DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
True Left
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Colonial Era
*****************************************************
#Post#: 4653--------------------------------------------------
National Socialists were socialists
By: guest5 Date: March 6, 2021, 2:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Calling National Socialism "reactionary" is Marxist terminology.
[quote]National Socialism in fact constituted a unique and
radical kind of modern revolutionism. — Stanley G. Payne in A
History of Fascism, 1914-1945. pg. 204[/quote]
[quote]We are the full counterpart of the French Revolution —
Adolf Hitler[/quote]
[quote]We are not a charitable institution but a Party of
revolutionary socialists. — Joseph Goebbels[/quote]
HTML https://i.pinimg.com/originals/9a/83/e0/9a83e03f705136285608bf43aa2f6404.jpg
[quote]The new claimants: A youth creating for itself a new
state. A new species of man.... — Konrad Heiden[/quote]
Adolf Hitler used the term revolutionary at the Beer Hall
Putsch.
Adolf Hitler wanted to call his party The Social Revolutionary
Party.
National Socialists used to sing out against "reaction" in NSDAP
songs....
#Post#: 4836--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialism is Revolutionary NOT Reactionary
By: 90sRetroFan Date: March 15, 2021, 1:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
OLD CONTENT
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Identity
[quote]The Christian Identity movement emerged in the United
States in the 1920s and 1930s as an offshoot of British
Israelism.[1][6] The idea that "lower races" are mentioned in
the Bible (in contrast to Aryans) was posited in the 1905 book
Theozoology; or The Science of the Sodomite Apelings and the
Divine Electron by Jörg Lanz von Liebenfels, a volkisch writer
seen by many historians as a major influence on Nazism.[citation
needed][/quote]
HTML https://i.imgflip.com/602d5g.jpg
[quote]Adolf Hitler, however, did not subscribe to the belief
that the Israelites of the Bible were Aryans; in a speech he
gave in Munich in 1920 titled "Why We Are Anti-Semites", he
referred to and disparaged Abraham as racially Jewish.[/quote]
See the difference? (Note: all 12 tribes of Israel are
descendants of Abraham (grandfather of Jacob a.k.a. Israel).
#Post#: 10612--------------------------------------------------
National Socialists were socialists
By: Zea_mays Date: January 16, 2022, 10:45 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
One of the major tasks of the True Left is demonstrating that
National Socialism (specifically, historic Hitlerism) genuinely
was leftist and Socialist.
I think to convincingly accomplish this once and for all, we
must first concisely provide a proper relation between Socialism
and Marxism/Communism.
Marxist-sympathetic political ideologists portray
Marxism/Communism as the pinnacle of leftism. It is the furthest
possible ideology to the left, and all left-wing ideologies
ultimately have their views on societal matters tinted through a
Marxist lens, to some degree. (Except, perhaps certain types of
liberalism which trace their ideology back purely to pre-Marxist
Enlightenment ideas, or the rare form of anarchism which
completely rejects "anarcho-communist" principles.)
In the colloquial understanding, "Socialism" is merely a watered
down form of Communism.
The True Left must reframe the relationship to accurately
contextualize Marxist Socialism as merely one type of Socialism
among many(?) possibilities.
In other words, instead of Marxism being the umbrella term under
which varieties of Socialism fall, Socialism is the umbrella
term under which many different types of leftism fall. As
categories falling under this umbrella of Socialism, we would
have Marxist Socialism aka Communism (or "International
Socialism" as Hitler seems to have called it in some early
speeches) and National Socialism.
There may be other possibilities. For example, scholar of
Fascism A. James Gregor seems to have considered (authentic)
Fascism to be a form of Socialism (or at least derived from it).
Socialism with Chinese Characteristics is on track to become
another--if it manages to fully rid itself of Communist ideas.
There are other forms of Socialism which are minor or were
historic dead ends, but I think it would be too much of a
tangent to get into them here.
----
Now that we have provided this logical framework, let's look at
how historic National Socialists viewed their own ideology.
I stumbled across a collection of many of Hitler's speeches, and
in some of his earliest speeches, he references the "social
idea" of the state using its power to look after the welfare of
all sectors of society as more-or-less the inspiration for his
view on Socialism. The "social idea" is, of course, the abstract
idea from which all, more-detailed, ideological interpretations
of Socialism derive.
Communists categorically reject that National Socialism is
Socialist, because it doesn't live up to the Communist-created
definition of Socialism. This is circular reasoning. The
Communist definition is merely one specific interpretation of
the social idea.
----
Before I quote large sections from the speeches I would like to
start by outlining two things.
* First, Hitler viewed National Socialism as a direct competitor
to Marxism/Communism over who really fulfilled the "social idea"
of Socialism. More strongly, Hitler denied Marxism/Communism
could even be called Socialism at all (but I think that is an
untenable position for us to try to defend today). It would make
no sense for Hitler to view National Socialism to be in
competition for heart of Socialism if National Socialism was
far-right.
[quote]
This edited interview of Adolf Hitler by George Sylvester
Viereck took place in 1923. It was republished in Liberty
magazine in July 1932
[...]
"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.
"We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to
call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not
internationalists. Our socialism is national. We demand the
fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the
state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are
one."[/quote]
HTML https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2007/sep/17/greatinterviews1
* Second, Hitler considered National Socialism to be a radically
anti-traditionalist ideology which would topple the current
social order of Western Civilization and replace it with a new
one. This would make no sense if National Socialism was a
right-wing traditionalist ideology which wished to preserve
Western Civilization. Consider also how Communists wanted to
topple the current social order and replace it with a new one
(although their "progression" would not be a fundamental threat
to Western Civilization, despite their claims).
[quote][From a private conversation with Hermann Rauschning,
1934.]
“All of us are suffering from the ailment of mixed, corrupted
blood. How can we purify ourselves and make atonement? ...”
[...]
“...Only a new nobility can introduce the new civilisation for
us. ...we learn from it that selection and renewal are possible
only amid the continuous tension of a lasting struggle. A
world-wide process of segregation is going on before our eyes.
Those who see in struggle the meaning of life, gradually mount
the steps of a new nobility. Those who are in search of peace
and order through dependence, sink, whatever their origin, to
the inert masses. The masses, however, are doomed to decay and
self-destruction. In our world-revolutionary turning-point the
masses are the sum total of the sinking civilisation and of its
dying representatives. We must allow them to die with their
kings, like Amfortas.”
“In a natural order,” he continued, “the classes are peoples
superimposed on one another in strata, instead of living as
neighbours. To this order we shall return as soon as the
sequelae of Liberalism have been removed. The Middle Ages were
not yet ended when the liberal dissolution began of the firm
bonds which alone guaranteed the rule of a nobility of pure
blood — until finally in our glorious day we find all values
subverted — the meaner components of the European nations on
top, and the valuable ones dependent on them.”
“But this,” I interposed, “means the setting up of a new feudal
order.”
“No, no!” said Hitler, and he told me to disregard all these
ridiculous comparisons. “Don’t let us waste time on these naive
criteria. Such conceptions of an age of which not a vestige is
left have no bearing on what we are called to create.
Imagination is needed in order to divine the vast scale of the
coming order. But,” he continued, “when a situation is created
that favours noble blood, the man of the great race always comes
to the top, as, for instance, our own movement shows. The
creation and maintenance of this situation is the great
preparatory political action of the Leader-legislator.”
“Once,” I mentioned, “ I heard you say, I think, that the days
of conventional nationalism are over. Did I rightly understand
you?”
“The conception of the nation has become meaningless. The
conditions of the time compelled me to begin on the basis of
that conception. But I realised from the first that it could
only have transient validity. The ‘nation’ is a political
expedient of democracy and Liberalism. We have to get rid of
this false conception and set in its place the conception of
race, which has not yet been politically used, up. The new order
cannot be conceived in terms of the, national boundaries of the
peoples with an historic past, but in terms of race that
transcend those boundaries. All the adjustments and corrections
of frontiers, and of regions of colonisation, are a ploughing of
the sands.”
I tried to object that there were very great difficulties in the
way of this for Germany, but Hitler cut me short with a wave of
his hand.
“I know perfectly well,” he said, “just as well as all these
tremendously clever intellectuals, that in the scientific sense
there is no such thing as race. But you, as a farmer and
cattle-breeder, cannot get your breeding successfully achieved
without the conception of race. And I as a politician need a
conception which enables the order which has hitherto existed on
historic bases to be abolished and an entirely new and
anti-historic order enforced and given an intellectual basis.
Understand what I mean,” he said, breaking off. “I have to
liberate the world from dependence on its historic past. Nations
are the outward and visible forms of our history. So I have to
fuse these nations into a higher order if I want to get rid of
the chaos of an historic past that has become an absurdity. And
for this purpose the conception of race serves me well. It
disposes of the old order and makes possible new associations.
France carried her great Revolution beyond her borders with the
conception of the nation. With the conception of race, National
Socialism will carry its revolution abroad and recast the
world.”
Hitler concluded, with growing fervour:
“Just as the conception of the nation was a revolutionary change
from the purely dynastic feudal states, and just as it
introduced a biological conception, that of the people, so our
own revolution is a further step, or, rather, the final step, in
the rejection of the historic order and the recognition of
purely biological values. And I shall bring into operation
throughout all Europe and the whole world this process of
selection which we have carried out through National Socialism
in Germany. The process of dissolution and reordering will run
its course in every nation, no matter how old and firmly knit
its social system may be.”[/quote]
Hermann Rauschning. (1939). Hitler Speaks. Page 227-230.
