever went door to door in Germany confiscating guns. The Germans had a fetish about paperwork and documented everything. These searches and confiscations would have been carefully recorded. If the documents are there, let them be presented as evidence.”

    On April 12, 1928, five years before Hitler seized power, Germany passed the Law on Firearms and Ammunition. This law substantially tightened restrictions on gun ownership in an effort to curb street violence between Nazis and Communists. The law was ineffectual and poorly enforced. It was not until March 18, 1938 — five years after Hitler came to power — that the Nazis passed the German Weapons Law, their first known change in the firearm code. And this law actually relaxed restrictions on citizen firearms.

    Common sense over theory or science.

    Hitler was notorious for his anti-intellectualism:

    “The youthful brain should in general not be burdened with things ninety-five percent of which it cannot use and hence forgets again… In many cases, the material to be learned in the various subjects is so swollen that only a fraction of it remains in the head of the individual pupil, and only a fraction of this abundance can find application, while on the other hand it is not adequate for the man working and earning his living in a definite field.” (48)

    “Knowledge above the average can be crammed into the average man, but it remains dead, and in the last analysis sterile knowledge. The result is a man who may be a living dictionary but nevertheless falls down miserably in all special situations and decisive moments in life.” (49)

    “The folkish state must not adjust its entire educational work primarily to the inoculation of mere knowledge, but to the breeding of absolutely healthy bodies. The training of mental abilities is only secondary. And here again, first place must be taken by the development of character, especially the promotion of will-power and determination, combined with the training of joy in responsibility, and only in last place comes scientific schooling.” (50)

    “A people of scholars, if they are physically degenerate, weak-willed and cowardly pacifists, will not storm the heavens, indeed, they will not be able to safeguard their existence on this earth.” (51)

    Pragmatism over principle.

    “The question of the movement’s inner organization is one of expediency and not of principle.” (52)

    Religion over secularism.

    Hitler’s views on religion were complex. Although ostensibly an atheist, he considered himself a cultural Catholic, and frequently evoked God, the Creator and Providence in his writings. Throughout his life he would remain an envious admirer of the Christian Church and its power over the masses. Here is but one example:

    “We can learn by the example of the Catholic Church. Though its doctrinal edifice… comes into collision with exact science and research, it is none the less unwilling to sacrifice so much as one little syllable of its dogmas. It has recognized quite correctly that its power of resistance does not lie in its lesser or greater adaptation to the scientific findings of the moment, which in reality are always fluctuating, but rather in rigidly holding to dogmas once established, for it is only such dogmas which lend to the whole body the character of faith. And so it stands today more firmly than ever.” (53)

    Hitler also saw a useful purpose for the Church:

    “The great masses of people do not consist of philosophers; precisely for the masses, [religious] faith is often the sole foundation of a moral attitude… For the political man, the value of a religion must be estimated less by its deficiencies than by the virtue of a visibly better substitute. As long as this appears to be lacking, what is present can be demolished only by fools or criminals.” (54)

    Hitler thus advocated freedom of religious belief. Although he would later press churches into the service of Nazism, often at the point of a gun, Hitler did not attempt to impose a state religion or mandate the basic philosophical content of German religions. As long as they did not interfere with his program, he allowed them to continue fuctioning. And this policy was foreshadowed in his writings:

    “For the political leader the religious doctrines and institutions of his people must always remain inviolable; or else he has no right to be in politics…” (55)

    “Political parties have nothing to do with religious problems, as long as these are not alien to the nation, undermining the morals and ethics of the race; just as religion cannot be amalgamated with the scheming of political parties.” (56)

    “Worst of all, however, is the devastation wrought by the misuse of religious conviction for political ends.” (57)

    “Therefore, let every man be active, each in his own denomination if you please, and let every man take it as his first and most sacred duty to oppose anyone who in his activity by word or deed steps outside the confines of his religious community and tries to butt into the other.” (58)

    Hitler was raised a Catholic, even going to school for two years at the monastery at Lambauch, Austria. As late as 24 he still called himself a Catholic, but somewhere along the way he became an atheist. It is highly doubtful that this was an intellectual decision, as a reading of his disordered thoughts in Mein Kampf will attest. The decision was most likely a pragmatic one, based on power and personal ambition. Bullock reveals an interesting anecdote showing how these considerations worked on the young Hitler. After five years of eking out a miserable existence in Vienna and four years of war, Hitler walked into his first German Worker’s Party meeting:

