Marc2b
Posts: 6660
Joined: 8/7/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
They “justify” their argument from the fact that the official name of the German fascist party translates into English as the “National Socialist Worker’s Party” and therefore the German fascists were “socialists” rather than conservatism carried on to the extreme. At best, that’s like arguing that skim milk is 100% the same as whole milk, since both of them have the word “milk” on the carton.
Actually, you're all wrong. The Nazi party did have many planks in its platform that would be considered socialistic including the nationalization of major industries, the outlawing of child labor, the break-up of wealthy estates and the land redistributed, an increase in old age pensions, abolition of rents, etc. What differentiated the Nazi party from other socialist movements was the unifying principle. Instead of being class conscious across international boundaries, they were nationalistic (hence the term National Socialism). Nor could they be considered conservative, at least by the standards of that place and time, because the conservatives were monarchists... they wanted to see the monarchy, and associated class privileges, restored.
Hitler was none of these things. He knew little of, nor cared, about economics. His only interest was power. after the failed Putsch he knew he needed two things to achieve that power: money and votes. He sought the money from the upper class and told them what they wanted to hear, promising to restore their privileged place in society and Germany's greatness in the world. He sought the votes from the lower class and if you listen to his speeches to them he sounds very socialistic (again, with a big dose of nationalism thrown in).
Once power was achieved the more socialist wing of the party, led by the Strasser brothers (Gregor and Otto) became very upset that some of their agenda was not being carried out, particularly the breakup of the large Junker estates. The situation came close to civil war. Then came the Night of the Long Knives. Most people know that the SA was suppressed because Hitler wanted to keep on good terms with the German Army (which loathed the SA). This is true but not the whole truth. It was also the when the more nationalistic wing of the party eliminated the more socialistic wing. Gregor was murdered, Otto managed to flee the country.
In the end, Hitler was neither socialistic -he had no desire to nationalize major industries so long as they played ball with the Nazis (those who didn't go along were dealt with in typical Nazi fashion) nor conservative since he had no desire see the monarchy restored... and considering the radical changes he was making to German society he could not be considered conservative in the sense of someone who wants to maintain the status quo either. Hitler was his own unique creature of evil who sought to reorder the world on the basis of power... his power over the Nazi party, the Nazi party's power over Germany, Germany over Europe and Europe over the world. He believed in the total subordination of means to ends and would say and do whatever was necessary to achieve those ends. That is why people err whenever they try to pin him as either a socialist or a conservative (or, for that matter, as a Christian or an atheist, but I'll leave that for another day).
_____________________________
Do you know what the most awesome thing about being an Atheist is? You're not required to hate anybody!
|
RE: You might be a modern, 21st century Conservative if: - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread