In Hitler's Shadow: The Myth of Nazism's Conservative Roots

The Harvard Salient ^ | Elbridge Colby

[Republican_Strategist]

In Hitler's Shadow
The Myth of Nazism's Conservative Roots
 

By Elbridge Colby Deputy Editor

There has never been a dearth of words on the origins of Nazism, nor has Harvard been remiss in this category. In recent years, for instance, Daniel Goldhagen's book Hitler's Willing Executioners, which found "eliminationist anti-Semitism" in the bosom of every German, provoked a tempest in both Europe and America. But the question of Nazi origins has not been confined to conventional scholarship ‹ quite the contrary. Instead, it has been part of American political conflicts since World War II. In this capacity it has served as the extreme of the Right, supposedly the mirror of Communism, the extreme of the Left. Indeed, this characterization has proved a useful political weapon ‹ as, for instance, when Tony Judt recently argued in the New York Times that American anti-Communism (whose very purpose was the defense against totalitarianism) was a species of nascent totalitarianism. Yet this analysis of Nazism as an outgrowth of true conservative thinking is mistaken. Nazism is instead the manifestation of the pagan, romantic forces at a time of deep, specifically German, national humiliation. As such, it has nothing in common with the political Right in America. It is necessary first to lay out the political spectrum of Germany before the National Socialists came to power. Germany, like all polities, was not divided along a single line. The truly conservative forces among the various Germanies were the Habsburg Empire, the various principalities and their cherished independence, and the major Christian denominations, most particularly the Roman Catholic Church. The conservative ideal was that propagated by Klemens von Metternich during and after the Congress of Vienna. It entailed a balance of power in Germany between the Emperor in Vienna and the upstart King in Berlin, which therefore maintained peace in Europe by dividing the might of the Reich. Metternich's policy was diametrically opposed to nationalism and rebellion. Henry Kissinger wrote, "Oppressed by the vulnerability of its domestic structures in an age of nationalism, the polyglot Austro-Hungarian Empire insisted on a generalized right of interference to defeat social unrest wherever it occurred." Both the Catholic Church and its principal defender, the Habsburg Crown, were founded on universalist and transnational grounds, and each, along with the smaller states of the old Holy Roman Empire, found themselves assaulted in the nineteenth century. Supported by the pan-German nationalism of 1848, the Prussian state was able to assert its centralizing, authoritarian control over the bulk of the Reich. The traditional Imperial idea of transnational lordship which had characterized the Imperial Crown from Charlemagne's time fell under the sword of Prussian aggression in 1866; shortly thereafter, Bismarck launched the Kulturkampf against the Church. In response to this maneuver, which anticipated Hitler's own assault against the religious bodies, the Center Party leader Ludwig Windthorst stated succinctly the conservative position, "My loyalty to the Royal family of Hanover will last until my dying day, and nothing in the world, not even the most powerful Chancellor of Germany, will be able to make me depart from it." Conservative in Germany, as elsewhere, meant an adherence to legitimate and traditional institutions ‹ the very opposite of the Nazi ideology. National Socialism stood in direct contravention to all that traditional Germany held dear: the Christian faith, civilization, and the ancient (and somewhat befuddled) political structure. The deep Nazi antipathy to Christianity and civilization, which, in much of Europe, meant practically the same thing, is particularly illuminating. Hitler despised these things: he said that, "Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure." In fact, Hitler and the Nazis wanted nothing less than the "re-barbarization" of the German people. The esteemed German historian Hajo Holborn wrote that "Anti-Semitism was the major instrument in this policy of barbarization. Through the vilification, torture, and mass murder of the Jews the ruthlessness was produced that Hitler wanted to inculcate in his followers." Hitler wished to undo the Romanization of Germany. He wanted, in effect, to set