    “‘Under the dim light shed by a grimy gas-lamp I could see four people sitting around a table…’ As Hitler frankly acknowledges, this very obscurity was an attraction. It was only in a party which, like himself, was beginning at the bottom that he had any prospect of playing a leading part and imposing his ideas. In the established parties there was no room for him, he would be a nobody.” (59)

    Hitler probably realized that a frustrated artist and pipe-dreamer like himself would have no chance of achieving power in the world-wide, 2000-year old Christian Church. It was most likely for this reason that he rejected Christianity and pursued a political life instead. Yet, curiously enough, he never renounced his membership in the Catholic Church, and the Church never excommunicated him. Nor did the Church place his Mein Kampf on the Index of Prohibited Books, in spite of its knowledge of his atrocities. Later the Church would come under intense criticism for its friendly and cooperative relationship with Hitler. A brief review of this history is instructive.

    In 1933, the Catholic Center Party cast its large and decisive vote in favor of Hitler’s Enabling Bill. This bill essentially gave Chancellor Hitler the sweeping dictatorial powers he was seeking. Historian Guenter Lewy describes a meeting between Hitler and the German Catholic authorities shortly afterwards:

    “On 26 April 1933 Hitler had a conversation with Bishop Berning and Monsignor Steinmann [the Catholic leadership in Germany]. The subject was the common fight against liberalism, Socialism and Bolshevism, discussed in the friendliest terms. In the course of the conversation Hitler said that he was only doing to the Jews what the church had done to them over the past fifteen hundred years. The prelates did not contradict him.” (60)

    As anyone familiar with Christian history knows, the Church has always been a primary source of anti-Semitism. Hitler’s anti-Semitism therefore found a receptive audience among Catholic authorities. The Church also had an intense fear and hatred of Russian communism, and Hitler’s attack on Russia was the best that could have happened. The Jesuit Michael Serafin wrote: “It cannot be denied that [Pope] Pius XII’s closest advisors for some time regarded Hitler’s armoured divisions as the right hand of God.” (61) As Pope Pius himself would say after Germany conquered Poland: “Let us end this war between brothers and unite our forces against the common enemy of atheism” — Russia. (62)

    Once Hitler assumed power, he signed a Concordat, or agreement, with the Catholic Church. Eugenio Pacelli (the man who would eventually become Pope Pius XII) was the Vatican diplomat who drew up the Concordat, and he considered it a triumph. In return for promises which Hitler increasingly broke, the Church dissolved all Catholic organizations in Germany, including the Catholic Center Party. Bishops were to take an oath of loyalty to the Nazi regime. Clergy were to see to the pastoral care of Germany’s armed forces (regardless of what those armed forces did). (63)

    The Concordat eliminated all Catholic resistance to Hitler; after this, the German bishops gave Hitler their full and unqualified support. A bishops’ conference at Fulda, 1933, resulted in agreement with Hitler’s case for extending Lebensraum, or German territory. (64) Bishop Bornewasser told a congregation of Catholic young people at Trier: “With our heads high and with firm steps we have entered the new Reich and are ready to serve it body and soul.” (65) Vicar-General Steinman greeted each Berlin mass with the shout, “Heil Hitler!” (66)

    Hitler, on the other hand, kept up his attack on the Church. Nazi bands stormed into the few remaining Catholic institutions, beat up Catholic youths and arrested Catholic officials. The Vatican was dismayed, but it did not protest. (67) In some instances, it was hard to tell if the Church supported its own persecution. Hitler muzzled the independent Catholic press (about 400 daily papers in 1933) and subordinated it to Goebbels’ Ministry of Propaganda and Enlightenment. Yet soon the Catholic Press was doing more than what the Nazis required of it — for example, coordinating their Nazi propaganda to prepare the people for the 1940 offensive against the West. (68) Throughout the war, the Catholic press would remain one of the Third Reich’s best disseminators of propaganda.

