Ask me about the Third Reich, National Socialism, Hitler & the Holocaust

[Nietzsche]

I am sorry that you are mentally ill.....but, no apologies needed for any of my comments....they are all true.

I am not a Nazi. I do not support Lebensraum. I find the idea to be fascinating in a wholly romantic and fictional way. Do I need to spell it out in crayon?

Nietzsche have you seen the movie Valkyrie? I think you would like it

gah. As much as Tom Cruise doesn't deserve to be such an esteemed figure, I do quite like it. But I prefer this '55 one more;

It happened on July 20th.

 

[Godobeyer]

There is a lot of misconception regarding Nazi Germany, Hitler, and things related to it. While I certainly do not claim to know everything about the subjects, I do know a good deal, and seeing as how there have been quite a few times this has popped up lately, I would like to have a place where people might learn something about the topic and to also prevent other threads from derailing.

Again, I don't know everything about it but I would like to think I know enough to help. So ask away.

What is his religion ?

is WW2 in Europe regine could considere war between Catholic and Protestantes ?

Why he hated Jews ?


is he true about "Zionist World Conspiracy" ?

 

[Nietzsche]

What is his religion ?

I answered this early on. There is no simple way to describe Hitler's religion. The most concise answer I can give is a form of Deism(non-interventionist Creator-God) with a side of utter insanity.

is WW2 in Europe regine could considere war between Catholic and Protestantes ?

No. Not at all. It was a war of Ideology and Extermination.

Ideologically one could say it was Left vs Right. On the far, far left you had the Soviet Union, much nearer the center you had the Liberal Democracies, and then you swing way on over to the right of Attila the Hun with Mussolini and even further right with Hitler.

Regarding Extermination...the Nazis were out to ethnically cleanse everything to the East of wherever their border happened to be at the moment.

Why he hated Jews ?

That's not a very good question. A better question would be "Why did everyone hate Jews?" because Antisemitism was not just common but normal throughout Europe, the United States, so on. There were varying reasons, most of which revolved around absurd notions like "Jewish Bankers and the Rothschilds having started and profiteered* the Great War" or "Jewish Financiers causing the collapse of the World Economy" and other nonsense. Look up a book called "The Protocols of the Elders Zion". Hitler, and most of the Nazis, thought it was a genuine article. It wasn't. It's a Russian forgery made by anti-Semites to justify their blind hate.

*There is a grain of truth in the "Rothschilds profiteering from the Great War. But many people profiteered from the Great War. The Rothschilds are just one of many.

is he true about "Zionist World Conspiracy" ?

It's true he believed it, but did/does it exist? Hell ****ing no. It doesn't exist now, and it has never existed. The closest you might be able to get is that during a rather long period of European history, Jews did control a far, far larger sum of various currencies & gold than their demographic warranted. But that wasn't their doing. It was flat-out illegal for Christians to loan other Christians money with interest. Jews weren't Christian. They could give loans and charge interest. You keep that up and eventually of course they'll have a disproportionate amount of wealth.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Ideologically one could say it was Left vs Right. On the far, far left you had the Soviet Union, much nearer the center you had the Liberal Democracies, and then you swing way on over to the right of Attila the Hun with Mussolini and even further right with Hitler.

One could say that, but what would one's justification be?

Although it is certainly true that Stalin's Soviet Russia, Mussolini's Italy, and Hitler's Germany were all distinct, this doesn't mean that they did not share an ideological core and a socio-political philosophy. Hence studies such as

Adler, L. K., & Paterson, T. G. (1970). Red Fascism: The Merger of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia in the American Image of Totalitarianism, 1930's-1950's. The American Historical Review, 1046-1064.

Corner, P. (Ed.). (2009). Popular opinion in totalitarian regimes: fascism, Nazism, communism. Oxford University Press.

Burleigh, M. (2000). National Socialism as a political religion. Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions, 1(2), 1-26.

Ehret, U. (2007). Understanding the Popular Appeal of Fascism, National Socialism and Soviet Communism: The Revival of Totalitarianism Theory and Political Religion. History Compass, 5(4), 1236-1267.

Geyer, M., & Fitzpatrick, S. (Eds.). (2009). Beyond totalitarianism: Stalinism and Nazism compared. Cambridge University Press.

Gregor, A. J. (2008). Marxism, fascism, and totalitarianism: chapters in the intellectual history of radicalism. Stanford University Press.

Kallis, A. (2002). Fascist ideology: territory and expansionism in Italy and Germany, 1922-1945. Routledge.