back up the pagan holy tree of the Saxons which St. Boniface had felled twelve hundred years before. The source for his thinking, according to Alan Bullock, was a "crude Darwinism," in which struggle was the key aspect of existence. Such thinking was the very antithesis of conservative Germany. Also illuminating is the way in which Germans voted and acted under Nazi tyranny. The source of the Nazi electoral victories, particularly after Bruening took office as Chancellor, were the middle and lower-middle class voters of northern Germany. Many have labeled these voters "conservative." They were the support for the right-wing Nationalist Party and the anti-Weimar movement. But these were also those who had provided the backbone for the revolution in Germany which had taken place under Bismarck the defeat of the Austrians and exclusion of the Habsburgs, the reckless territorial aggrandizement against the French, and the suppression of religious liberty with the Kulturkampf. In truth, Hitler came to power on a program that might have been ripped from the pan-Germanic dreams of a 19th century liberal revolutionary. The infamous Twenty-Five Points include provisions such as unification of all Germans in Europe, land reform, the abolition of child labor, division of profits, old-age security, the replacement of the Roman with the German Law, and "the duty of the state to provide for the individual." This was clearly a challenge to the conservative institutions of German life. And when the Nazis came to power, they proved this point. The Nazi state was a highly centralized, technocratic, propagandistic, national machine. In addition to its systematic attack on the Jews, who comprised a long-standing, but abused, segment of the population, the Nazis opened a new Kulturkampf against the Catholic Church, jailing priests and deposing bishops; unlike 1874, however, Hitler also moved against the established Protestant denominations, persecuting such noble men as Dietrich Bonhoffer. In truth, it was the established institutions which provided the terribly small opposition to Hitler (along with the Communists, who engaged in an internecine totalitarian war with their rival National Socialists). Holborn wrote, "The challenge to the totalitarian claims of the Nazi government by the churches found the support of people who had been willing to adjust themselves to the new regime.... Conservative elements, both Catholic and Protestant, were shocked by the Nazi attacks on the churches and the Christian religion.... There were a good many liberal intellectuals who...were now attracted by the church resistance." These dissenters included Bishops Galen of Munster and Faulhaber of Munich (other bishops proved weaker) among Catholics, and Bonhoffer among Lutherans. Even the Prussian military aristocracy, an institution largely damned by its complicity with Hitler, offered substantial opposition ‹ General Beck, Admiral Canaris, and Colonel von Stauffenberg among them. The Nazi state was an abomination almost unimaginable to those who have not endured its tortures, both subtle and overt. Like Stalinist Russia, which Hitler consciously emulated, National Socialist Germany repudiated the civilized tradition of government which had developed out of the medieval period. Hitler and his acolytes ruthlessly and maliciously employed the liberal themes of nationalism, anti-Christian secularism, and devotion to the state. To contend that Nazism was conservative is not only untrue, it is lazy and unfair. In the United States, it is an especially ill-used label. It is not as if the Republican Party had Nazism in its closet; the very purpose for which the GOP exists is to protect the traditional apparatus of limited government and individual liberties from molestation by the state. Yet the abuse of the opprobious term "Nazi" continues in American political discourse. Of all the words which must retain their full and horrifying meaning for the sake of our lives and liberties, "Nazi" probably ranks highest. One may fairly hold that the Republican Party is dangerous because of the fundamental distinctions between the two parties on the issues. But one may not reasonably hold that a party based on fear of the state (witness the Second Amendment controversy) could possibly lead, or be linked, to Nazism. We are fortunate enough not to have this beast threaten us; let us be wary that we do not, by cheapening its dangers, let it become acceptable.

