DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       True Left
  HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: Colonial Era
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 11175--------------------------------------------------
       Re: National Socialists were socialists
       By: Zea_mays Date: February 10, 2022, 1:19 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Excerpt from an essay by Léon Degrelle about Hitler's "social
       revolution". I'm not sure if Degrelle himself should be
       considered right-leaning or not, but the topics of this essay
       seem like something Bernie Sanders or any standard leftist today
       could have written--it is praising Hitler for improving the
       social and economic conditions of the "working class". From what
       I can tell, this was written in 1992. So, Hitler's pro-labor
       social reforms were important enough for Degrelle, 50 years
       later, to give his reflections on them in the final years of his
       life.
       The primary False Left argument to "discredit" National
       Socialists from being called Socialists is the allegation that
       they did not care about "the workers". Which is clearly false:
       [quote]One of the first labor reforms to benefit the German
       workers was the establishment of annual paid vacation. The
       Socialist French Popular Front, in 1936, would make a show of
       having invented the concept of paid vacation, and stingily at
       that, only one week per year. But Adolf Hitler originated the
       idea, and two or three times as generously, from the first month
       of his coming to power in 1933.
       [...]
       And already the steel spades of the sturdy young lads of the
       National Labor Service could be seen gleaming along the
       highways. The National Labor Service had been created by Hitler
       out of thin air to bring together for a few months in absolute
       equality, and in the same uniform, both the sons of millionaires
       and the sons of the poorest families. All had to perform the
       same work and were subject to the same discipline, even the same
       pleasures and the same physical and moral development. On the
       same construction sites and in the same living quarters, they
       had become conscious of their commonality, had come to
       understand one another, and had swept away their old prejudices
       of class and caste. After this hitch in the National Labor
       Service they all began to live as comrades, the workers knowing
       that the rich man's son was not a monster, and the young lad
       from the wealthy family knowing that the worker's son had honor
       just like any other young fellow who had been more generously
       favored by birth. Social hatred was disappearing, and a socially
       united people was being born.
       Hitler could already go into factories—something no man of the
       so-called Right before him would have risked doing—and hold
       forth to the mob of workers, tens of thousands of them at a
       time, as in the Siemens works. "In contrast to the von Papens
       and other country gentlemen," he might tell them, "In my youth I
       was a worker like you. And in my heart of hearts, I have
       remained what I was then." In the course of his twelve years in
       power, no incident ever occurred at any factory Adolf Hitler
       ever visited. When Hitler was among the people, he was at home,
       and he was received like the member of the family who had been
       most successful.[/quote]
       I think the proper title of this essay is:
       Léon Degrelle. (1992). "How Hitler Consolidated Power in Germany
       and Launched a Social Revolution."
  HTML https://archive.org/details/AdolfHitlerCollection/Hitlers%20Social%20Revolution/page/n3/mode/2up
       The way Degrelle describes the Reich Labour Service is almost
       identical to what Maoist Communist labor policies theoretically
       wanted to achieve (except far less authoritarian, since the
       National Socialists didn't force people to move across the
       country like cogs in a machine--which would be an anti-social
       act, since it makes people bitter towards the state and prevents
       a community from socially strengthing, since people are being
       forced to work in a random place with complete strangers.)
       [quote]Hu Rongfen had no choice. On November 14, 1971, in the
       whirlwind of Mao Zedong's Cultural Revolution, the slender and
       soft-spoken middle school graduate was dispatched from Shanghai
       to a far-flung village in East China's Anhui Province to work in
       the country.
       This wasn't a punishment for any wrongdoing -- on the contrary,
       the quiet girl was a top student in class. The migration was an
       order from the central government to every urban household -- at
       least one of their teenage children needed to leave the city to
       work on the farm indefinitely.
       The ruthless political command lasted from 1966 until the
       mid-1970s and intended that the privileged urban "intellectual"
       youth learn from farmers and workers. As a result, China's "lost
       generation" emerged -- deprived of the chance of education and
       the right to live with their families.
       "We were told that city dwellers never move their limbs and
       could not distinguish different crops," says Hu, now 58. "So we
       were banished to labor and learn skills and grit from peasants."
       Hu spent four years (1971-1974) planting rice, spreading cow
       dung and chopping wood in Jin Xian, a mountainous county.
       Known in Chinese as "up to the mountains and down to the farms,"
       the urban-to-rural youth migration was part of China's
       decade-long Cultural Revolution, a social political movement
       initiated to implement Communism and Maoism in China by
       eliminating any capitalist, feudalistic and cultural elements.
       [...]
       "I still can't bear to recall my youth spent on the farm," she
       says.[/quote]
  HTML https://edition.cnn.com/2012/10/24/world/asia/china-lost-generation/
       [quote]As a result of what he perceived to be pro-bourgeois
       thinking prevalent during the Cultural Revolution, Chairman Mao
       Zedong declared certain privileged urban youth would be sent to
       mountainous areas or farming villages to learn from the workers
       and farmers there. In total, approximately 17 million youth were
       sent to rural areas as a result of the movement.[1][/quote]
  HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_to_the_Countryside_Movement
  HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sent-down_youth
       ----
       Two articles about National Socialist social services/welfare
       used by Allied intelligence and used at the Nuremberg Trials.
       The first article is written by someone from the US, and is
       anti-NS, but still admits that NS Germany's social welfare
       services were extensive. The second article was written by a
       National Socialist, but was apparently considered unbiased
       enough that it was of use by the Allied intelligence agencies
       and Nuremberg prosecutors.
       Page 1-6 is:
       Hertha Kraus. (1944?). Social Policy in the National Socialist
       State: The Role of Social Welfare and Health Services.
  HTML https://lawcollections.library.cornell.edu/nuremberg/catalog/nur:01150
       Page 7-22 is:
       Ralf Zeitler. (1939). Principles of Public Welfare in the Third
       Reich. Deutsche Zeitschrift für Wohlfahrtspflege, vol 14, part
       12, March 1939, page 645-654. Translated by Lois Armour. (1944?)
  HTML https://lawcollections.library.cornell.edu/nuremberg/catalog/nur:01150
       Anti-NS article written by an American and used by Allied
       intelligence:
       [quote]Nazi Germany has taken over from the Weimar Republic (and
       also from the monarchy preceding it) a highly developed network
       of public and private welfare services.
       [...]
       Frequently public welfare agencies throughout Germany made
       collective arrangements for institutional care for the sick the
       aged, the handicapped and for dependent children with  private
       organizations who received regular fees for such services.
       Similar arrangements were developed for day care for both
       children and adults and for the provision of work camps. There
       was a great deal of interaction, as well as interdependence,
       between public and private services.
       [...]
       The Nazi regime has not changed this framework to any
       considerable degree, but it has strongly influenced the practice
       of social service by changing its direction and motivation.
       With slight modifications (mostly abolishing the representations
       of different groups and the committee structure) all major
       public welfare and social insurance laws have been continued.
       Some of the private agencies have been continued without
       substantial change; others have boon taken over (including their
       considerable property and real estate) and are now affiliated
       with the newly created national Welfare Agency of the National
       Socialist Party and its three major subsidiaries (see Chart II).
       [...]
       In addition to these employed workers, very large numbers of
       volunteers have been used by both the public welfare and the
       voluntary NSV services, as a means of extending the party
       influence.
       [...]
       In extending public and voluntary welfare and health services
       very widely and very freely, in a selective manner, National
       Socialism has used social policy in line with the general policy
       of the totalitarian state. Social policy has been given a
       clearly defined task: in its particular field, it helps to
       achieve the ends which are fixed for the whole nation by
       National Socialism ...
       [...]
       The following article [Ralf Zeitler article?] may help to
       clarify totalitarian social policy, which has become one of the
       most effective weapons of the totalitarian state.[/quote]
       Hertha Kraus. (1944?). Social Policy in the National Socialist
       State: The Role of Social Welfare and Health Services.
  HTML https://lawcollections.library.cornell.edu/nuremberg/catalog/nur:01150
       Commentary and summary:
       This article summarizes the attitude with which the National
       Socialist government approached welfare. Welfare is not a mere
       "handout", but embodies both service and sacrifice--from both
       the state and the individual receiving the welfare. Individuals
       must try to seek work, etc. before seeking public welfare, but,
       if it is truly necessary, the state will give them adequate help
       to live--not just "half-measures" that don't help. NS Germany is
       also a "Worker's State", and everyone who seeks employment will
       have help in finding it, thereby further lessening the need for
       "handouts". The NS approach to welfare is to eliminate the
       social/economic causes that make people unable to support
       themselves in the first place, rather than merely treat the
       symptoms. Volunteer work and volunteer agencies are an important
       part of rendering welfare and other service to the community
       (particularly in situations where an individual's need may not
       meet the threshold to receive direct aid/welfare from the state
       itself).
       [quote]If one surveys the past six years since the assumption of
       power, during which the Nationalist Socialist movement has
       become responsible for a new form of our national life, a
       fundamental change even in public welfare is observable. This
       too has obtained new National Socialist principles for its
       guidance and direction. While preserving the fundamentals of
       previous organization, National Socialism has approached public
       welfare with a new attitude toward men and objects and has
       transformed it with its new philosophy.
       The keynote of this philosophy today is the Folk-Community.
       [...]
       The individual must conform in his wishes and demands to the
       life of the nation. He no longer stands with his needs and
       claims in the center of things, as Liberalism and Marxism would
       have it. Rather conformation and subordination are expected of
       him and, consequently, even the needy has his responsibilities
       and obligations in the now German welfare system.
       [...]
       To be sure, wherever undeserved poverty exists, wherever the
       force of unfortunate circumstances has proved stronger than the
       strength of the individual to resist, there the assistance of
       public welfare naturally steps in, but always with the attitude
       that it is of special importance to develop and strengthen the
       afflicted person's will to live and will to maintain himself
       independently. The Fuehrer once said that National Socialism is
       not a doctrine of indolence but of struggle, not a doctrine of
       chance and luck, but of work and striving, and therefore, a
       doctrine of sacrifice.
       [...]
       Therefore, while the basis of public welfare assistance is that
       public assistance should be sought only as a last resource, when
       all other possibilities of private and foreign aid have failed,
       the second characteristic of public welfare is
       individualization, which requires that the kind and extent of
       aid should suit the individual case, the local conditions and
       the personal situation. In this way public welfare agencies
       avoid giving more assistance than is needed, an error, which is
       more destructive than constructive. On the other hand,
       individualization insures adequate help and not just half-way
       measures, which would make public welfare of questionable
       benefit.
       [...]
       In addition to tho above mentioned characteristics of the
       welfare system, another matter of importance should be
       mentioned.
       The Third Reich is a "Workers' State." That means that on the
       one hand the right to work not only is a statement made on
       paper, but also is realized in actuality; everyone, who
       seriously wishes to work, will obtain work suitable to his
       knowledge and ability and in this way the necessity for the
       interference of public welfare is prevented. On the other hand
       in the term "Workers' State" there is expressed the obligation
       to work which no one can avoid, if he does not wish to be
       excluded from the Folk-Community. For public welfare this is of
       extreme importance.
       [...]
       With this challenge the present welfare system differs from that
       of the past, which did not ask, whether the elements of a
       successful and promising welfare system were followed. They saw
       as their only duty the immediate alleviation of a temporary
       emergency instead of tracing the conditions to their sources and
       getting rid of the causes of the conditions.
       [...]
       Everyone, who has to do with welfare work is aware of the fact
       that he is not only concerned with economic welfare but also
       with its closely allied branches, health and educational
       welfare.
       [...]
       Public welfare must be organized so that it can meet any and
       every exigency. Experience has proven that the individual always
       turns to the community for help in case of need and ho has a
       right to expect assistance from it. Therefore, even in case of
       war the community will have to meet every war emergency
       situation efficiently. The community must be prepared to take
       care of the nourishment of its population, provide doctors and
       hospitals for the wounded, lodging for the homeless, a solution
       for every catastrophe, etc.
       [...]
       Just as a modern and National Socialist state system is
       inconceivable without uniform and comprehensive public welfare,
       so history and experience teach, that besides public welfare
       "free" welfare is also needed. Public welfare is an expression
       of the national idea, which understands welfare service as a
       state duty, the state being responsible for the good of its
       people. In contrast to the state welfare agencies then we have
       "free" welfare services, which are the voluntary institution of
       socially conscious and active folk-comrades. The "free" welfare
       agencies have the special responsibility of supplementing the
       welfare work of the public welfare agency.
       Chief Official Leader Pg. Hilgenfeldt says that the National
       Socialist welfare agencies are without limitation as to the
       sphere and extent of their activities because no laws bind them.
       The National Socialist philosophy is the activating force behind
       their welfare work and this has its origin in the voluntary
       self-sacrifice of the people themselves. Their performance does
       not follow the letter of the law but the law of their
       hearts.[/quote]
       Ralf Zeitler. (1939). Principles of Public Welfare in the Third
       Reich. Deutsche Zeitschrift für Wohlfahrtspflege, vol 14, part
       12, March 1939, page 645-654. Translated by Lois Armour. (1944?)