Kellogg, M. (2005). The Russian Roots of Nazism: White Émigrés and the Making of National Socialism, 1917–1945. Cambridge University Press.

von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, E. (1974). Leftism: From de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Marcuse. Arlington House.

Luebbert, G. M. (1991). Liberalism, Fascism, or Social Democracy: Social Classes and the Political Origins of Regimes in Interwar Europe. Oxford University Press.

Maier, H. (2006). Political Religions and their Images: Soviet communism, Italian Fascism and German National Socialism. Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions, 7(3), 267-281.

Orlow, D. (2009). The lure of fascism in western Europe: German Nazis, Dutch and French fascists, 1933-1939. Macmillan.

Rabinbach, A. G. (1974). Toward a Marxist Theory of Fascism and National Socialism: A Report on Developments in West Germany. New German Critique, (3), 127-153.

Rousso, H., & Golsan, R. J. (Eds.). (2004). Stalinism and nazism: history and memory compared. University of Nebraska Press.

Shenfield, S. (2001). Russian fascism: traditions, tendencies, movements. ME Sharpe.

Unger, A. L. (1974). The Totalitarian Party: Party and People in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia (International Studies). Cambridge University Press.

...and you get the idea. I'm curious as to how you are defining the ideologies in question such that they are fit into the categories you describe. For example, the Nazis were a socialist "people's" party that preached the same kind of utopian radical leftist "the people are the state" ideology that Soviet Russia did, was simply more advanced in their social policies based on the then widely accepted and promoted "science" of eugencis (by "policies" I mean the atrocity that was the Holocaust), and had none of the pomp or historical basis for the original fascist state (Italy, whose dictator despised Hitler) but had more in common with communist totalitarianism. Moreover, if we trace the history of the various socio-political philosophies that made up the totalitarian nations of the 30s and 40s and subsequently their transmission to the East, we find a common source originating from the French Revolution, concepts like Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité, Marxist-like dichotomies between the workers and the bourgeoisie, and above all the conception that the people and nation are one (which inevitably meant dictatorship and totalitarian regime).

The right-wing is typically associated with conservatism, and from a philosophical and historical standpoint we find it idealized either in the promotion of monarchy and the belief that people are either base or flawed, or in the early US desire to construct a federal government bound by chains to prevent anything like a strong, nation-state regime. What we don't find among conservative writers from Hobbes to Hayek to whatever TV personality is churning out trash books and worse new coverage thanks to Fox News is anything like a belief in a worker's party and nation of the people where the state has maximal control.

 

[Nietzsche]

I'd just like to say how much I appreciate a detailed question that's more than just "What did they intend to do to Russia/Could they have won Stalingrad". I am downright beaming. Thank you.

One could say that, but what would one's justification be?

Although it is certainly true that Stalin's Soviet Russia, Mussolini's Italy, and Hitler's Germany were all distinct, this doesn't mean that they did not share an ideological core and a socio-political philosophy. Hence studies such as

...and you get the idea. I'm curious as to how you are defining the ideologies in question such that they are fit into the categories you describe. For example, the Nazis were a socialist "people's" party that preached the same kind of utopian radical leftist "the people are the state" ideology that Soviet Russia did, was simply more advanced in their social policies based on the then widely accepted and promoted "science" of eugencis (by "policies" I mean the atrocity that was the Holocaust), and had none of the pomp or historical basis for the original fascist state (Italy, whose dictator despised Hitler) but had more in common with communist totalitarianism. Moreover, if we trace the history of the various socio-political philosophies that made up the totalitarian nations of the 30s and 40s and subsequently their transmission to the East, we find a common source originating from the French Revolution, concepts like Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité, Marxist-like dichotomies between the workers and the bourgeoisie, and above all the conception that the people and nation are one (which inevitably meant dictatorship and totalitarian regime).

The right-wing is typically associated with conservatism, and from a philosophical and historical standpoint we find it idealized either in the promotion of monarchy and the belief that people are either base or flawed, or in the early US desire to construct a federal government bound by chains to prevent anything like a strong, nation-state regime. What we don't find among conservative writers from Hobbes to Hayek to whatever TV personality is churning out trash books and worse new coverage thanks to Fox News is anything like a belief in a worker's party and nation of the people where the state has maximal control.