[Republican_Strategist]

Hitler was a Leftist

The Undeniable Truth: Hitler was a Leftist

[CatoRenasci]

While all of this is true enough, there is a valid point about German (and Italian and French) conservatism in the fascist era to be made: the conservatives supported the fascists (Nazis, Fascisti and Action Francaise) as bulwarks against the communists. The conservatives thought they could control the fascists and were uniformly proved very wrong. The other valid point is that in Germany and France, two of the reasons the conservatives were comfortable with the fascists were (1) anti-semitism and (2) intense nationalism (as opposed to the universalism of socialism and communism).

[Remedy]

Were Ordinary Germans Hitler’s ‘Willing Executioners’? Dr. med. Evelin Lindner was born in Hameln, Niedersachsen, West Germany, and currently lives in Oslo, Norway. At the time of this writing (winter, 2000), Dr. Lindner is working on a doctoral research project at the Department of Psychology at the University of Oslo, Norway, as part of the Research Program on Multilateral Development Assistance, Norwegian Research Council, focusing on the topic of Humiliation as a central theme in armed conflicts.

This article presents findings from fieldwork in Africa (1998, 1999) and Germany (1994-2000). It includes a detailed discussion of Hitler’s views about propaganda and his use of this instrument to seduce the masses.

The aim of my fieldwork was to collect impressions that could illuminate questions stimulated by competing interpretations of German behaviour. How did Hitler manage to incite a whole population to follow him? As Alan Jacobs puts it: ‘Why do people join political, religious, professional, or social movements, of whatever size, and surrender so completely, giving up, in the extreme, everything; their fortunes, their, critical thinking, their political freedom, their friends, families, even their own lives? What causes people to create a system or perhaps merely follow a system that creates Auschwitz, the Lubianka, the killing fields of Cambodia…’ (Jacobs, 1995, 1).

...In this article a further view is offered, in which social identity theory with its emphasis on the group[3] is linked with a more individual based analysis. It suggests that ordinary Germans were ideal targets for seduction by Hitler. They went along with him, enthusiastically, although in many cases with ambivalence, because of his flattering message about themselves and Germany’s future. They were also caught up in the social dynamics he created. It was attractive to share the passions of the group, to be swept up in its enthusiasm. At the same time, it was disagreeable, and increasingly dangerous, to remain isolated from that enthusiasm and group feeling (to say nothing of the dangers of active opposition).

Hitler was obviously very competent at putting into practice what he calls the ‘correct psychology’ of seduction at the beginning of his career as ‘Führer.’ He writes on page 165 of his book Mein Kampf (Hitler, 1999, italics added): ‘The art of propaganda lies in understanding the emotional ideas of the great masses and finding, through a psychologically correct form, the way to the attention and hence to the heart of the broad masses.’ Two pages later, he continues: ‘The broad mass of a nation does not consist of diplomats, or even professors of political law, or even individuals capable of forming a rational opinion; … The people in their overwhelming majority are so feminine by nature and attitude that sober reasoning determines their thoughts and actions far less than emotion and feeling. And this sentiment is not complicated, but very simple and all of a piece. It does not have multiple shadings; it has a positive and a negative; love or hate, right or wrong, truth or lie, never half this way and half that way, never partially, or that kind of thing.’

Gleichschaltung

For a long time, notwithstanding the Hitler-Stalin pact of 1939, I accepted the conventional wisdom that Communism and Nazism were opposites — one on the extreme left, the other on the extreme right.

Perhaps enough time has passed to permit examination in realistic terms of these approaches to social organization, concentrating on essential characteristics and demonstrated aspirations as opposed to clichés. Decades of observation, as well as ceaseless consideration given to the core issues, compel me to look upon these seemingly opposite systems as mirror images, aspiring to a similar outcome, applying identical methods, achieving comparable subjugation of people under their control, spreading the same hopelessness in their paths. While such conclusions have certainly been reached by others, it may be less obvious that Fascism (Nazism) and Communism (Bolshevism) all share their philosophical foundations as well.

Gleichschaltung operated at once on structural and cultural levels. Structurally, the first victim was federalism: within days of Hitler's accession, the states had to cede authority to the central government. Next, the leadership and membership of every kind of organization had to become politically and racially correct. With the task of implementing structural changes assigned to a variety of agencies, as early as March 1933, a separate Cabinet Department was created for Josef Goebbels to oversee every aspect of the cultural scene, making certain that it was politically correct. Specific terms aside, the reality of all these regimes is the great flattening which is in full progress from day one. Since it is not possible to raise anyone's natural level by fiat, the alternative is to force everyone down.

It is astonishing and frightening how little time it took both in Russia and in Germany to accomplish this task. Indeed, it should be noted that demolishing what centuries had built does not require even a single generation.

The next ingredient had to do with groups. While it may appear contradictory to identify groups in a society having just experienced Gleichschaltung, contradictions do not represent obstacles in a totalitarian structure. The identity of groups was as necessary as the levelling had been in order to maintain positive and negative imaging. This constant dichotomy of egalitarianism and group hatred provided a manipulative tool as simple as it was ingenious. Hitler used race and nationality, Lenin and Stalin mostly class — the outcome was the same.

