with all due respect, I can't accept this kind of explanation. You know, this doesn't explain why he deported also Italian Jews who had nothing to do neither with Germany nor with the Banking system.
Hitler's target wasn't just German Jews. It was "World Jewry" he was trying to stamp out.
My question is why was the nazi party called national socialist, did it have anything to do at all with socialism, as I've heard they were very anti communist, anti leftist.
Socialism-Communism
tends to be internationalist, and it works on the assumption that all people regardless of race, religion or creed are equals. The Fascist system was partly inspired by the Soc/Com/Syndicalist movements in Europe. Fascism paints itself as a "Third Way", something that isn't Communism(which is just an economic model) or Capitalism. Fascism itself is
both a social & economic policy.
The differences lay in what they work towards. In a Communist-Socialist state, the Proletariat(the workers) are what unites and drives the people. It's the common good as seen through the lens of Worker Equality and common ownership, things like that. In that system, there is no "state" to speak of, the
people are the state.
In Fascism, the people are united and driven by
the State, and in this regard the State is an organ greater than the sum of its parts, where it is the duty of every man & woman to uphold its laws and policies. Since Fascism is not Internationalist, there are lots of flavours of it.
In Spain you had the Falange & Franco's government which was more like a traditional military-authoritarian government, in France there was the Action Francious & Petain's Vichy government which was similar in some regards to Franco's, in Poland you had Jozef Pilsudski's government(it never called itself Fascist, but it was close enough). Those(short of the 'Pure Falange') were all varying degrees of Fascist-Authoritarian with an emphasis on militarism & united state identity. There were no Basques & Catalans in Franco's Spain, nor were there Occitans in Petain's France.
When you get to Mussolini's system, however, you see a new emphasis. Namely, territorial expansion. Horthy's system is closest to Mussolini's in that regard. There was also Rexism in Belgium, but it never gained power. There are many other Fascist parties as well, and to go through all of them would take forever, but I hope this is sufficient.
Now, to National Socialism. This is based on
racial concepts rather than governmental ones. It sees the state as merely the united consciousness of the
Volk, and the State & Volk(Nation) were embodied in the Fuehrer. "Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuehrer" or One People, One State, One Leader. One of its set goals was to expand 'Germandom' into the East, to get 'Lebensraum' or living-space. To stretch from the Meuse to the Urals, from the Arctic Circle(Norway) to the Austro-Italian Alps, uniting all Germanic peoples under the "Greater Germanic Empire". This would've included Scandinavians, Dutch, Flems, so on.
In National Socialism, the 'State' is just an apparatus of power to wielded by the Leader(Fuehrer), and it is the duty of the people to "work towards the Fuhrer". This meant not waiting for the call from above to do the Fuehrer's will, but to act on ones own initiative based on the goals set forth by the Fuehrer.
In Nazi Germany, in short, Hitler
was the law. Entirely. And the German government suffered for it immensely, because it basically reverted back to a feudal situation, where different branches of the government were all vying for Hitler's approval, all having overlapping spheres of influence, and thus were at times working against each other. The 'Neuordnung' that they intended to put in place both in the Reich and in the conquered territories defied the very name, because there was nothing 'orderly' about the National Socialist form of of government.
And that is where it differs most greatly from Fascism. In Fascism, there is still a State. The Leader is just the Leader, he still works for the good of the state. The Leader is
not the state in Fascism.
Do you think that Barbarossa was Hitler's biggest military blunder, and that it ultimately led to him losing the war?
Operation Barbarossa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Operation Barbarossa was a gamble, but from his point of view at the time he had no reason to assume it couldn't be done. The Wehrmacht was suffering from "Victory Disease".