HTML https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.505385/page/n229/mode/2up
[Although Rauschning was a rightist who became anti-NS, his
description of Hitler's attitudes here are consistent with
Hitler's own speeches, which are quoted further down, and
therefore this quote seems credible.]
In contrast to Communists, who thought the culturally-relative
idea of "class" and economic conditions were the factor behind
social changes and historical trends, Hitler understood that
INNATE BIOLOGICAL QUALITIES (i.e. "race") was the real factor
behind social change. Instead of world-wide class struggle
causing a social revolution, only the anti-historic use of
"race" as a construct to unite people across "class" and
nationality had any hope of actually achieving a new
civilization.
To give a really crude analogy, you can almost imagine Hitler as
a car mechanic swapping out an engine labelled as "class" with
an engine labelled as "race" to convert Marxist Socialism to
National Socialism. The other parts of the car would be the core
shell of Socialism that is shared in common with both
ideologies.
#Post#: 10613--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: Zea_mays Date: January 16, 2022, 10:57 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
For the speeches, here is the book I am taking the quotes from.
It does not seem to specify the translator, and it does not
include all of Hitler's speeches (although it is probably most
of them). I am posting very large excerpts from the speeches,
because I think it is useful for discussion and understanding to
see the context.
HTML https://archive.org/details/AdolfHitlerCollectionOfSpeeches19221945/mode/2up
To give a broad summary, in the earliest dated speeches included
in the book, Hitler basically says his goal is to provide an
ideology which combines statism (represented by the ideal found
in Nationalism) and Socialism's ideal of selflessly serving the
welfare of society as a whole. This is consistent in later
speeches during the war as well. Instead of dividing and pitting
the "blue collar workers" and "white collar workers" against
each other, as Communists wanted to, Hitler wanted to unite all
laborers, transcend the existing False Left-Right political
false dichotomy, and instead base the struggle on innate
biological qualities to actually achieve a radically new
society. Instead of the disorganized "international" and
theoretically democratic struggle of Communism, Hitler embraced
the unifying power of the nation and the centralized power of
the state to achieve Socialism (which even Stalin was forced to
do with his absolute rule and "Socialism in one country" policy
contradicting the Communist world revolution idea.)
#Post#: 10614--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: Zea_mays Date: January 16, 2022, 11:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Speech in Munich. April 12, 1922.
Summary and commentary:
Hitler criticizes both the left and the right. Hitler's new
ideology is explicitly Socialist, but Communists have
misappropriated what people think Socialism means. False Left
parties do not sufficiently grasp the condition of the workers,
the forces of capitalism, the biggest beneficiaries of
capitalism (i.e. Jews) and the fact that they remain the elite
beneficiaries under Soviet Communism just as well as 'bourgeois'
capitalism. This Communist "proletariatism" misappropriation of
Socialism results in physical workers and intellectual workers
fighting against each other, leading to disintegration of the
nation and the impossibility of truly overthrowing capitalist
exploitation. Left-wing parties are not radical and have been
led astray, and double-down on their ideological mistakes and
increasingly turn to bolshevism (while thinking it makes them
radical), rendering them useless.
("And thus the Left is forced more and more to turn to
Bolshevism. In Bolshevism they see today the sole, the last
possibility of preserving the present state of affairs. They
realize quite accurately that the people is beaten so long as
Brain and Hand can be kept apart. For alone neither Brain nor
Hand can really oppose them. So long therefore as the Socialist
idea is coined only by men who see in it a means for
disintegrating a nation, so long can they rest in peace. But it
will be a sorry day for them when this Socialist idea is grasped
by a Movement which unites it with the highest Nationalist
pride, with Nationalist defiance, and thus places the Nation's
Brain, its intellectual workers, on this ground.")
Right-wing parties are energetic, but are too
traditionalist-minded and unable to grasp the radical
restructuring of society that the 'Social idea' (i.e. Socialism)
truly represents. They are concerned about keeping their status
as 'bourgeois' (and therefore dislike Communism and their
mistaken idea of Socialism), but don't realize the status quo
capitalist order will ultimately enslave them and ruin society
just the same as Communism. Rightists do not understand the true
danger Jewish elites represent in both Communism and the new
democratic/capitalist order. Although, overall, Hitler's
position in this speech makes it clear he is neither part of the
mainstream left nor mainstream right, he seems to be addressing
a right-leaning audience. However, from a strategic point of
view, he seems to primarily be harnessing the right for its
energy ("We recognized that freedom can eternally be only a
consequence of power and that the source of power is the will.
Consequently the will to power must be strengthened in a people
with passionate ardor. ... POWER IN THE LAST RESORT IS POSSIBLE
ONLY WHERE THERE IS STRENGTH, and that strength lies not in the
dead weight of numbers but solely in energy. Even the smallest
minority can achieve a mighty result if it is inspired by the
most fiery, the most passionate will to act. World history has
always been made by minorities.") Overall, it seems like he
would rather immediately harness the right's energy and direct
it against both Communism and democracy, rather than fight the
attritious battle of beating Communism from within the left and
_then_ fighting democracy with what forces remain. Whereas the
left has already been led astray by Jews (through Communism),
the right has not yet completely embraced democracy and the new
system of capitalism (also controlled by Jews).
(Although I will note that in the April 24, 1923, speech in
Munich, Hitler says the rightist parties have lost their energy
and the left-wing parties are "slightly" more energetic. So we
should be careful with generalizing the commentary in the prior
paragraph.)
[quote]And if we ask who was responsible for our misfortune,
then we must inquire who profited by our collapse. And the
answer to that question is that 'Banks and Stock Exchanges are
more flourishing than ever before.' We were told that capitalism
would be destroyed, and when we ventured to remind one or other
of these famous statesmen and said 'Don't forget that Jews too
have capital,' then the answer was: 'What are you worrying
about? Capitalism as a whole will now be destroyed, the whole
people will now be free. We are not fighting Jewish or Christian
capitalism, we are fighting very capitalism: we are making the
people completely free.'
'Christian capitalism' is already as good as destroyed, the
international Jewish Stock Exchange capital gains in proportion
as the other loses ground. It is only the international Stock
Exchange and loan-capital, the so-called 'supra-state capital,'
which has profited from the collapse of our economic life, the
capital which receives its character from the single supra-state
nation which is itself national to the core, which fancies
itself to be above all other nations, which places itself above
other nations and which already rules over them.
The international Stock Exchange capital would be unthinkable,
it would never have come, without its founders the
supra-national, because intensely national, Jews....
[...]
These are not, you may be sure, our working classes: neither
those working with the mind, nor with the body. ... No,
assuredly the Jew has suffered no privations!
[...]
While now in Soviet Russia the millions are ruined and are
dying, Chicherin - and with him a staff of over 200 Soviet Jews
- travels by express train through Europe, visits the cabarets,
watches naked dancers perform for his pleasure, lives in the
finest hotels, and does himself better than the millions whom
once you thought you must fight as 'bourgeois.' The 400 Soviet
Commissars of Jewish nationality - they do not suffer; the
thousands upon thousands of sub-Commissars -they do not suffer.
No! all the treasures which the 'proletarian' in his madness
took from the 'bourgeoisie' in order to fight so-called
capitalism - they have all gone into their hands. Once the
worker appropriated the purse of the landed proprietor who gave
him work, he took the rings, the diamonds and rejoiced that he
had now got the treasures which before only the 'bourgeoisie'
possessed. But in his hands they are dead things - they are
veritable death-gold. They are no profit to him. He is banished
into his wilderness and one cannot feed oneself on diamonds. For
a morsel of bread he gives millions in objects of value. But the
bread is in the hands of the State Central Organization and this
is in the hands of the Jews: so everything, everything that the
common man thought that he was winning for himself, flows back
again to his seducers.
But amongst the masses there begins to flow a new stream - a
stream of opposition. It is the recognition of the facts which
is already in pursuit of this system, it already is hunting the
system down; it will one day scourge the masses into action and
carry the masses along with it. And these leaders, they see that
behind them the anti-Semitic wave grows and grows; and when the
masses once recognize the facts, that is the end of these
leaders.
And thus the Left is forced more and more to turn to Bolshevism.
In Bolshevism they see today the sole, the last possibility of
preserving the present state of affairs. They realize quite
accurately that the people is beaten so long as Brain and Hand
can be kept apart. For alone neither Brain nor Hand can really
oppose them. So long therefore as the Socialist idea is coined
only by men who see in it a means for disintegrating a nation,
so long can they rest in peace.
But it will be a sorry day for them when this Socialist idea is
grasped by a Movement which unites it with the highest
Nationalist pride, with Nationalist defiance, and thus places
the Nation's Brain, its intellectual workers, on this ground.
Then this system will break up, and there would remain only one
single means of salvation for its supporters: viz. to bring the
catastrophe upon us before their own ruin, to destroy the
Nation's Brain, to bring it to the scaffold - to introduce
Bolshevism.
So the Left neither can nor will help. On the contrary, their
first lie compels them constantly to resort to new lies. There
remains then the Right. And this party of the Right meant well,
but it cannot do what it would because up to the present time it
has failed to recognize a whole series of elementary principles.
In the first place the Right still fails to recognize the
danger. These gentlemen still persist in believing that it is a
question of being elected to a Landtag or of posts as ministers
or secretaries. They think that the decision of a people's
destiny would mean at worst nothing more than some damage to
their so-called bourgeois-economic existence. They have never
grasped the fact that this decision threatens their heads. They
have never yet understood that it is not necessary to be an
enemy of the Jew for him to drag you one day, on the Russian
model, to the scaffold. They do not see that it is quite enough
to have a head on your shoulders and not to be a Jew: that will
secure the scaffold for you.