My dividing line has to do with how they separate people. Traditionally, the left has been associated with multiculturalism and at least lip-service to equality amongst all people within a state. Now, while the further left you go the more likely you are to discriminate against rich people, that's an economic/power reason. Whereas on the Right, the further you go the more likely you are to discriminate against any "other". It is interesting you bring up the 'People's Party' aspect, however. Hitler was speaking to Goebbels at one point in 1943 and was lamenting on how "We destroyed the Class-War on the Left, but we have failed to do so on the Right". So yes, there is something to be said that there were Leftist policies in place in the Reich. Though I'd argue that has more to do with them being populist than any actual leftism. If you want to see a "Left Nat-Soc" look up Strasserism.

What you're describing is the differences in how government functions, and on that scale you've got Orwellian Totalitarian on one side and Anarchy on the other. In that regard yes, Stalin's Soviet Union, Mussolini's Italy and the Third Reich are very similar. Far closer to each other than to anyone else, anyway. But I was using a "Social" ruler. In the Soviet Union you theoretically had a colour-blind & race-blind state. Again, didn't always work out that way, but that's what it claimed to be. In the United States and United Kingdom there was a general consensus that while they might not like minorities, they still deserved to live.

 

[Lincoln Jacobs]

I'd just like to say how much I appreciate a detailed question that's more than just "What did they intend to do to Russia/Could they have won Stalingrad". I am downright beaming. Thank you.


My dividing line has to do with how they separate people. Traditionally, the left has been associated with multiculturalism and at least lip-service to equality amongst all people within a state. Now, while the further left you go the more likely you are to discriminate against rich people, that's an economic/power reason. Whereas on the Right, the further you go the more likely you are to discriminate against any "other". It is interesting you bring up the 'People's Party' aspect, however. Hitler was speaking to Goebbels at one point in 1943 and was lamenting on how "We destroyed the Class-War on the Left, but we have failed to do so on the Right". So yes, there is something to be said that there were Leftist policies in place in the Reich. Though I'd argue that has more to do with them being populist than any actual leftism. If you want to see a "Left Nat-Soc" look up Strasserism.

What you're describing is the differences in how government functions, and on that scale you've got Orwellian Totalitarian on one side and Anarchy on the other. In that regard yes, Stalin's Soviet Union, Mussolini's Italy and the Third Reich are very similar. Far closer to each other than to anyone else, anyway. But I was using a "Social" ruler. In the Soviet Union you theoretically had a colour-blind & race-blind state. Again, didn't always work out that way, but that's what it claimed to be. In the United States and United Kingdom there was a general consensus that while they might not like minorities, they still deserved to live.

I believe National Socialism was just another flavour of socialism as we know it today, even fascism was as Mussolini was a member of an Italian Socialist Party. Classical liberlism and capitalism can't operate as intended under big government, especially totalitarian government. It's like saying it's communism with private enterprise.

National Socialism centralized economic policy, started five year plans, reduced the number of stock exchanges from 21 to 9, they introduced stronger import controls, foreign trade was essentially monopolised by the State, currency controls were introduced, they socialised business that acted contrary to the national interest and their economic controls and regulations constricted economic freedom immensely while having the largest government department in Europe with 600,000 workers under the control of Hermann Göring.

Hitler himself stated shortly after taking power:

“There is no license any more, no private sphere where the individual belongs to himself. That is socialism, not such trivial matters as the possibility of privately owning the means of production. Such things mean nothing if I subject people to a kind of discipline they can’t escape… What need have we to socialise banks and factories? We socialise human beings.”

Another quote from a speech given by Hitler in 1927:

“We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.”

Hitler also stated on 27th July 1941:

“It goes without saying that only a planned economy can make intelligent use of all a people’s strength.”

George Sylvester Viereck interviewed Hitler in 1923 and it was published in Liberty Magazine in 1932. An extract from this interview is:

""Why," I asked Hitler, "do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party programme is the very antithesis of that commonly accredited to socialism?"

"Socialism," he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, pugnaciously, "is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists. Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic."

The great economist Ludwig von Mises, from the Austrian school of economics, noted about National Socialism:

What made it difficult for many people to grasp the very nature of the Nazi economic system was the fact that the Nazis did not expropriate the entrepreneurs and capitalists openly and that they did not adopt the principle of income equality which the Bolshevists espoused in the first years of Soviet rule and discarded only later. Yet the Nazis removed the bourgeois completely from control. Those entrepreneurs who were neither Jewish nor suspect of liberal and pacifist leanings retained their positions in the economic structure. But they were virtually merely salaried civil servants bound to comply unconditionally with the orders of their superiors, the bureaucrats of the Reich and the Nazi party.”

Ivor Thomas was a British left wing labor minister who resigned from the Atlee government giving his reason as:

“From the point of view of fundamental human liberties there is little to choose between communism, socialism and National Socialism. They are all examples of the collectivist or totalitarian state… in its essentials not only is completed socialism the same as communism but it hardly differs from fascism.”



