Nazism

[timbaly]

Many people say Nazism is nationalism but can it truly be called that? The philosophy wasabout trying to amke a nordic dominated world. Many germans were not Nordics and the nordic people did not have a unified nation so can you call this nationalism? Adolf Hitler also said this somewhat shocking quote which I can't remember now. Hopefully one of you can supply it for me. Towards the end of the war he said something like, I wonder whether or not the German people were ready for my plans. Would a nationalist leader believe that his superior nation of people could be unworthy? I suppose Nazism is a combination of both Nationalism and Internationalism. It's nationalism because it tried to create a nordic state with people having extreme loyalties to it. It also made the Nordics in Germany feel superior to other people of other nations and it made people extremely loyal to Germany. It's internationalism because it wanted to unite the nordics under one nation by interfereing with other nations. It's goal was to unite nordics like communisms goal is to unite workers of all nations. That aspect of Nazism is internationalist in a similar way Communism is.

So what are your opinions on this? I'm sure some people will disagree.

[Man in the White Shirt]

I would disagree that the Internationalist goals of Nazism share any common bond with those of Communism. Firstly, one of the principle reason for the early invasions by the Nazis (Poland, Norway, parts of Eastern Europe) was to ensure the safety of so-called "ethics", or Germans living outside of Germany. This holds one group of people, Germans, over the head of others: Slavs, Gypies, Poles, and in this bears no similarity to Communims, in which the goal of liberation is to free the people from the wage slavery imposed on them by the ruling class. The one thing to remeber is that the ruling class is not different in the way their "race" is procieved, they are seem merely as a small minority waving the vast majority of power, not as racially inferior. Ror this reason the Nazi invasions are the direct opposite what a communist liberation invasion would be for.

Also along this vein, the Nazis invaded other nations, namely Russia, for "living space". There were very few, if any, Germans living in Russia in 1940, or today for that matter. Rather then fight a war of liberation, many Nazi wars were fought with economic motives in mind. Any wars fought by communist before the entire world accepts communism would, hopefully, be a war of liberation, not conquest for resources.

Secondly, the goal of Communism is not one giant nation, as much as the world made up of areas (my guess is that many countries would be reduce to much smaller units) working together in a lose confederation. Again race is of no importance this confederation, another important difference.

Finally, the quote about the Germans not being ready for Hitler's "great" idea could be said about any nation under a very charismic or radical leader. The same could be said that the Russian people where not ready for Stalin's 5 year plans, or the North Korea people are not ready for his own brand of "genius", it is just a fact of most revolutionary, or extremly reactionary, societies.

I'm not sure this helps much, but I gave it a shot, maybe I was not ready for your "radical" question comrade.

[redstar2000]

Actually Hitler's verdict on the Germans was much harsher. At the very moment that his bunker was shaking under the pounding of Russian artillery, he is supposed to have remarked that the Slavs had proven themselves to be "the superior race".

Hitler's racialism was rent with contradictions...it was never really much more than a patchwork theory. Even other, more "scientific" racialists, thought Hitler's ideas to be ludicrous.

When Hitler went on trial in 1925 for the Munich putsch, a "racial expert" was called to testify, and pointed out that Hitler himself was clearly "a specimen of an inferior race".

The Berlin joke at the time of Hitler's rise to power went something like "Yes, the master race, blond like Hitler, tall like Goebbels, slim like Goering!"

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[timbaly]

I wasn't saying that communism and nazism are similar, I was just using communism as an example of internationalism. I'm also saying that nazism has internationalist parts to it as well. Uniting the non-german aryans with the german aryans is part was part of nazism. So the non-germans were not members of the same nation, yet were said to be on an equal level as those german aryans, this is an internationalist idea not, nationalist because not all aryans belonged to the same nation.

[timbaly]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2003, 10:08 PM
Actually Hitler's verdict on the Germans was much harsher. At the very moment that his bunker was shaking under the pounding of Russian artillery, he is supposed to have remarked that the Slavs had proven themselves to be "the superior race".
Where did you hear that? Do you have a source?

[Guest1]

actually, internationalism doesn't mean spreading to other nations. it means disregarding race or nationality. nazism was the opposite. so no, it was nationalism. in fact the idea of attacking other countries to unite the "nordics" as you refer to them for some reason (I thought he called them aryans) is further proof of nationalism.

[(*]

Hitler created nationalist sentiment across Germany.

I wouldn't say nazism is nationalism
but rather nazism creatednationalism

[redstar2000]

Timbaly, I believe it's mentioned in several histories with titles like "Hitler's Last 10 Days", "The Last Days of the Third Reich", "The Fall of Berlin", etc. I wish I could be more specific...it's been a while since I did any reading on the subject. You can see I'm even guessing at the titles.