  HTML https://lawcollections.library.cornell.edu/nuremberg/catalog/nur:01150
       Look at that last paragraph--"National Socialist welfare
       agencies are without limitation as to the sphere and extent of
       their activities". Unlimited welfare! Did Communist governments
       even promise such a thing?! Can you imagine Bernie Sanders
       demanding that "welfare agencies are without limitation as to
       the sphere and extent of their activities because no laws bind
       them"? LOL!
       Again, this document was considered important enough that it was
       used by Allied intelligence and one of the many documents used
       at the Nuremberg Trials.
       Hilgenfeldt was the leader of the National Socialist People's
       Welfare (NSV), which according to Wikipedia was the
       second-largest NS organization (second only to the German Labor
       Front (labor unions organization)). In other words, the top man
       himself said: "National Socialist welfare agencies are without
       limitation as to the sphere and extent of their activities
       because no laws bind them"!!!
       And False Leftists have the nerve to try to say National
       Socialists didn't care about welfare and social policies?
       [quote]Hilgenfeldt worked as office head at the NSDAP Office for
       People's Welfare and in close association with the
       Nationalsozialistische Volkswohlfahrt (NSV), or the National
       Socialist People's Welfare. By organizing a charity drive to
       celebrate Hitler's Birthday on 20 April 1931, Joseph Goebbels
       named him the head of the NSV. The NSV was named the single Nazi
       Party welfare organ in May 1933.[3] On 21 September 1933 he was
       appointed as Reich Commissioner for the Winterhilfswerk (Winter
       Support Programme). Under Hilgenfeldt the programme was
       massively expanded, so that the régime deemed it worthy to be
       called the "greatest social institution in the world." One
       method of expansion was to absorb, or in NSDAP parlance
       coordinate, already existing but non-Nazi charity organizations.
       NSV was the second largest Nazi group organization by 1939,
       second only to the German Labor Front.[3][4]
       From November of the same year, Hilgenfeldt was a member of the
       Reich Work Chamber (Reichsarbeitskammer), as well as the Academy
       for German Law and Honorary Judge at the Supreme Honour and
       Disciplinary Court.[citation needed] As NSV leader, he was also
       Reich Women's Leader (Reichsfrauenführerin) Gertrud
       Scholtz-Klink's superior.[5] Also by virtue of his NSV office,
       he was the head of the German union of private charitable
       organizations, which included among its members the Protestant
       Inner Mission organization and the Catholic Caritas, as well as
       the NSV itself.[6][/quote]
  HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_Hilgenfeldt
       #Post#: 11176--------------------------------------------------
       Re: National Socialists were socialists
       By: Zea_mays Date: February 10, 2022, 1:25 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Our enemies also help with our research. Far-right WNs who
       reject Neo-Nazism frequently outline how National Socialism does
       not resemble their far-right and pro-Western views at all. Both
       WNs and mainstream conservatives like to make comparisons
       between National Socialists and Communists/liberals/leftists in
       general in an attempt to smear leftism as bad. Sometimes False
       Left useful idiots will write articles compiling quotes about
       National Socialists' views on anti-capitalism and Socialism,
       just to reject it using the circular logic that they don't
       follow Communist definitions of anti-capitalism and Socialism,
       and therefore that is somehow proof the National Socialists were
       insincere. (LOL, thanks for helping us compile quotes.)
       ----
       This quote is posted on the wacko-rightist propaganda site
       Conservapedia. I haven't found the original newspaper article,
       but the book it quotes from is from a mainstream historian, so
       presumably it is accurate.
       [quote]Hitler himself echoed basically the same theme. In an
       article published in 1930 for the UK Daily Express, Hitler
       stated:
       [quote]'Socialist' I define from the word 'social; meaning in
       the main ‘social equity’. A Socialist is one who serves the
       common good without giving up his individuality or personality
       or the product of his personal efficiency. Our adopted term
       'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is
       anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on
       the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true
       Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual
       efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an
       individual must be in consonance with those of the
       community.[/quote][/quote]
       Frank McDonough. (2003, 2nd ed. 2012). Hitler and the Rise of
       the Nazi Party. Page 120.
  HTML https://books.google.com/books?id=rE7JAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA120
       (Conservapedia also claims Socialism with Chinese
       Characteristics is a form of National Socialism, nice!)
       Simple Alt-Right propaganda emphasizing the pro-labor and social
       policies of NS Germany. They even make the obvious connection of
       how the present-day SJW complaints about "the 1%" are the same
       as the NS complaints about the Jewish elite. (Since, you know,
       National Socialists called themselves social justice advocates.)
  HTML https://web.archive.org/web/20210301052410/https://louderwithcrowder.com/myth-busted-actually-yes-hitler-was-a-socialist-liberal/
       ----
       Rightist-libertarian/non-Alt-Right article which cites how
       influential mainstream conservative/libertarian economist F.A.
       Hayek believed National Socialists were genuinely Socialist.
  HTML https://web.archive.org/web/20211006060429/https://paulhjossey.medium.com/the-nazis-were-leftists-deal-with-it-b7f12cc53b6f
       [quote]Friedrich August von Hayek (8 May 1899 – 23 March 1992),
       often referred to by his initials F. A. Hayek, was an
       Austrian-British economist, and philosopher who is best known
       for his defence of classical liberalism.[1] Hayek shared the
       1974 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences with Gunnar
       Myrdal for their work on money and economic fluctuations, and
       the interdependence of economic, social and institutional
       phenomena.[2] His account of how changing prices communicate
       information that helps individuals coordinate their plans is
       widely regarded as an important achievement in economics,
       leading to his prize.[3][4][5][/quote]
  HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek
       [quote]However uncomfortable to opinion shapers, alternative
       views of the Third Reich exist and were written by the finest
       minds of their time. Opinions of the period perhaps carry more
       weight because they are unburdened by the aftermath of the
       uniquely heinous Nazi crimes. ‘The Road to Serfdom’ by FA Hayek
       is one such tract. Published in 1944 it remains a classic for
       young people on the political right discovering their
       intellectual roots. A sort of academic ‘1984,’ it warns of
       socialism’s tendency toward planned states and totalitarianism.
       But one aspect of the book can shock the conscience. Hayek
       describes Nazism as a “genuine socialist movement” and thus left
       wing by modern American standards. Indeed, the Austrian-born
       Hayek wrote the book from his essay ‘Nazi-Socialism’ that
       countered prevailing opinion at the London School of Economics
       where he taught. British elites regarded Nazism as a virulent
       capitalist reaction against enlightened socialism — a view that
       persists today.
       The shock comes from academic and cultural orthodoxy on National
       Socialism. From the moment they enter the political fray, young
       right-wingers are told ‘you own the Nazis.’ At best, the left
       concedes it owns communism.
       [...]
       The left believes the opposite. These people are distrustful of
       the excesses and inequality capitalism produces. ... They
       believe it is the government’s responsibility to solve social
       problems.
       [...]
       By these definitions the Nazis were firmly on the left. National
       Socialism was a collectivist authoritarian movement run by
       “social justice warriors.”
       [...]
       As Hayek wrote in 1933, the year the Nazis took power:
       [quote]It is more than probable that the real meaning of the
       German revolution is that the long dreaded expansion of
       communism into the heart of Europe has taken place but is not
       recognized because the fundamental similarity of methods and
       ideas is hidden by the difference in phraseology and the
       privileged groups.[/quote]
       [...]
       Nazism and socialism competed with the Enlightenment-based
       individualism of Locke, Smith, Montesquieu, and others who
       profoundly influenced the American founding and define the
       modern American right at its best.
       [...]
       Hitler’s first “National Workers Party” meeting while still an
       Army corporal featured the speech “How and by What Means is
       Capitalism to be Eliminated?”
       The Nazi charter published a year later and coauthored by Hitler
       is socialist in almost every aspect. It calls for “equality of
       rights for the German people.” The subjugation of the individual
       to the state; breaking of “rent slavery,”; “confiscation of war
       profits,”; the nationalization of industry; profit sharing in
       heavy industry; large scale social security; the
       “communalization of the great warehouses and there being leased
       at low costs to small firms”; the “free expropriation of
       [privately owned] land for the purpose of public utility”; the
       abolition of “materialistic” Roman Law; the nationalization of
       education; the nationalization of the army; the nationalization
       of healthcare for the mother and child; state regulation of the
       press; and strong central power in the Reich.
       [...]
       These attitudes shouldn’t be surprising given the socialist
       thinkers that provided the theoretical basis for Nazism abhorred
       English “commercialism” and “comfort.” As Hayek described, “From
       1914 onward there arose from the ranks of Marxist socialism one
       teacher after another who led, not the conservatives and
       reactionaries, but the hardworking laborer and idealist youth
       into the National Socialist fold.”
       [...]
       As late as 1941 with the war in bloom [Hitler] stated “basically
       National Socialism and Marxism are the same” in a speech
       published by the Royal Institute of International Affairs.
       [...]
       Nazi propaganda minister and resident intellectual Joseph
       Goebbels wrote in his diary the Nazis would install “real
       socialism” after Russia’s defeat in the East. And Hitler
       favorite Albert Speer, the Nazi armaments minister whose memoir
       became an international bestseller, wrote Hitler viewed Stalin
       as a kindred spirit, ensuring his POW son received good
       treatment, and even talked of keeping Stalin in power in a
       puppet government after Germany’s eventual triumph. His views on
       Churchill and Roosevelt were decidedly less kind.
       And at the bitter end, as Bolshevik shells exploded just above
       him, when he had no more reason to lie or obfuscate, whom did
       Hitler blame for his downfall? Not the communists whose cunning
       and determination had ultimately ruined his plans, but the evil
       ‘Jewish capitalistic system.’
       [...]
       The Nazis and communists not only struggled for street-war
       supremacy but also recruits. And these recruits were easily
       turned because both sides were fighting for the same men. Hayek
       recalls
       [quote]the relative ease with which a young communist could be
       converted into a Nazi or vice versa was generally known in
       Germany, best of all to the propagandists of the two parties.
       Many a University teacher during the 1930s has seen English or
       American students return from the Continent uncertain whether
       they were communists or Nazis and certain they hated Western
       liberal civilization. . . . To both, the real enemy, the man
       with whom they had nothing in common and whom they could not
       hope to convince is the liberal of the old type.[/quote]
       [...]
       George Orwell remarked, “Internally, Germany has a good deal in
       common with a socialist state.” Max Eastman an old friend of
       Vladimir Lenin described Stalin’s brand of communism as “super
       fascist.” British writer FA Voight after several years on the
       continent concluded “Marxism has led to Fascism and National
       Socialism because in all essentials it is Fascism and National
       Socialism.”
       [...]
       Hitler described the bourgeoisie as “worthless for any noble
       human endeavor, capable of any error of judgment, failure of
       nerve and moral corruption.” In 1931 as the Nazis gained power
       in elections, Goebbels wrote an editorial warning about these
       newcomer so-called “Septemberlings,’ the bourgeoisie
       intellectuals who thought they could wrest the party from what
       they considered the “demagogue” old guard.
       [...]
       The more vehemently the left, particularly academics, argue
       their dissociation with the Nazis the more they protest “too
       much.” Indeed, the failure here is as much one of academic
       prejudice as any willful wish to avoid truth.[/quote]
  HTML https://web.archive.org/web/20211006060429/https://paulhjossey.medium.com/the-nazis-were-leftists-deal-with-it-b7f12cc53b6f
       Some commentary on Frederick Augustus Voigt. He was a rightist
       champion of Western Civilization, and saw Western Civilization
       to be gravely threatened by National Socialism.
       [quote]He came to regard both Fascism/Nazism and Communism as
       pseudo-religious ideologies that seriously threatened the
       essentially Christian civilization of Europe, and could only be
       opposed if the Western democracies committed to defend that
       civilization.
       After World War II he became a leading exponent of what George
       Orwell termed “neo-toryism”, regarding the maintenance of
       British imperial power as an invaluable bulwark against
       Communism and as being indispensable to the creation and
       continuation of international peace and political stability.
       [...]
       The central thesis of Unto Caesar is that Communism and National
       Socialism were “revolutionary secular religions arising from the
       arrogant endeavour of man to transform religious promises
       directly into worldly reality” (Markus Huttner). Voigt argues
       that such 'secular religions' pose a threat to the fundamentals
       of European civilization by seeking to “render to Caesar what is
       God's” and can only be defeated if the western democracies,
       particularly Britain, stand up and actively defend Christianity
       and Civilization against the totalitarian onslaught.[/quote]
  HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Augustus_Voigt
       A. James Gregor seemed to have a similar thesis about Marxist
       Socialism, National Socialism, and Fascism being "revolutionary
       secular religions" (e.g. his book Totalitarianism and Political
       Religion: An Intellectual History, (2012).
       #Post#: 11177--------------------------------------------------
       Re: National Socialists were socialists
       By: Zea_mays Date: February 10, 2022, 1:29 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Article by conservative scholar George Watson. He references
       Wagener and Rauschning many times, and I have already posted
       most of the relevant quotes Watson brings up in this article.