Out of a scale of 1 to 10 where would you put National Socialism (1 being extreme left and 10 being extreme right)?

 

[Nietzsche]

I believe National Socialism was just another flavour of socialism as we know it today, even fascism was as Mussolini was a member of an Italian Socialist Party. Classical liberlism and capitalism can't operate as intended under big government, especially totalitarian government. It's like saying it's communism with private enterprise.

National Socialism centralized economic policy, started five year plans, reduced the number of stock exchanges from 21 to 9, they introduced stronger import controls, foreign trade was essentially monopolised by the State, currency controls were introduced, they socialised business that acted contrary to the national interest and their economic controls and regulations constricted economic freedom immensely while having the largest government department in Europe with 600,000 workers under the control of Hermann Göring.

Private Enterprise was still both expected to remain, and Hitler hoped to encourage it after the War. It undoubtedly had elements of Socialism, but it was still at its core a Populist & Race-based movement. Again, it sprang out of the Volkische parties, not the Socialist ones(though it did manage to steal members from them).

Hitler himself stated shortly after taking power:

“There is no license any more, no private sphere where the individual belongs to himself. That is socialism, not such trivial matters as the possibility of privately owning the means of production. Such things mean nothing if I subject people to a kind of discipline they can’t escape… What need have we to socialise banks and factories? We socialise human beings.”

Another quote from a speech given by Hitler in 1927:

“We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.”

Hitler also stated on 27th July 1941:

“It goes without saying that only a planned economy can make intelligent use of all a people’s strength.”

If there is anything I've learned regarding Hitler it is that he knew how to talk to people. And he said what he had to say to get power. Also, again, I stress what the Nazi system actually did. It would not have gained power without the help of the Industrialists. If anything, Nazism is almost Mercantalist.

George Sylvester Viereck interviewed Hitler in 1923 and it was published in Liberty Magazine in 1932. An extract from this interview is:

""Why," I asked Hitler, "do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party programme is the very antithesis of that commonly accredited to socialism?"

"Socialism," he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, pugnaciously, "is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists. Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic."

I bolded the important parts. That is the 'real Hitler'. The Volkische who sees worth in something only insofar as it meets his standard of "Deutsche".

The great economist Ludwig von Mises, from the Austrian school of economics, noted about National Socialism:

What made it difficult for many people to grasp the very nature of the Nazi economic system was the fact that the Nazis did not expropriate the entrepreneurs and capitalists openly and that they did not adopt the principle of income equality which the Bolshevists espoused in the first years of Soviet rule and discarded only later. Yet the Nazis removed the bourgeois completely from control. Those entrepreneurs who were neither Jewish nor suspect of liberal and pacifist leanings retained their positions in the economic structure. But they were virtually merely salaried civil servants bound to comply unconditionally with the orders of their superiors, the bureaucrats of the Reich and the Nazi party.”

Ivor Thomas was a British left wing labor minister who resigned from the Atlee government giving his reason as:

“From the point of view of fundamental human liberties there is little to choose between communism, socialism and National Socialism. They are all examples of the collectivist or totalitarian state… in its essentials not only is completed socialism the same as communism but it hardly differs from fascism.”

Lots of similarities between the Stalinist system and the Nazi system, no doubt. But when you study their aims & ideology they are radically different beasts. There is a great injustice done to people who suffered under either system to say that they're somehow not any different. No one in their right mind would say that the Social Democratic party of Germany has anything to do with either the Nazis or the Bolsheviks except in their preferred colour(red).

That is the problem with things like that. It obscures the truth of the matter and it gives mouth-breathing retards like Glenn Beck a far too generous air of even coming close to having a point. It glosses over the real differences and the unique, abject horror of the Nazi system. It is the most uniformly terrible thing ever constructed. Communism at least can claim they are working towards some kind of equality for all people, regardless of birth or race. Fascism, even, makes a claim towards making all people willing to conform to the Will of the State equal in the Eyes of the State.

But Nationalsozialismus? The aim is to make a country into a mausoleum, a people into a grave-yard. To build from the bones & sinew of the beaten, enslaved, slaughtered & raped a Tausendjähriges Reich. It was a notion built by wholly and entirely from extremely bitter, defeated people. It wanted to bring that pain to everyone else. And in the end, it brought that to itself.

"We may be destroyed, but if we are, we shall drag a world with us - a world in flames."

Out of a scale of 1 to 10 where would you put National Socialism (1 being extreme left and 10 being extreme right)?

