The Nazi Party and Socialism

[Sodfather]

Hey,

I've been traipsing through The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich for a few chapters, and Shirer has me a bit confused with respect to the National Socialist German Workers' Party.

Shirer recounts that the Nazi party ran on a platform which relied heavily on putting the blame for the despised Weimar Republic on the German Social Democrat Party and on declaiming the GSDP in its entirety.

First of all, what is socialist about a party which forms a republic? Is the notion that socialism traditionally doesn't involve much autonomy in my mind a serious misconception?

Secondly, how did Hitler and his cronies debase the GSDP whilst pushing their own similarly-socialist agenda? For God's sake, "Social" and "Socialist" are in each name...How different could they be?

These questions will almost certainly be answered as I read a bit more into the book, but I figured why not give someone here who knows the answer a chance to use their precious knowledge.

[G. Adams]

Germany's SDP is one of the oldest left political parties in the world. It was created at a time when nobody was using the word communist, and the workers movements in each country were still quite broad, 'big tent' style (as in multi factioned rather than factionalist). Most of the socialist parties were called Social Democrat, including the Russian Social Democratic Party (which split into Menshivik and Bolshevik, and then the Bolshies renamed themself the Communist Party after the revolution).

The effect of this means that the GSDP was born out of many different strands of socialism, from the democratic 'Fabian' style to the hardest line revolutionaries. Over time, the revolutionaries got impatient, and left to form new parties, particularly after the October Revolution.

So this meant the GSDP was a democratic socialist party, wanting to reform society over time towards socialism. One of the first steps it would have to take is overthrowing the German monarchy, the Kaisers. So, when he abdicated, the government formed the Weimar Republic. This means greater democracy, thus society is one step closer to socialism.

On a side note, Social Democrat Parties of that time, up the end of WWII I'd say, are oddly enough not supporters of Social Democracy. They are broad parties from democratic socialists to militants, but no closer to the centre than that. More recently, mainstream left-wing parties support social democracy, that is to say, capitalism moderated by social policies. The Social (I love democrats ) Parties today, including the GSDP, are social democrats, however.

Hitler was, as you'll know, entirely authoritarian. He felt that democracy was for the weak, and that a democratic society becomes decedant, corrupt, wasteful. So he blamed many of Germany's ills on the end of the monarchy, which was the GSDP's fault, as instead of pushing for a Republic, they could have brought in a new monarch (theres always plenty of royals lying around in Europe, Kaiser Wilhelm II himself was the son of Queen Vicoria of GB's niece).

I'm not suggesting your naiive, I know your not, but you do understand that people may claim to be one thing while not being so? The National Socialist Workers Party of Germany, which was the German Workers Party, was never actually "socialist". If you look into socialism you see certain primary principles, such as internationalism and brotherhood of man, as well as the overthrow of capitalism. These themes were never part of the German Workers Party's ideology, or the National Socialists. They were a "workers party" in that the majority of the party, to begin with, were working class. The impoverished German workers were desperate, and the only groups offering clear answers were the fringe groups, the communists (take a look into Rosa Luxemberg) and new revolutionary reactionary groups. The German Workers Party was one of the revolutionary reactionary parties. It was pro-worker only that it was pro-German Worker.

When Hitler came to the party, it was dominated by the SA, it's revolutionary wing, ran by Ernst Rohm. This part was pro-German Worker. After Hitlers failed Munich Putch he wanted to reform it. Instead of favouring revolution, he wanted to go through the democratic process he so despised. This meant appealing to a wider group of people in order to get donations and votes, which meant attracting the middle and upper classes. Hitler finally destroyed any remnants of "workerism" in his party on the Night of the Long Knives, where he dissolved the SA, executing many members including Rohm. This action was in order to show the middle and upper classes that the NS party was not socialist, and also to gain the support of the military, who thought of the SA as nothing more than violent thugs.

Nationalism and Socialism are two concepts that oppose each other. Socialism is always international, seeing borders as further means of dividing the working class, a method employed by the rich to divide and rule, to turn the working class onto each other (as it is the workers who do the real fighting in war) when they should be fighting the rich. The use of Socialism in National Socialism is simply an advertising ploy, and a concession to the SA wing of the party when Hitler was securing control of the party. It has nothing to do with it's ideology.

[PatrickHenry]

I have no better analysis than yours, G Adams. One minor item: Socialism and National Socialism(Nazism) both look to the STATE for solutions to problems. I prefer to depend on free markets(no, not regulated ones) that are monitored to prevent predatory practices that unfairly target smaller competitors. The STATE is a means of tyranny when it is asked to solve every problem. The POWER to do so is a corrupting influence on those who wield it and ruin follows the power-grab. Individual rights are not highly respected in Statist systems. Hegel in practice...

[G. Adams]

I agree on the side note, but only when socialism is applied to national government, many socialists feel that it's principles should be brought down to the community level government. This allows local control of life and industry by the local community. Which in theory prevents tyranny, because it's easy to overthrow a city council, unlike a national government.

[Sodfather]

First of all, let me thank you for donating time to that awesome post, G.

Secondly, allow me to ask a few more questions.

Originally posted by G. Adams, Hitler finally destroyed any remnants of "workerism" in his party on the Night of the Long Knives, where he dissolved the SA, executing many members including Rohm. This action was in order to show the middle and upper classes that the NS party was not socialist, and also to gain the support of the military, who thought of the SA as nothing more than violent thugs.

Okay...

1. When you say that he destroyed workerism, is this before or after his being given chancellorship? As I recall, the NSGWP's 25 Points were manufactured solely upon the premise that the support of the entire worker class must be gained in toto by means of a catch-all platform. So I'm guessing Hitler only ditched these points after being elected.

2. I am very early in the book as I've said, and haven't gotten to the disbandment of the SA. But, I was under the impression that the SA was a major indicator of the military's support of Hitler as it was comprised of solely ex-militarymen, right?

3. From what I've read, Shirer hints that the SA was not only used for practical purposes like breaking up opposing parties' conventions, but also for projecting an image of a strong party to the German people as that was what they truly desired. I find it hard to believe that citizens seeing rampant freebooters making raids in a major German city worked to the advantage of Hitler and his GWP cronies.

Thanks, again. I think after these questions I'll go back to reading the book.

[G. Adams]

Originally posted by Sodfather,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Sodfather,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>First of all, let me thank you for donating time to that awesome post, G. Secondly, allow me to ask a few more questions. <!--QuoteBegin-G. Adams, Hitler finally destroyed any remnants of "workerism" in his party on the Night of the Long Knives, where he dissolved the SA, executing many members including Rohm.  This action was in order to show the middle and upper classes that the NS party was not socialist, and also to gain the support of the military, who thought of the SA as nothing more than violent thugs.

Okay...

1. When you say that he destroyed workerism, is this before or after his being given chancellorship? As I recall, the NSGWP's 25 Points were manufactured solely upon the premise that the support of the entire worker class must be gained in toto by means of a catch-all platform. So I'm guessing Hitler only ditched these points after being elected.

2. I am very early in the book as I've said, and haven't gotten to the disbandment of the SA. But, I was under the impression that the SA was a major indicator of the military's support of Hitler as it was comprised of solely ex-militarymen, right?

3. From what I've read, Shirer hints that the SA was not only used for practical purposes like breaking up opposing parties' conventions, but also for projecting an image of a strong party to the German people as that was what they truly desired. I find it hard to believe that citizens seeing rampant freebooters making raids in a major German city worked to the advantage of Hitler and his GWP cronies.

Thanks, again. I think after these questions I'll go back to reading the book. [/b][/quote]

I'll admit I had to do a little research here myself to clarify. I used this http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERnight.htm as my refresher.

The Night of the Long Knives happened after Hitler took the Chancellorship.

Roehm was hated by the German military leaders for a number of reasons. As is stated in the link, Roehm controlled the SA, an organisation far outnumbering the actual military. As well as obvious jealousy, they feared under Hitler they would simply fade into the SA, and they would lose their own power. Secondly, Roehm's SA was created as a revolutionary force of mostly poor people. The German military leadership was dominated by conservative, authoritarian traditionalists, who politically are quite diametrically opposed to the SA. And although minor in itself, it's influence was great; Roehm was widely percieved as being gay. His opponents had been trying to discredit him for being gay "would you want your 14yr old son in his organisation..." As Hitler was trying to consolidate power, he had to sacrifice Roehm for wider gains.

The SA, as best I know, was not totally ex-militarymen. The Frierkorps is a better example of such a group. The SA did have a vast contingent of ex-military, but it must also have included many others, simply to achieve the size it did (3 million).

I can't say for sure, but in my personal opinion, Hitler did want to project that image through the SA to begin with. In Hitlers eyes, greatness comes through struggle and warfare, so the SA would be a perfect tool for such things. I think, however, Hitler realised that few others agreed with him, in practice anyway. So he dumped the street thugs of the SA, and redirected this image through the SS.

On top of everything, Roehm was a powerful guy. At the time, if he had seen it coming, he could have easily stopped Hitler and took Germany for himself, but he was blind and loyal.