    Pacelli became the new Pope Pius XII in 1939, and he immediately improved relations with Hitler. He broke protocol by personally signing a letter in German to Hitler expressing warm hopes of friendly relations. Shortly afterwards, the Church celebrated Hitler’s birthday by ringing bells, flying swastika flags from church towers and holding thanksgiving services for the Fuhrer. (69) Ringing church bells to celebrate and affirm the bishops’ allegiance to the Reich would become quite common throughout the war; after the German army conquered France, the church bells rang for an entire week, and swastikas flew over the churches for ten days.

    But perhaps the greatest failure of Pope Pius XII was his silence over the Holocaust, even though he knew it was in progress. Although there are many heroic stories of Catholics helping Jews survive the Holocaust, they do not include Pope Pius, the Holy See, or the German Catholic authorities. When a reporter asked Pius why he did not protest the liquidation of the Jews, the Pope answered, “Dear friend, do not forget that millions of Catholics are serving in the German armies. Am I to involve them in a conflict of conscience?” (70) As perhaps the world’s greatest moral leader, he was charged with precisely that responsibility.

    The history of Hitler and the Church reveals a relationship built on mutual distrust and philosophical rejection, but also shared goals, benefits, admiration, envy, friendliness, and ultimate alliance.

  19. Srubna says:

    Hitler was a socialist, but he was not left-wing. He was a revolutionary traditionalist; and to pretend (as some Conservatives do) that Hitler was a lefty is just as retarded as the notion that Hitler was ‘right-wing’. The ‘left’ and ‘right’ both exist only within the system of parliamentary democracy, and neither is viable or coherent. Screw conservatism, screw socialism.

  20. an800lbgorilla says:

    <i.To most people, Hitler’s beliefs belong to the extreme far right. For example, most conservatives believe in patriotism and a strong military; carry these beliefs far enough, and you arrive at Hitler’s warring nationalism. This association has long been something of an embarrassment to the far right. To deflect such criticism, conservatives have recently launched a counter-attack, claiming that Hitler was a socialist, and therefore belongs to the political left, not the right.

    Ahhh Soviet Russia comes to mind…

  21. GuyFawkes501 says:

    Anyone who thinks Hitler was left-wing watches too much Fox News.

  22. AJ says:

    and those who think he’s a right-winged radical thinks that Stalin and Chairmen Mao are the greatest leaders the world has ever seen.

    Hitler was a European conservative NOT an American conservative. THere IS a difference.

  23. William says:

    It seems as though left leaning individuals confuse todays American conservatives with so-called ‘right-wing’ extremists of Nazi Germany. I’ve seen that the right is actually institutionalist vs. individualist by there affinity for religion, the military etc… This is a classic misdirection on the left. The right endears itself to these groups based on nostalgic feelings borne from the ‘glory days’ of the U.S. following World War II. The ethics and morality that the U.S. military represent is a protection of individual rights. The connection of religion/church is another misdirection in that all sides of the political spectrum assign themselves to some sort of religious discipline. This is an inherent human trait and not one based on political philosophy. It is obvious that you cannot group Hitler in with American left wing minded individuals. However, his connections with Socialist tenets is clear. The actions of Nazi government and his writings in ‘Mein Kampf’ back this statement.

  24. Greg says:

    very interesting, however I dont think Hitler should properly be categorized as a socialist.

    Similarly, I dont think we can label the USSR, People’s republic of China or the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea as Socialist.

    George Orwell’s 1984 was based on the distorting of socialist values and the resulting tyranny that occurs. I guess its a matter of history repeating itself.

  25. Carlos says:

    Hitler was a socialist. Here’s is perfectly explained:


    What you aren’t realizing is that socialists are considered the “right” among communists, historically the trend happened because the communists became enemies of Hitler at the end of World War II and they had to put him a label to demonize him in their propaganda. Hey, this is happening NOW in my country, the socialist party has suddenly turned into the far right in less than six months, according to the “true leftists”. Hell! They argue nowadays the soviet communists and chinese are actually the far right!

    The conclusion is that when they have a idealized/meaningless concept of “the left”, that magically turns into “the right” as soon as it does something bad. In that aspect, the left is like the often mocked rock so heavy that not even God himself could lift. It’s truly unmovable as long as nobody is holding it, but as long as somebody is rising it is a completely different term.

