Why Didn't the US Support Hitler?

[Jason]

Considering they supported every fascist after the war. :confused:

[Blake's Baby]

Because war is rarely about ideology - else, why did the US enter WWII on the same side as Stalin?

'Every fascist after the war' is code for 'every government not allied to the Soviet Union' isn't it?

[greenjuice]

I remember Chomsky mentioning in some interview how the State Department in the 1930s had in some official document a evalution of Hitler as a moderate politician and a usefull asset for subduing the socialist worker movement in Europe, something like, but I guess that was their view about every fascist government. I also vaguely remember that the USA (or was it the UK, maymbe more probably them) sent aid to Franco to fight the leftist revolution.

[FinnMcCool]

Perhaps Hitler threatened US power.
In order for the US to maintain global hegemony it has to control the worlds main oil producing regions, Hitler threatened this and came precariously close to controlling the energy resources in the caucasus and the middle east at the same time

[Red Banana]

'Every fascist after the war' is code for 'every government not allied to the Soviet Union' isn't it?

I'm not sure he meant that.

To answer the OP, it's because Hitler was the bigger threat. The Nazis proved to be viable competition for the bourgeois democracies over the the Russians, which isn't surprising given how much more developed Germany was at the time.

I believe there's a quote from President Truman that says something to the effect of "if the Germans are winning, help the Russians; if the Russians are winning help the Germans. Let them kill as many of eachother as possible."

[Os Cangaceiros]

Considering they supported every fascist after the war. :confused:

I don't think that the military juntas and dictatorships post-ww2 were really "fascist" (although maybe exceptions could be made for the fascism-influenced states on the Iberian peninsula).

[Sasha]

I don't think that the military juntas and dictatorships post-ww2 were really "fascist" (although maybe exceptions could be made for the fascism-influenced states on the Iberian peninsula).

yeah, the only that come to mind are franco (although that started pre-ww2), maybe salazar (again pre-dated ww2), the only post WW2 president i can think of who could be accused of something akin to fascism was Peron and he was at times virulently opposed by the US.

[Blake's Baby]

I think the original question has more to do with military juntas (Guatemala, El Salvador, Argentina, Chile, Paraguay) and states like Israel and South Africa where part of the population was brutally subgegated than actual 'fascist' countries.

[Yazman]

Perhaps Hitler threatened US power.
In order for the US to maintain global hegemony it has to control the worlds main oil producing regions, Hitler threatened this and came precariously close to controlling the energy resources in the caucasus and the middle east at the same time

Except in the 1930s and 1940s the US didn't have any global hegemony to maintain. It wasn't until after the war that they began to develop that.

[Luís Henrique]

Except in the 1930s and 1940s the US didn't have any global hegemony to maintain. It wasn't until after the war that they began to develop that.

Exactly. Always nice to see some historic perspective restablished.

Luís Henrique

[Art Vandelay]

Considering they supported every fascist after the war. :confused:

Because it wasn't in the interests of capital. WWII was an inter-imperialist conflict after all.

[Sasha]

Except in the 1930s and 1940s the US didn't have any global hegemony to maintain. It wasn't until after the war that they began to develop that.


Exactly. Always nice to see some historic perspective restablished.

Luís Henrique

Actually the US did get only properly involved because their hegemony got threatened, their hegemony in the pacific though and threatenend by Japan. Without that they probably would not have got as stuck in in Europe as they did. The wounds of WWI where still raw and there was a lot of opposition against another bloody adventure in the old world, but they needed to support England all the way if they wanted help from the comonwealth against Japan. Hence also the persistent stories that the US let pearlharbor intentionally happen even though they where warned it was coming

[rolfwar]

Actually the US did get only properly involved because their hegemony got threatened, their hegemony in the pacific though and threatenend by Japan. Without that they probably would not have got as stuck in in Europe as they did. The wounds of WWI where still raw and there was a lot of opposition against another bloody adventure in the old world, but they needed to support England all the way if they wanted help from the comonwealth against Japan. Hence also the persistent stories that the US let pearlharbor intentionally happen even though they where warned it was coming

Indeed. Do not forget that the Philippines were de facto a US colony.
That's why they entered the war only in 1941: because by the date of the Attack on Pearl Harbor it was clear that the japanese and american interests were in conflict.

[Blake's Baby]

But it wasn't clear US and German interests were in conflict.

The USA didn't have to declare war on Germany just because Germany and Japan were both fighting Britain. The Soviet Union didn't declare war on Japan until August 1945, having signed a peace-treaty with them in April 1941 (two months before the Germans attacked the USSR). America could have taken the same stance - war with Japan, but not Germany.

[p0is0n]

Wasn't it Germany that declared war on USA, rather than vice-versa?

[Bronco]

But it wasn't clear US and German interests were in conflict.