I think there were also a couple of memoirs written by Hitler's (female) secretaries/typists after the end of the war in which Hitler's comment was mentioned...apparently a lot of people either heard him say it or heard about it in the Bunker before the surrender of Berlin.

In addition, there's the plausibility factor; it sounds like something he would have said. Since war is the "real measure" of "racial superiority", defeat in war "signifies" racial inferiority...particularly since Hitler could not claim that Germany was "stabbed in the back" (his "explanation" for German defeat in World War I).

I apologize for such an inadequate response; if you wish, I can try to find the quote on the internet.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[timbaly]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 23 2003, 02:19 AM
actually, internationalism doesn't mean spreading to other nations. it means disregarding race or nationality. nazism was the opposite.
But it does disregard nationality because aryans of other nationalities were alegedly equal to their German counterparts. It doesn't disregard race, so it isn't completely internationalist, but it isn't completely nationalist either. I would say it was a mixture, closer to nationalism.

[timbaly]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2003, 09:19 AM
Timbaly, I believe it's mentioned in several histories with titles like "Hitler's Last 10 Days", "The Last Days of the Third Reich", "The Fall of Berlin", etc. I wish I could be more specific...it's been a while since I did any reading on the subject. You can see I'm even guessing at the titles.
Now that you mention the book "The Last Days of the Third Reich", I remember hearing a quote similar to what you mentioned. I'm not actually sure if it's the right title myself, but it is defenitely similar. I'll do the searchs myself, thanks for the information.

[Bodyguard]

Originally posted by timbaly+Oct 27 2003, 02:42 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (timbaly @ Oct 27 2003, 02:42 AM)
[email protected] 23 2003, 09:19 AM
Timbaly, I believe it&#39;s mentioned in several histories with titles like "Hitler&#39;s Last 10 Days", "The Last Days of the Third Reich", "The Fall of Berlin", etc. I wish I could be more specific...it&#39;s been a while since I did any reading on the subject. You can see I&#39;m even guessing at the titles.
Now that you mention the book "The Last Days of the Third Reich", I remember hearing a quote similar to what you mentioned. I&#39;m not actually sure if it&#39;s the right title myself, but it is defenitely similar. I&#39;ll do the searchs myself, thanks for the information. [/b]
Just for the boards info William L Shrirer&#39;s "Rise and fall of the third reich" Is probably the definitive work on the subject. An excellent book......to read it is to truly understand the Nazi..

[Don't Change Your Name]

Well nazism was imperialist nationalism based on the concept that there was a dominating race which had a fatherland that they tried to expand, becuase as they thought they were better, they had to own the rest of the world.

[Karelmarx]

I&#39;m surprised that no-one yet has brought up the fact that naziism is actutally short for National Socialism. It seems as though we can ignore the word socialism, because the notion that naziism was at all liked to socialism is rubbish. This is not entirely true. The "Nation" that Hitler envisioned would be socialist in nature for the arians. Other races would be like pack animals are viewed in our world, for after all, the Nazis did see other races as on the border between human and animal.
Could Hitler not have been a "nationalist" for this "Nation"? Can&#39;t a Kurd be a Kurdish nationalist, even if he is a Turkish citizen?

P.S. Haven&#39;t you heard of the so called Arian Nation?

[timbaly]

Can&#39;t a Kurd be a Kurdish nationalist, even if he is a Turkish citizen?

Thats a good point, it makes a lot of sense. You can be a nationalist that does not have a nation the same way Kurds and those nationalists in Chechenya.

I have a question that relates to this in a way. What would you call Robert E. Lee who fought for the south in the american civil war. He wasn&#39;t pro-slavery yet he fought for the south because he felt he had an obligation to the state of virginia. Would you call him a "stateist" or a southern nationalist or something else?

[Soviet power supreme]

Of course nazism is internationalism.

ARIANS OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE.

[Karelmarx]

That Robert E. Lee question is good. I&#39;m not quite sure about the answer though. I guess in his oppinion the Confederated States of America was its own nation, so in that regard, yes he was a nationalist. On the other hand nationalists often seek unity of individual ethnicities. While this is not a rule, it is common. One could hardly classify Southerners as an ethnicity. One could hardly classify Americans as a whole as an ethnicity. This is where my understanding of the sick, twisted, racialist mind ends. I would very much like to hear other oppinions.

[Saint-Just]

I do not think the Nazis would have claimed to be internationalist. Their ideology was largely based around what would benefit Germany. There is an element of international fraternity between Aryans. You could call it racial internationalism, that may make their movement internationalist in a some sense, but certainly not progressive in its internationalism.