In consequence their whole action today is so petty, so limited,
so hesitating and pusillanimous. They would like to - but they
can never decide on any great deed, because they fail to realize
the greatness of the whole period.
And then there is another fundamental error: they have never got
it clear in their own minds that there is a difference or how
great a difference there is between the conception 'National'
and the word 'dynastic' or 'monarchist.' They do not understand
that today it is more than ever necessary in our thoughts as
Nationalists to avoid anything which might perhaps cause the
individual to think that the National Idea was identical with
petty everyday political views. They ought day by day to din
into the ears of the masses: 'We want to bury all the petty
differences and to bring out into the light the big things, the
things we have in common which bind us to one another.
[...]
And finally they all fail to understand that we must on
principle free ourselves from any class standpoint. It is of
course very easy to call out to those on the Left, 'You must not
be proletarians, leave your class-madness,' while you yourselves
continue to call yourself 'bourgeois.' They should learn that in
a single State there is only one supreme citizen - right, one
supreme citizen - honor, and that is the right and the honor of
honest work. They should further learn that the social idea must
be the essential foundation for any State, otherwise no State
can permanently endure.
Certainly a government needs power, it needs strength. It must,
I might almost say, with brutal ruthlessness press through the
ideas which it has recognized to be right, trusting to the
actual authority of its strength in the State. But even with the
most ruthless brutality it can ultimately prevail only if what
it seeks to restore does truly correspond to the welfare of a
whole people.
That the so-called enlightened absolutism of a Frederick the
Great was possible depended solely on the fact that, though this
man could undoubtedly have decided 'arbitrarily' the destiny -
for good or ill - of his so-called 'subjects,' he did not do so,
but made his decisions influenced and supported by one thought
alone, the welfare of his Prussian people. It was this fact only
that led the people to tolerate willingly, nay joyfully, the
dictatorship of the great king.
AND THE RIGHT HAS FURTHER COMPLETELY FORGOTTEN THAT DEMOCRACY IS
FUNDAMENTALLY NOT GERMAN: IT IS JEWISH. It has completely
forgotten that this Jewish democracy with its majority decisions
has always been without exception only a means towards the
destruction of any existing Aryan leadership. The Right does not
understand that directly every small question of profit or loss
is regularly put before so-called 'public opinion,' he who knows
how most skillfully to make this 'public opinion' serve his own
interests becomes forthwith master in the State. And that can be
achieved by the man who can lie most artfully, most infamously;
and in the last resort he is not the German, he is, in
Schopenhauer's words, 'the great master in the art of lying' -
the Jew.
And finally it has been forgotten that the condition which must
precede every act is the will and the courage to speak the truth
- and that we do not see today either in the Right or in the
Left.
[...]
It is from the recognition of this fact, from recognizing it, I
would say, in utter, dead earnestness, that there resulted the
formation of our Movement. There are two principles which, when
we founded the Movement, we engraved upon our hearts: first, to
base it on the most sober recognition of the facts, and second,
to proclaim these facts with the most ruthless sincerity.
And this recognition of the facts discloses at once a whole
series of the most important fundamental principles which must
guide this young Movement which, we hope, is destined one day
for greatness:
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.' We said to ourselves that to
be 'national' means above everything to act with a boundless and
all-embracing love for the people and, if necessary, even to die
for it. And similarly to be 'social' means so to build up the
state and the community of the people that every individual acts
in the interest of the community of the people and must be to
such an extent convinced of the goodness, of the honorable
straightforwardness of this community of the people as to be
ready to die for it.
2. And then we said to ourselves: THERE ARE NO SUCH THINGS AS
CLASSES: THEY CANNOT BE.
[...]
3. And in the third place IT WAS CLEAR TO US THAT THIS
PARTICULAR VIEW IS BASED ON AN IMPULSE WHICH SPRINGS FROM OUR
RACE AND FROM OUR BLOOD. We said to ourselves that race differs
from race and, further, that each race in accordance with its
fundamental demands shows externally certain specific
tendencies, and these tendencies can perhaps be most clearly
traced in their relation to the conception of work. The Aryan
regards work as the foundation for the maintenance of the
community of people amongst it members. The Jew regards work as
the means to the exploitation of other peoples. The Jew never
works as a productive creator without the great aim of becoming
the master. He works unproductively using and enjoying other
people's work. And thus we understand the iron sentence which
Mommsen once uttered: 'The Jew is the ferment of decomposition
in peoples,' that means that the Jew destroys and must destroy
because he completely lacks the conception of an activity which
builds up the life of the community. And therefore it is beside
the point whether the individual Jew is 'decent' or not. In
himself he carries those characteristics which Nature has given
him, and he cannot ever rid himself of those characteristics.
And to us he is harmful. Whether he harms us consciously or
unconsciously, that is not our affair. We have consciously to
concern ourselves for the welfare of our own people.
4. And fourthly WE WERE FURTHER PERSUADED THAT ECONOMIC
PROSPERITY IS INSEPARABLE FROM POLITICAL FREEDOM AND THAT
THEREFORE THAT HOUSE OF LIES, 'INTERNATIONALISM,' MUST
IMMEDIATELY COLLAPSE. We recognized that freedom can eternally
be only a consequence of power and that the source of power is
the will. Consequently the will to power must be strengthened in
a people with passionate ardor. And thus we realized fifthly
that
5. WE AS NATIONAL SOCIALISTS and members of the German Workers
party - a Party pledged to work - MUST BE ON PRINCIPLE THE MOST
FANATICAL NATIONALISTS. We realized that the State can be for
our people a paradise only if the people can hold sway therein
freely as in a paradise: we realized that a slave state will
never be a paradise, but only - always and for all time - a hell
or a colony.
6. And then sixthly we grasped the fact that POWER IN THE LAST
RESORT IS POSSIBLE ONLY WHERE THERE IS STRENGTH, and that
strength lies not in the dead weight of numbers but solely in
energy. Even the smallest minority can achieve a mighty result
if it is inspired by the most fiery, the most passionate will to
act. World history has always been made by minorities. And
lastly
7. If one has realized a truth, that truth is valueless so long
as there is lacking the indomitable will to turn this
realization into action!
These were the foundations of our Movement - the truths on which
it was based and which demonstrated its necessity.
[...]
And finally we were also the first to point the people on any
large scale to a danger which insinuated itself into our midst -
a danger which millions failed to realize and which will
nonetheless lead us all into ruin - the Jewish danger. And today
people are saying yet again that we were 'agitators.' I would
like here to appeal to a greater than I, Count Lerchenfeld. He
said in the last session of the Landtag that his feeling 'as a
man and a Christian' prevented him from being an anti-Semite. I
SAY: MY FEELING AS A CHRISTIAN POINTS ME TO MY LORD AND SAVIOUR
AS A FIGHTER. IT POINTS ME TO THE MAN WHO ONCE IN LONELINESS,
SURROUNDED ONLY BY A FEW FOLLOWERS, RECOGNIZED THESE JEWS FOR
WHAT THEY WERE AND SUMMONED MEN TO THE FIGHT AGAINST THEM AND
WHO, GOD'S TRUTH! WAS GREATEST NOT AS SUFFERER BUT AS FIGHTER.
In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the
passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might
and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of
vipers and of adders. How terrific was His fight for the world
against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with
deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before -
the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon
the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be
cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and
justice. And as a man I have the duty to see to it that human
society does not suffer the same catastrophic collapse as did
the civilization of the ancient world some two thousand years
ago - a civilization which was driven to its ruin through this
same Jewish people.
[...]
And through the distress there is no doubt that the people has
been aroused. Externally perhaps apathetic, but within there is
ferment. And many may say, 'It is an accursed crime to stir up
passions in the people.' And then I say to myself: Passion is
already stirred through the rising tide of distress, and one day
this passion will break out in one way or another: AND NOW I
WOULD ASK THOSE WHO TODAY CALL US AGITATORS': 'WHAT THEN HAVE
YOU TO GIVE TO THE PEOPLE AS A FAITH TO WHICH IT MIGHT CLING?'
Nothing at all, for you yourselves have no faith in your own
prescriptions.
That is the mightiest thing which our Movement must create: for
these widespread, seeking and straying masses a new Faith which
will not fail them in this hour of confusion, to which they can
pledge themselves, on which they can build so that they may at
least find once again a place which may bring calm to their
hearts.[/quote]
#Post#: 10616--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: Zea_mays Date: January 16, 2022, 11:17 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Speech in Schleiz, Thuringia. January 18, 1927.
Summary and commentary:
Again, Hitler presents himself as if he is neither on the
(Communist) left nor the right. Hitler seems more sympathetic to
rightists who want a strong state (Hitler seems to generally
equate statism with nationalism in this speech). However, a
powerful state in and of itself is not the end goal. The goal of
the state must be to selflessly enact a non-Communist form of
Socialism for the benefit of all citizens. Hitler defends the
value of leftists in Germany who have been swayed by Communism
(with the implication they can be converted to National
Socialism). Hitler says he would not join a mainstream
right-wing ("middle class") party. Hitler says 15 million people
(i.e. 'international Marxists') reject "middle
class"/bourgeoisie/right-wing national ideas, and 15 million
middle class individuals reject Communist ideas for
restructuring society. He says both ideologies have
fundamentally failed in their goals, and he is trying to unite
society ("Believe me, you will never achieve national
reconciliation on the basis of the present parties. This
reconciliation is what National Socialism seeks to achieve. Our
national ideal is identical with our social ideal.") with a new,
radical ideology which will actually address society's problems.