The USA didn't have to declare war on Germany just because Germany and Japan were both fighting Britain. The Soviet Union didn't declare war on Japan until August 1945, having signed a peace-treaty with them in April 1941 (two months before the Germans attacked the USSR). America could have taken the same stance - war with Japan, but not Germany.

They kinda did have to after Germany declared war on the USA though. The only reason the Soviet Union could avoid war with both nations was because they were excluded from the Tripartite Pact which agreed Germany, Italy and Japan would all assist each other if one of the three were at war.

War with Japan did necessitate war with Germany

[Blake's Baby]

Well, there you go then. That's why the US fought Germany, because Germany declared war on the US following the British, American and Chinese declaration of war on Japan (editted from 'Germany' that I put in by mistake) in December 1941.

[Invader Zim]

Well, there are several potential reasons for this: I'll let revlefters pick their favorite:

1. Common culture, history and language. This predisposed a large number of Americans to favour Britain over Germany.

2. The Nazi regime. US popular opinion, towards Germany was soured by Nazi militaristic expansionism and violent antisemitism.

3. Economics. While the US had economic ties to both Britain and Germany, the link between Britain was stronger.

4. Cloaks and Daggers. MI6, not the Abwehr, won the covert war in the US - blackmailing, playing dirty tricks on and neutralizing key pro-German political elements within the US.

5. Strategic bombing. Nazi Germany became increasingly unpopular as the war progressed, in no small part because it switched its targets from those of military importance, to those designed to damage civilian morale and infastructure - the Blitz. This did not look good in US News paper headlines and increased sympathy for Britain.

6. The declaration of war. It was not he US that declared war on Germany, rather Germany declared war on the US.

[RadioRaheem84]

It should also be noted that the US does support fascist like dictators only to oppose them later. Saddam Hussien comes to mind post-WWII. He was a fascistic dictator when he was punishing communists and acting as a proxy state against neighboring Iran but after he decided to go his own route and seek his own national course, the US declared him worse than Hitler.

The threw Suharto under the bus too. Pinochet as well as Marcos. Mubarak today.

I mean the US would always prefer a rickety corrupt bougeoise "democracy" over dictatorship but that doesn't always pan out. When it has an elite in line dedicated to free trade and Western interests it will gladly topple a ruthless dictator and promote the image in front of the world that they support "democracy".

[Invader Zim]

Except in the 1930s and 1940s the US didn't have any global hegemony to maintain. It wasn't until after the war that they began to develop that.

Ummm... no. The US certainly had a considerable economic global hegemony following the First World War, which is why the Wall Street Crash did not just lead to a depression in the US, but was, in fact, a global depression. The fact is that a large number of major European economies were built on debt owed to the US - and those debts were called in.

[Invader Zim]

Well, there you go then. That's why the US fought Germany, because Germany declared war on the US following the British, American and Chinese declaration of war on Germany in December 1941.

This doesn't make a lot of sense. Firstly, it currently suggests that the Allies, Britain, America and China declared war on Germany in 1941. Which is true of two of them, not the third. Secondly, Germany declared war on the US after the US declared war on Germany? No.

Your post is confusing.

[Sasha]

i think he meant it to say;
Well, there you go then. That's why the US fought Germany, because Germany declared war on the US following the British, American and Chinese declaration of war on Germany japan in December 1941.

[l'Enfermé]

After the first World War, the US took a rather isolationist policy regarding European affairs, its expansionism was confined mostly to the Pacific and South America. But anyway, "why did the US not aid Nazi Germany?" is the wrong question, the right question is "Did the ruling class of the US perceive aiding Germany as the most advantageous course of action in the 1930s and early 1940s?" and the answer is obviously "no". The European powers(and Japan) were the main competitors of the US on the world market. A unification of Europe under Nazi hegemony would have greatly strengthened the position of Europe and undermined that of the US. There would be no gain for the US in supporting Germany. Why would the Americans help found an Empire that would rival their own? On the other hand, American aid to the allies predictably resulted in Western Europe basically becoming an American colony after WWII.

[Geiseric]

Considering they supported every fascist after the war. :confused:
Well many of the biggest monopolies and banks made huge investments into Nazi germany. IBM, the Rothschilds, I think J.P. Morgan, I even remember Hitler having a life sized portrait of Henry Ford in his main office. Britain gave a bunch of colonies to the U.S. on top of the pacific colonies gained by waging war on Japan, a fun fact is that the U.S. knew Pearl Harbor was going to happen a few days ahead of time, and chose not to do anything about it.

Capitalism doesn't recognize borders, and the U.S. was very, very, very close to actually siding with Nazi Germany, the down side would of been public opinion, already aggrivated by the growth of the CIO, and that many people wouldn't of tolerated an invasion of the USSR, again.

[Hermes]

Didn't the U.S. also send quite a bit of support to Britain during and after WW1, creating quite a bit of debt that they were eager to get back?


Britain gave a bunch of colonies to the U.S. on top of the pacific colonies gained by waging war on Japan, a fun fact is that the U.S. knew Pearl Harbor was going to happen a few days ahead of time, and chose not to do anything about it.