       [quote]Hitler and the socialist dream
       He declared that 'national socialism was based on Marx'
       Socialists have always disowned him. But a new book insists that
       he was, at heart, a left-winger
       22 November 1998
       The Lost Literature of Socialism by George Watson is published
       by Lutterworth, pounds 15
       [...]
       It is the issue of race, above all, that for half a century has
       prevented National Socialism from being seen as socialist. The
       proletariat may have no fatherland, as Lenin said. But there
       were still, in Marx's view, races that would have to be
       exterminated. That is a view he published in January-February
       1849 in an article by Engels called "The Hungarian Struggle" in
       Marx's journal the Neue Rheinische Zeitung, and the point was
       recalled by socialists down to the rise of Hitler. It is now
       becoming possible to believe that Auschwitz was
       socialist-inspired. The Marxist theory of history required and
       demanded genocide for reasons implicit in its claim that
       feudalism was already giving place to capitalism, which must in
       its turn be superseded by socialism. Entire races would be left
       behind after a workers' revolution, feudal remnants in a
       socialist age; and since they could not advance two steps at a
       time, they would have to be killed. They were racial trash, as
       Engels called them, and fit only for the dung-heap of history.
       [...]
       Addressing his own party, the NSDAP, in Munich in August 1920,
       he pledged his faith in socialist-racialism: "If we are
       socialists, then we must definitely be anti-semites - and the
       opposite, in that case, is Materialism and Mammonism, which we
       seek to oppose." There was loud applause. Hitler went on: "How,
       as a socialist, can you not be an anti-semite?"
       [...]
       Harold Nicolson, a democratic socialist, and after 1935 a Member
       of the House of Commons, conscientiously studied a pile of
       pamphlets in his hotel room in Rome in January 1932 and decided
       judiciously that fascism (Italian-style) was a kind of
       militarised socialism; though it destroyed liberty, he concluded
       in his diary, "it is certainly a socialist experiment in that it
       destroys individuality". The Moscow view that fascism was the
       last phase of capitalism, though already proposed, was not yet
       widely heard. Richard [Crossman] remarked in a 1934 BBC talk
       that many students in Nazi Germany believed they were "digging
       the foundations of a new German socialism".
       [...]
       The planned economy had long stood at the head of socialist
       demands; and National Socialism, Orwell argued, had taken from
       socialism "just such features as will make it efficient for war
       purposes". Hitler had already come close to socialising Germany.
       "Internally, Germany has a good deal in common with a socialist
       state." These words were written just before Hitler's attack on
       the Soviet Union.
       [...]
       At its height, Hitler's appeal transcended party division.
       Shortly before they fell out in the summer of 1933, Hitler
       uttered sentiments in front of Otto Wagener, which were
       published after his death in 1971 as a biography by an
       unrepentant Nazi. Wagener's Hitler: Memoirs of a Confidant,
       composed in a British prisoner-of-war camp, did not appear until
       1978 in the original German, and arrived in English, without
       much acclaim, as recently as 1985. Hitler's remembered talk
       offers a vision of a future that draws together many of the
       strands that once made utopian socialism irresistibly appealing
       to an age bred out of economic depression and cataclysmic wars;
       it mingles, as Victorian socialism had done before it, an
       intense economic radicalism with a romantic enthusiasm for a
       vanished age before capitalism had degraded heroism into sordid
       greed ...
       Socialism, Hitler told Wagener shortly after he seized power,
       was not a recent invention of the human spirit, and when he read
       the New Testament he was often reminded of socialism in the
       words of Jesus. The trouble was that the long ages of
       Christianity had failed to act on the Master's teachings. Mary
       and Mary Magdalen, Hitler went on in a surprising flight of
       imagination, had found an empty tomb, and it would be the task
       of National Socialism to give body at long last to the sayings
       of a great teacher: "We are the first to exhume these
       teachings." The Jew, Hitler told Wagener, was not a socialist,
       and the Jesus they crucified was the true creator of socialist
       redemption. As for communists, he opposed them because they
       created mere herds, Soviet-style, without individual life, and
       his own ideal was "the socialism of nations" rather than the
       international socialism of Marx and Lenin. The one and only
       problem of the age, he told Wagener, was to liberate labour and
       replace the rule of capital over labour with the rule of labour
       over capital.
       These are highly socialist sentiments, and if Wagener reports
       his master faithfully they leave no doubt about the conclusion:
       that Hitler was an unorthodox Marxist who knew his sources and
       knew just how unorthodox the way in which he handled them was.
       He was a dissident socialist. His programme was at once
       nostalgic and radical. It proposed to accomplish something that
       Christians had failed to act on and that communists before him
       had attempted and bungled. "What Marxism, Leninism and Stalinism
       failed to accomplish," he told Wagener, "we shall be in a
       position to achieve."
       That was the National Socialist vision.
       [...]
       To relive it again, in imagination, one might look at an entry
       in Goebbels's diaries. On 16 June 1941, five days before Hitler
       attacked the Soviet Union, Goebbels exulted, in the privacy of
       his diary, in the victory over Bolshevism that he believed would
       quickly follow. There would be no restoration of the tsars, he
       remarked to himself, after Russia had been conquered. But Jewish
       Bolshevism would be uprooted in Russia and "real socialism"
       planted in its place - "Der echte Sozialismus". Goebbels was a
       liar, to be sure, but no one can explain why he would lie to his
       diaries. And to the end of his days he believed that socialism
       was what National Socialism was about.[/quote]
  HTML https://web.archive.org/web/20210227034306/https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/hitler-and-the-socialist-dream-1186455.html
       I previously posted a larger portion of the passage where Hitler
       tells Wagener, "What Marxism, Leninism and Stalinism failed to
       accomplish, we shall be in a position to achieve."
  HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/colonial-era/national-socialism-is-revolutionary-not-reactionary/msg10723/#msg10723
       As some commentary, Richard Crossman was a (non-Jewish?) Zionist
       and left-wing Labour Party politician, so he would have no
       reason to speak positively of the 'new German socialism' if this
       was not an accurate characterization of it.
  HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Crossman
       [quote]Indeed, Crossman’s own broadcast discusses what
       impression his listeners will get, ‘If you go to Germany as a
       tourist.’[17] Nevertheless, Crossman’s first-hand knowledge of
       Germany was much closer than that of most Britons. For academic
       and marital reasons, he had paid repeated visits and lived there
       for considerable lengths of time over the previous four
       years.[18] His emphasis upon the ideas of German youth and their
       visions of a community of the soil had an even more proximate
       cause. In April 1934 he had visited a Nazi-organised youth
       labour camp in Schleswig-Holstein: a visit described in a
       previous radio talk on 2 May, published in The Listener on 16
       May, which vividly conveyed the spirit of the young officers and
       students and their ‘belief that they are digging the foundation
       of a new German Socialism, not of the town and the machine but
       of the fields and the spade.’[19]
       [...]
       Crossman subsequently turned his radio talks into a book, Plato
       Today, published a year later in June 1937.[24]
       [...]
       Freed from BBC constraints, in Plato Today Crossman states his
       political views with more forthrightness and in a very different
       form, exploiting  with greater creativity the fiction of Plato
       being alive in the modern world. Nowhere is this more evident
       than in Chapter 9, ‘Plato looks at Fascism’. The chapter
       imagines Plato writing to Aristotle an account of his
       experiences during a visit to Nazi Germany, focusing on the
       speeches at amass public meeting in Berlin. One of the speeches
       comes from an academic philosopher, a student of Plato, newly
       converted to National Socialism from his former liberal views.
       Arguing that Plato ‘was a prototype of National Socialism’ who
       ‘preached the revolution which Adolf Hitler has so wonderfully
       carried through’, the philosopher expounds his view of the
       sources of Plato’s views ...
       [19] Richard Crossman. ‘German labour camps’, The Listener, vol.
       11 (16 May 1934), 813.
       [24] Richard Crossman. (1937). Plato Today, London.[/quote]
       Stephen Hodkinson. (2010). Sparta and Nazi Germany in
       Mid-20th-Century British Liberal and Left-Wing Thought. In: A.
       Powell & S. Hodkinson (eds.), Sparta: The Body Politic, Swansea
       (The Classical Press of Wales), 2010.
  HTML https://www.academia.edu/35634339/Sparta_and_Nazi_Germany_in_mid_20th_century_British_liberal_and_left_wing_thought_2010_
       (It seems Crossman eventually soured on the new socialism, and
       tried to claim NS Germany is analogous to ancient Sparta.
       Crossman's Plato criticizes the philosopher who calls the
       supposedly "Spartan" NS Germany a representative of real
       Platonic ideas. Of course, Spartanism is negative, but NS
       Germany isn't "Spartan" at all, and really was closer to the
       Platonic Republic than any other government that I am aware
       of...)
       #Post#: 11178--------------------------------------------------
       Re: National Socialists were socialists
       By: Zea_mays Date: February 10, 2022, 1:36 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Continuing from the previous post, Watson translated the term
       "Völkerabfälle"--used by Marxist theorist Friedrich Engels--as
       "racial trash". Communists claim that is an inaccurate
       translation, but to me it seems accurate. It is not the dumb
       tribalism of when white supremacists call "blacks" "racial
       trash", but a qualitative term which is based in a very
       long-sighted view of history.
       [quote]Völkerabfälle is a term used by Frederick Engels to
       describe small nations which he considered residual fragments of
       former peoples who had succumbed to more powerful neighbours in
       the historic process of social development and which Engels
       considered prone to become "fanatical standard-bearers of
       counter-revolution".
       [...]
       Engels was referring also specifically to the Serb uprising of
       1848–49, in which Serbs from Vojvodina fought against the
       previously victorious Hungarian revolution. Engels finished the
       article with the following prediction:
       [quote]But at the first victorious uprising of the French
       proletariat, which Louis Napoleon is striving with all his might
       to conjure up, the Austrian Germans and Magyars will be set free
       and wreak a bloody revenge on the Slav barbarians. The general
       war which will then break out will smash this Slav Sonderbund
       and wipe out all these petty hidebound nations, down to their
       very names.
       The next world war will result in the disappearance from the
       face of the earth not only of reactionary classes and dynasties,
       but also of entire reactionary peoples. And that, too, is a step
       forward.[/quote][/quote]
  HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%B6lkerabf%C3%A4lle
       (Yet False Leftist liberals and Communists will claim Hitler is
       "racist" when he said nearly identical things about "Slav
       barbarians" and how "entire reactionary peoples" need to
       disappear from the face of the Earth to enact real Socialism...
       Hitler was not motivated by petty ethno-tribalist squabbles, but
       a long-sighted view of history and revolution, just like Engels
       and Marx. Maybe he even got the idea from them directly.)
       ----
       Let's look at the 3 full articles Engels published on this
       topic, since the full context is even more brutal than the brief
       quote above.
       First, just to emphasize, Engels was absolutely integral to the
       development of Marxism/Communism:
       [quote]Engels developed what is now known as Marxism together
       with Karl Marx. In 1845, he published The Condition of the
       Working Class in England, based on personal observations and
       research in English cities. In 1848, Engels co-authored The
       Communist Manifesto with Marx and also authored and co-authored
       (primarily with Marx) many other works. Later, Engels supported
       Marx financially, allowing him to do research and write Das
       Kapital. After Marx's death, Engels edited the second and third
       volumes of Das Kapital. Additionally, Engels organised Marx's
       notes on the Theories of Surplus Value which were later
       published as the "fourth volume" of Das Kapital.[8][9] In 1884,
       he published The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the
       State on the basis of Marx's ethnographic research.[/quote]
  HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Engels
       Secondly, Marx himself was the editor-in-chief of the newspaper
       where Engels published the articles, so he probably wouldn't
       have allowed 3 such articles to be published if he strongly
       disagreed with them:
       [quote]The Neue Rheinische Zeitung: Organ der Demokratie ("New
       Rhenish Newspaper: Organ of Democracy") was a German daily
       newspaper, published by Karl Marx in Cologne between 1 June 1848
       and 19 May 1849.
       [...]
       The paper was established by Karl Marx, Frederich Engels, as
       well as leading members of the Communist League living in
       Cologne immediately upon the return of Marx and Engels to
       Germany following the outbreak of the 1848 Revolution.[1] The
       paper's editorial staff included Joseph Weydemeyer, with Marx
       serving as editor-in-chief.
       [...]
       The great bulk of the journalism of Karl Marx and Frederick
       Engels in the NRZ became systematically accessible to an English
       readership only in 1977, with the publication of volumes 7, 8,
       and 9 of the Marx-Engels Collected Works. It was then that a
       total of 357 of the 422 articles contained therein were
       published in English for the first time.[16][/quote]
  HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neue_Rheinische_Zeitung
       Engels speaks positively of the fighting spirit of the
       "revolutionary" pro-democracy Hungarians fighting against
       numerically-superior "counter-revolutionary" Slavs in Austria.