Hitler proposes a revised basis for Socialism. Not an
undifferentiated internationalism where everyone is identical in
character or ability, but a Socialism which takes into account
the inherent inequality of individuals and bloodlines. He notes
that Jews (who are behind Communism) still value race above all,
despite Communism's theoretical ideal of international unity:
("International Marxism is rejected by fifteen million people,
because fifteen million minds are too intelligent not to know
that the condition it seeks is impossible to achieve, just as
impossible as it was in Russia - other than in theory.
The German socialist has been taught to believe that he can only
be international, and he has been taught that there exist only
other human beings. That defies all experience and is an insult
to their own existence. It is easy for anyone to say that a
person is a person, just as a dog is a dog no matter whether it
is a dachshund or a greyhound. A person is a person, whether New
Zealander or German, English or Zulu. However, they differ just
as much as one breed of dogs from another. You know, it is
really unbelievable that it was possible to preach this insanity
of internationalism to millions of people and people believed in
this idea; incredible that the Jew who has been in our midst for
thousands of years and yet remained a Jew, has managed to
persuade millions of us that race is completely unimportant, and
yet for him race is all-important.")
I will chalk this up to propaganda, but in the speech Hitler
says "blacks" have never invented anything and do not possess
the same talents as "whites". I suspect this is propaganda to
rouse a right-leaning crowd because he says the same thing about
the Jews--that they have never invented anything. There are
probably hundreds of websites (both Zionist and anti-Jewish)
which list how Jews have received so many more Nobel Prizes,
dominate scientific fields, etc., etc. Surely Hitler was aware
of this trend.
[quote]Why have you come here today in greater numbers than
perhaps you would have done on another occasion? Simply because
an election is under discussion? No, not at all. You are well
aware that elections have taken place for decades and you expect
that there will be more elections in the coming years. In
previous years they have never completely satisfied you, and in
the coming decades you will not be satisfied by the elections
either. Nor have you come here in the hope that I will read out
a long recipe for a cure.
You yourselves do not expect the promises made by the election
speakers to be kept. You have long since ceased to believe in
magic cures. What is really decided through an election of this
kind? You know how things are today. Here in Thuringia, too,
there is no reason to expect that a new view of the world
(Weltanschauung) will take over.
[...]
To me the situation of the German nation today seems like that
of a sick person. I know that people on various sides often say,
"Why do you constantly say that we are sick!" People have said
to us: "Daily life goes on as it always did; this "sick person",
as you can see, eats day after day, works day in and day out;
how can you say that this person is sick?!" But the question is
not whether a nation is still alive and the economy functioning.
Just because a person eats and works does not mean that he is
fit. The most reliable criterion is how that persons himself
feels. He can tell whether he is fit or ill. It is precisely the
same in the life of nations. Nations are often sick for long
periods - often centuries - yet individual members of the
nations cannot fully understand the nature of the sickness.
[...]
It is precisely the same today. No one will claim that the
German nation is healthy. It is sick and this feeling of
sickness motivates our entire nation today. Some people, it is
true, feel well. There are individuals who thrive precisely when
the nation is sick, people whose well-being is an indirect proof
of the general crisis. This crisis will always be twofold in
nature. It is not only a material crisis, it is above all a
spiritual, ethical and moral crisis, even if most people are
unwilling to believe this because they merely experience the
material crisis. This could not exist if there were not a
spiritual crisis. This applies particularly to our time.
This is the reason why you have come here. In this room there
are supporters and opponents of our movement. The supporters
came to hear their leader, the opponents came in order to hear
just for once the leader of this movement. However, someone who
strongly believes in an idea - a religious idea, for example -
does not go to listen if someone is preaching a different idea.
If I am firmly rooted in my own faith then I have absolutely no
interest in another. You have come here, although you probably
are not conscious of this, because you are dissatisfied with
what has existed in the past. Neither the man on the right nor
the man on the left is satisfied.
I do not want to divide the German nation into little parties
but instead into two broad halves. The one half consists of
those who consciously describe themselves as national. The other
half consists of those who just as consciously call themselves
international. On the one side the national middle class
(Burgertum), and on the other side the international
proletariat. Within these groups there is constant movement in
one direction or the other. Why? Because people are not
completely satisfied with the achievements of their political
direction. Instead individuals sometimes have the feeling that
the direction to which they belong has failed.
[...]
What really proves whether an idea is right or wrong? The real
proof of the correctness of an idea is not whether people
believe it, but whether it succeeds, i.e. whether the goal of
the program which is proposed is achieved. So we can apply the
following test: If a group of people join together to achieve a
specific goal, this group is not victorious at the moment when
it obtains power but at the moment when it achieves its goal
with the aid of that power. Today there is another theory, the
one on which our state is based. According to this a political
campaign can be considered successful when it has gained control
of the power within the state. If, however, we apply this test,
then you can judge how little success the two groups we are
considering have had in achieving their goals. ... The answer to
this question is easy because both groups held political power.
[...]
The political goal of the right in our nation was in broad terms
as follows: "We want to establish a great, powerful German
Reich, a Reich which has power and greatness, a Reich with
strength. We want to ensure complete freedom for this Reich
through unlimited cultivation of a sense of national honor and
national pride and by maximum development of the nation's
strength to defend itself. We want our nation to achieve its
place in the sun and to retain it. A national Reich, externally
powerful and internally free." When you recall this goal today
and compare it with reality, you have to admit that it has not
been achieved. ... Of 30 million adult men and women, fifteen
million flatly reject the national ideal. They say: "We are
international, we want nothing to do with the national ideal."
[...]
And the left? Its goal was the establishment of a world-wide
coalition of states with a proletarian form of government - that
is to say states which are completely free of militarism and of
capitalism - and the establishment of a new world built on the
corpses of the downtrodden anti-socialist states. And here again
if you disregard all explanations and interpretations and
concern yourselves purely with the bare truth, then, my friends
on the left, you must admit that your real objective has also
not been achieved. The world is more divided than ever before.
What people call the League of Nations is a pathetic structure,
as pathetic as probably our old German Reich before 1871. World
history take its course ignoring this so-called League of
Nations as if it did not exist. The states are arming themselves
day after day. Militarism has not been abolished, and capitalism
has not been abolished either and has become instead the
dominant world power. Are the developments which we see in
Germany by any chance the victory of socialism? So here, too, it
is understandable if a person is discontent. His newspaper can
tell him about day to day events etc. Yet he cannot help
sometimes saying to himself that the whole struggle has been in
vain! Today an army of unemployed separates us from genuine
social well-being. And this army is growing larger rather than
smaller.
It is the feeling that something is not right which brings you
here. When there is a need to overcome a crisis which cannot be
cured by small-scale measures, when circumstances which affect
an entire nation must be remedied and thus require the
application of large-scale measures, the first requirement is
that we understand how things got the way they are. We live in a
time which in small ways is great and genial but in broad terms
has been a miserable failure. That is the reason why I am
criticized for not concerning myself with day to day problems.
To me worrying about day to day problems is as if, when someone
is seriously ill, your sole concern is whether to feed him his
soup with a silver or a golden spoon.
We want to seek out the really major causes of the sickness. ...
The one reason which the right gives for its failure is that the
German middle class (Bürgertum) made the big mistake of not
maintaining its hold on power and instead surrendered it. ...But
in the long run a position of dominance is not maintained with
mechanical weapons, machines guns, hand grenades etc. The
absolute monarchy in Germany recognized this. In principle its
view, "l'etat, c'est moi", was right. Why? Because everybody was
still convinced that, for example, the man who then ruled over
the Prussian Reich was unselfish, was a hero, because everyone
was convinced: "I am ruled over sensibly and this indirectly
benefits me."
The second reason is the simplest. When I talk to national
politicians today and I say to them: "Please admit that you have
failed; fifteen million people are no longer interested in the
national ideal and that is the most dreadful thing conceivable",
they reply: "Yes, but look at these people, they are scum. Just
go down and mix with these people, they are not worth talking
to." There is only one response to this. If it is true that
fifteen million people consciously reject the national ideal
because they are morally bad, because they are riff-raff, scum,
scoundrels, what is the point of any further political activity?
Well, with what do the gentlemen on the right intend to save
Germany? With their fragmented and divided middle class? No,
under these circumstances there is no value in continuing the
struggle, it is pointless. Fate has simply spoken, i.e. our
nation is destined for destruction. But then why not have the
courage to go before the nation and say, even if one does not
wish to admit that one has failed: "Under these circumstances we
have no further interest in politics! There is no point in
engaging in politics any longer!" Nevertheless these gentlemen
come before you again and say: "Give us your votes!".
However, it is not true that fifteen million people are not
national because they are morally bad. You see, I cannot judge a
nation by the situation which prevails at this moment. Naturally
it is simpler and easier to explain that fifteen million people
are scum than to admit that you are making a mistake or have
represented an idea in the wrong way. They say the people are
worthless. Why worthless? I cannot measure a person's worth in
terms of his wealth or his birth, or things like that. All that
means nothing, is not a measure of worth. If today I were to
remove a good-for-nothing who is born wealthy I would do the
nation no harm, but I would if I removed a craftsman or an
intellectual who conscientiously does his duty. The value of a
person depends on the value which his labour creates. It is not
by his own volition that a person becomes a thinker, musician,
great inventor etc. This is not the result of his individual
will but rather a higher nature endows him with this disposition
at birth. A person may be praised because he is a genius; his
abilities are, however, of no importance if he cannot make them
serve everyone. He can just as well be a brilliant criminal,
good-for-nothing... On the other hand, if I were to remove any
street cleaner who conscientiously sweeps his square meter of
street, I would have to replace him with another street sweeper.