Eh, I'm not sure about this. They were intercepting Japanese intelligence at the time, and many of the documents they encoded pointed towards an attack somewhere in the future. If I remember correctly, though, it was spread out over so many transmissions and the decoding was done with so many people, that they lost the message for the intelligence.

Again, my memory's fairly faulty so I might be wrong on both counts.

[KurtFF8]

Considering they supported every fascist after the war. :confused:

Part of it probably has to do with the fact that Germany, under Hitler's leadership, declared war on the United States.

[RadioRaheem84]

If the crimes of the Nazis were so abhorent and they convicted them all in a much celebrated trial, why retain a lot of them and use their skills as scientists, doctors and key military figures to fight the cold war?

Why send them to places like Chile and Bolivia to oversee CIA operations against guerillas? I mean sure we fought the Nazis but our collaboration with them is still well documented after the War.

I mean what we did to Greece shortly after WWII was an abomination. Literally support fascists after the people ousted them in not even half a decade earlier.

[RadioRaheem84]

Part of it probably has to do with the fact that Germany, under Hitler's leadership, declared war on the United States.

Had Germany not declared War on the US, would the US have remained neutral for long though?

Also, the geopolitics of all this seems to be not too different with what's going on now. I mean we will support dictators of any stripe if our interests meet with theirs, if not we will topple them.

The US government had no qualms using Nazi personel after the War, nor has any qualms about employing Islamic radicals and war lords if it meant ousting the Soviets from Afghanistan, so we shouldn't be too enamoured with the US to think they would've never aligned with the Nazis.

[Blake's Baby]

This doesn't make a lot of sense. Firstly, it currently suggests that the Allies, Britain, America and China declared war on Germany in 1941. Which is true of two of them, not the third. Secondly, Germany declared war on the US after the US declared war on Germany? No.

Your post is confusing.

D'oh! You're quite right, my mistake, I meant declared war on Japan. Which was allied to Germany.

And thanks to psycho for picking that up long before I did.

I'll go back and alter the original.

[Blake's Baby]

Well many of the biggest monopolies and banks made huge investments into Nazi germany. IBM, the Rothschilds, I think J.P. Morgan, I even remember Hitler having a life sized portrait of Henry Ford in his main office. Britain gave a bunch of colonies to the U.S. on top of the pacific colonies gained by waging war on Japan, a fun fact is that the U.S. knew Pearl Harbor was going to happen a few days ahead of time, and chose not to do anything about it.

Capitalism doesn't recognize borders, and the U.S. was very, very, very close to actually siding with Nazi Germany, the down side would of been public opinion, already aggrivated by the growth of the CIO, and that many people wouldn't of tolerated an invasion of the USSR, again.

My understanding is that the Bank of England was underwriting Reichsbank loans as late as 1943, and a good many arms firms were selling to both sides. It's arguable that until 1936, Britain was likely to ally with the Nazis. Between 1934-9, elements in the ruling class began to move to a position against the Nazis; from 1934, the Daily mail no longer supported Mosley's Blackshirts; in 1936 the battle of Cable Street was fought between Fascists and Jewish anti-fascists and CPGB supporters, and Edward VIII (with his pro-Nazi sympathies) was forced to abdicate, at the same time as the British were playing a double game by discouraging French moves to interve on behalf of the Spanish Republic; but even when war broke out, Neville Chamberlain was PM and represented the pro-German faction of the British ruling class.

On the subject of Nazi atrocities - most of them were not generally known about until after the war (though a few people in intelligence services and government may have known). The existence of the death camps was only a rumour in the West; Auschwitz was liberated by the Russians in January 1945, Belsen (which wasn't a death camp, but had had tens of thousands of prisoners from Poland evecuated to it in the last months of the war) by the British in April 1945. What we think of as one of the main justifications for the war wasn't even generally known until the very end of the war in Europe.

[YugoslavSocialist]

The UK and France originally supported Hitler during the Munich agreement. Because Hitler was seen as a ally against the Left so they wanted Hitler to attack east to destroy the Soviet Union. But when Hitler attacked west and occupied France and bombed UK then the US went against Hitler.

[Luís Henrique]

Actually the US did get only properly involved because their hegemony got threatened, their hegemony in the pacific though and threatenend by Japan.

The US was certainly a serious contender for world hegemony in 1940, and was certainly hegemonic in the Americas as a whole. They were very far from being the only contender for hegemony, though. After 1945, their relation to the rest of the imperialist countries was radically changed; they were the clear hegemon, and all others were clearly subjected to their hegemony.

Even in the Pacific, the US was certainly not the only contender for hegemony, though of course it was much closer to it than in the world as a whole.