       Engels gives a brief history of Austria-Hungary and how various
       ethnic groups were becoming more oppressed under the dynastic
       class, yet were apparently willing to support them since the
       rulers knew how to play into their interests. In the 1848
       revolution in Austria-Hungary, Engels writes: "the Germans,
       Poles, and Magyars took the side of the revolution; the
       remainder, all the Slavs, except for the Poles, the Rumanians
       and Transylvanian Saxons, took the side of the
       counter-revolution."
       Engels then goes on to say:
       [quote]How did this division of the nations come about, what was
       its basis?
       The division is in accordance with all the previous history of
       the nationalities in question. It is the beginning of the
       decision on the life or death of all these nations, large and
       small.
       All the earlier history of Austria up to the present day is
       proof of this and 1848 confirmed it. Among all the large and
       small nations of Austria, only three standard-bearers of
       progress took an active part in history, and still retain their
       vitality--the Germans, the Poles, and the Magyars. Hence they
       are now revolutionary.
       All the other large and small nationalities and peoples are
       destined to perish before long in the revolutionary world storm.
       For that reason they are now counter-revolutionary.
       [...]
       Let us, however, also remark at the outset that the Poles have
       revealed great political understanding and a true revolutionary
       spirit by now entering into an alliance with their old enemies,
       the Germans and Magyars, against the Pan-Slav
       counter-revolution. A Slav people for whom freedom is dearer
       than Slavism proves its vitality by this fact alone, and thereby
       already assures a future for itself.[/quote]
       Engels then claims the Slavs were not able to form any real
       cultural movements without the "help" of Germans, Hungarians, or
       Ottomans. He goes on to praise Hungarians:
       [quote]And if the Magyars were a little behind the German
       Austrians in civilisation, they have recently brilliantly
       overtaken them by their political activity. Between 1830 and
       1848 there was more political life in Hungary alone than in the
       whole of Germany, and the feudal forms of the old Hungarian
       Constitution were better exploited in the interests of democracy
       than the modern forms of South-German constitutions. And who was
       at the head of the movement here? The Magyars. Who supported the
       Austrian reaction? The Croats and Slovenes.
       Against the Magyar movement, as also against the reawakening
       political movement in Germany, the Austrian Slavs founded a
       Sonderbund--pan-Slavism.
       [...]
       In its basic tendency, pan-Slavism is aimed against the
       revolutionary elements of Austria and is therefore reactionary
       from the outset.
       Pan-Slavism immediately gave proof of this reactionary tendency
       by a double betrayal: it sacrificed to its petty national
       narrow-mindedness the only Slav nation which up to then had
       acted in a revolutionary manner, the Poles; it sold both itself
       and Poland to the Russian Tsar.
       The direct aim of Pan-Slavism is the creation of a Slav state
       under Russian domination, extending from the Erzgebirge and the
       Carpathians to the Black, Aegean and Adriatic seas ...[/quote]
       See also:
  HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Bloc
       Throughout this article, Engels refers to Slavs as "barbarians"
       a number of times and continuously criticizes the
       national/cultural character of these Slav nations.
       [quote]And what nations are supposed to head this great Slav
       state? Precisely those nations which for a thousand years have
       been scattered and split up, those nations whose elements
       capable of life and development were forcibly imposed on them by
       other, non-Slav peoples, small, powerless nationalities,
       everywhere separated from one another and deprived of their
       national strength, numbering from a few thousand up to less than
       two million people! They have become so weak that, for example,
       the race which in the Middle Ages was the strongest and most
       terrible, the Bulgarians, are now in Turkey known only for their
       mildness and soft-heartedness and set great store on being
       called dobre chrisztian, good Christians! Is there a single one
       of these races, not excluding the Czechs and Serbs, that
       possesses a national historical tradition which is kept alive
       among the people and stands above the pettiest local
       struggles?[/quote]
       Spoiler alert: even 150 years later the answer was no:
  HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslav_Wars
       [quote]Pan-Slavism was at its height in the eight and ninth
       centuries, when the Southern Slavs still held the whole of
       Hungary and Austria and were threatening Byzantium. If at that
       time they were unable to resist the German and Magyar invasion,
       if they were unable to achieve independence and form a stable
       state even when both their enemies, the Magyars and Germans,
       were tearing each other to pieces, how will they be able to
       achieve it today, after a thousand years of subjection and loss
       of their national character?
       There is no country in Europe which does not have in some corner
       or other one or several ruined fragments of peoples, the remnant
       of a former population that was suppressed and held in bondage
       by the nation which later became the main vehicle of historic
       development. These relics of a nation mercilessly trampled under
       foot in the course of history, as Hegel says,[1] these residual
       fragments of peoples always become fanatical standard-bearers of
       counter-revolution and remain so until their complete
       extirpation or loss of their national character, just as their
       whole existence in general is itself a protest against
       historical revolution.
       [...]
       Such, in Austria, are the pan-Slavist Southern Slavs, who are
       nothing but the residual fragment of peoples, resulting from an
       extremely confused thousand years of development. That this
       residual fragment, which is likely extremely confused, sees its
       salvation only in a reversal of the whole European movement,
       which in its view ought to go not from west to east, but from
       east to west, and that for it the instrument of liberation and
       the bond of unity is the Russian knout--that is the most natural
       thing in the world.
       Already before 1848, therefore, the Southern Slavs had clearly
       shown their reactionary character.
       [1] See G. W. F. Hegel, Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der
       Geschichte. Einleitung.[/quote]
       [quote]To sum up:
       In Austria, apart from Poland and Italy, it is the Germans and
       Magyars in 1848, as during the past thousand years already, who
       have assumed the historical initiative. They represent the
       revolution.
       The Southern Slavs, who for a thousand years have been taken in
       tow by the Germans and Magyars, only rose up in 1848 to achieve
       their national independence in order thereby at the same time to
       suppress the German-Magyar revolution. They represent the
       counter-revolution.
       [...]
       The Magyars are not yet defeated. But if they fall, they will
       fall gloriously, as the last heroes of the 1848 revolution, and
       only for a short time. Then for a time the Slav
       counter-revolution will sweep down on the Austrian monarchy with
       all its barbarity, and the camarilla will see what sort of
       allies it has. But at the first victorious uprising of the
       French proletariat, which Louis Napoleon is striving with all
       his might to conjure up, the Austrian Germans and Magyars will
       be set free and wreak a bloody revenge on the Slav barbarians.
       The general war which will then break out will smash this Slav
       Sonderbund and wipe out all these petty hidebound nations, down
       to their very names.
       The next world war will result in the disappearance from the
       face of the earth not only of reactionary classes and dynasties,
       but also of entire reactionary peoples. And that, too, is a step
       forward.[/quote]
       Frederick Engels. (January 13, 1849). The Magyar Struggle. Neue
       Rheinische Zeitung, No. 194. Republished in Karl Marx, Frederick
       Engels: Collected Works. (1977). Volume 8: 1848-49. Progress
       Publishers, Lawrence & Wishart Ltd., and International
       Publishers Co. Inc. Page 227-238.
  HTML https://archive.org/details/karlmarxfrederic0008marx/page/226/mode/2up
       So, to summarize, Engels views the "Pan-Slav" ambitions to be a
       continuation of petty historic tribalism, and not a
       revolutionary progression into the next stage of history by
       overthrowing the dynastic elite class to form a democracy. These
       counter-revolutionary ethnic groups will "perish" in the long
       term--not necessarily by ethnic cleansing (although Engels
       strongly implies this is what must be done), but, due to their
       counter-revolutionary attitudes, they are of no use for
       long-reaching political goals and one way or another will not
       leave their mark on the future.
       To put it more simply, "Pan-Slavism" is not a "prole
       class"-based struggle, and therefore needs to get out of the way
       so a "real" revolution can proceed. Further, "Pan-Slavism" is
       not even a real nationalist movement seeking to unite small
       ethnic groups into a new nation, but a hollow attempt for Slav
       nations to imitate the dynastic classes of Austria-Hungary that
       had previously ruled them (with the added insult of becoming
       part of the Russian Empire's sphere).
       One way or another, history will sweep them aside during the
       coming Communist "revolutionary world storm", and they will not
       continue on into the future as unique ethnic
       groups/nationalities.
       How will this happen? Presumably the simplest way would be for
       the high quality elements of those ethnic groups will be
       integrated into the "revolutionary" nationalities (although
       Engels disagrees this is possible in the follow-up articles
       posted below), and those low quality elements who remain
       counter-revolutionary will be sent to gulags, where their
       culture and bloodlines end forever.
       This would be the politest way, but Engels puts it more
       ruthlessly--when (not if) the next world war breaks out, there
       will be a "bloody revenge" which will wipe out the Slav nations
       "down to their very names", causing "the disappearance from the
       face of the earth...entire reactionary peoples." (For fun, next
       time you see a Communist you can imply Hitler said that, and see
       how they react when you reveal it was their beloved Engels.)
       Engels also says counter-revolutionaries will remain a
       persistent problem until their "complete extirpation":
       [quote]extirpation
       1. Biology, Ecology. (of a species) the state or condition of
       having become locally or regionally extinct
       2. Medicine/Medical. the removal or excision of a tumor, organ,
       etc.[/quote]
  HTML https://www.dictionary.com/browse/extirpation
       [quote]early 15c., "removal;" 1520s, "rooting out, eradication,"
       from Latin extirpationem/exstirpationem (nominative
       extirpatio/exstirpatio), noun of action from past-participle
       stem of extirpare/exstirpare "root out," from ex "out" (see ex-)
       + stirps (genitive stirpis) "a root, stock of a tree."[/quote]
  HTML https://www.etymonline.com/word/extirpation
       Ok, I guess his desire for the destruction of Slavic peoples
       wasn't "implicit", but pretty explicit.
       #Post#: 11179--------------------------------------------------
       Re: National Socialists were socialists
       By: Zea_mays Date: February 10, 2022, 1:41 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Continuing from the previous post.
       A month later, Engels published two follow-up articles titled
       "Democratic Pan-Slavism".
       [quote]We have often enough pointed out that the romantic dreams
       which came into being after the revolutions of February and
       March, such as ardent fantasies about the universal fraternal
       union of peoples, a European federative republic, and eternal
       world peace, were basically nothing but screens hiding the
       immeasurable perplexity and inactivity of the leading spokesmen
       of that time. People did not see, or did not want to see, what
       had to be done to safeguard the revolution; they were unable or
       unwilling to carry out any really revolutionary measures; the
       narrow-mindedness of some and the counter-revolutionary
       intrigues of others resulted in the people getting only
       sentimental phrases instead of revolutionary deeds.
       [...]
       People have learned by bitter experience that the "European
       fraternal union of peoples" cannot be achieved by mere phrases
       and pious wishes, but only by profound revolutions and bloody
       struggles; they have learned that the question is not that of a
       fraternal union of all European peoples under a single
       republican flag, but of an alliance of the revolutionary peoples
       against the counter-revolutionary peoples, an alliance which
       comes into being not on paper, but on the battlefield.[/quote]
       He is not mincing words about what needs to happen to the
       "counter-revolutionary peoples"...
       In this article, he says the spirit of the revolution is weakly
       kept alive by democratic pan-Slavists, but these democratic
       pan-Slavists do not have the martial spirit necessary to bring
       the goals of a revolution into reality by whatever means
       necessary. Engels strongly criticizes an article by Mikhail
       Bakunin, who praises the democratic pan-Slavists and thinks they
       will be able to accomplish something. (Engels also praises how
       the US conquered large amounts of Mexico, declaring the US was
       more "civilized" and would bring "progress" to the regions,
       yikes.)
       [quote]We repeat: apart from the Poles, the Russians, and at
       most the Turkish Slavs, no Slav people has a future, for the
       simple reason that all the other Slavs lack the primary
       historical geographical, political and industrial conditions for
       independence and viability.
       Peoples which have never had a history of their own, which from
       the time when they achieved the first, most elementary stage of
       civilisation already came under foreign sway, or which were
       forced to attain the first stage of civilisation only by means
       of a foreign yoke, are not viable and will never be able to
       achieve any kind of independence.
       And that has been the fate of the Austrian Slavs.[/quote]
       [quote]Of course, matters of this kind cannot be accomplished
       without many a tender national blossom being forcibly broken.
       But in history nothing is achieved without violence and
       implacable ruthlessness, and if Alexander, Caesar and Napoleon
       had been capable of being moved by the same sort of appeal as
       that which pan-Slavism now makes on behalf of its ruined
       clients, what would have become of history!
       [...]
       In short, it turns out these "crimes" of the Germans and Magyars
       against said Slavs are among the best and most praiseworthy
       deeds which our and the Magyar people can boast of in their
       hostory.[/quote]
       [quote]If at any epoch while they were oppressed the Slavs had
       begun a new revolutionary history, that by itself would have
       proved their viability. From that moment the revolution would
       have had an interest in their liberation, and the special
       interest of the Germans and Magyars would have given way to the
       greater interest of the European revolution.
       Precisely that, however, never happened. The Slavs--once again
       we remind our readers here we always exclude the Poles--were
       always the main instruments of the counter-revolutionaries.
       Oppressed at home, outside their country, wherever Slav
       influence extended to, they were the oppressors of all
       revolutionary nations.