We should judge people according to the abilities with which
nature has endowed them and which they use for the benefit of
the community. This criterion excludes the accidental factor of
high or low birth and gives a person the freedom to forge his
own reputation. Even the most insignificant person, if he
honestly carries out the work he is given so as to serve the
national community (Volksgemeinschaft), can be replaced by
another, but the community needs his services. If I apply this
criterion I cannot say that the fifteen million people on the
left are worthless. You cannot simply remove them, you would
have to replace them. Some of them may be worthless but the
first measure of value speaks for the fifteen million.
[...]
The second criterion of value: People should be measured firstly
by the work which they perform for their nation and secondly by
their general character. It is not shouting hurrah but the
willingness to subordinate their personal interest to those of
the community, to those of the state, to subordinate their ego
to the interest of all others which demonstrate their character.
There are people who are full of assurances that they are ready
to sacrifice themselves for the sake of the community at large.
They do everything out of sympathy for their fellow members of
the human race. Others fight the most momentous battles at a
table full of beer bottles. Their ability to make sacrifices
remains theoretical.
There is, however, a practical test and this test is war. That
great test when the iron Goddess of Fate approaches the
individual and asks him: "Are you ready now to sacrifice
yourself for others, yes or no?" Pretences are not the deciding
factor then, or deception, no, pretences disappear and all that
remains is the naked human as he really is. ... Those were the
hours when Fate applied its test - to the German working man as
well. No German army could have celebrated a victory if beside
the General had not stood the German grenadier. The millions who
owned nothing for which they could have fought, they were the
objects of the second test. They did their duty as if the entire
fate of the fatherland depended on them alone, and in so doing
they passed the test to the everlasting fame of the broad masses
of our People.
With this before our eyes it cannot be said that the German
People are worthless, are evil. If this had been the case
Germany would have collapsed in the first three weeks. Today the
German People have nothing in which to believe and hence turn
this way and that thoughtlessly and weak. And there is a reason
for this: How can the German People have faith in those weak
individuals who are watching and have watched as Germany
suffered harm in the most humiliating fashion? How can it regard
them as the protectors of their interests? These men have heaped
too much guilt upon themselves for the German people to ignore
this. Believe me, if I were not a National Socialist, I could
never join the ranks of the middle class (bürgerlich) parties,
because I loath big talk which is merely an empty facade; I hate
the kind of cowardice which avoids making decisions; I hate the
half-hearted attitude which was shown before, during and after
the war.
[...][/quote]
#Post#: 10617--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: Zea_mays Date: January 16, 2022, 11:21 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Speech in Schleiz, Thuringia. January 18, 1927. (continued).
Commentary: In this portion, he addresses the failures of
'international' socialism, and indicates National Socialism will
be able to fulfill the "social idea" of Socialism. In addition,
he points out the importance of using "race" instead of "class",
as the Jewish elite who promote Communism and claim "race" is
not important nevertheless place supreme importance on their own
"race" which they have preserved for thousands of years.
[quote]The reasons given by the left are just as faulty as those
of the right. The first big excuse is: "Yes, we were stupid to
seize power alone.". Well, that is your own fault! And the
second: When you say to a leader on the left, 'What use are your
international and Marxist ideas, fifteen million people reject
them?", the only answer you get is that the fifteen million
people are simply worthless and useless, and that they should
have decapitated them. Here I have to say the same as I did
earlier about the other side. How do you measure a person's
value? It is determined by the person's value for the community.
Can the professional class, the intellectual laborers,
(Geistesarbeiter) really be called worthless? Certainly not!
There are thousands and thousands of pairs of hands at work in a
factory from which a locomotive finally emerges. But do not
forget that before their work began it was the engineers who
designed the machine, there were the chemists who made the
alloys. You cannot say today: "Out with the engineer; he is not
a member of our party, so off with his head!" If it was a
question of only three or four you could do that, but with
fifteen million people that is impossible. If millions of
working people did not supply their strength to implement ideas
which originate in the brains of others, if those brains did not
constantly supply all the millions of pairs of hands with the
plans, the human race would be unable to progress from its
original state. Our brain and hands have collaborated to create
the healthy organism in which we all participate and of which we
all are a part today.
And the second criterion, that of character? You cannot say that
all those on the right are all scum, they have no character. You
must not judge the value and the character of the German
professional and middle classes in general on the basis of
individual typical slaver-drivers or exploiters. This would be
just as stupid as judging every manual laborer by some
good-for-nothing who crosses one's path. Just as in the army
there were officers who forgot that they had fellow citizens,
fellow Germans under their command - if you believe in
metempsychosis you might thing that perhaps they were camel
drivers in an earlier existence - there were also N.C.O.s who
had been one of us before their promotion and who were much
worse than those officers.
[...]
Please do not forget that there have been millions who work with
their brains, inventors, etc., who have created the best things
for the human race but who have nevertheless died penniless, and
that today there are still people who, for example, take on the
most dangerous mission in the service of science. Why does
someone engage in cancer research for a decade until he is
perhaps infected himself? Not because he wants to exploit
others, but because he is one of the hundreds of thousands of
people who have the interest of the community at heart ....
International Marxism is rejected by fifteen million people,
because fifteen million minds are too intelligent not to know
that the condition it seeks is impossible to achieve, just as
impossible as it was in Russia - other than in theory.
The German socialist has been taught to believe that he can only
be international, and he has been taught that there exist only
other human beings. That defies all experience and is an insult
to their own existence. It is easy for anyone to say that a
person is a person, just as a dog is a dog no matter whether it
is a dachshund or a greyhound. A person is a person, whether New
Zealander or German, English or Zulu. However, they differ just
as much as one breed of dogs from another.
You know, it is really unbelievable that it was possible to
preach this insanity of internationalism to millions of people
and people believed in this idea; incredible that the Jew who
has been in our midst for thousands of years and yet remained a
Jew, has managed to persuade millions of us that race is
completely unimportant, and yet for him race is all-important.
What would that really mean, - that race does not matter?
[...]
There are fields in which various races were active for
centuries. Wherever the Aryan goes there is culture; if he
leaves, it gradually disappears; and if he returns after two
thousand years to somewhere where culture has perhaps been
replaced by a desert, he will restore culture. Culture is
inseparably linked with people, that is to say with certain
people. If you take them away in the long run nothing is left.
You say that does not matter, a person is a person. ... If you
go into the factory and go through the work halls and look at
the endless huge machines and then look at the workers - there,
too, no Jews. But if you go into a shop in Berlin on the
Kurfurstendamm, then you do not see a single non-Jew in it. ...
The reason why today he has no culture of his own, no state of
his own, has to do with the fact that for thousands of years he
has avoided any productive work. He has not been persecuted
because he did not perform productive work, but because he
demanded unproductive interest charges. He always only bought,
sold and sold again, and our ancestors forbade that: 'You do not
work our soil, therefore you have no right to buy it either'.
Tens of thousands of Protestants were driven out of my native
land, for ever. And so they packed their bundle of belongings
and they went to East Prussia and worked, or went overseas.
Those who were persecuted in this manner began to work over
there, took up the struggle with the wild animals, set up farms,
and after them the people with spades always followed until the
continent was conquered. And when everything was done, our
friend came. Don't tell me that he would not have been allowed
to come earlier, and do not say he could have withstood the
climate. He can withstand the climate everywhere. It is only
work that he cannot stand. That is the only reason why he did
not go. Believe me, the same people who had managed to make
almost the entire world serve their purposes could have created
a state for themselves anywhere. The world would have been
happy, grateful, but they had absolutely no desire to do this. .
. .
Believe me, you will never achieve national reconciliation on
the basis of the present parties. This reconciliation is what
National Socialism seeks to achieve. Our national ideal is
identical with our social ideal. We are National Socialists,
that is to say what we understand by the word nation is not one
class, nor one economic group; the nation is for us the
collective term for all people who speak our language and
possess our blood. We see no possibility for pride in the nation
if there is a well-fed group of entrepreneurs and behind them
the starving and exhausted working people of our nation.
National pride is possible only if intellectual and manual
laborers, well fed and with a decent standard of living, can
live side by side in harmony. We want to build the foundation
for a new view of the world (Weltanschauung) in which greatness
attaches only to the person who sacrifices himself out of
passionate devotion to his entire People. We are convinced that
no one in the world will give us anything for nothing. No one
else is furthering our cause, we alone must forge our own
future. Within our nation lies the source of our entire
strength. If our nation falls we shall all fall with it. We
cannot prosper if our nation is destroyed. Our nation and our
state shall prosper so that each individual in it can live.
We are not pacifists, for we know that the father of all things
is combat and struggle. We see that race is of supreme
importance to the life of our nation as well as character, the
basis of which must be responsibility toward our People. We are
absolutely convinced that every decision requires
responsibility. That is why we are at odds with the entire
world, that is why we are considered subversive and why we are
prohibited from speaking, and why we are silenced, because we
want to restore the health of our entire German nation and to
cure it from this cursed sickness of fragmentation.[/quote]
#Post#: 10618--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: Zea_mays Date: January 16, 2022, 11:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Speech in the Sportpalast. Berlin, January 30, 1942.