[Remedy]

One may fairly hold that the DEMOCRATIC Party is dangerous because of:

• Fascism, corruption and my 'Democratic' Party

• Our Secularist Democratic Party (Long, Important Analysis)

[Grampa Dave]

We will see Freepers scrambling trying to save the myth that the Nazis were right wingers because some of them supported the Nazis in the 1930's. Here is another article that documents this thread. (A Little Secret About the Nazis They were left-wing socialists. Yes, the National Socialist Workers Party of Germany, otherwise known as the Nazi Party, was indeed socialist, and it had a lot in common with the modern left. Hitler preached class warfare, agitating the working class to resist ``exploitation'' by capitalists -- particularly Jewish capitalists, of course. Their program called for the nationalization of education, health care, transportation, and other major industries. They instituted and vigorously enforced a strict gun control regimen. They encouraged pornography, illegitimacy, and abortion, and they denounced Christians as right-wing fanatics. Yet a popular myth persists that the Nazis themselves were right-wing extremists. This insidious lie biases the entire political landscape, and the time has come to expose it. link)

This is the same left wing myth in America that Republicans and conservatives are racists. The real racists in suits from Klan Sheets to $4,000 Suits worn in the Senate are the DemonicRats.

Thanks for posting this thread. It is very timely with the Islamofacists in charge of Iran, Iraq and Syria. They and their supporters in America are Facists.

[Remedy]

Islamofacists in charge of Iran, Iraq and Syria = EXTERNAL THREAT

Democrats = INTERNAL THREAT / DOMESTIC ENEMIES.

[ofMagog]

"The conservatives supported the fascists (Nazis, Fascisti and Action Francaise) as bulwarks against the communists. The conservatives thought they could control the fascists and were uniformly proved very wrong. The other valid point is that in Germany and France, two of the reasons the conservatives were comfortable with the fascists were (1) anti-semitism and (2) intense nationalism (as opposed to the universalism of socialism and communism)."

Very correct. The conservatives grossly underestimated the charisma of Hitler and the ability of his propaganga machine. Stalin ruled via brute force and massive fear. Hitler ruled with brutality but mostly with his grandiose promises to the people.

The young boy in Cabaret singing "The Future Belongs to Me!" fairly well sums up the attitude of the Germans of the 1930s.

[Grampa Dave]

One more look at the real facists in America, the lunatic left. (link)

You’re all a bunch of Fascists! At least that's what the left keeps calling everyone who attempts to reason from the classical conservative perspective. But the issue of who is a Fascist can't be addressed by any measure from the modern philosophical left because their fundamental tenet is the lie. For them, that’s the first principle of the art of war. They use it, they excuse it, and they in fact worship at its feet. They are the masters of deception, the political prestidigitators of the modern age. War is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength. And one of the truly clever feats of magic the left has perpetrated was convincing John and Jane Q. Public that Fascism is necessarily a product of the popular definition of the "far right."

Fascism: Any program for setting up and centralizing an autocratic regime with severely authoritarian politics exercising regulation of industry, commerce and finance, rigid censorship, and forcible oppression of opposition. —Webster's Unabridged Dictionary

Writing in The New Australian on January 24th, 1999, James Henry noted that, "The state of American education being what it is, the vast majority of people are totally incapable of recognizing a fascist economic program, even when it is used to slap them in the face. This is because they have not been taught that fascism means state direction of the economy, cradle to grave ‘social security’, complete control of education, government intervention in every nook and cranny of the economy — and the belief that the individual belongs to the state."

[judicial meanz]

Most of the public doesnt know, and is not taught, that Hitler was a communist for a short period of time, then turned rabidly anti-communist.

He did like the communists commitment to their cause, adn tried to adapt that to the Nazi party to create committed individuals.

His rabid hatred of Jews was partially based on his ssumption that most Jewish people were communists, and he also knew of the uniting power of anti-semitism to communists.

These quotes are direct:


Hitler to Rauschning


"The party is all-embracing. It rules our lives in all their breadth and depth. We must therefore develop branches of the party in which the whole of individual life will be reflected. Each activity and each need of the individual will thereby be regulated by the party as the representative of the general good. There will be no license, no free space, in which the individual belongs to himself. This is Socialism--not such trifles as the private possession of the means of production."

"Of what importance is that if I range men firmly within a discipline they cannot escape? Let them then own land or factories as much as they please. The decisive factor is that the State, through the party, is supreme over them, regardless whether they are owners or workers. All that, you see, is unessential. Our Socialism goes far deeper...."

"Private property" as conceived under the liberalistic economic order was a reversal of the true concept of property. This "private property" represented the right of the individual to manage and to speculate with inherited or acquired property as he pleased, without regard for the nation."