I can't do it like that. I'll separate it into a Social and Economic scale. 1 is still extreme left, 10 is still extreme right.

Social; 7-10 depending on what year it is
Economic; 4-6. The Reich economic policy wasn't a policy. There was no unified structure. It was a hodge-podge of poorly thought-out decrees and attempts to both control and stimulate economic growth. It was a mess and in that regard it's quite centrist, employing both extreme free-market and extreme planned-economy actions depending on what the goal was.

 

[Nietzsche]

-your long post-

-my response-

I would appreciate a response, if you don't mind. I wasn't trying to scare you off with my reply, and I think I was a bit too aggressive, so I apologize for that. Your post just hit several of my "red flags" when I see others talk about the Reich.

 

[Lincoln Jacobs]

I can't do it like that. I'll separate it into a Social and Economic scale. 1 is still extreme left, 10 is still extreme right.

Social; 7-10 depending on what year it is
Economic; 4-6. The Reich economic policy wasn't a policy. There was no unified structure. It was a hodge-podge of poorly thought-out decrees and attempts to both control and stimulate economic growth. It was a mess and in that regard it's quite centrist, employing both extreme free-market and extreme planned-economy actions depending on what the goal was.

Thanks for your reply.

I would appreciate a response, if you don't mind. I wasn't trying to scare you off with my reply, and I think I was a bit too aggressive, so I apologize for that. Your post just hit several of my "red flags" when I see others talk about the Reich.

You mean me? If you were I didn't find your post aggressive at all and thanks for responding so quickly.

I agree that the social stance of the nazis was a conservative one but that isn't really strange for a socialist. Wouldn't the USSR and China be considered conservative socialists when you consider issues like gay rights or legalisation of drugs etc? I would consider myself right wing but not conservative, I think Americans would call me a libertarian. But if Hitler were alive and in power today and say he didn't want to kill anyone or start a war I think he would be considered very left wing. For example, I am originally from Australia and we of course have 2 main political parties, Labor (Left wing) and Liberal (right wing). If I heard Hitler speaking about his policies (apart from racial and war like policies) and how he is going to hire masses of people to build a huge highway etc I would assume he is from the left wing of the Labor Party, not the Liberal. I appreciate it was the depression with high unemployment but that was when all this Keynsian economic thinking came to rise as a good idea and started this democratic socialism we see today. The original capitalist ways of economic freedom gave way to large government, nanny states and high taxes with people putting total trust in their government which is really only a group of people elected but still unknown that have the capacity and motivation to be just as corrupt as a board of directors of a corporation. Anyway, I'm ranting and going off topic....

But I agree that the German economic policy was a mess and and the bureaucracy was very corrupt and unfocused. I read a book recently by Albert Speer called "Inside the Third Reich" and it talked of how out of control the bureacrats and industrialists were and Hitler delibrately liked setting bureaucrats into conflict with each other. I can't remember the specifics but I recall Hitler making it very difficult for Speer to manufacture armaments as efficiently as Speer wanted because Hitler enjoyed Goring and other henchmen fighting over juristiction and for power over one another. But I don't see any resemblance in Nazi Germany to a capitalist (classical liberal) type of state, quite the opposite.

I was doing some research and found some extracts of a book that sounds interesting (link below). I would buy it but it is rather expensive, looked on Amazon and its $68 in USA and around 50 pounds in the UK!!!

Hitler's Leftist Economic Policies

 

[Sha'irullah]

Did Hitler like it in the pooper?

 

[Nietzsche]

Thanks for your reply.


You mean me? If you were I didn't find your post aggressive at all and thanks for responding so quickly.

I agree that the social stance of the nazis was a conservative one but that isn't really strange for a socialist. Wouldn't the USSR and China be considered conservative socialists when you consider issues like gay rights or legalisation of drugs etc? I would consider myself right wing but not conservative, I think Americans would call me a libertarian. But if Hitler were alive and in power today and say he didn't want to kill anyone or start a war I think he would be considered very left wing. For example, I am originally from Australia and we of course have 2 main political parties, Labor (Left wing) and Liberal (right wing). If I heard Hitler speaking about his policies (apart from racial and war like policies) and how he is going to hire masses of people to build a huge highway etc I would assume he is from the left wing of the Labor Party, not the Liberal. I appreciate it was the depression with high unemployment but that was when all this Keynsian economic thinking came to rise as a good idea and started this democratic socialism we see today. The original capitalist ways of economic freedom gave way to large government, nanny states and high taxes with people putting total trust in their government which is really only a group of people elected but still unknown that have the capacity and motivation to be just as corrupt as a board of directors of a corporation. Anyway, I'm ranting and going off topic....