       Let no one object that we speak here on behalf of German
       national prejudices. In German, French, Belgian and English
       periodicals, the proofs are to be found that it was precisely
       the editors of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung who already long
       before the revolution most decisively opposed all manifestations
       of German narrow-mindedness. ... they have always recognized the
       superiority of the great historical nations of the west, the
       English and the French, compared with the backward Germans. But
       precisely for that reason we should be permitted not to share
       the fantastic illusion of the Slavs and allowed to judge other
       peoples as severely as we have judged our own nation.[/quote]
       [quote]But, once again, what was the composition of the armies
       which best let themselves be used for oppression and for whose
       savage acts the Germans were blamed? Once again, they consisted
       of Slavs. Go to Italy and asked who suppressed the Milan
       revolution; people will no longer say: the Tedeschi
       [Germans]--since the Tedeschi made a revolution in Vienna they
       are no longer hated--but the Croati. That is the word which
       Italians now apply to the whole Austrian army, i.e. to all that
       is most deeply hated by them: i Croati![/quote]
       See also:
  HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre
       See also:
       Even Himmler was dismayed with the barbarity of the Croatian
       state during WWII, and from the beginning of this Croatian
       state's existence a German general said German troops had to
       frequently intervene against criminal acts by Croatian forces.
       ...But their crimes remain broadly blamed on the "Axis" and
       Germany in particular:
  HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_State_of_Croatia#Influence_of_Nazi_Germany
       [quote]Nevertheless, these reproaches would be superfluous and
       unjustified if the Slavs had anywhere seriously participated in
       the movement of 1848, if they had hastened to join the ranks of
       the revolutionary peoples.
       [...]
       The revolution of 1848 compelled all European peoples to declare
       themselves for or against it. In the course of a month all the
       peoples ripe for revolution had made their revolution, and all
       those which were not ripe had allied themselves against the
       revolution. At that time it was a matter of disentangling the
       confused tangle of peoples of Eastern Europe. The question was
       which nation would seize the revolutionary initiative here, and
       which nation would develop the greatest revolutionary energy and
       thereby safeguard its future. The Slavs remained silent, the
       Germans and Magyars, faithful to their previous historical
       position, took the lead. As a result, the Slavs were thrown
       completely into the arms of the counter-revolution.
       But what about the Slav Congress in Prague?
       We repeat: the so-called democrats among the Austrian Slavs are
       either scoundrels or fantasts, and the latter, who do not find
       any fertile soil among their people for the ideas imported from
       abroad, have been continually led by the nose by the
       scoundrels.[/quote]
       That last paragraph sounds similar to how Hitler describes
       "Judeo-Bolshevism" leading the Russians and other Slavs astray
       from authentic Socialist revolution.
  HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/colonial-era/national-socialism-is-revolutionary-not-reactionary/msg10718/#msg10718
       [quote]But let us not harbour any illusions. Among all the
       pan-Slavists, nationality, i.e. imaginary common Slav
       nationality, takes precedence over the revolution. The
       pan-Slavists want to join the revolution on the condition that
       they will be allowed to constitute all Slavs without exception,
       regardless of material necessities, into independent Slav
       states. ... But the revolution does not allow of any conditions
       being imposed upon it. Either one is a revolutionary and accepts
       the consequences of the revolution, whatever they are, or one is
       driven into the arms of the counter-revolution ...
       [...]
       The demand is put to us and the other revolutionary nations of
       Europe that the hotbeds of counter-revolution at our very door
       should be guaranteed an unhindered existence and the free right
       to conspire and take up arms against the revolution; it is
       demanded that we should establish a counter-revolutionary Czech
       state in the very heart of Germany ...
       We have no intention of doing that. To the sentimental phrases
       about brotherhood which are being offered here on behalf of the
       most counter-revolutionary nations of Europe, we reply that
       hatred of Russians was and still is the primary revolutionary
       passion among Germans; that since the revolution hatred of
       Czechs and Croats has been added, and that only by the most
       determined use of terror against these Slav peoples can we,
       jointly with the Poles and Magyars, safeguard the revolution. We
       know where the enemies of the revolution are concentrated, viz.
       in Russia and the Slav regions of Austria, and no fine phrases,
       no allusions to an undefined democratic future for these
       countries can deter us from treating our enemies as enemies.
       And if Bakunin finally exclaims:
       [quote]Truly, the Slav should not lose anything, he should win!
       Truly, he should live! And we shall live. As long as the
       smallest part of our rights is contested, as long as a single
       member is cut off from our whole body, so long will we fight to
       the end, inexorably wage a life-and-death struggle, until the
       Slavs have their place in the world, great and free and
       independent--[/quote]
       if revolutionary pan-Slavism means this passage to be taken
       seriously, and in its concern for imaginary Slav nationality
       leaves the revolution entirely out of account, then we too know
       what we have to do.
       Then there will be a struggle, an "inexorable life-and-death
       struggle", against those Slavs who betray the revolution; an
       annihilating fight and ruthless terror--not in the interests of
       Germany, but in the interests of the revolution![/quote]
       Frederick Engels. (February 15, 1849). Democratic Pan-Slavism.
       Neue Rheinische Zeitung, No. 222. page 362-371.
       Frederick Engels. (February 16, 1849). Democratic Pan-Slavism.
       Neue Rheinische Zeitung, No. 223. page 371-378.
       Republished in Karl Marx, Frederick Engels: Collected Works.
       (1977). Volume 8: 1848-49. Progress Publishers, Lawrence &
       Wishart Ltd., and International Publishers Co. Inc.
  HTML https://archive.org/details/karlmarxfrederic0008marx/page/362/mode/2up
       Wow. Those final two paragraphs...
       I would not be surprised if Hitler had read these articles by
       Engels. Note the obvious parallels between Hitler's emphasis on
       the concept of struggle in history, and obviously on what had to
       be done to safeguard the National Socialist revolution against
       reactionary "Judeo-Bolshevik"-following Slavs. (And Hitler
       obviously allied with Slavic nations willing to embrace the
       revolution, e.g. Romania, Slovakia, Bulgaria.)
       ...I will also point out how we outlined in a different thread
       how the Communist USSR engaged in settler-colonialism and ethnic
       cleansing of many ethnic groups:
  HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/colonial-era/western-revisionism-of-wwi-and-wwii/msg6582/#msg6582
       I'll let someone else figure out if they were all
       "counter-revolutionaries" who deserved that or not...
       #Post#: 11180--------------------------------------------------
       Re: National Socialists were socialists
       By: Zea_mays Date: February 10, 2022, 1:51 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       From an anti-NS False left article criticizing anti-NS
       rightists:
       [quote]A similar argument is propounded in the 2017 book The Big
       Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left by Dinesh
       D’Souza, who maintains that Adolf Hitler himself was a
       “dedicated socialist”:
       [quote]In statement after statement, Hitler could not be clearer
       about his socialist commitments. He said, for example, in a 1927
       speech, “We are socialists. We are the enemies of today’s
       capitalist system of exploitation … and we are determined to
       destroy this system under all conditions.”[/quote][/quote]
  HTML https://web.archive.org/web/20211218084848/https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/09/05/were-nazis-socialists/
       Unsurprisingly, the rightist D'Souza suffers from shoddy
       scholarship. This quote was actually from Gregor Strasser. It
       was published in June 1926, and recall that Hitler had
       ideologically reconcilced with the Strassers and Goebbels by
       April 1926, indicating Hitler almost certainly did not have a
       problem with this publication. (And, as covered previously, the
       Strassers were highly esteemed by Hitler, and Hitler had no
       problems with the Strassers being leftist Socialists:
  HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/colonial-era/national-socialism-is-revolutionary-not-reactionary/msg10620/#msg10620<br
       />)
       [quote]Perhaps ironically, that article opens with a tidbit of
       literally rewritten history, misattributing a quote by Nazi
       party member Gregor Strasser to Adolf Hitler:
       [quote]We are Socialists, enemies, mortal enemies of the present
       capitalist economic system with its exploitation of the
       economically weak, with its injustice in wages, with its immoral
       evaluation of individuals according to wealth and money instead
       of responsibility and achievement, and we are determined under
       all circumstances to abolish this system![/quote]
       While Hitler may have co-opted elements of this language when it
       was politically expedient, they are not his words. Instead,
       these are the words of early Nazi party official Gregor
       Strasser, printed in a 1926 pamphlet titled Thoughts about the
       Tasks of the Future.[/quote]
  HTML https://web.archive.org/web/20220113190014/https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hitler-nazis-capitalist-system/
       Back to the other article:
       [quote][Hitler] having declared, at various times, “I am a
       socialist,” “We are socialists,” and similar avowals ...
       [...]
       This excerpt from a speech Hitler gave in 1922 (quoted in
       William L. Shirer’s The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich,
       published in 1960) is indicative:
       [quote]Whoever is prepared to make the national cause his own to
       such an extent that he knows no higher ideal than the welfare of
       the nation; whoever has understood our great national anthem,
       “Deutschland ueber Alles,” to mean that nothing in the wide
       world surpasses in his eyes this Germany, people and land — that
       man is a Socialist.[/quote]
       And this is what came out of Adolf Hitler’s mouth on another
       occasion when a comrade riled him by harping on socialism (as
       reported by Henry A. Turner, author of German Big Business and
       the Rise of Hitler, published in 1985):
       [quote]Socialism! What does socialism really mean? If people
       have something to eat and their pleasures, then they have their
       socialism.[/quote][/quote]
  HTML https://web.archive.org/web/20211218084848/https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/09/05/were-nazis-socialists/
       The article is quite funny, isn't it? All the "information" to
       attempt to demonstrate National Socialism wasn't Socialist are
       quotes from random historians giving their opinions. All the
       actual quotes from Hitler and other National Socialists were
       quotes explicitly saying they viewed themselves as Socialists!
       It's literally the Big Lie tactics--repeat something enough
       times and people will believe it.
       ----
       For reference, in that final quote, Hitler is giving an
       exasperated, super-simple, and practical definition of
       Socialism, since he seems frustrated the person he's talking to
       would likely reject a practical alliance due to
       overly-theoretical definitions of Socialism:
       [quote]Thereupon I clothed my answer in a conditional sentence:
       If he negotiated with Alfred Hugenberg,[29] he could also
       negotiate with Brüning.
       From this sentence Hitler heard at first and primarily only the
       criticism. In a fervent voice, therefore, he praised Hugenberg
       as an outstanding economic leader and a true nationalist who
       already had had dealings with him, Hitler, when the Nazi party
       was small and insignificant. Now, to be sure, all the others
       came running, not just rich Germans, but Americans, Frenchmen,
       even Jews. Then Hitler asked me what I had against Hugenberg.
       When I expressed doubts about the good nationalist attitude of
       Hugenberg because it had no culmination in social attitudes,
       Hitler caught me up: "Socialism! What is Socialism, then? When
       the people have enough to eat and their pleasure, then they have
       their Socialism. That's just what Hugenberg thinks!" My
       objection that it had less to do with food and pleasure than
       with the development and uplifting of the talented and healthy
       hereditary core of the nation, he dismissed with a few remarks
       about trade union ideology.
       [29] Alfred Hugenberg, Germany's greatest newspaper magnate, was
       the reactionary leader of the DNVP. He had collaborated with
       Hitler in the Young Plan plebiscite, as described above, and
       within a year of the incident described here was to join Hitler
       in the Harzburg Front, a confederation of rightist parties. When
       Hitler took office in 1933 it was actually in coalition with
       Hugenberg's party.[/quote]
       Albert Krebs. (1959). The Infancy of Nazism: The Memoirs of
       Ex-Gauleiter Albert Krebs. 1923-1933. Edited and translated by
       William Sheridan Allen. (1976). New Viewpoints, Franklin Watts.
       Page 173.
  HTML https://archive.org/details/infancyofnazism0000unse/page/172/mode/2up
       A constant theme of Hitler's speeches is that he was willing to
       transcend the constraints of the mainstream left and right in
       order to build a revolutionary new ideology, by whatever means
       necessary. Chancellor Brüning was in negotiations to potentially
       form a coalition with the NSDAP, and Hitler viewed him as an
       adversary, whereas Hitler was angered Krebs made a parallel that
       implied Hugenberg was a similar adversary, rather than believing
       in the most basic aspects of Socialism enough to be considered a
       genuine collaborator.
       Krebs was part of the Strasserist faction and apparently quite
       critical of the NSDAP absorbing/making alliances with
       right-leaning parties (not just in this passage.) He was
       expelled from the party for agitation in 1932. Briefly skimming
       his memoir, he seems anti-Hitler with the view that Hitler
       betrayed the "real" Socialism that the Strasserist faction was
       developing.
       If the accounts of Krebs and Otto Strasser (see the 1930 debate
       between Hitler and Strasser posted previously) are accurate,
       Hitler seemed to have a short temper with Strasserists whose
       understanding of Socialism was tainted by Marxism:
       [quote]No matter what a Nazi fought against, whether Versailles,
       capitalism, the Red Front, the department stores, or the
       democratic parties of fulfillment, it was always one and the
       same enemy. To destroy him meant to destroy the causes of
       Germany's misery with one stroke. Therefore, it was a mistake to
       be overly concerned with any single problem, such as socialism.