"I have learned a great deal from Marxism, as I do not hesitate to admit. The difference between them and myself is that I have really put into practice what these peddlers and pen-pushers have timidly begun.... I had only to develop logically what Social Democracy repeatedly failed in because of its attempt to realize its evolution within the framework of democracy. National Socialism is what Marxism might have been if it could have broken its absurd and artificial ties with a democratic order."


Hitler was definitely not "Right wing".

[Grampa Dave]

Notice how our internal threat supports the Islamofacists!

I'm sure that one day there will be plenty of data that both of these vile threats were facists.

Then, we will probably see that for decades the super rich Opecker Princes and Islamofacists have financed their American Facists.

[cricket]

The infamous Twenty-Five Points include provisions such as unification of all Germans in Europe, land reform, the abolition of child labor, division of profits, old-age security, the replacement of the Roman with the German Law, and "the duty of the state to provide for the individual." This was clearly a challenge to the conservative institutions of German life. And when the Nazis came to power, they proved this point. The Nazi state was a highly centralized, technocratic, propagandistic, national machine. In addition to its systematic attack on the Jews, who comprised . . .

. . .any similarlities with the goals and modus operandi of our current Left are not coincidental. . .

[Remedy]

>>Conservative elements, both Catholic and Protestant, were shocked by the Nazi attacks on the churches and the Christian religion....<<

Homosexuality and the Nazi Party ...While the neo-pagans were busy attacking from without, liberal theologians undermined Biblical authority from within the Christian church. The school of so-called "higher criticism," which began in Germany in the late 1800s, portrayed the miracles of God as myths; by implication making true believers (Jew and Christian alike) into fools. And since the Bible was no longer accepted as God's divine and inerrant guide, it could be ignored or reinterpreted. By the time the Nazis came to power, "Bible-believing" Christians, (the Confessing Church) were a small minority. As Grunberger asserts, Nazism itself was a "pseudo-religion" (ibid.:79) that competed, in a sense, with Christianity and Judaism.

From the early years, leading Nazis openly attacked Christianity. Joseph Goebbels declared that "Christianity has infused our erotic attitudes with dishonesty" (Taylor:20). It is in this campaign against Judeo- Christian morality that we find the reason for the German people's acceptance of Nazism's most extreme atrocities. Their religious foundations had been systematically eroded over a period of decades by powerful social forces. By the time the Nazis came to power, German culture was spiritually bankrupt. Too often, historians have largely ignored the spiritual element of Nazi history; but if we look closely at Hitler's campaign of extermination of the Jews, it becomes clear that his ostensive racial motive obscures a deeper and more primal hatred of the Jews as the "People of God."

The probable reason for Hitler's attack on Christianity was his perception that it alone had the moral authority to stop the Nazi movement. But Christians stumbled before the flood of evil. As Poliakov notes, "[W]hen moral barriers collapsed under the impact of Nazi preaching...the same anti-Semitic movement that led to the slaughter of the Jews gave scope and license to an obscene revolt against God and the moral law. An open and implacable war was declared on the Christian tradition...[which unleashed] a frenzied and unavowed hatred of Christ and the Ten Commandments" (Poliakov:300).

[MrB]

I thought of a change in terminology last night.

Instead of using "Conservative" which implies "conserving the status quo", we should be using the word

Restorative

As in, we wish to restore individual liberty and personal responsibility as embodied in the original and only interpretation of the Constitution for the United States of America. We have no desire to conserve the status quo, which is nigh on democratic socialism. We desire to Restore this country to what it is supposed to be.

[Remedy]

>>>>Restorative

As in, we wish to restore individual liberty and personal responsibility as embodied in the original and only interpretation of the Constitution for the United States of America.<<<<

How right you are.

The Fourth Great Awakening and the Future of Egalitarianism. Robert W. Fogel Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.

Robert Fogel is a Nobel prize winning economist from the University of Chicago.

Fogel's argument is that American history has seen several Great Awakenings driven by religion and based on the notion of EGALITARIANISM and that we are in the middle of the Fourth Great Awakening.

FIRST GREAT AWAKENING. Lasted from 1730 to 1800 and led directly to the American Revolution. Movement was driven by anger over corruption and immorality of British administration.

SECOND GREAT AWAKENING. Lasted from 1800 to 1880 and focused on the egalitarian concept of EQUAL OPPORTUNITY and stress on INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY. This movement led to Indians rights, temperance (against alcohol), universal education, abolition of slavery and voting rights for all adults.