But I agree that the German economic policy was a mess and and the bureaucracy was very corrupt and unfocused. I read a book recently by Albert Speer called "Inside the Third Reich" and it talked of how out of control the bureacrats and industrialists were and Hitler delibrately liked setting bureaucrats into conflict with each other. I can't remember the specifics but I recall Hitler making it very difficult for Speer to manufacture armaments as efficiently as Speer wanted because Hitler enjoyed Goring and other henchmen fighting over juristiction and for power over one another. But I don't see any resemblance in Nazi Germany to a capitalist (classical liberal) type of state, quite the opposite.

Oh I agree it was never a Capitalist system. But it was never a "system" at all. A system implies consistency, rules and measured use of power to maintain a certain heading. The Reich Economic "Policy" was none of those things. The closest they ever came to any kind of "system" was when Goering decided to bill the Jews for the Kristallnacht and to plunder the newly conquered peoples' to feed the Nazi war machine.

However, I still maintain that saying it is one or the other, left or right, overlooks the meat of the problem. The Nazi system is not a Conservative movement. Nor is it a Liberal movement. There is no word in the English language to describe what the Nazis were. But in German there is a perfect work. Volkisch.

They viewed the "state" as an artificial thing, and wanted to replace it with the organic "volk-staat", or People's State. That sounds rather Leftist. But it isn't. Nor is it traditional Right-wing. That's the thing. We have to expand our definitions here of what "Right Wing" is. The Volkisch movement wanted to go back before the Monarchies and such that populated the Deutscher-volk. They wanted a system not unlike the tribes & chieftains of the Germanic migratory period, albeit obviously with a modern spin.

So no. They are not Traditional Right Wing. Traditional implies only looking back 30-40 years at most. Even Reactionary is only 100 years or so. No, this was something more. I want to say "Prehistoric" but that's simply not true, the Germanic migratory period is rather well documented, but you understand what I mean.

It's fantasy. That's also why it isn't really Fascist. Not in the sense Mussolini respected. Mussolini wanted a revolution, albeit from a direction unlike what you found in Russia and such. That's why he called it the "Third Way". Not Capitalist or Communist. Hitler wanted something still-unlike that. And that is why Nazism is rather peculiarly German. Not because Germany was "destined" to do that, but because it relies on a historical situation that you do not find in many other states. Mongolia might've been able to produce something similar organically, or Hungary(going for the 'True Huns' thing), but that's about it.

I was doing some research and found some extracts of a book that sounds interesting (link below). I would buy it but it is rather expensive, looked on Amazon and its $68 in USA and around 50 pounds in the UK!!!

Hitler's Leftist Economic Policies

If you want a really good "tour de horizon" of the Nazi system and Hitler in paticular, pick up Ian Kershaw's Hitler. It's two books, Hubris & Nemesis, and it's honestly the best thing I've ever read about Hitler and his politics in the English language.

Hitler 1889-1936: Hubris
Hitler 1936-1945: Nemesis

It goes into detail on the nigh-anarchy of the Nazi state and precisely why classifying the "system" of the Reich as Left or Right is an exercise in foolishness.

 

[Nietzsche]

Did Hitler like it in the pooper?

Despite your best efforts, you Bolshevik Schwinehund, *adjusts monocle*, the wider implications of this question prevent it from being completely useless. Namely, did Hitler ever have sex?

The answer is probably no. He was remarkably asexual. Kinda boring in that regard.

If you want a Party-Nazi, look to Goering. In fact, if you want to look to someone who just has so much fun with the whole "I am a complete monster and am busy digging my way to Hell with my own hands", look to Goering. I love that *******. I can respect a monster who knows what he is. He liked to hurt people. Which already gives us something in common! Mix that with his hedonism and there's just something I really like about the Reichsmarshal. I'd even venture to say that he wasn't even racist. Much like Reinhard Heydrich I think he was just hurting the people he could get away with hurting.

 

[Lincoln Jacobs]

Thanks, I'll check out that book now. I thought it was only Himmler that was fascinated with that German mystical stuff, like owning a castle he thought belonged to some teutonic knight and having round tables etc etc. I didn't think Hitler was as fanatical but maybe I am misunderstanding what tou mean. I do remember reading from a book 'The Young Hitler I Knew' that as a teenager Hitler was very interested in German folk stories, I think especially when they were interpreted in operas.