Luís Henrique

[Os Cangaceiros]

On the subject of Nazi atrocities - most of them were not generally known about until after the war (though a few people in intelligence services and government may have known)

The existence of genocide was definitely known about in the US state. The exact specifics of what was happening may have been hazy, but Roosevelt and his circle knew that the Nazis were executing a campaign to wipe out European Jewry. (According to a book I read a while back called "The Conquerors" by Michael Beschloss, which talks a lot about this issue and the proposal to bomb Auschwitz, etc).

Some of the people in Roosevelt's circle were very concerned about this issue. Roosevelt wasn't all that concerned about the fate of the Jews, though. Truman was worse. Supposedly he said something about the "Jew boys" (some of the people who had the ear of Roosevelt were of Jewish descent) not being able to call the shots anymore when he assumed the presidency.

[Geiseric]

My understanding is that the Bank of England was underwriting Reichsbank loans as late as 1943, and a good many arms firms were selling to both sides. It's arguable that until 1936, Britain was likely to ally with the Nazis. Between 1934-9, elements in the ruling class began to move to a position against the Nazis; from 1934, the Daily mail no longer supported Mosley's Blackshirts; in 1936 the battle of Cable Street was fought between Fascists and Jewish anti-fascists and CPGB supporters, and Edward VIII (with his pro-Nazi sympathies) was forced to abdicate, at the same time as the British were playing a double game by discouraging French moves to interve on behalf of the Spanish Republic; but even when war broke out, Neville Chamberlain was PM and represented the pro-German faction of the British ruling class.

On the subject of Nazi atrocities - most of them were not generally known about until after the war (though a few people in intelligence services and government may have known). The existence of the death camps was only a rumour in the West; Auschwitz was liberated by the Russians in January 1945, Belsen (which wasn't a death camp, but had had tens of thousands of prisoners from Poland evecuated to it in the last months of the war) by the British in April 1945. What we think of as one of the main justifications for the war wasn't even generally known until the very end of the war in Europe.

Not true, IBM knew about the Halocaust, they made the computers for the record keeping they had in the death camps. Anybody whose read Mein Kamph should of realized that Hitler was up to some crazy shit.

[Sixiang]

The Empire of Japan bombed Pearl Harbor after the U.S. cut off oil supplies to Japan. The U.S. summarily declared war on Japan. Nazi Germany was Japan's ally and a few days later, it and Fascist Italy declared war on the U.S. out of axis alliance.

When the capitalists learned that the fascists weren't just anti-communist and that they would attack the capitalist countries, too, the capitalists wanted to get rid of the fascists.

After the war, when the USSR became the biggest challenge to U.S. hegemony, the US began supporting any anti-communist force against communist or even nominally pro-Soviet forces in the world.

[human strike]

I also vaguely remember that the USA (or was it the UK, maymbe more probably them) sent aid to Franco to fight the leftist revolution.

I've never heard of that and I think it's very unlikely that that happened. The closest Britain came to involvement was stationing several destroyers off the coast of Barcelona during the May Days in 1937, perhaps as posturing but (and maybe not accidentally) it proved politically useful for the Republican government in controlling the workers' movement - this certainly doesn't equate to aid for Franco's fascists though.

[Ostrinski]

The Entente didn't have a dog in the fight in Spain. Franco and the Falange were supported, militarily backed, and armed by the Axis and the Popular Front government of the Republic likewise by the Soviet Union.

I've read the works of Beevor and Thomas on the subject and I don't remember anything about support from the Allies for the Falange, which makes sense because they wouldn't have had any real reason to. I could be forgetting something, though.

It's best to be sure of what you are talking about rather than saying things like "I think I read somewhere.." or "I vaguely remember hearing about..."

[Geiseric]

I know that Texaco sold tons of oil to Franco, under approval by Roosevelt.

[Le Socialiste]

The U.S. did initially support Hitler, but this was due to the immediate class interests of the bourgeoisie whose primary concern was the deliverance of Germany from the predominating effects of revolution and financial insolvency. The November revolution, occurring amidst a general wave of anger and discontent, set off alarm bells throughout Europe and beyond, sparking fears of a repeat of 1917. The German ruling-class was in such disarray that, when sailors revolted against their 'superiors', setting off a powder keg of anti-establishment sentiment, it was immediately thrown on the defensive. And it would remain as such for many years, prior to the NSDAP's arrival on the scene as a legitimate, trustworthy ally of big business and capital. At the core of Hitler's strategy was the overarching goal of destroying the last remaining bulwark against counterrevolution in Germany: the left. He knew it, and the German and American ruling-classes knew it.

The Nazis benefitted greatly from growing reciprocity between German and foreign capital, and enjoyed substantive support amongst business figures in the U.S. and elsewhere. It wasn't until Nazi expansionism began to upset this dynamic that the U.S. and Europe began to view Hitler and the ruling interests he represented as a problem. After all, Hitler and the NSDAP were brought in for the sole purpose of 'saving' German capitalism, which naturally entailed the violent curtailment of working-class resistance and dismantlement of its organizations. In short, Hitler gained the patronage of German and foreign capital because of his virulent hatred of socialism and willingness to act on it. They saw in Hitler a chance to turn the tide, and they took it.