    So, Hitler is only a “rightist” when seen from the extreme far left, which let me say, has been the worst ideology ever to be devised, it’s just that the media couldn’t say it so freely because they were our “allies” in the war. Much like our previous “allies” in Kosovo and Afganistan.

  26. whizzles says:

    If Hitler was a liberal, then why do today’s liberals hate him and all the hard-core right wing organizations like the white power groups and the KKK like him? Take a look at their tattoos and their armbands, those symbols speak volumes about what type of people they are. They are the same nationalistic, patriotic, flag waving, religious zealot, anti-Semite scumbags who assisted this monster in the destruction of Europe.

  27. Met7797 says:

    The definition you gave for socialism at the top was more along the lines of communism. There is a difference. And Nazi Germany was NOT communist. lol.

    Socialism is defined as any of various economic AND political theories advocating collective OR governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.

    When you start advocating complete control by a government entity, you move into authoritarian territory.

    By definition socialism requires worker ownership and control of goods; socialism can only be a democracy.

    What made Hitler and the Nazi’s right wing, wasn’t their views on socialism, it was their views on nationalism, and fascism, both uniquely right wing concepts.

    Socialism just divvies up the loot and ensures equal distribution of moderate %’s of the profit, instead of unbalanced distribution of the majority of the profit.

    There are many different ways to incorporate Socialism, like our own Social Security benefits, Hawaii’s Health Care System, or the wildly successful NFL revenue sharing.

    Hitler’s idea of socialism, among other things, was to encourage private ownership, ban unions, and outlaw strikes. That doesn’t sound too liberal to me.

    They also focused heavily on Infrastructure Development, and Tax reductions. Kinda like what we now have in America, without the Infrastructure development.

    Their economic plans also took a country that was broken by the loss of WWI and subsequent sanctions, and made it an economic, military, and manufacturing powerhouse in an era when most countries were still suffering from the great depression.

    It was their deficit spending on war that got them into trouble. Again, kinda like what you have in America under the right’s time in power for the past 30 years.

    Hitler hated Marxism. The communists were right up there with the Jews in his book. If you remember your history lesson, it was after all the Ruskies that took Berlin.

    The term National Socialist is misleading, as the Nazi’s were not exactly Socialist.

    As most of the industries were owned by individual capitalists, then controlled by the Government.

    What made up the National Socialist ideology was the believe that 1 group, or race, constituted a state entity. In the Nazi’s case it was White Aryans. Therefor Nazi’s National Socialist ideology was White Aryans owned and controlled everything, specifically Nazi White Aryans. That makes it a right wing joint.

    In summation, turn off the Glen Beck drivel and pick up a history book that wasn’t written in Texas.

  28. Giordan says:

    Hitlerism was a heady mix of leftwing and rightwing ideas. A fusion of the sort we desperately need today.

  29. Ola says:

    I find it not surprising that today’s socialists hate being called socialists, the continuous failures of socialism are so blatant, are always giving socialism a new name and definition, are always trying to distance themselves from and excuse socialism’s failure, deny that it is socialism in every country where it has failed and is currently failing. A quote from Hitler’s 1922 Munich speech: “We are not fighting Jewish or Christian capitalism, we are fighting every capitalism: we are making the people completely free.”

  30. Angel says:

    Hitler was a lefty just because leftys hate him doesn’t make him a right wing shame on all of you fucking idiots for calling hitler a right wing small government guy when he persecuted christians called captialism the devil and had no problem forcing non-aryans to have abortions.

  31. Angel says:

    And yes my relatives were his victims and Mark7797 drop dead.

  32. Angel says:

    the KKK were the strongarm of the democrap party remember tax and spend lefturd Robert Byrd was a member who repented when is racist past caught up to him.

  33. Angel says:

    And yes your guy George Soros was a good ally of the nazis so stop calling them right wing

  34. Angel says:

    Socialism and democracy are incompatible or is it?

  35. Angel says:

    Abortion is a form of Eugenics that is reality.

  36. Angel says:

    Myth:Hitler was a leftist.

    Um no that is fact.

  37. danibel says:

    That’s true, he didn’t conserve much.

  38. Angel says:

    Amen danibel.

    What conservative in their right mind would force abortions on black people?