 

[Nietzsche]

Thanks, I'll check out that book now. I thought it was only Himmler that was fascinated with that German mystical stuff, luke ownr a castle he thought belonged to some teutonic knight and having round tables etc etc.

Oh, Himmler was. Hitler was interested in the factual stuff of the Germanic migratory period. Himmler was just bat**** insane. Even by Nazi standards.

I didn't think Hitler was as fanatical but maybe I am misunderstanding what tou mean. I do remember reading from a book 'The Young Hitler I Knew' that as a teenager Hitler was very interested in German folk stories, I think especially when they were interpreted in operas.

Hitler might've used it in propaganda, but unlike Himmler he never believed the myths. They were objects to appreciate culturally, not resurrect like some Necromancer.

That was Himmler's thing. Round-table, blood-purity...Himmler is almost a parody of a Nazi, to be honest. Poe's Law comes in hard when you read about Herr Chickenfarmer.

 

[Lincoln Jacobs]

Despite your best efforts, you Bolshevik Schwinehund, *adjusts monocle*, the wider implications of this question prevent it from being completely useless. Namely, did Hitler ever have sex?

The answer is probably no. He was remarkably asexual. Kinda boring in that regard.

If you want a Party-Nazi, look to Goering. In fact, if you want to look to someone who just has so much fun with the whole "I am a complete monster and am busy digging my way to Hell with my own hands", look to Goering. I love that *******. I can respect a monster who knows what he is. He liked to hurt people. Which already gives us something in common! Mix that with his hedonism and there's just something I really like about the Reichsmarshal. I'd even venture to say that he wasn't even racist. Much like Reinhard Heydrich I think he was just hurting the people he could get away with hurting.

I used to listen to survivor testimonies on Youtube from the Shoal Foundation and one of them was a jewish woman whose husband had been arrested during the crystal night and sent to a concentration camp. She wrote a letter begging Goring to have her husband released and that he was innocent. Goring rejected it but did reply to her letter. The jewish wife was not deterred and instead wrote a letter begging the wife of Goring. A couple of days later her husband was released. Goring also allowed some jews to survive such as his deputy in the Luftwaffe Eduard Milch (not sure of his first name). The Gestapo wanted to arrest Milch because he was half jewish but Goring protested and said his famous words "I decide who is a jew". I think it was later revealed that Milch was actually a full jew. I'm not saying Goring liked jews and wanted to save them, I'm just noting some ironic behaviour which I find fascinating. I find it interesting to read about people like this because of the psychological aspect, one of my other favorites would be Stalin and as you said Heydrich. That's what I would look for in the survivor testimonies, the unexpected acts of people, whether it is good people that act unexpectingly bad or bad people that act unexpectingly good.

I remember when I was in High school and my parents had a frequent customer at their business, an old lady who was a Polish jew in a ghetto during during WWII (I forget which one) She was only a little girl in the ghetto and she told the story of when they were liquidating it or doing an Action she hid with her sister under some stairs which were outside leading to a basement. She said there was a lot of shouting, screaming and gunfire. They suddenly saw shiny black jack boots descending down the stairs and they were noticed by this SS officer. She said the officer took them to a checkpoint guarded by police and let them go. I wish now I had asked her more questions. Just remembered, the old lady strongly emphasised that she never knew why he saved their lives and it bugged her for the rest of her life.

Heydrich had suspiscions regarding his ancestry but I believe it was only a minor amount of jewish blood, one fifth for memory whcih I'm sure you're already aware. Do you believe that was true? I found Heydrich an interesting character.

 

[Nietzsche]

I used to listen to survivor testimonies on Youtube from the Shoal Foundation and one of them was a jewish woman whose husband had been arrested during the crystal night and sent to a concentration camp. She wrote a letter begging Goring to have her husband released and that he was innocent. Goring rejected it but did reply to her letter. The jewish wife was not deterred and instead wrote a letter begging the wife of Goring. A couple of days later her husband was released. Goring also allowed some jews to survive such as his deputy in the Luftwaffe Eduard Milch (not sure of his first name). The Gestapo wanted to arrest Milch because he was half jewish but Goring protested and said his famous words "I decide who is a jew". I think it was later revealed that Milch was actually a full jew. I'm not saying Goring liked jews and wanted to save them, I'm just noting some ironic behaviour which I find fascinating.

Goering had precisely 2 redeeming qualities. One, he wasn't a coward by any stretch of the imagination. You don't become Second to the Red Baron by being a coward. Two, he loved his wife dearly and would've done anything for her.

And yes, his "I decide who is a Jew!" is very telling. "Jew" to him was "Person who does not matter". It had no Ethnic or Religious connotations to him. It was just "person I can get away with screwing over".

I find it interesting to read about people like this because of the psychological aspect, one of my other favorites would be Stalin and as you said Heydrich. That's what I would look for in the survivor testimonies, the unexpected acts of people, whether it is good people that act unexpectingly bad or bad people that act unexpectingly good.

I remember when I was in High school and my parents had a frequent customer at their business, an old lady who was a Polish jew in a ghetto during during WWII (I forget which one) She was only a little girl in the ghetto and she told the story of when they were liquidating it or doing an Action she hid with her sister under some stairs which were outside leading to a basement. She said there was a lot of shouting, screaming and gunfire. They suddenly saw shiny black jack boots descending down the stairs and they were noticed by this SS officer. She said the officer took them to a checkpoint guarded by police and let them go. I wish now I had asked her more questions.

Heydrich had suspiscions regarding his ancestry but I believe it was only a minor amount of jewish blood, one fifth for memory whcih I'm sure you're already aware. Do you believe that was true? I found Heydrich an interesting character.

I doubt Heydrich was Jewish at all. His ancestry was rather solid Germanic stock back down to the 1400s or so. His personal fears had nothing to do with his personal feelings on the matter, they were all because Himmler was trying to get rid of him. Heydrich was far and away better at what he did than Himmler ever even thought of being. Heydrich's SS would've been horrifying not because of the excesses it would commit, but how efficient it would've been. Himmler, the coward, got nauseous at the sight of blood. Heydrich fell into a pile of corpses he'd just shot, got out, dusted himself off and went back to shooting them.

 

[metis]

I mentioned earlier in this thread that a good friend of mine who was a survivor of Auschwitz. His life was saved by two German soldiers who hid him when inspectors arrived at different intervals. He had one of his hands badly injured in an accident whereas he was working a grinder of dried potatoes, and if any of the inspectors had seen his hand they would have had him in the gas chamber pronto.

The point is not all German soldiers were alike, and even not all NAZI's were alike in terms of how they treated people, including the "undesirables".

 

[Nietzsche]

I mentioned earlier in this thread that a good friend of mine who was a survivor of Auschwitz. His life was saved by two German soldiers who hid him when inspectors arrived at different intervals. He had one of his hands badly injured in an accident whereas he was working a grinder of dried potatoes, and if any of the inspectors had seen his hand they would have had him in the gas chamber pronto.

The point is not all German soldiers were alike, and even not all NAZI's were alike in terms of how they treated people, including the "undesirables".

Indeed. Some Nazis were simply pragmatists. Others were died-in-the-wool ********. You can run the gamut honestly.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Despite your best efforts, you Bolshevik Schwinehund, *adjusts monocle*, the wider implications of this question prevent it from being completely useless. Namely, did Hitler ever have sex?

The answer is probably no. He was remarkably asexual. Kinda boring in that regard.

If you want a Party-Nazi, look to Goering. In fact, if you want to look to someone who just has so much fun with the whole "I am a complete monster and am busy digging my way to Hell with my own hands", look to Goering. I love that *******. I can respect a monster who knows what he is. He liked to hurt people. Which already gives us something in common! Mix that with his hedonism and there's just something I really like about the Reichsmarshal. I'd even venture to say that he wasn't even racist. Much like Reinhard Heydrich I think he was just hurting the people he could get away with hurting.

He was asexual and sadistic!?

my kind of man!

 

[Nada]

I have always been intrigued by Hitler and the Nazi's.Since I was very young in the 80's I have always read about or watched documentaries about WWII.It is so very interesting.Most only see what is right in front of them but there is so much more under the surface.The things that were happening behind the scenes are amazing.The way Hitler rose up and captured his power is mind blowing.I remember hearing a story about Hitler dropping pamplets out of airplanes over Poland with a prediction out of one of Nostradamus' quatrains.Nostradamus had predicted a man named "Histler" would rise up and be an important figure in history.

Amazingly Einstein retreated from the Germany area and fled to America with his ideas for the A-B***B.Can you imagine if Hitler would have succeeded in creating this WMD.He would have taken over the world, and this world we live in today would have never existed.I saw a movie once as a young boy that captured my interest.It is called "The Boys from Brazil." It is about how the Nazi's that escaped capture in Germany and after the war fled to S.America and continued experiments that would help clone Hitler.It is a very good movie.Anyway,I just wanted to share.

Ps.Here is the movie "The Boys from Brazil."

Pss.When did you start learning about Hitler?