       That only turned you away from the real goal of the struggle.
       "What is socialism?" Hitler screamed at me in 1930. "A Jewish
       invention to incense the German folk against itself!"[/quote]
       Albert Krebs. (1959). The Infancy of Nazism: The Memoirs of
       Ex-Gauleiter Albert Krebs. 1923-1933. Edited and translated by
       William Sheridan Allen. (1976). New Viewpoints, Franklin Watts.
       Page 46-47.
  HTML https://archive.org/details/infancyofnazism0000unse/page/46/mode/2up
       However, Hitler was clear to others in his private conversations
       that his goal was to purify Socialism of the Marxist elements
       that were dragging it down and preventing it from succeeding.
       For example, see this previous post:
  HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/colonial-era/national-socialism-is-revolutionary-not-reactionary/msg10718/#msg10718
       Krebs acknowledges the party synthesized various political
       currents, including Marxist Socialism:
       [quote]Seen as a whole, the party was thus an organization of
       "new men" who were breaking into the domain of politics with
       youthful obstreperousness, full of faith in their own mission
       and determined to use their eagerness at risk-taking to make the
       impossible possible. From the spiritual heritage of the past
       they took whatever they thought useful for their goals and
       purposes. That produced, especially in the beginning, a
       remarkable mixture of liberal, conservative, Marxist,
       reactionary, and revolutionary elements, though probably very
       few of them were aware of this.[/quote]
       Albert Krebs. (1959). The Infancy of Nazism: The Memoirs of
       Ex-Gauleiter Albert Krebs. 1923-1933. Edited and translated by
       William Sheridan Allen. (1976). New Viewpoints, Franklin Watts.
       Page 242-243.
  HTML https://archive.org/details/infancyofnazism0000unse/page/242/mode/2up
       Krebs describes some of the far-left Socialists in the National
       Socialist party who he met during his time as Gauleiter of
       Hamburg (leader of the Hamburg NSDAP political district) in
       1926-1928:
       [quote]Less complicated personalities than Böckenhauer were Dr.
       Schranz and Arnold Peters, who were practically the first and
       the only ones among the leadership in those early years whose
       socialism went beyond practical considerations. To be sure, they
       came to their socialism from diverse directions.
       [...]
       On the basis of his studies after the war and of his experience
       in various businesses, Dr. Schranz came to the conclusion that
       traditional economic liberalism was socially unjust and
       economically outmoded both in theory and in practice ... Like
       many reformers of those years he saw the cure in combatting
       finance capitalism, a retreat from the gold standard, and the
       establishment of the fundamental thesis that all value is
       created by labor.
       In any event, there was less favor in the Hamburg party in those
       days for unambiguously clear formulations than there was
       acceptance of a revolutionary socialism. Thus Dr. Schranz played
       an essential role in the determination of the Hamburg Party's
       development.
       [...]
       What for Dr. Schranz had been the result of an intellectual
       blending of experience and systematic study was for Arnold
       Peters an emotion formed from youthful adventures. When I first
       met him, he was a lad of seventeen years whose appearance and
       personality were a joy to behold. He came from a Hamburg
       working-class family in which adherence to the Marxist-Socialist
       labor movement was taken as a matter of course. Thus Peters had
       become a member of the Red Falcons and later of the Young
       Socialist Workers. Exactly what impelled him to leave these
       organizations I was never able to discover. From the point of
       view of social attitudes, Peters still lived completely in the
       world in which he had been brought up. He considered himself
       passionately and unqualifiedly as a National Socialist without
       troubling himself too much about the theoretical differences
       between that and Marxism, apart from those which centered about
       the antithesis "national vs. international."[/quote]
       Albert Krebs. (1959). The Infancy of Nazism: The Memoirs of
       Ex-Gauleiter Albert Krebs. 1923-1933. Edited and translated by
       William Sheridan Allen. (1976). New Viewpoints, Franklin Watts.
       Page 50-51.
  HTML https://archive.org/details/infancyofnazism0000unse/page/50/mode/2up
       I didn't look through this book too much, but there is probably
       a lot more information about the Strasserist left-wing and other
       leftists in it. Although I did notice on page 240 that he
       mentions Roehm and Gregor Strasser were two opposed factions,
       similar to Rauschning's account--i.e. the two major opposition
       factions in the party were leftist! On page 192 he mentions a
       rumor that Goebbels was part of a Communist student group around
       1920, indicating Goebbel's far-leftism was well known. (Recall
       the earlier post in the thread where Rosenberg said Goebbels
       could have easily joined the Communist party instead of the
       NSDAP). As we saw in a different post, Goebbels wrote as late as
       1924 (when he joined the NSDAP) that he was a Communist:
  HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/colonial-era/national-socialism-is-revolutionary-not-reactionary/msg10621/#msg10621
       Recall also that Rosenberg was jealous about how close Goebbels
       became to Hitler, indicating Goebbels and Hitler must have been
       very closely ideologically aligned in order for them to grow so
       close:
  HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/colonial-era/national-socialism-is-revolutionary-not-reactionary/msg10804/#msg10804
       Recall also that Albert Speer mentioned Goebbels was among those
       who was constantly pushing Hitler to remain ideological and not
       make practical compromises (and how they mocked the rightist
       Himmler):
  HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/colonial-era/national-socialism-is-revolutionary-not-reactionary/msg11108/#msg11108
       Leftism overload.
       #Post#: 11181--------------------------------------------------
       Re: National Socialists were socialists
       By: Zea_mays Date: February 10, 2022, 2:00 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Thus far, I have avoided relying on commentary from historians
       for 4 main reasons:
       (1) Historians write their works by reading and synthesizing
       primary sources (i.e. the exact same process of what we are
       doing here by quoting National Socialists in their own words).
       If we want an actual understanding of the truth, we might as
       well cut out the middle-men.
       (2) It is possible for two historians/individuals to read the
       EXACT SAME sources, but write two completely different
       narratives, depending on their own personal attitudes and
       values. (e.g. Rightists can quote the "great minds" of Western
       Civilization with admiration, while leftists like us can quote
       the same sentences and express our disgust.) Again, it is best
       to cut out the middle-men who try to tell us what to believe,
       and just read the original documents and decide for ourselves.
       (3) Every time we quote a historian who acknowledges the
       Socialism of National Socialism, our enemies could quote a dozen
       other historians who claim National Socialism is far-rightism.
       The only way to cut through the propaganda and biased narratives
       to get down to the truth is by reading the actual primary source
       documents of what National Socialists believed in their own
       words.
       (4) In any case, relying exclusively on a historian's opinion
       rather than the content of the actual source documents is an
       appeal to authority (a logical fallacy) and intellectual
       laziness.
       ----
       However, the fact that many mainstream historians do acknowledge
       the leftism/Socialism of National Socialism demonstrates that
       even within Western academia there is far from a unanimous
       agreement that National Socialism was some far-right ideology.
       These historians will obviously quote excerpts of National
       Socialist writings in order to demonstrate their point--pointing
       us to valuable information for further study. Until we can find
       a full copy of the original source documents, then commentary
       from these historians will have to suffice.
       ----
       Below is the book from which Wikipedia and other sources cite
       the following quote.
       [quote]According to the idea of the NSDAP, we are the German
       left. Nothing is more hateful to us than the right-wing national
       ownership block.
       -Der Angriff (The Attack), (6 December 1931)[/quote]
       Wolfgang Venohr, Hellmut Diwald, and Sebastian Haffner. (1983).
       Dokumente deutschen Daseins: 500 Jahre deutsche
       Nationalgeschichte, 1445-1945 (Documents of German existence:
       500 years of German national history 1445-1945). Krefeld:
       SINUS-Verlag. Page 279.
  HTML https://archive.org/details/dokumentedeutsch00veno/page/278/mode/2up
       See the previous post about this and other Joseph Goebbels
       quotes. Hitler would have been fully aware of Goebbel's leftism
       for years at this point.
  HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/colonial-era/national-socialism-is-revolutionary-not-reactionary/msg10621/#msg10621
       ----------------
       Page 276-277.
       [quote]HAFFNER
       Ich würde so sagen: Die Weimarer Parteien haben den nationalen
       Bereich nicht völolig ignoriert. Die Deutsch-Nationalen rührten
       ja auch die _nationale_ Trommel. Un die Sozialdemokraten rührten
       die _sozialistische_ Trommel. Aber die beiden Sachen mal
       zusammenzubringen: Das war eine bedeutende Idee! Und das zeigt,
       daß Hitler kein verächtlicher Politiker war, solange er sich
       noch Mühe gab, einer zu sein. Dieser Versuch, zwei großbe,
       damals ungeheurer schlagkräftige Ideen--den Nationalismus un den
       Sozialismus--miteinander zu fusionieren, das war eine große
       Sache!
       Prof. DIWALD
       Das allein hat aber das Besondere des Nationalsozialismus noch
       nich ausgemacht. Als drittes Moment ist dazu der ganz brutale
       Rassenantisemitismus gekommen! Es ist ein Phänomen, das es weder
       in Deutschland noch in der gesamten politischen Geschichte
       vorher in dieser Prägnanz und Entschiedenheit gegeben hat...
       HAFFNER
       Ja, das simmt schon, un ich mach' es auch den Deutschen etwas
       zum Votwurf, daß sie da nicht genauer hingehört haben, daß sie
       das sozusagen in Kauf genommen haben. Aber eines muß man da
       sagen: Hitler hat in der Zeit 1930 bis 1933 gerade den
       Antisemitismus verhältnismäßig in den Hintergrund treten lassen.
       Da redete er hauptsächlich von der sozialen Not und dem Versagen
       der Parteien und diesen Dingen.
       Und bei der Gelegenheit möchte ich doch eines auch sagen: Daß
       Hitler nur das Werkzeug der Kapitalisten war, das ist ja Unsinn!
       Die Kapitalisten mißtrauten ihm sogar noch in der Zeit seines
       Erfolges 1930/31, und erst 1932 hat er sie--ich möchte mal
       hamburgisch sagen--"begöscht", mit der berühmten Rede in
       Düsseldorf vor dem Rhein-Ruhr-Club der Industriellen.
       Prof. DIWALD
       Ja, Seihne Ausrichtung auf den Arbeiter, die lief damals
       durchaus in dem, was man als sozialistisch oder links bezeichnet
       hat (natürlich nict zu verwechseon mit dem, was man heute unter
       links oder sozialistisch versteht). Die Hauptpropaganda, die hat
       er ausgerichtet auf den einfachen Bürger, auf den Bauern und auf
       den Arbeiter!
       HAFFNER
       Wobei immerhin zu beachten ist: beim Bauern und beim Kleinbürger
       hatte er sofort großen Erfolg. Beim Arbeiter zunächst nicht! Das
       kam erst später. Bis 1933 wählten die Arbeiter kommunistisch
       oder sozialdemokratisch; mit einer Linksverschiebung. Zuerst
       mehrheitlich sozialdemokratisch, dann wurde die Mehrheit immer
       dünner. Aber was die Sozialdemokraten verloren, gewannen nicht
       die Nazis. Das gewannen die Kommunisten! Nach 1933/34 hat er
       dann auch die Arbeiter 'rumgekreigt.
       Prof. DIWALD
       Es kommt noch dazu, und das ist eine der Erklärungen, die man
       nicht vergessen darf: Die Parteien hatten bis zu den
       Präsidialkabinetten gezeigt, daß sie nicht in der Lage warren,
       mit den Schwiergkeiten fertigzuwerden. Hitler hat den Konterpart
       gespielt. Er hat gesagt, ich werde mit allem fertig...[/quote]
       Google translate:
       [quote]HAFFNER
       I would put it this way: the Weimar parties have not completely
       ignored the national sphere. The German nationalists also beat
       the _national_ drum. And the Social Democrats beat the
       _socialist_ drum. But to bring the two things together: That was
       an important idea! And that shows that Hitler was not a
       contemptible politician while he still tried to be one. This
       attempt to fuse two great ideas, which at the time were
       enormously powerful -- nationalism and socialism -- was a big
       deal!
       Prof. DIWALD
       But that alone did not make up what was special about National
       Socialism. The third moment was the very brutal racial
       anti-Semitism! It is a phenomenon that has never existed before
       in Germany or in all of political history with such conciseness
       and decisiveness...
       HAFFNER
       Yes, that's true, and I also blame the Germans for not listening
       more carefully, for accepting it, so to speak. But one thing has
       to be said: in the period from 1930 to 1933 Hitler allowed
       anti-Semitism to recede into the background. He talked mainly
       about the social misery and the failure of the parties and
       things like that.
       And I would like to take this opportunity to say one thing: hat
       Hitler was only the tool of the capitalists, that's nonsense!
       The capitalists mistrusted him even during the period of his
       success in 1930/31, and it was not until 1932 that he--I would
       like to say Hamburgian--"begged" them with the famous speech in
       Düsseldorf before the Rhein-Ruhr-Club of the industrialists.