  39. Angel says:

    Fascism is left wing and opposes communism because they deem it a blasphemy.

  40. leteasha says:

    im pretty sure he was conservative….
    he called germany the motherland, he murdered communists in concentration camps ect,
    sure his party was called the nsdap, but in order for him to come in power, he needed to appeal to the masses… and because the left wing had been favourable during the weimar republic, its evident that hed need to.

  41. leteasha says:

    btw communists are extreme left… they are all about sharing out everything whilst under a dictatorship

  42. Westie says:

    This is imo the best analysis of political positions:
    The True Political Spectrum-there is no such thing as a “dictatorship of the right” as so frequently declared by our intellectuals in the universities and the media. ALL DICTATORSHIPS ARE OF THE LEFT! The farther we go to the right on the spectrum, the less government we will have, not more.

    The usage of such philosophically fraudulent terminology as a “totalitarianism of the right” can only further confuse this already snarled issue, by creating a phony association of capitalism and fascism in the people’s minds and causing them to fear all attempts to move to the right on the political spectrum toward less government and more freedom.

    The fact that such confusions are created so frequently by those of academic prowess is indicative of one of two factors: 1) the affliction of intellectual error on their part, or 2) the perpetration of intellectual deceit on their part. A much clearer and more realistic picture of the spectrum would be its division into the following five basic political philosophies….for complete discussion go to;

  43. bs says:

    Conservatives are trying to TODAY to label Hitler a Socialist (Hitlerism has lost) … precisely because many of their prececessors were on the side of Hitler or very close to Hitlerism ( Chamberlain, in Britain, and in the US, Ford to name two amongst thousands).

    And also because socialism remains a tradition and an influence which continue to terrify them. They must treat socialism as the Devil itself.

  44. […] [First published August 22, 2005] What is socialism? It is a politico-economic philosophy that believes government must direct all major economic decisions by command, and thus all the means of production for the greater good, however defined. […]

  45. Darken Rahl says:

    Hitler was against socialism. He did after all declare war on and invade the Union Of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics. He hated communism and socialism.

  46. […] shop. There's stuff all over the net that shows that Hitler wasn't a Right Wing Conservative. https://democraticpeace.wordpress.com…s-a-socialist/ It's idiotic to think that he was. Last edited by apdst; Today at 12:04 […]

  47. Angel says:

    Hitler Hated socialism? quit lying Darkentard he was not small government like you insist.

  48. Angel says:

    The soviet union was communist.

  49. Angel says:

    He hated socialism and communism because they stood in the way of his path to power which is a different reason for his hatred than us.

  50. Angel says:

    actually he didn’t hate socialists unless they showed disloyalty.

  51. Charismatic Megafauna says:

    You can find some similarities between Communism and Fascsism because they grew out of the same wild period of German history.

    Differences between Marx and Hitler, Fascism and Communism are fundemental:
    Fascism is explicitly racist and focused on racial purity. Communism is not racist, which allowed to spread to many coutries. Fascism attacks immigrants as the “enemy within.”

    Fascism condemns “class warfare” and create new classes that may reduce certain people to slaves. Communism is all about “class struggle”

    Fascism protects private property and factory owners. Communism promises that the workers will control the “means of production.”

    Fascism is a “spiritual” movement and condemns Communism’s “materialism” (pseudo scientific rules). Marx used “dialectic materialism”).

    Fascism is almost never atheist. It may embrace organized religion, but it will usually use “syncretism” – a mixture of beliefs. Fascist countries may have an official state religion. Communist societies are often officially atheist.

    Fascism will destroy society to return to the Utopian past. Socialism will destroy society to create the Utopian future.

    Claiming that Hitler was “leftist” raises denial of history so high that it is bound to attract HOLOCAUST DENIERS who want to blend into politial mainstream, in the same way that a church that “bans” gays ends up packed with closeted homosexuals.

  52. Charismatic Megafauna says:

    And your Strasser quote? Hitler has Strasser executed in 1934, so “Socialism bad!” is clearly an opinion shared by Hitler.

    Using the Strasser quote to describe the Nazis is rewriting hitory like the people who say Hitler was peaceful and pushed into ww2 by Churchhill (Pat Buchannan).