[Geiseric]

The U.S. did initially support Hitler, but this was due to the immediate class interests of the bourgeoisie whose primary concern was the deliverance of Germany from the predominating effects of revolution and financial insolvency. The November revolution, occurring amidst a general wave of anger and discontent, set off alarm bells throughout Europe and beyond, sparking fears of a repeat of 1917. The German ruling-class was in such disarray that, when sailors revolted against their 'superiors', setting off a powder keg of anti-establishment sentiment, it was immediately thrown on the defensive. And it would remain as such for many years, prior to the NSDAP's arrival on the scene as a legitimate, trustworthy ally of big business and capital. At the core of Hitler's strategy was the overarching goal of destroying the last remaining bulwark against counterrevolution in Germany: the left. He knew it, and the German and American ruling-classes knew it.

The Nazis benefitted greatly from growing reciprocity between German and foreign capital, and enjoyed substantive support amongst business figures in the U.S. and elsewhere. It wasn't until Nazi expansionism began to upset this dynamic that the U.S. and Europe began to view Hitler and the ruling interests he represented as a problem. After all, Hitler and the NSDAP were brought in for the sole purpose of 'saving' German capitalism, which naturally entailed the violent curtailment of working-class resistance and dismantlement of its organizations. In short, Hitler gained the patronage of German and foreign capital because of his virulent hatred of socialism and willingness to act on it. They saw in Hitler a chance to turn the tide, and they took it.

Something not known about Hitler is that he was a soldier in the Bavarian uprising, which was crushed, which may of led to his disillusionment, and the beginning of his service for the German government. Hitler was even there in the bavarian soviet.

Anton Drexler, the asshole who helped Hitler form the German Workers Party, was the first one to come up with the capitalist lie that an all encompassing central government equates with Socialism. High school teachers to this day make the same connection.

[Luís Henrique]

I know that Texaco sold tons of oil to Franco, under approval by Roosevelt.

They quite probably did, but commercial ties shouldn't be confused with political support.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

...Hitler [...] was a soldier in the Bavarian uprising...

In which side?

Luís Henrique

[Os Cangaceiros]

In which side?

Luís Henrique

Take a wild guess:


Hitler became embittered over the collapse of the war effort, and his ideological development began to firmly take shape.[69] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler#cite_note-FOOTNOTEKershaw200861.2C_62-69) He described the war as "the greatest of all experiences", and was praised by his commanding officers for his bravery.[70] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler#cite_note-FOOTNOTEKeegan1987238.E2.80.93240-70) The experience reinforced his passionate German patriotism and he was shocked by Germany's capitulation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitulation_(surrender)) in November 1918.[71] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBullock196260-71) Like other German nationalists, he believed in the Dolchstoßlegende (stab-in-the-back legend), which claimed that the German army, "undefeated in the field", had been "stabbed in the back" on the home front (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_front) by civilian leaders and Marxists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism), later dubbed the "November criminals".[72] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler#cite_note-FOOTNOTEKershaw200861.E2.80.9363-72)

[Os Cangaceiros]

hmmm

http://libcom.org/forums/history/hitler-bavarian-soviet-republic-28062011

[Luís Henrique]

Take a wild guess:

But how is this "something not known about Hitler"? Even Wikipedia knows that.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

hmmm

http://libcom.org/forums/history/hitler-bavarian-soviet-republic-28062011

Seems to me just political slander, expedient to the Strasserites in their struggles against Hitler.

(But it would be very nice if the people who delude themselves about the actual fascist and right-wing character of the Strasserite tendency take a read, and realise what the objectives and methods of the Strasserites were.)

Luís Henrique

[Os Cangaceiros]

The part about him being in the uprising on the side of the "reds" seems like it may be some homespun bullshit from Strasser.

edit: fuck you ninja'd my post

[Geiseric]

Take a wild guess:

No the myth he was turned fascist after the war is hogwash, he was a communist, like Mussolini, and even is recorded attending a jewish comrade's funeral after the Bavarian uprising was crushed.

[Luís Henrique]

No the myth he was turned fascist after the war is hogwash, he was a communist, like Mussolini, and even is recorded attending a jewish comrade's funeral after the Bavarian uprising was crushed.

Source?

There is a famous photograph in which Hitler is seen jeering the declaration of war in 1914 - so it would seem that he was already a nationalist at that time.

Luís Henrique

[Geiseric]

Source?

There is a famous photograph in which Hitler is seen jeering the declaration of war in 1914 - so it would seem that he was already a nationalist at that time.

Luís Henrique

A great many people who liked WW1 were dissillusioned from it you know, that's where a great deal of communists and fascists had their roots. There is tons of evidence that he was a communist in Bavaria during their revolution, i've read it on several occasions, so maybe you can just do a google search or something.