THIRD GREAT AWAKENING. Lasted from 1890 to 1960 but was based on the egalitarian concept of EQUALITY OF CONDITION. Basic human problems were taken to be the failure of society, not the individual. Poverty was taken to be not the wages of sin, but caused by society. Led to the welfare state, diversity, income tax, regulation of big business, unions, and immigration restrictions.

FOURTH GREAT AWAKENING. Started in 1960 to present. Major shift from THIRD to FOURTH GREAT AWAKENING is the return to egalitarian concept of EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY and stress on INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY. This change in direction runs counter to the entire Liberal agenda based on idea that society is responsible and not the individual.

What brought about the crisis that has led to the FOURTH GREAT AWAKENING? As Fogel points out, between 1890 and 1990, the increase in available wealth to the top 10% of w age earners in this country increased by a factor of four, that is, their actual wealth was multiplied four times. At the same time, the increase in available wealth to the bottom 10% of wage earners actually increased by a factor of 20! But while the multiplication of wealth has been astounding, problems such as crime, drugs, teen pregnancy, and single-parent households all INCREASED! Obviously material resources have not and will not solve the problems.

Enter the FOURTH GREAT AWAKENING. While church membership in the U.S. actually grew in the 1940s and 1950s, it fell off afterwards. Between 1970-2000, church membership in established denominations actually DECREASED by 25%. At the same time the enthusiastic religions more than doubled in the U.S. (and grew by an astounding 250,000,000 in South America and Asia).

The Moral Majority initiated the current religious awakening but was found to be too narrow in focus and intolerant. The CHRISTIAN COALITION has proven to be more flexible and political in nature, and therefore more successful. In Fogel's opinion, the Christian Coalition will dominate American politics for the next 50-60 years if they:

(1) understand they are a POLITICAL MOVEMENT~

(2) can form coalitions on key issues to move their agenda~

(3) can produce real gains for their adherents based on the concept of personal responsibility.

The LIBERALS (Fogel calls them Social Gosplers of the THIRD AWAKENING) will fight a rear guard action, especially in public education and the universities,

[cricket]

Thanks for links; hope anyone who has kids in college. . .high school. . .or grown-up kids, or friends and family with the above, or just friends and family. . .will share these links as well.

The truth is 'out there'; but it is not 'out there'.

Do think Conservatives in Media should take this as a challenge as well; this is a myth that should never have been allowed to become one. . .

[Remedy]

>>>The deep Nazi antipathy to Christianity and civilization, which, in much of Europe, meant practically the same thing, is particularly illuminating. Hitler despised these things: he said that, "Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure." In fact, Hitler and the Nazis wanted nothing less than the "re-barbarization" of the German people. The esteemed German historian Hajo Holborn wrote that "Anti-Semitism was the major instrument in this policy of barbarization. Through the vilification, torture, and mass murder of the Jews the ruthlessness was produced that Hitler wanted to inculcate in his followers." <<<

I don't claim that Darwin and his theory of evolution brought on the holocaust;but I cannot deny that the theory of evolution, and the atheism it engendered, led to the moral climate that made a holocaust possible"
Jewish scholar Edward Simon ⁽¹⁾

Darwin at Nuremberg I

Darwin at Nuremberg II

Darwin at Nuremberg III

[XRdsRev]

The simple 5 point model of the Political Spectrum has always amused me. How this model has gained wide acceptance is beyond me.

A common 5 point model is as follows

(left) communist - socialist - classic liberal - capitalist - fascist (right)

The 5 point model does not stand up to scrutiny in several factors.

Economic - if Communism (complete government economic control) is at the far left end of the spectrum it would be expected that an opposite ideology of no government control of the economy would be on the right. Instead however, we find 2 similar collectivist ideologies each anchoring opposite ends of the spectrum. This seems to contradict common sense. Fascism by it's very nature is a collectivist ideology based on the individuals deference to the power and will of the state. This by definition eliminates any chance of a free economic system. While modern Fascist states have not excercised complete control over business and private enterprise, they have in all examples, retained extraordinary government control over "strategic industries" much like a standard Socialist system does. In terms of economy, fascism should be at or near the far left end of the political spectrum, not the right.