    Again, this is great stuff for holocaust deniers, because if Hitler was a “socialist,” then he probably never killed all those “socialist Jews,” did he? See? It’s a great theory for Holocaust deniers.

  53. Charismatic Megafauna says:

    Also, why don’t the self identified Hitler fans over at StormFront like socialism? Do you think you could explain these ideas to drunk skinheads without getting curbstomped? If you want to try, I’ll videotape it. Hell, I’ll drive.

  54. Angel says:

    Ah yes because ford and israel are nazis please get your head out of your ass you anti-semite.

  55. Charismatic Megafauna says:

    The quote is from Strassers journals titled “Thoughts about the Tasks of the Future” which he wrote in 1926. The Nazi party was in its early stages, did not have an identity, and this was before Mein Kampf was published and Hitler emerged as the leader. Hitler had Strasser executed in 1934. So “Strasserism” was not the Nazi party we fought in WW2. And attacking Strasser is to some degree agreeing with Hitler.

    How “Socialist” was Strasser? He wanted war against liberals.
    Strasses wrote in the same essay “….The spirit of our National Socialist idea has to overpower the spirit of liberalism and false democracy….. The false belief in the equality of man is the deadly threat with which liberalism destroyed people and nation, culture and morals, violating the deepest levels of our being!…” Strasser then goe on to describe how his system would have classes of masters and subjects, with civilian rank and voting priovileges based on their military records. Like any good conservative, Strasser promises morality, stability, and the elimination of moral relativism. “……There is a terrible hopelessness in the souls of humanity, a dissolution of all firm values,…. “RELATIVITY”- that is the keynote of the culture of our times – relativity in all things, relativity in all knowledge, relativity in all feeling … this is the largest, perhaps also incurable wound!!”

    Clearly Strasser’s idea of “Socialism” was nothing like what we would call “socialism,” and his idea of “fascism” was nothing like the system of “fascism” that took Germany into WW2. Strasserism was more of military junta where the army would control industry, and Strasserism did not put an emphasis on racial purity. From 1927 onward, Hitler’s vision was one man dictatorship based on racial purity.

    Using the Strasser quote is completely dishonest, and once you make the history of Third Reich based on denial of basic facts, they your side will be stuck with the Holocaust deniers.

  56. Angel says:

    So calling hitler a lefty is the same as holocaust denial?

    soros helped the nazis too…………call me a liar but it is truth.

  57. Saurabh says:

    This is the stupidest kind of propaganda there can be. Hitler’s socialism was “national socialism”. He identified the “Aryan nation” as the most important thing of all and used that notion to kill people and wage wars. It was “Aryan national socialism”. Aryan should have been the prefix for the national socialist party (It should have been Aryan National Socialist Party).
    His agenda was seldom as evolved when it came to economy as that of communism or socialism. Socialism of Canada for example, talks of society as a whole. All the people together. That is not fascism. Hitler’s socialism just consisted of the “Aryan society”. And economically speaking, he was an absolute capitalist. That was half the reason he went after Jews. For the money they had. Nazis stole all that the German Jews had.

  58. Angel says:

    Sounds a lot like china although they force abortions on those they think are of the wrong gender.

  59. JoeyDaKine says:

    Wow. Talk about normative ethics. So many of the interpretations of facts and quotes are twisted into pretzels just to fit your preconceived notions.

    Poor Wolfgang, he wrote so much just to prove how right-wing Hitler was yet his argument used so many castles-in-the-sky premises that I’m surprised he didn’t include an Enya soundtrack.

    “The Nazi’s and USSR were not true socialist countries; there has never been a true socialist country.” Apparently, for Wolfgang and the others who refuse to believe their lying eyes and ears. Hitler, Lenin, & Stalin each called themselves socialists and leaders of “worker’s parties” and wrote extensively about being socialists — but apparently this doesn’t really mean they were socialists because socialist CARE about the people. Socialists don’t take control of people and force people to do what they don’t want to do — or else.

    Socialists SHARE control over production. Socialist love diversity. Socialists love freedom and cooperation and pacifism and idealism and internationalism and gun control and vegetarianism and equality.