[Luís Henrique]

A great many people who liked WW1 were dissillusioned from it you know, that's where a great deal of communists and fascists had their roots. There is tons of evidence that he was a communist in Bavaria during their revolution, i've read it on several occasions, so maybe you can just do a google search or something.

So, in short, there is no source - except for the Strasserite fantasy Os Cangaceiros posted, perhaps?

I have never seen absolutely no evidence that Hitler was a communist during the revolution. He certainly wasn't when serving the Bavarian Army during the war, and he certainly wasn't a few months later, when he was trying and building a far right movement. So his supposed "communism" must have been very short-lived at most. Now, what did he do during that short span of time that counts as "tons of evidence" that he was a communist? Did he take active part in soldiers' councils? Did he ever read socialist literature? Did he ever join any left-wing party? Did he ever express a single opinion that could be construed as anything to the left of "conservative"?

I don't think so, and a google search doesn't show anything remotely similar.

Luís Henrique

[piet11111]

I have read the Hitler biography by ian kershaw many years ago but do not recall anything in it that might suggest Hitler being anything close to leftist.

[Geiseric]

Well what was he doing during the German revolution? I've read several places that he was a soldiers deputy in the bavarian soviet, but saved his skin by turning informant after it was crushed.

[Luís Henrique]

Well what was he doing during the German revolution? I've read several places that he was a soldiers deputy in the bavarian soviet, but saved his skin by turning informant after it was crushed.

OK. The Bavarian revolution of november started in November 7th, 1918, and was suppressed in May 3rd, 1919. So the question is what was Adolf Hitler doing between 11/9/1918 and 5/3/1919.

In October 15th, 1918, he was victim of a British gas attack near Ypres; in the following days he was hospitalised, first in Linsell, then in Oudenaarde, and finally in Pasewalk. He was reportedly blind; while he believed that his eyes were damaged by the gas, the physicians thought his blindness was psychosomatic (and he was consequently interned in the psychiatric ward in Pasewalk). He was discharged from hospital in November 19th. So during the first twelve days of the revolution, Hitler was in Pasewalk, being treated for his psychosomatic blindness.

On discharge, he was transferred to the 2nd Infantry Regiment in Munich, which he effectively joined only in December 1918. Back to Munich, he was assigned to a prisoner camp in Traunstein, where he arrived mid-December. He remained there up to the end of January, 1919, when the camp was dismantled, and he returned to Munich.

Up to that moment, there was absolutely no sign of any involvement of Hitler in politics, much less far-left politics. The final period, February-April, is less documented; there are anecdotal evidences that he loathed the soviet regime in Bavaria, but as those are provided by Hitler loyals, they may be inventions in order to exaggerate Hitler's anticommunist dispositions. He didn't, as the Strasserites complain, leave Munich to join Epp's Freikorps, it is true. But why would he? He had just came out of a war, and indeed of hospital; perhaps he was tired, or hadn't the courage to reengage in military activity immediately, or thought he could fight against "Bolshevism" more effectively by remaining in Munich and hampering the Bavarian Socialist Republic's defencive efforts. Who knows?

What is clear is that shortly after the demise of the revolution's demise, Hitler was already working for the military, assessing the political reliability of the other soldiers from the point of view of the reaction.

So, if he ever "was a communist", it must have been during the very short time between February and May 1919, marking a quite sharp break from his very conservative opinions prior to November 1918 - and he must have been quite good in pretending something else, as immediately after the quelling of the revolution he was already in very good terms with the reactionary army officials; and that in a time of strong repression against any left-wingers in the military. I would say indeed that it is much more believable that if he indeed took part in any leftist activity in 1918-19, it was already as a snitch, not as a bona fide revolutionary.

Mussolini was very different from this; he was a well known member of the Italian Socialist Party before WWI (indeed he was politically responsible for one of its newspapers), and broke with the party, and subsequently with the left altogether already in 1914, exactly on the issue of supporting the Italian war effort.

(And concerning his participation in the funeral of Kurt Eisner, if it indeed it is him in the footage, well, when soldiers are assigned a task, they have to obey, whether they like it or not. So there is a much simpler explanation to his presence in Eisner's funeral: his whole unit was ordered to follow the event, and so was Adolf Hitler, as a member of it.)

Luís Henrique

[Geiseric]

OK. The Bavarian revolution of november started in November 7th, 1918, and was suppressed in May 3rd, 1919. So the question is what was Adolf Hitler doing between 11/9/1918 and 5/3/1919.

In October 15th, 1918, he was victim of a British gas attack near Ypres; in the following days he was hospitalised, first in Linsell, then in Oudenaarde, and finally in Pasewalk. He was reportedly blind; while he believed that his eyes were damaged by the gas, the physicians thought his blindness was psychosomatic (and he was consequently interned in the psychiatric ward in Pasewalk). He was discharged from hospital in November 19th. So during the first twelve days of the revolution, Hitler was in Pasewalk, being treated for his psychosomatic blindness.