       Prof. DIWALD
       Yes, his orientation towards the worker was definitely part of
       what was called socialist or left (of course not to be confused
       with what is meant by left or socialist today). The main
       propaganda he aimed at the simple citizen, at the peasant and at
       the worker!
       HAFFNER
       However, it should be noted that he immediately had great
       success with the peasants and the petty bourgeoisie. Not with
       the worker at first! That came later. Until 1933 the workers
       voted communist or social democratic; with a left shift. At
       first the majority was social democratic, then the majority
       became thinner and thinner. But what the Social Democrats lost,
       the Nazis did not gain. The communists won! After 1933/34 he
       then also 'round the workers' around.
       Prof. DIWALD
       What's more, and this is one of the explanations that must not
       be forgotten: the parties had shown up to the presidential
       cabinets that they were unable to cope with the difficulties.
       Hitler played the counterpart. He said I can handle
       anything...[/quote]
       ----
       Page 278-278.
       [quote]Der Stabchef der SA, Ernst Röhm, hatte auf dem
       Neujahrsempfang des diplomatischen Korps in Berlin, zu Beginn
       des Jahres 1934, damit gedroht, daß SA bald zur "zweiten
       Revolution" schreiten würde, zu einer Revolution, in der mit dem
       Sozialismus in Deutschland ernst gemacht werden sollte. Die
       Bourgeoisie war auf's höchste alarmiert! Sie setze Himmel und
       Hölle in Bewegung, Hitler--vor allem auf dem Umweg über die
       Heeresgeneralität--under Druck zu setzen und gegen seine "alten
       Kämpfer" zu mobilisieren, indem man frei erfundene Gerüchte in
       die Welt setzte, die SA wollen gegen ihren eigenen Führer und
       Reichskanzler putschen.
       Tatsächlich gab es starke sozialistiche bzw. sozialrevolutionäre
       Kräfte in der NSDAP; vor allem im Raum Berlin-Brandenburg. Hier
       herrschte so etwas wie Horst-Wessel-Geist, und ganz in diesem
       Sinne schrieb der NS-Gauleiter von Großberlin, Dr. Joseph
       Goebbels, am 6. 12. 1931 im "Angriff", dem Berliner Kampfblatt
       der Hitlerbewgung:
       "Der Idee der NSDAP entsprechend sind wir die deutsche Linke.
       Nichts ist uns verhaßter als der rechtsstehende nationale
       Besitzbürgerblock." Und zehn Monate später, am 9. 10. 1932--also
       nur ein Vierteljahr vor der Machtäbernahme!--erklärte er, daß es
       die große Idee Adolf Hitlers sei, "aus Deutschland den
       sozialistischen Arbeiterstaat zu machen".
       Das fiel vor allem bei der kämpferischen SA auf fruchtbaren
       Boden. Das Wort von der "antikapitalistchen Sehnsucht", das
       einer der höchsten NS-Funktionäre, Gergor Strasser, vor dem
       Deutschen Reichstag gesprochen hatte, gab exakt die Gefählslage
       in diesen bärgerkreigserprobten Formationen wieder.
       Von konkreten Putschplänen der SA gegn Hitler konnte im Ernst
       keine Rede sein; Wohl aber vom Anwachsen einer vorrevolutionären
       Stimmung, die sich immer deutlicher gegen das Großkapital
       richtete. Im Südwesten des Reiches ließ SA-Gruppenführer Hanns
       Ludin den Nationalkommunisten Richard Scheringer
       Schulungsvorträge über den Weg zum deutschen Sozialismus vor
       seinem Führerkorps halten. In Berlin-SIemensstadt veruschten
       SA-Leute in spontaner Aktion, das Großunterehmen Siemens zu
       sozialisieren und dort die Macht zu übernehmen. Sa-Gruppenführer
       Karl Ernst von Berlin-Brandenburg erklärte dem
       KPD-Richstagsabgeordneten Torgler, man werde wohl bald gemeinsam
       gegen die Bourgeoisie marschieren.
       Der Antifaschist Willy Brandt schrieb in der Zeitschrift
       "Sozialistische Arbeiterpartei" im Jahre 1932 treffend: "Das
       sozialistiche Element im Nationalsozialismus, im Denken seiner
       Gefolgsleute, das subjektiv Revolutionäre an der Basis, muß von
       uns erkannt werden." Das deutsche Großkapital sah die
       Hitlerpartei ganz genauso! und umischtig sorgte es dafür, daß
       die nationalen Sozialisten der NSDAP rechtzeitig liquidiert
       wurden.[/quote]
       Google translate:
       [quote]At the New Year's reception of the diplomatic corps in
       Berlin in early 1934, the Chief of Staff of the SA, Ernst Röhm,
       had threatened that the SA would soon proceed to the "second
       revolution", a revolution in which socialism in Germany was
       taken seriously should be done. The bourgeoisie was extremely
       alarmed! They set heaven and hell in motion to put pressure on
       Hitler--above all by way of the army generals--and to mobilize
       against his "old fighters" by spreading fictitious rumors that
       the SA wanted against theirs own leaders and chancellors.
       In fact, there were strong socialistic or social-revolutionary
       forces in the NSDAP; especially in the Berlin-Brandenburg area.
       Something akin to the Horst Wessel spirit prevailed here, and it
       was in this spirit that the Nazi Gauleiter of Greater Berlin,
       Dr. Joseph Goebbels, on December 6, 1931 in "Angriff", the
       Berlin newspaper of the Hitler movement:
       "According to the idea of &#8203;&#8203;the NSDAP, we are the
       German left. Nothing we hate more than the right-wing national
       property-owning block." And ten months later, on October 9,
       1932--that is, only three months before the seizure of
       power!--he declared that Adolf Hitler's great idea was "to turn
       Germany into a socialist workers' state."
       This fell on fertile ground, especially in the militant SA. The
       phrase "anti-capitalist longing" spoken by one of the highest NS
       officials, Gergor Strasser, before the German Reichstag,
       accurately reflected the emotional state of these formations,
       which had been tried and tested in the Civil War.
       There could seriously be no talk of concrete putsch plans by the
       SA against Hitler; But it was due to the growth of a
       pre-revolutionary mood, which was directed more and more clearly
       against big business. In the southwest of the Reich, SA group
       leader Hanns Ludin had the national communist Richard Scheringer
       give training lectures to his leadership corps on the road to
       German socialism. In Berlin-Siemensstadt, SA men attempted
       spontaneous action to socialize the large company Siemens and
       take over power there. SA group leader Karl Ernst from
       Berlin-Brandenburg explained to Torgler, a KPD [Communist party]
       member of the Reichstag, that they would soon march together
       against the bourgeoisie.
       The anti-fascist Willy Brandt wrote in the magazine "Socialist
       Workers' Party" in 1932: "The socialistic element in National
       Socialism, in the thinking of its followers, the subjectively
       revolutionary at the base, must be recognized by us." German big
       capital saw the Hitler party in exactly the same way! and it
       cunningly ensured that the national Socialists of the NSDAP [die
       nationalen Sozialisten der NSDAP] were liquidated in good
       time.[/quote]
       The last sentence seems to be specifically stressing the
       Socialist elements of the NSDAP, since "Nationalsozialist"
       (referring to the ideology and party name) is a single word in
       German. These historians also suggest the evidence of Roehm/the
       SA planning to commit a coup was fabricated by rightists in
       order to force a purge of the leftist agitators who were
       unwilling to make practical compromises. As we saw previously,
       even Otto Strasser (who had been expelled from the party and
       bitter at that point) acknowledged that Hitler did not actually
       want to purge Roehm or other leftists, but his hand was forced
       by President Hindenburg and others. Perhaps I was too critical
       of Roehm in earlier posts.
  HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/colonial-era/national-socialism-is-revolutionary-not-reactionary/msg10915/#msg10915
       To add some commentary on the last paragraph of the quote, from
       1931 to the end of WWII, Willy Brandt was part of the
       (Communist/Marxist) Socialist Workers' Party of Germany.
       Apparently he drifted towards the "right-wing" of the mainstream
       Social Democratic Party by the time he became Chancellor.
       Consider the significance of this--a (future) German Chancellor
       acknowledged the leftism of National Socialism while being a
       member of a Communist party!!
       [quote]Willy Brandt (18 December 1913 – 8 October 1992) was a
       German politician and statesman who was leader of the Social
       Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) from 1964 to 1987 and served
       as the chancellor of West Germany from 1969 to 1974.
       He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1971 for his efforts to
       strengthen cooperation in western Europe through the EEC and to
       achieve reconciliation between West Germany and the countries of
       Eastern Europe.[1] He was the first Social Democrat
       chancellor[2] since 1930.
       Fleeing to Norway and then Sweden during the Nazi regime and
       working as a left-wing journalist, he took the name Willy Brandt
       as a pseudonym to avoid detection by Nazi agents, and then
       formally adopted the name in 1948. Brandt was originally
       considered one of the leaders of the right wing of the SPD, and
       earned initial fame as Governing Mayor of West Berlin. He served
       as the foreign minister and as the vice-chancellor in Kurt Georg
       Kiesinger's cabinet, and became chancellor in 1969.
       As chancellor, he maintained West Germany's close alignment with
       the United States and focused on strengthening European
       integration in western Europe, while launching the new policy of
       Ostpolitik aimed at improving relations with Eastern Europe.
       Brandt was controversial on both the right wing, for his
       Ostpolitik, and on the left wing, for his support of American
       policies, including the Vietnam War, and right-wing
       authoritarian regimes. The Brandt Report became a recognised
       measure for describing the general North-South divide in world
       economics and politics between an affluent North and a poor
       South. Brandt was also known for his fierce anti-communist
       policies at the domestic level, culminating in the
       Radikalenerlass (Anti-Radical Decree) in 1972.[/quote]
  HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willy_Brandt
       While the most important focus of this thread is how National
       Socialists viewed Socialism in their own words, further evidence
       that non-NS leftists (especially those who were contemporaries
       with the living National Socialist movement) viewed National
       Socialism as a genuinely Socialist/leftist ideology is welcome
       as well.
       #Post#: 11182--------------------------------------------------
       Re: National Socialists were socialists
       By: Zea_mays Date: February 10, 2022, 2:15 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Pamphlet translated as "Those Damned Nazis" [Die verfluchten
       Hakenkreuzler. Etwas zum Nachdenken.], by Joseph Goebbels. It
       was first published in 1929 and republished in 1932. The source
       doesn't say if it was published more than this.
       Just like Goebbels's "Nazi-Sozi" pamphlet:
  HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/colonial-era/national-socialism-is-revolutionary-not-reactionary/msg10621/#msg10621
       this pamphlet is clearly writing for a leftist audience to
       convince them of the Socialist merits of National Socialism.
       [quote]We are nationalists because we see the nation as the only
       way to bring all the forces of the nation together to preserve
       and improve our existence and the conditions under which we
       live.
       [...]
       Nationalism has turned into bourgeois patriotism and its
       defenders are battling windmills.
       [...]
       Bourgeois patriotism is the privilege of a class. It is the real
       reason for its decline. When 30 million are for something and 30
       million are against it, things balance out and nothing happens.
       That is how things are with us. We are the world’s Pariah not
       because we do not have the courage to resist, but rather because
       out entire national energy is wasted in eternal and unproductive
       squabbling between the right and the left. Our way only goes
       downward, and today one can already predict when we will fall
       into the abyss.
       [...]
       From this understanding, the young nationalism draws its
       absolute demand. The faith in the nation is a matter for
       everyone, never a group, a class or an economic clique. The
       eternal must be distinguished from the temporal. Maintaining a
       rotten economic system has nothing to do with nationalism, which
       is an affirmation of the Fatherland. I can love Germany and hate
       capitalism. Not only can I, I must. Only the annihilation of a
       system of exploitation carries with it the core of the rebirth
       of our people.
       [...]
       If a Communist shouts “Down with nationalism!”, he means the
       hypocritical bourgeois patriotism that sees the economy only as
       a system of slavery. If we make clear to the man of the left
       that nationalism and capitalism, that is the affirmation of the
       Fatherland and the misuse of its resources, have nothing to do
       with each other, indeed that they go together like fire and
       water, then even as a socialist he will come to affirm the
       nation, which he will want to conquer.
       That is our real task as National Socialists. We were the first
       to recognize the connections, and the first to begin the
       struggle. Because we are socialists we have felt the deepest
       blessings of the nation, and because we are nationalists we want
       to promote socialist justice in a new Germany.
       A young fatherland will rise when the socialist front is firm.
       Socialism will become reality when the Fatherland is free.
       Why Are We Socialists?
       We are socialists because we see in socialism, that is the union
       of all citizens, the only chance to maintain our racial
       inheritance and to regain our political freedom and renew our
       German state.
       Socialism is the doctrine of liberation for the working class.
       It promotes the rise of the fourth class and its incorporation
       in the political organism of our Fatherland, and is inextricably
       bound to breaking the present slavery and regaining German
       freedom. Socialism, therefore, is not merely a matter of the
       oppressed class, but a matter for everyone, for freeing the
       German people from slavery is the goal of contemporary policy.