Commentary:
In the excerpt below Hitler outlines how National Socialist
policies are a direct left-wing competitor to Communist
Socialism, and have successfully implemented the social welfare
policies Communists claim to support!!! Consider that this was
during the war. Hitler would have had no reason to boast about
Socialism if he was a far-rightist. Note how he specifically
contrasts the capitalist states as if there is a greater divide
between them and NS Germany than between NS Germany and the
Communist USSR.
[quote]We had a world unanimously against us here. Of course,
not only on the right, but also on the left. Those on the left
feared: "What are we going to do, if this experiment succeeds
and he actually makes it and eliminates the housing problem?
What if he manages to introduce an educational system based on
which a talented boy, no matter who his parents are, can attain
God knows what position? And, he is capable of doing it, he is
already making a Reich protector out of a former farmhand. What
if he really introduces an old-age pension scheme covering the
whole Volk? What if he truly secures a right to vacations for
the whole Volk, since he is already building ships? And he is
bringing all this up to an ordered and secured standard of
living. What are we going to do? We live by the absence of this.
We live by this and, therefore, we must fight National
Socialism." What the others have accomplished-that, our comrades
were best able to see in Russia. We have been in power for nine
years now. Bolshevism has been there since 1917, that is, almost
twenty-five years. Everyone can judge for himself by comparing
this Russia with Germany. The things we did in these nine years.
What does the German Volk look like, and what have they
accomplished over there? I do not even want to mention the
capitalist states.
They do not take care of their unemployed, because no American
millionaire will ever come into the area where they live, and no
unemployed man will ever go to the area where the millionaires
live. While hunger marches to Washington and to the White House
are organized, they are usually dispersed en route by the police
by means of rubber truncheons and tear gas. Such things do not
exist in authoritarian Germany. We deal with such problems
without such things-rubber truncheons and tear gas.[/quote]
----
Speech at the annual rally of young officer cadets at the Berlin
Sportpalast. December 18, 1940.
Summary: Hitler again makes clear he aimed to form a
revolutionary synthesis of nationalism and socialism. The
ideological revolution in Germany and manifestation of an
entirely "new world" poses a threat to the traditional Western
order, which is the true root of why the Allies oppose Germany.
[quote]As I returned home from the World War, I found a picture
of divisiveness which had elevated itself from the level of the
former dynasties to that of an ideology (Weltanschauung).
While in former times counts and Lander had meant division for
the nation, ideologies and parties had in the meanwhile
developed from this. Here the bourgeoisie-there the proletariat;
here Nationalism-there Socialism. At the time, both were frames
of reference which could no longer be reconciled with each
other. Neither of the two, in my opinion, was strong enough to
secure final victory even after overcoming the other, since, in
the life of a nation, there is no such thing as sentimentality.
Once a certain standpoint prevails and reigns victorious in a
Volk, then it is of no consequence-it is not even interesting to
know-whether it obtained this victory rightly or not. What is
decisive is that it manages to obtain unity of will on its own
level. If this is possible, then the question of right or wrong
is no longer relevant. If this is not possible, then the Volk
will fail. For it is self-evident that it is difficult enough
for a nation to maintain a position already obtained, but it is
even more difficult to fight for a position which must yet be
secured. There is hope for success in such a fight only if it is
led with the complete dedication of the entire strength of a
Volk.
It makes a difference whether a world empire such as Great
Britain seeks to maintain its position, or whether a "Reich"
such as Germany must first set out to secure its position in
battle.
That life was impossible under the conditions of the Treaty of
Versailles is something that I need not tell you about. New
conditions for life had to be created. This was opposed by a
divided nation and two ideologies, which already at the time
appeared to be in the process of disintegration, since a large
number of parties represented both the bourgeois and the Marxist
ideology, which included groups from Social Democracy to the
most radical syndicalism, namely, anarchism. It was clear that,
in the year 1919, an exclusive, clear victory by one of these
two ideas could no longer be expected. Just as Germany had once
before disintegrated into countless small dynastic structures,
there again was the threat of the German nation disintegrating
into countless small ideological or party political groups.
There was a time when a maximum of forty-six such "pocket
parties" (Parteichen) stepped up to compete for the favor and
approval of the German Volk. It was Utopian to expect a
resurrection under these conditions, not to mention bringing
about such a resurrection.
[...]
When I returned at the time, I realized that, as long as the two
definitions of socialism and nationalism remained what they had
been, a resurrection of the German nation was inconceivable. On
the other hand, I realized that no ideals existed outside the
two worlds of socialism and nationalism. They were the only two
concepts for which people were ready to die if necessary. At the
time, I therefore undertook to form one common world out of
these torn nationalist and socialist worlds-founded on a new
definition of the two concepts. I did so in the realization that
it was no longer a question of preserving what was old, but
eliminating the impossible, and creating a new world in which it
would be possible to concentrate and redirect the total strength
of the nation from the inside to the outside. Of course, this
change had to occur not within the state, but within the
Volksgemeinschaft. This means: the new state had to begin to
form within a new Movement. After about fifteen years, this new
Movement had the strength to take over power and realize its
ideas in practice. This not only brought about the creation of a
new empire in Europe, but also-as we can confidently state-a new
world.
It is a world which is naturally more modern than the world of
those who need only preserve what they acquired over 300 years.
Today's Germany stands for several ideas which can claim to be
truly revolutionary- ideas which managed to mobilize the
strength of the Volk for one goal and to concentrate it in the
direction of this goal. Other peoples and their state leaders
are frightened by the thought of what has formed here.
They realize that this state has arrived at a lasting synthesis
of nationalism and socialism and that, in the long run, this
state will develop a powerful attraction, similar to that of the
ideas of the French Revolution at the time.
This is also the case today: when they speak of a so-called
"fifth column," they are not referring to people who sympathize
with Germany politically, but people who have weltanschaulich
been inspired by us and who now form an opposition in their
nations; an opposition based on the realization that the German
example is essentially correct and that it should be copied
elsewhere.
This does not mean that they wish to join Germany or subjugate
themselves to it. When this is claimed in the other states, it
is a dying world that makes the claim, in the hope of
compromising these new movements by portraying them as
unpatriotic, conspiring, or sympathizing with the enemy.
[...]
Anyhow, all these ideas about race, blood, and soil, the idea of
labor as the only creative force, the idea of the social
community are the prerequisites for preserving a nation. After
all, these ideas are today in the process of attracting more and
more people. And this is where the fight against Germany sets
in, not only because we are disrupting the European balance of
power by our claim to life, but also because we are disrupting
the European order by new ideas, which we made public in Europe
and which are now gaining in popularity.
[...]
And now, my young Comrades, you must understand one thing: in
the year 1919, I took up a struggle which appeared nearly
hopeless at the time. An unknown man who undertook to rid a
world of resistance, to tear down walls of prejudice. Prejudice
at times is worse than divine force.
A man took a stand against all the bearers of public life back
then, against the parties, against their press, against the
whole system of capitalist fabrication of public opinion. I led
this struggle until the final seizure of power.[/quote]
----
Speech to the workers of Berlin. December 10, 1940.
Commentary: anti-capitalism, pro-labor, anti-elitist.
[quote]Throughout my life I have been a have-not. At home I was
a have-not, I count myself among the have-nots, and I have
always fought for them. For them I stood up, and I stand up to
the world as a representative of the have-nots! [-] It is
understandable when an Englishman says: "We do not want our
world to perish in any way at all." And rightly so. They know
all too well: we are no threat to their empire. But they also
say to themselves, and rightly so: "If these ideas which are
popular in Germany are not eliminated and eradicated, they will
come to our people, and this is most dangerous. This we do not
want." And if it did come this way it would do no harm. But they
are as narrow-minded as others used to be here with us once. [-]
These English capitalists have the opportunity, to give just one
example, to make dividends of seventy-six, eighty, ninety-five,
140, 160 percent. Yes naturally, they say: "If these German
methods gain currency or are victorious, this will end." And
this is completely correct. This I would not tolerate. I think
that six percent suffices, but we must take half of this six
percent away again, and from the rest we must have documented
proof that it was reinvested in the interest of the
Volksgemeinschaft. [-] I do not believe that one can maintain a
situation in which a man toils and works a whole year, only to
get a ludicrous salary, and another just sits down in a leather
seat and gets enormous sums for it. This is a condition unworthy
of man. [-] After all, there are two worlds which confront each
other. And they are right when they say: "We can never reconcile
ourselves to the National Socialist world." For how could a
narrow-minded capitalist possibly declare his agreement with my
principles? It would be easier for the devil to go to church and
take holy water. [-] This is the first state in our German
history which, as a matter of principle, eliminated all social
prejudice in the assignment of social positions, and this not
only in civilian life. I myself am the best proof of that.
[...]
And, my Volksgenossen, I believe it became common knowledge that
I have plans of some substance, beautiful and great plans for my
Volk. I have the ambition to make the German Volk rich, the
German lands beautiful. I wish the standard of living of the
individual to increase. I wish us to develop the most beautiful
and best culture. I wish theater to be an enjoyment affordable
for the entire Volk and not only for the upper ten-thousand as
in England. Beyond this, I wish the entirety of German culture
to benefit the Volk. These were enormous plans which we
possessed, and for their realization I needed manpower.
[...]
We have now determined to tear down all the constraints which
hinder the individual in striving for the fulfillment of his
potential, to take the place rightfully his. We have the firm
will to erect a social state which must serve, and will serve,
as an example for all walks of life.