Social - Again we have 2 collectivist ideologies anchoring opposite ends of the political spectrum. Both restrict the rights of the individual in deference to the will of the state and devalue the civil liberties of citizens within these systems. Common sense dictates yet again that these similar ideologies should not be on opposite poles of the political spectrum, yet they are so placed. I would argue that yet again, fascism should be moved from right to left to reflect it's inate similarity to the basic tenets of communism as regards the rights of the individual in a society.

Religion - Both Communism and Fascism are founded in a renunciation of religious dogma. Particularly, they reflect a backlash against Christian beliefs that the individual is beholding to a higher power, not to a manmade political entity. Freedom of religion are not strongpoints of either ideology yet they are placed along the political spectrum in a fashion that would indicate there is a world of difference between them. Again I would argue that Fascism should be moved far to the left to better reflect its common ground with Communism.

A Spectrum is usually created with some type of balance in mind. I would argue that those who hold to the 5 point model of the politcal spectrum do not in fact achieve balance. I would make the case for better balance by expanding the orientation and size of the model, moving Fascist to the left (between Communist and Socialist) and inserting (American style) Libertarian at the far right of the spectrum.

Just my 2 cents.

Have a great day !

[First_Salute]

Yep. The differences between Stalin and Hitler, were a matter of "cultural taste," while politically, they were the same guy.

Hitler stands out, because his approach to solving problems was, you might say, "over-enthusiastic." He made a production out of it.

Where Stalin's forte was to kill millions by simply mowing them down, under the cover of having bothered to establish a world-wide media hegemony.

Stalin [has] had many friends willing to be his alibi, not to mention the millions vouching for his "fine character" --- most of those supporters being in high places in the West.

In the U.S.A., look around, you can still see them on the curb, protesting [too much] for Stalin.

When their depravity recognizes no difference between Stalin and Hitler.

[moneyrunner]

Your thesis if wrong because you don’t understand German culture during the late part of the 19th century and the early part of the 20th century.

Conservatives in Germany during this period were not analogous to conservatives in modern America (i.e. supporters of capitalism and free enterprise). They were Royalists, supporters of the monarchy.

The ordinary German people were shell-shocked by the War, were destitute, their country occupied by foreign armies and with governments that offered no solutions to their problems.

Hitler was one of a large number of marginal politicians who promoted their ideas in beer hall lectures.

If you will read his own words in Mein Kampf, he despised the “Right.” He hated the aristocracy and had no use for the old order. He did possess the ability to speak extemporaneously and with great feeling and was able to attract large crowds. Like modern Leftists, he had the ability to vilify the opposition. He is the model for the modern Leftist ranting about the Right-wingers who want to lynch homosexuals, enslave Blacks, invade your bedroom and fight wars to enrich the oil companies.

He also realized that he needed a group of thugs who would protect his meetings from his rivals. Political meetings often attracted opponents who attended for the express purpose of breaking it up with violence. They served a double duty, breaking up the meetings of the opposition.

The people who joined his groups were primarily out-of-work ex-soldiers. The most interesting thing about many of his adherents was that they were often communist thugs who switched allegiances. Both Nazis and Communists hated the aristocracy, the “plutocrats” and the old order and wanted to tear it down. They had many more goals in common than they had differences. If is precisely because of that they they fought like scorpions in a bottle. Civil wars are always they bloodiest wars.

Hitler did receive financial support from sources that are assumed to be right wing, because of their status in society, occupation or similar substitutes for ideological identification. But as we can see in our own country, those markers are often wildly wrong. Some of the richest people in our country are Leftists: Ted Turner, Bill Gates, George Soros and 99% of the mega-millionaire Hollywood stars. Most of our wealthy foundations (Ford, Rockefeller, etc) are bastions of the Left. Religion is assumed to be a marker of conservatism, but isn’t the National Council of Churches politically Left-wing? Are governmental organizations bastions of conservatism? To ask the question is to answer it. How about the assumption that the military is conservative? Well, Wesley Clark has just thrown his hat in the ring as a Democratic presidential contender. And let’s not forget that Jimmy Carter graduated from Annapolis.

Finally the accusation about conservatives being uniquely anti-Semitic is a libel. Not only should that vile slander be put to rest by the actions of the Left throughout the world in their openly anti-Semitic demonstrations today, but history does not support this lie about the past. It was primarily committed Christians in Nazi occupied Europe who risked their lives in providing hiding places for Jews. The others were too busy saving their own skin.

[LiteKeeper]

read later