On discharge, he was transferred to the 2nd Infantry Regiment in Munich, which he effectively joined only in December 1918. Back to Munich, he was assigned to a prisoner camp in Traunstein, where he arrived mid-December. He remained there up to the end of January, 1919, when the camp was dismantled, and he returned to Munich.

Up to that moment, there was absolutely no sign of any involvement of Hitler in politics, much less far-left politics. The final period, February-April, is less documented; there are anecdotal evidences that he loathed the soviet regime in Bavaria, but as those are provided by Hitler loyals, they may be inventions in order to exaggerate Hitler's anticommunist dispositions. He didn't, as the Strasserites complain, leave Munich to join Epp's Freikorps, it is true. But why would he? He had just came out of a war, and indeed of hospital; perhaps he was tired, or hadn't the courage to reengage in military activity immediately, or thought he could fight against "Bolshevism" more effectively by remaining in Munich and hampering the Bavarian Socialist Republic's defencive efforts. Who knows?

What is clear is that shortly after the demise of the revolution's demise, Hitler was already working for the military, assessing the political reliability of the other soldiers from the point of view of the reaction.

So, if he ever "was a communist", it must have been during the very short time between February and May 1919, marking a quite sharp break from his very conservative opinions prior to November 1918 - and he must have been quite good in pretending something else, as immediately after the quelling of the revolution he was already in very good terms with the reactionary army officials; and that in a time of strong repression against any left-wingers in the military. I would say indeed that it is much more believable that if he indeed took part in any leftist activity in 1918-19, it was already as a snitch, not as a bona fide revolutionary.

Mussolini was very different from this; he was a well known member of the Italian Socialist Party before WWI (indeed he was politically responsible for one of its newspapers), and broke with the party, and subsequently with the left altogether already in 1914, exactly on the issue of supporting the Italian war effort.

(And concerning his participation in the funeral of Kurt Eisner, if it indeed it is him in the footage, well, when soldiers are assigned a task, they have to obey, whether they like it or not. So there is a much simpler explanation to his presence in Eisner's funeral: his whole unit was ordered to follow the event, and so was Adolf Hitler, as a member of it.)

Luís Henrique

I would take whatever nazis say with a grain of salt, I think it's very possible that he was radcalized as a result of said gas attack, as many veterans (especially russians) had in that time period. If he was reactionary, he wouldn't of been anywhere near Eisner, a jewish revlutionaries, funeral, and several sources I've seen state that he turned snitch following the bavarian revolution. I don't think that Hitler was constantly reactionary, or else they would of forced him to be in the Freikorps, I mean he had a ton of medals, and was an NCO. Seems like pristine material for Freikorps. Another thing is that Hitler was never promoted above corporal, despite a long service record as an NCO, which could mean that he was seen as politically dangerous.

[Luís Henrique]

I would take whatever nazis say with a grain of salt, I think it's very possible that he was radcalized as a result of said gas attack, as many veterans (especially russians) had in that time period.

Unhappily, there is absolutely no evidence for that.


If he was reactionary, he wouldn't of been anywhere near Eisner, a jewish revlutionaries, funeral

If was his duty as a soldier, he would, of course. And if it was him on the footage, he was there in full military garb, and obviously as one of many scores of soldiers: as someone on duty, not on leisure.


and several sources I've seen state that he turned snitch following the bavarian revolution.

It could be (and if you could manage to actually name the sources, it could be more convincing), but what seems more coherent with what we know is that either he was already a snitch during the revolution, or he wasn't participating at all.


I don't think that Hitler was constantly reactionary, or else they would of forced him to be in the Freikorps, I mean he had a ton of medals, and was an NCO. Seems like pristine material for Freikorps.

From not being a "constant reactionary" to being an eventual "communist" there is still a huge distance.

There was a big problem that made it impossible to "force" Hitler into the Freikorps: Hitler was in Munich, and the Freikorps were out of Munich, where they only entered in May, by militarily defeating the Bavarian revolutionaries. So the only way Hitler could have joined the Freikorps was by deserting his unit and fleeing Munich. He didn't do that, granted. I would contend that there are many other possible reasons for not doing it than being a communist.


Another thing is that Hitler was never promoted above corporal, despite a long service record as an NCO, which could mean that he was seen as politically dangerous.

Ah, but we know quite well the reasons why he wasn't promoted beyond corporal: on his side, he knew it could mean him being removed from his service as a messenger; and on his superiors account, he was a neurotic, unfit for command.

Luís Henrique

[Ismail]

They quite probably did, but commercial ties shouldn't be confused with political support.

Luís HenriqueFDR knew of the commercial ties and sanctions-evasion going on and said it was perfectly legal. By the time the Republic was on its last legs, however, he started admitting that "non-intervention" was a bad idea which aided the expansionist desires of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy.

There's also an interesting book titled The United States and Fascist Italy, 1922-1940 by David F. Schmitz. Probably the most popular quote to come out of it is when the State Department declared that the March 1934 "election" in Italy "demonstrate incontestably the popularity of the Fascist regime." (pg. 149.)

[MarxSchmarx]

Well, there are several potential reasons for this: I'll let revlefters pick their favorite:

1. Common culture, history and language. This predisposed a large number of Americans to favour Britain over Germany.

2. The Nazi regime. US popular opinion, towards Germany was soured by Nazi militaristic expansionism and violent antisemitism.



On these two specific points, one thing that I think is to some extent under-appreciated is the large number of Americans who were of German descent. These people had closer ties to the old world than the current lot of German-Americans. There were also Irish descent a large segment of which were still ambivalent about American ties to Britain.

These ties were a significant factor in the first world war and had become less of one by the second and hardly a controlling one. I think it's worth noting how much the "shared culture" argument perhaps still contributed to some degree of American skepticism about involvement in Europe in 39-41.

[Luís Henrique]

FDR knew of the commercial ties and sanctions-evasion going on and said it was perfectly legal. By the time the Republic was on its last legs, however, he started admitting that "non-intervention" was a bad idea which aided the expansionist desires of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy.

Yes; I don't imagine that Roosevelt saw denying American businessmen profit opportunities as part of his job. From this to politically supporting fascism there is still a difference.


There's also an interesting book titled The United States and Fascist Italy, 1922-1940 by David F. Schmitz. Probably the most popular quote to come out of it is when the State Department declared that the March 1934 "election" in Italy "demonstrate incontestably the popularity of the Fascist regime." (pg. 149.)

Well, whether the analysis was sound or otherwise (and I would agree it smells of lazy idiocy), the fact is that fascist regimes can be overwhelmingly popular. Hitler's regime indeed was probably much more popular than Mussolini's.

(Not really fascist regimes, actually, but the military dictatorships in Brazil and Argentina were very popular in their high days. "It's the economy", William J. Clinton would have told you.)

Luís Henrique

[Ismail]

On these two specific points, one thing that I think is to some extent under-appreciated is the large number of Americans who were of German descent. These people had closer ties to the old world than the current lot of German-Americans. There were also Irish descent a large segment of which were still ambivalent about American ties to Britain.

These ties were a significant factor in the first world war and had become less of one by the second and hardly a controlling one. I think it's worth noting how much the "shared culture" argument perhaps still contributed to some degree of American skepticism about involvement in Europe in 39-41.This is correct. You had Senators in 1939-41 talking about how the USA would be entering a war and sending American sons to die in order to save Britain's colonial empire, something Nazi sympathizers like Lindbergh played upon as well. It is said that one of FDR's goals after the war (demurred under Truman) was to press Britain on decolonization as a way of raising America's prestige and to show that America was leading the war and the peace, not Britain.

[the last donut of the night]

yeah, the only that come to mind are franco (although that started pre-ww2), maybe salazar (again pre-dated ww2), the only post WW2 president i can think of who could be accused of something akin to fascism was Peron and he was at times virulently opposed by the US.

the vargas regime in brazil in the 30s and 40s could be considered semi-fascist too, imo

[Luís Henrique]

the vargas regime in brazil in the 30s and 40s could be considered semi-fascist too, imo

Well, it was a dictatorship, like fascist regimes always are. But those "semi-" characterisations always seem to me a little bit lazy (- It's semi-feudal! - Why? - Because I dislike it! - And? - Well, I dislike feudalism too, so at the least that they have in common with each other); ideally an in-depth analysis should dispense with such usage.

Vargas' dictatorship in Brazil - like that of Perón in Argentina - is often confusing because both dictators went on in their political carreers as non-dictatorial populist politicians who systematically recurred to the threat of mass mobilisation - and mass mobilisation is another characteristic of fascism. But during their own dictatorships, they were much shyer in recurring to the masses, if at all.

Vargas' regime also resembled fascism in its systematical pursue of "physical education" and in its constant appeal to the imagery of youth; but I think this is too little to establish a deeper connection. Similarities pretty much end there; Vargas never had a political party as an instrument of his dictatorship (and in fact destroyed the Brazilian party that most resembled a fascist one, the Integralistas), instead relying in police and army (and, of course, the church) as instruments of his power, and his dictatorship seems to correspond to a very different phase of capitalist development than fascist regimes (while those have classically been instruments of replacing liberal concurrence capitalism with the hegemony of monopoly capitalism, Vargas' dictatorship was much more an instrument to substitute bourgeois full rule for the hegemony of the landed oligarchy).

So I tend to disagree with the characterisation of Vargas' regime as fascist or semi-fascist; it looks more like Bonapartism, or perhaps a particularly nasty and repressive case of Bysmarckism.

Anyway, both Vargas and Perón were immensely popular, both as dictators and as "democratic" politicians.

Luís Henrique