Therein we conceive our final victory! For we have seen what it
leads to with the others. Twenty years ago they secured an
apparent victory. And what has come of this victory? Nothing but
misery and despair. Unemployment has come of it. They fought
their war only for the damned plutocracy, for a few financier
dynasties which administer their capital markets, for a few
hundred who in the end control these peoples. That should serve
as a lesson for all of us! When this war is over, then Germany
will begin a great undertaking: a cry of "Arise" shall echo
through the German lands. Then the German Volk will abandon the
production of cannons and will begin the labors of peace and a
new reconstruction work for the mass of millions! Then we shall
show the world all the more clearly what is the master and who
is the master: capital or labor! And then from this labor will
arise the great German Reich of which a great German poet once
dreamt. It will be a Germany to which every son clings in
zealous love because it will be home to even the most wretched.
It will open life up to him.[/quote]
-----------------
Thus far, I have only read a few of the speeches, so there is
probably plenty of additional supporting evidence in the book.
And, as I said, it does not seem to contain all of his speeches.
#Post#: 10619--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: Zea_mays Date: January 16, 2022, 11:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
What about the red flag of National Socialism? As an artist, no
doubt Hitler would have been deeply aware of the importance of
symbolism. As a ideologist, he would have obviously known of the
red flag's association with the "social idea" and leftism.
Indeed:
[quote]He also stated: "As National Socialists, we see our
program in our flag. In red, we see the social idea of the
movement; in white, the nationalistic idea; in the hooked cross,
the mission of the struggle for the victory of the Aryan man
..."[/quote]
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika#Use_in_Nazism
There is no way he could have been unaware of its historical
symbolism, nor of its use by communists and its fear by 'red
scare' advocates in the 1920s!
[quote]In politics, a red flag is predominantly a symbol of
socialism,... It has been associated with left-wing politics
since the French Revolution (1789–1799).[1]
Socialists adopted the symbol during the Revolutions of 1848 and
it became a symbol of communism as a result of its use by the
Paris Commune of 1871.
[...]
Two red flags soaked in calf's blood were flown by marchers in
South Wales during the Merthyr Rising of 1831. It is claimed to
be the first time that the red flag was waved as a banner of
workers' power.
[...]
In 1870, following the stunning defeat of the French Army by the
Germans in the Franco-Prussian War, French workers and socialist
revolutionaries seized Paris and created the Paris Commune. The
Commune lasted for two months before it was crushed by the
French Army, with much bloodshed. The original red banners of
the Commune became icons of the socialist revolution; in 1921
members of the French Communist Party came to Moscow and
presented the new Soviet government with one of the original
Commune banners; it was placed (and is still in place) in the
tomb of Vladimir Lenin, next to his open coffin.[12]
[...]
With the victory of the Bolsheviks in the Russian Revolution of
1917, the red flag, with a hammer to symbolize the workers and
sickle to symbolize peasants, became the official flag of
Russia, and, in 1923, of the Soviet Union. It remained so until
the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991.
[...]
After the suppression of the 1848 revolution, the red flag and
other insignia dominated by the colour red were banned in
Prussia, as was the case in France after the demise of the Paris
Commune.[20] During the Red Scare of 1919–1920 in the United
States, many states passed laws forbidding the display of red
flags, including Minnesota, South Dakota, Oklahoma,[21] and
California. In Stromberg v. California, the United States
Supreme Court held that such laws are unconstitutional.[22]
In Australia the red flag was similarly banned in September 1918
under the War Precautions Act 1914. This ban would be an
arguable cause of the Red Flag riots. The ban ended in Australia
with the repeal of the War Precautions Act in 1920.[/quote]
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_(politics)
And he chose this leftist symbol to be the largest aspect of the
flag--especially when you think of all the building-length
banners that were commonly used.
#Post#: 10620--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: Zea_mays Date: January 16, 2022, 11:55 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Among those who are above-averagely familiar with WWII, it is
common to talk about 'Strasserism' as the left-wing of National
Socialism, and common to believe Strasserists were purged from
the party due to their leftism. Yet this is not accurate.
Hitler had trusted Gregor and Otto Strasser enough to appoint
them with expanding the party while he was banned from speaking.
This would have made no sense if Hitler was far-right.
[quote]However, after an inflammatory speech he gave on 27
February, Hitler was barred from public speaking by the Bavarian
authorities, a ban that remained in place until 1927.[132][133]
To advance his political ambitions in spite of the ban, Hitler
appointed Gregor Strasser, Otto Strasser and Joseph Goebbels to
organise and enlarge the Nazi Party in northern Germany. Gregor
Strasser steered a more independent political course,
emphasising the socialist elements of the party's
programme.[134][/quote]
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler#Rebuilding_the_Nazi_Party
[quote]After 1925, Strasser's organizational skills helped
transform the Nazi Party from a marginal south-German splinter
party into a nationwide party with mass appeal.[16][7] Due to
the public-speaking ban issued against Hitler, Strasser had been
deputized (by Hitler) to represent the party in the north and
speak.[17][/quote]
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Strasser#Role_in_the_Nazi_Party's_national_organisation
The Strassers lost favor in the party not because they were
leftist Socialists, but because Otto was unwilling to fully
repudiate Marxist Socialism and because both Gregor and Otto
were unwilling to fully embrace the Leader Principle. Hitler
made multiple attempts to keep them in the party, debate with
them, and reconcile with them (even giving them _more power_
within the party!). If Hitler was a far-rightist, how could it
make any sense to do that? If the National Socialist party was a
far-right party, why would the Socialist Strassers join it and
accept such high ranking positions when the KPD (Communist)
party was one of the largest in Germany which they could have
easily joined instead? Surely it would have been easier for them
to recruit people to develop an anti-Marxist form of Socialism
within the left-wing Communist party than within the supposedly
"far-right" NS party...?
----
In 1926, Hitler had reconciled with the Strassers (who were
developing an alternate, dissenting, party platform). But Otto
remained too Communist-leaning (in Hitler's opinion), leading to
a private debate between Hitler and Otto Strasser in 1930.
While the debate covered a number of different topics, one of
the core topics (which both of them agreed was the most
critical) was about the meaning of Socialism and whether the two
men could reconcile their definitions of it. (Some of the text
bolded below are things Strasser said. Note that he makes it
clear he supports Socialism, and Hitler does not attack him for
supporting Socialism. In fact, highlighted in red, Hitler
clearly says he is Socialist! Hitler's problem with Strasser is
not leftism, but being too sympathetic to the Marxist conception
of Socialism.)
[quote]Mr Hitler agreed that he wanted this explanation. He
attached the greatest price to my work, he fully acknowledged my
work and wanted to keep me in the party. That was the reason for
his invitation. I was young, a front line veteran and an old
National Socialist, so I could be convinced.
[...]
Him: “Yes, we diverge here considerably. You bring us back to
democracy, and democracy is dissolved. Our organization is
founded on discipline, and I will not let it be dismembered by a
handful of writers. You yourself knew the army. See how your
brother although he is not always in agreement with me, he bends
to this discipline, for him I have much esteem. And I ask you if
accept this discipline, yes or no.”
[...]
Hitler swore that if he extended me his hand today, it was
precisely in memory of my brother who had suffered greatly from
our differences and for himself.
Him: “Once again, I offer you the post of national press leader.
You will come with me to Munich, where you will be directly
under my authority. You could put all your work and
intelligence, which I esteem, in the service of the movement.”
I responded that I could only accept this offer if we were in
fundamental agreement regarding political goals. I added
verbatim: “If it turns out that our views still differ, you will
have the impression that I have deceived you, and I myself the
feeling of having been betrayed. The most important thing seems
to me that we have a deep discussion on political objectives. I
would be ready to return to Munich for four weeks and discuss
all the questions with you and eventually with Rosenberg, whose
hostility towards me I am aware of, and primarily the questions
of foreign policy and socialism as in my opinion, Rosenberg is
the most distant from my conceptions.”
Thereafter, Mr Hitler told me that this proposal had come too
late, that I should decide for myself now, failing that he would
take the necessary measures on Monday. That is to say he would
declare that Editions Combat had brought harm to the interests
of the party, that all members of the party would be banned from
the dissemination and propagation of the Edition Combat’s
magazines, that he would exclude me and the people surrounding
me from the party.
I responded that Mr Hitler did indeed have the opportunity to
take these measures, but he had thus proved something that I
never believed was possible until now: his total disagreement
with our revolutionary socialist will, as expressed for five
years in Editions Combat, where it was the goal and essential
object.
I roughly said this: “Mister Hitler, I have the impression that
you forgot to say the true reasons that push you to destroy
Editions Combat; the real stake is this revolutionary socialism
we advocate, you desire to sacrifice it to establish the
legality of the party and in order to cooperate with the
bourgeois right (Hugenberg, Stahlhelm, etc)”
Mister Hitler rejected this opinion very quickly: “Unlike people
such as the wealthy Count Reventlow, I am socialist. I started
as a simple worker, and today still, I do not allow my chauffeur
to receive another meal than me. But your socialism is Marxism
pure and simple. You see, the great mass of workers only wants
bread and circuses. Ideas are not accessible to them and we
cannot hope to win them over. We attach ourselves to the fringe,
the race of lords, which did not grow through a miserabilist
doctrine and knows by the virtue of its own character that it is
called to rule, and rule without weakness over the masses of
beings.”
Me: “Mister Hitler, this opinion overwhelms me. A vision founded
on race is erroneous. In my opinion, race is only the initial
first material. For example, the German people are constituted
by four or five different races. To which we add geopolitical,
climactic influences, and others, external pressure, internal
fusion, which forged what we call a people. The following step
is born from living together and becoming aware of this life:
this superior form is the nation, born for us in August 1914.
The racial vision of Rosenberg that you have made yours denies
the great task of National Socialism, the constitution of the
German people into a nation, and will even lead to the
dissolution of this people. So it denies, in my eyes, the
objective and the meaning of the German revolution to come.”
Him: “You are a liberal. Every revolution is fundamentally
racial. There are no social, political, or economic revolutions.
...”
[...]
It was getting late – it had nearly been 4 hours – I asked to
continue our conversation tomorrow, on the specific subject of
socialism. He declared, “But the question of foreign policy is
purely theoretical for the moment. Neither you nor me make
decisions and I can satisfy myself with this formulation, that
foreign policy only obeys a singular objective: the good of
Germany. Cultural policy is not very important in my eyes, in
any case it seems quite second rank now. In my eyes, the
decisive and central question is economic organization and
socialism, as it’s in this matter that I have the greatest
doubts about the party’s policy.
[...]
As we had outlined the plan of the day’s conversation yesterday,
I had reflected on five fundamental points which I communicated
to my brother in the course of our brief meeting, they were as
followed:
[...]
2 It follows from the above that we are equally opposed to
bourgeois capitalism and internationalist Marxism.
[...]
5 This anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist attitude means that
we do not envision military intervention against Russia.
[...]
At Hitler’s demand, I began in roughly these terms: “The
discussion yesterday showed that important points should be
clarified. Namely to know if you, like me, are of the opinion
that the revolution to which we aspire must be implemented on
political, economic, and spiritual level. In which case that
implies that we be inflexible and fight bourgeois capitalism and
internationalist Marxism with equal ardor, which leads us to the
central point of this meeting. Our propaganda must not only
attach itself to the anti-Marxist struggle, it must equally
attack capitalism and found a German socialism.
Which necessitates that we clarify the concept of property. I
believe that religious respect for private property excludes all
possibility of German socialism.
[...]
Private property was conceived for agriculture, as the soil is
divisible into little parcels. In industrial matters, things
present themselves differently, so we must opt for collective
ownership of the enterprises in which people work. In order to
distribute land to the peasants, Stein had to confiscate it from
the large landowners, as he couldn’t find un-owned land. Today
we must do the same: the entrepreneurs maintain a monopoly on
industrial property, so we must seize a part of this property to
give to the workers, and in a broader sense, to the people
collectively. These proposals will be treated as Bolshevism, but
the large landowners treated Baron Vom Stein as a Jacobin.
However: the liberation of Prussia was unthinkable without the
liberation of the peasantry. Likewise, the liberation of Germany
happens through the liberation of the German workers.”
On the demand of Mister Hitler, I declared that in my opinion,
49% of property and wealth should remain in the hands of their
current owners, 41% should return to the state which represents
the nation, and 10% to the personnel of the enterprise.
Decisions should be made with equal representation between the
entrepreneur, the state, and the employees, in a way that
reduces the influence of the state and increases that of the
workers.
Hitler: “That’s Marxism, Bolshevism, pure and simple. You
pretend to extend this democracy to economics, which lead us
politically to Russia, and ruins the entire nation in the same
stroke. ...”
[...]
I objected that the great names of history didn’t know the
meaning of the role they played. Man is not the creator of
history, he is the instrument of destiny.
[my note: this is also a Marxist conception of
history--historical materialism vs the 'great man theory'.]
[...]
Hitler: “What you call socialism is a purely Marxist vision. The
system that you erect is academic work, it doesn’t correspond to
the reality of life. In this sense there is no capitalist
system. The head of the enterprise is dependent on his
workforce, the willingness of his workers to participate in a
common effort. If they strike, his property is worthless. On the
other hand, by what right could they claim a part of this
property, even to participate in decisions? Mister Amann, would
you accept it if your stenographers suddenly wanted to take part
in your decisions? The employer is responsible for production,
and assures the workers their subsistence. Our great heads of
industry are not concerned with the accumulation of wealth and
the good life, rather they are concerned with responsibility and
power. They have acquired this right by natural selection: they
are members of the higher race. But you would surround them with
a council of incompetents, who have no notion of anything. No
economic leader can accept that.”
[...]
A long economic discussion followed ... that I quickly brought
back to the socialist field with a concrete question for Mister
Hitler: “If you seized power in Germany tomorrow what would you
immediately do with the Krupp firm? Regarding the shareholders,
the workers, the property, the benefits, and the direction,
would you keep things as they are?”
Hitler: “Of course. Do you think I’m stupid enough to destroy
the economy? The state will only intervene if people do not act
in the interest of the nation. There is no need for
dispossession or participation in all the decisions. The state
will intervene strongly when it must, pushed by superior
motives, without regards to particular interests.”
Me: “But Mister Hitler, if you want to preserve the capitalist
system, you don’t have the right to speak of socialism! As the
militants are socialists in the first rank, they refer to the
program of the party, which expressly demands the socialization
of enterprises of national interest.”
Him: “The expression of socialism is faulty in itself, and above
all: it doesn’t imply that enterprises must be nationalized, but
only that they can be, in the scenario where they operate
against the interest of the nation. For a long time that hasn’t
been the case, it would be criminal to destroy the economy.”
[...]
Me: “It’s true Mister Hitler, the processes of production remain
the same. The assembly of a car is not much different in the
socialist system than in the capitalist system. On the other
hand, the policies of production, the economic objectives are
the responsibility of the system. ... I say that it’s the system
that is criminal and we must change it, and not the men. The
reality of capitalism and the necessity of instituting socialism
is clearly visible.”
Him: “But in order to change this institution, there is no need
for the workers to become co-owners of the enterprise or
participate in its decisions. It’s the role of a strong state to
assure that production serves the interests of the nation. If it
is lacking in certain cases, the state will take energetic
measures, seizing the enterprise and putting its destiny in its
hands.”
Me: “But that would not change the destiny of the workers,
objects of the economy, rather than subjects. Moreover, I note
that you were ready to break with the sacrosanct principle of
the inviolability of private property. Then take that step, why
bother with arbitrary intervention case by case by functionaries
insufficiently informed of local conditions and at the mercy of
personal denunciations, why not directly and organically anchor
this right of intervention in the economy?”
Him: “Some fundamental differences oppose us here, as collective
ownership and decision making resemble Marxism. But, for my
part, I reserve the right of intervention to an elite within the
state.”[/quote]
HTML https://web.archive.org/web/20190330073454/https://institutenr.org/2016/12/30/hitler-vs-strasser-the-historic-debate-of-may-21st-and-22nd-1930-otto-strasser/
Otto was unable to be convinced by Hitler and he was
subsequently expelled from the party. Again, not for his
Socialism--as Hitler clearly attacks his Socialism for being
Marxist-sympathetic and therefore not authentically Socialist
enough! Had he been expelled for his leftism, it would have made
no sense for Hitler to have kept him in the party and in
positions of power for the past 4 years! (Nor would it have made
sense for Hitler to have debated by proposing a competing form
of Socialism!) Nor would it have made any sense for Hitler to
explicitly tell Strasser Hitler considered himself a
Socialist!!!
[As a side note, note how Strasser brings up the "four or five
races". This idea of multiple "races" in Germany was referenced
again by Hitler again in his 1944 Platterhof speech where Hitler
says he has now made clear folk and "race" are not the same
thing. (As implied in the speech, I'm sure more people than just
Strasser balked at the use of "race" on this basis.) Hitler used
the existing notion of "race" as a social construct to rouse
people, and then transformed the multiple "blood kernels" of the
so-called "races" into a 'superior form of nation'--i.e. a folk.
And, in the process, transcended the traditional classification
of "races" with a new, qualitative one.]
[As another note, according to the debate as it was written by
Strasser, Hitler placed importance on "Nordic" character, but he
also said the Chinese have a Nordic elite, which makes no
biological sense, suggesting "Nordic" is being used as a general
social construct here. According to Strasser's transcript of the
debate, Hitler also sided with the British against the Indian
independence movement, but during the war Hitler allied with and
personally met with Socialist Subhas Chandra Bose.]
Gregor Strasser was ousted a few years later after he became
tied up in a plot to divide the National Socialist party in
their critical moment of ascendance:
[quote]In August 1932, Hitler was offered the job of
Vice-Chancellor of Germany by then Chancellor Franz von Papen at
the behest of President Paul von Hindenburg, but he refused.
Strasser urged him to enter a coalition government, but Hitler
saw the offer as placing him in a position of "playing second
fiddle".[39][40] While many in his inner circle, like Goebbels,
saw his resistance as heroic, Strasser was frustrated and
believed Hitler was wrong to hold out for the Chancellorship.
The ideological and personal rivalry with Hitler grew when the
successor Chancellor Kurt von Schleicher had discussions with
Strasser as to becoming Vice-Chancellor in December 1932.[41]
Schleicher hoped to split the NSDAP with Strasser's help,
pulling the left wing of the NSDAP to his "national
conservative" side to stop Hitler.[16] Hitler was furious and
demanded that Strasser refuse Schleicher's offer.[16] At a
meeting of Nazi Reichstag members Hitler confronted the 30-40
that supported Strasser, forcing them to publicly support the
former and denounce the latter.[40] Strasser resigned from his
party offices on 8 December 1932, just seven weeks before the
NSDAP obtained political power.[42] Hitler temporarily took over
the post of Reichsorganisationsleiter, eventually turning it
over to Robert Ley. [43] On 16 January 1933, Hitler "publicly
repudiated Strasser" for his interactions with Schleicher.[44]
In March 1933, Strasser officially exited politics by renouncing
his Reichstag seat.[45][/quote]
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Strasser#Conflicts_with_Hitler
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page