       Socialism gains its true form only through a total fighting
       brotherhood with the forward-striving energies of a newly
       awakened nationalism. Without nationalism it is nothing, a
       phantom, a mere theory, a castle in the sky, a book. With it it
       is everything, the future, freedom, the fatherland!
       The sin of liberal thinking was to overlook socialism’s
       nation-building strengths, thereby allowing its energies to go
       in anti-national directions. The sin of Marxism was to degrade
       socialism into a question of wages and the stomach, putting it
       in conflict with the state and its national existence. An
       understanding of both these facts leads us to a new sense of
       socialism, which sees its nature as nationalistic,
       state-building, liberating and constructive.
       The bourgeois is about to leave the historical stage. In its
       place will come the class of productive workers, the working
       class, that has been up until today oppressed. [...] It is not
       merely a matter of wages, not only a matter of the number of
       hours worked in a day — though we may never forget that these
       are an essential, perhaps even the most significant part of the
       socialist platform [...] The bourgeoisie does not want to
       recognize the strength of the working class. Marxism has forced
       it into a straitjacket that will ruin it. While the working
       class gradually disintegrates in the Marxist front, bleeding
       itself dry, the bourgeoisie and Marxism have agreed on the
       general lines of capitalism, and see their task now to protect
       and defend it in various ways, often concealed.
       [...]
       We are socialists because we see the social question as a matter
       of necessity and justice for the very existence of a state for
       our people, not a question of cheap pity or insulting
       sentimentality. The worker has a claim to a living standard that
       corresponds to what he produces.
       [...]
       The lines of German socialism are sharp, and our path is clear.
       We are against the political bourgeoisie, and for genuine
       nationalism!
       We are against Marxism, but for true socialism!
       We are for the first German national state of a socialist
       nature!
       We are for the National Socialist German Workers’ Party!
       [...]
       Marxist nonsense claimed to free labor, yet it degraded the work
       of its members and saw it as a curse and disgrace. It can hardly
       be our goal to abolish labor, but rather to give new meaning and
       content. The worker in a capitalist state — and that is his
       deepest misfortune — is no longer a living human being, a
       creator, a maker.
       He has become a machine. A number, a cog in the machine without
       sense or understanding. He is alienated from what he produces.
       [...]
       We are a workers’ party because we see in the coming battle
       between finance and labor the beginning and the end of the
       structure of the twentieth century. We are on the side of labor
       and against finance. Money is the measuring rod of liberalism,
       work and accomplishment that of the socialist state. The liberal
       asks: What are you? The socialist asks: Who are you? Worlds lie
       between.
       We do not want to make everyone the same. Nor do we want levels
       in the population, high and low, above and below. The
       aristocracy of the coming state will be determined not by
       possessions or money, but only on the quality of one’s
       accomplishments. One earns merit through service. Men are
       distinguished by the results of their labor. That is the sure
       sign of the character and value of a person. The value of labor
       under socialism will be determined by its value to the state, to
       the whole community.
       [...]
       We oppose the Jews because we are defending the freedom of the
       German people. The Jew is the cause and beneficiary of our
       slavery He has misused the social misery of the broad masses to
       deepen the dreadful split between the right and left of our
       people, to divide Germany into two halves thereby concealing the
       true reason for the loss of the Great War and falsifying the
       nature of the revolution.
       The Jew has no interest in solving the German question. He
       cannot have such an interest. He depends on it remaining
       unsolved. If the German people formed a united community and won
       back its freedom, there would be no place any longer for the
       Jew.
       [...]
       That is why we oppose the Jew as nationalists and as socialists.
       [...]
       What does anti-Semitism have to do with socialism? I would put
       the question this way: What does the Jew have to do with
       socialism? Socialism has to do with labor. When did one ever see
       him working instead of plundering, stealing and living from the
       sweat of others? As socialists we are opponents of the Jews
       because we see in the Hebrews the incarnation of capitalism, of
       the misuse of the nation’s goods.
       [...]
       Peace among productive workers! Each should do his duty for the
       good of the whole community. The state then has the
       responsibility of protecting the individual, guaranteeing him
       the fruits of his labor.
       [...]
       The gallows for profiteers and usurers![/quote]
  HTML https://web.archive.org/web/20210322034535/https://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/haken32.htm
       I don't speak German, so I will refrain from getting into a
       battle of definitions and etymologies, but one major point of
       debate regarding a translation/mistranslation of NS words is the
       idea of "creativity". Rightist (pro-Western) Neo-Nazis have
       interpreted the translation "creativity" to mean high IQ and
       inventiveness. However, in this pamphlet, at least, Goebbels
       uses "creator" to mean "a worker who does productive labor". So,
       "creativity" is not a boasting about high IQ, but about
       productive vs non-productive labor.
       [quote]We call ourselves a workers’ party because we want to
       rescue the word work from its current definition and give it
       back its original meaning. Anyone who creates value is a
       creator, that is, a worker.
       [...]
       The Jew is uncreative. He produces nothing, he only haggles with
       products.[/quote]
       And as we saw in Hitler's speech at Schleiz, Thuringia, on
       January 18, 1927, he places the highest value on what we would
       today call "essential work"--i.e. those who are viewed the
       lowest by capitalism, such as janitors or simple farmers, yet
       actually do the most important labor.
  HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/colonial-era/national-socialism-is-revolutionary-not-reactionary/msg10616/#msg10616
       So, in terms of labor, too, the most important productive labor
       is not inventing new machines or whatever, but doing the most
       simple and basic tasks that contribute to society. Jews do not
       contribute 'productive labor' to society and hence are called
       "uncreative", despite having very high IQ and talent at
       politics, finance, and science.
       #Post#: 11183--------------------------------------------------
       Re: National Socialists were socialists
       By: Zea_mays Date: February 10, 2022, 2:31 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       As National Socialism's influence grew beyond Germany, Hitler
       seems stunned by the party's rapid elevation to a global
       movement. It seems he began thinking more global-mindedly soon
       before WWII began.
       We see in this quote that Hitler was willing to form alliances
       with anti-Westerners of all ethnic backgrounds! I will make the
       contention that, just because he became more globally-minded
       over time when it came to political matters, doesn't necessarily
       mean he was racist to begin with and then became less racist
       over time. If anything, his readiness to expand alliances to the
       whole world immediately after realizing the global influence of
       National Socialism can be taken as evidence he wasn't racist to
       begin with. He did not need time to reflect to challenge and
       change his views--he immediately accepted the doors that had
       opened up.
       Wagener agreed with Hitler that such anti-Western alliances
       would be completely in line with the Socialism of the National
       Socialist party.
       [quote]Wagener then tells of a visit paid to Hitler by an Arab
       emissary. The emissary informed Hitler that he and his movement
       were held in high regard in the Arab world and expressed the
       hope that Germany might free itself from the chains of its
       oppressors. The Arabs, he reported, were especially impressed
       that the NSDAP was the first political movement in modern Europe
       to recognize correctly the dangers of Jewry. His commission was
       to ask Hitler not to send the Jews of Germany to Palestine or
       any other part of the Arabic world if he expelled them from
       Germany.
       “Strange,” Hitler said to me after the conference. “Until now I
       never considered the idea of expelling the Jews from Germany.
       And since our objective is peace, I don’t even think such a move
       is necessary. If we were to be entangled in a war, as in the
       First World War, one would have to make sure of the Jews.
       Because they were the ones who at that time sharpened the dagger
       which the elected representatives of the German Volk plunged
       into the back of the government of the Volk and its fighting men
       at the front.
       “But the Semites seem to recognize their racial compatriots.
       Furthermore, it seems to me that they understand and know more
       about race than Europe does. The whitewashed good manners of our
       continent have seen to it that everything that might contribute
       to lucidity and truth was overlaid with a coat of uniform gray.
       “Let us not lose sight of an alliance with the Arab League. We
       Germans have gotten into the habit of looking for friends only
       in Europe—if possible, among people of the same race. Perhaps
       that’s a mistake. Perhaps it’s much easier to find friends among
       other races. If the Arabs know that we—that is, a new
       Germany—can offer them understanding, support, and firm backing
       in their own struggles for freedom, and that we consider them
       competent to enter into alliances—welcome them, in fact—such a
       realization might have significant repercussions on our position
       in Europe as well. Furthermore, an alliance of interests between
       Germany and the Arabic-Semitic race might also have far-reaching
       significance for our relations with the millions of the African,
       Indian, and yellow peoples.
       “A whole new perspective is opening up for me!”
       But then Hitler rubbed his hand across his eyes and continued in
       a calmer voice:
       “I have to sleep on it. It seems to me that it will have to be a
       long-term goal. Practical politics ties us to England.”
       “Nor would England sit idly by,” I interjected, “while we begin
       to sympathize with the very nations England has always
       considered its vassals. Either we pursue a joint policy with
       England—in which case we would have to drop the idea you just
       presented or at least let it take a back seat, tempting and
       appropriate to our socialist thinking though it might be. On the
       other hand, if we could and should pursue a purely socialistic
       policy, these trains of thought would present prospects that
       could offer a different picture to the whole world.”[/quote]
       Otto Wagener. (written in 1946, first published in German in
       1978). Hitler: Memoirs of a Confidant. Edited by Henry Ashby
       Turner, Jr., translated by Ruth Hein (1985). Page 227-228.
  HTML https://archive.org/details/wagenerhitlermemoirsofaconfidant/page/n269/mode/2up
       It looks like this meeting was immediately prior to the war in
       1939:
  HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relations_between_Nazi_Germany_and_the_Arab_world#Nazi_perceptions_of_the_Arab_world
  HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_Al_Hud_Al_Gargani
       After the war began, he fully embraced all these anti-Western
       alliances, including in India (e.g. with anti-British Socialist
       Subhas Chandra Bose) and Africa (hence the book series Black
       Nazis).
       #Post#: 11186--------------------------------------------------
       Re: National Socialists were socialists
       By: 90sRetroFan Date: February 10, 2022, 3:35 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       "I don't speak German, so I will refrain from getting into a
       battle of definitions and etymologies, but one major point of
       debate regarding a translation/mistranslation of NS words is the
       idea of "creativity". Rightist (pro-Western) Neo-Nazis have
       interpreted the translation "creativity" to mean high IQ and
       inventiveness. However, in this pamphlet, at least, Goebbels
       uses "creator" to mean "a worker who does productive labor". So,
       "creativity" is not a boasting about high IQ, but about
       productive vs non-productive labor."
       Thank you very much for this. I mentioned this point on the main
       site also:
       [quote]Neo-Nazis, unlike authentic National Socialists, have no
       awareness of this distinction. Part of their ignorance is
       linguistic: they read Hitler’s positive statements on what has
       been disastrously translated into English language as
       “creativity”  with the presumed meaning of innovativeness,
       without realizing that the corresponding word in the original
       German language was “schaffenskraft” with the very different
       meaning of self-reliant productivity, which is what Hitler
       really means each time he makes use of the term.
  HTML http://aryanism.net/wp-content/uploads/schaffen.jpg[/quote]
       This poster illustrates what Hitler was thinking of when he used
       the term "schaffendes".
       As for our enemies, their obsession with innovation is leading
       them to embrace not just high IQ test scores, but also
       personality traits that they believe will increase
       innovativeness, and trying to come up with reproductive
       strategies to increase the occurrence of such traits:
  HTML https://vdare.com/articles/why-were-so-many-geniuses-born-prematurely
       [quote]Then there is the genius personality. New ideas almost
       always offend, but geniuses don’t care about this because they
       tend to be high in autism traits. Scientific geniuses, at least,
       are obsessed with systematizing and are thus low in empathy, as
       these sit on the opposite ends of a spectrum: they are focused
       on the truth. Prematurity is a significant predictor of autism.
       In many cases, as with Isaac Newton, geniuses are also high in
       psychopathic personality traits and thus simply don’t care if
       their ideas offend. Related to this, they have problems with
       impulse control and with following the rules. Not being
       rule-bound, they will “think outside the box” and thus dare to
       consider things that ordinary people would not. And preemies
       have elevated levels of psychopathic personality, due to
       abnormal brain development.
       ...
       The group with the optimum low level of geniuses—too high and
       you have too many anti-social people—will triumph over other
       groups due to superior weapons or leaders that inspire greater
       ethnocentrism-inducing religiosity, where the group is certain
       that it is blessed by the gods. There would need to be a
       mechanism for this.
       This mechanism has to be neurodiversity. And one means of
       achieving that mechanism, other than unlikely genetic
       combinations rendering the offspring very different from the
       parents, would be often older or stressed mothers who expose
       their fetuses to atypical doses of hormones and other chemical
       signallers. These may, among other things, better condition the
       fetus to survive a premature birth. And the fact of this birth,
       and the infant’s level of development at birth, would further
       interfere with the infant’s neural development. All of which
       could lead to the development genius characteristics.[/quote]
       This is why they must not be allowed to win.
       *****************************************************
   DIR Previous Page
   DIR Next Page