    Give me a break. Socialism and Marxism sound great on paper, in theory. “Let’s all share; let’s all think about it and vote on it; let’s cooperate.” But then reality sets in: people disagree and the power-seekers take control; they force others to do work they don’t want to do; they try to force others to believe what they believe.

    Look at today’s left: they say right-wingers are racially intolerant yet they constantly force us to consider race whenever a decision is to be made. Racial categories grow and grow rather than we becoming rainbow or colorblind. If we say uncontrolled immigration is dangerous then we are accused of being racist. If we say that we need to protect ourselves from aggressors trying to kill us then we are accused of being war-mongerers. If I say, “Just leave me alone and let me work,” they say, “No, you are part of the whole and must follow our lead.”

    They say they believe in tolerance but are the most intolerant people you’ll ever meet. They point out bad eggs whenever criticizing conservatives (exceptions rather than the majority) and use these bad eggs to justify their beliefs that those on the right are racists homophobes.

    They love to brand people who believe in individual freedoms as group-haters and evil-doers. I want as much freedom as possible. Does that mean I want to be able to steal my neighbor’s lawn mower? Of course not — but that is how the left portrays us.

    The Tea Party movement in the U.S. had literally hundreds of thousands of protesters (some show them in the millions), were mostly well-behaved (albeit angry at the politicians) and cleaned up after their rallies — yet the left and the media found a few bad eggs in the crowds and judged the whole movement as racist and anti-government (it was not racist or anti-government but anti-BIG govt, i.e. socialist/communist).

    The Wall Street Occupiers, on the other hand, have only thousands — much less than the Tea Partiers — blocked street traffic, and have left a huge mess in their wake.

    Like all left-wingers, they have lovely ideals but very little practical sense about how to create the best conditions for all individuals and groups in a large society. Their brand of socialism is fantasy and will never work as long as people are people.

  60. ey, thank you for your good blogpost about Six Flags. I think it is the best thing in the universe. Leave me a comment. And again thank you for your wonderfull blogpost….

    […]Hitler Was A Socialist, (And Not A Right Wing Conservative) « DemocraticPeace Blog[…]…

  61. funniest videos…

    […]Hitler Was A Socialist, (And Not A Right Wing Conservative) « DemocraticPeace Blog[…]…

  62. WordPress video training…

    […]Hitler Was A Socialist, (And Not A Right Wing Conservative) « DemocraticPeace Blog[…]…

  63. […] Nature, Pinker – to his credit – does recognize R.J. Rummel’s pioneering research into the phenomenon […]

  64. Adam Powell says:

    Hitler was a right-wing conservative. His speeches and writing before 1933 have to be treated with skepticism. He was trying to appeal to a broad audience. He needs to be judged by his actions in power.
    Hitler took over the German Workers Party who mixed right-wing nationalism, racism and socialism, like many other small parties in Central Europe at the time. The socialism was slowly junked. For example, Point 17 of the 25 Point Program of the (now renamed) Nazi Party was amended by Hitler. Instead of expropriating large land holdings (left wing for sure) this would now apply only to Jews.
    Those who still believed in the socialist elements of the Nazi Party were marginalised (Drexler) or killed (Strasser and Rohm).
    Hitler banned labour unions and left wing parties and generally appeased big business and the German army. A society of relative wage decline for the average worker and soaring profits for corporations is hardly socialist – more like Bush’s USA.

    Hitler economic policies had Keynesian elements at first, but only because they fulfilled Hitler’s purpose of rearming Germany. In 1937, with the 4 Year Plan, Keynesian ended.
    Ultimately he was right wing because of the society he envisaged and tried to create. This is where people (sorry but Americans are most guilty of this) mix up socialism. Socialists want to create a more equal society, though with differnt methods. More government control is not an end but a means. Hitler’s guiding philsophy was a racially pure Greater Germany that would then dominate the inferior East in a Social Darwinist struggle. This is hardly left-wing. Inequality was one of his ‘granite foundations’.
    He also didn’t approve of gender equaliity or sexual freedom – aspirations for most of the left as well.

  65. den led says:

    den led…

    […]Hitler Was A Socialist, (And Not A Right Wing Conservative) « DemocraticPeace Blog[…]…

  66. […] Socialist theologian Gregor Strasser once stated the following…. We National Socialists are enemies, deadly enemies, of the present capitalist system with […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: