Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
P. 1
Hitler Was a Socialist - Ray

Hitler Was a Socialist - Ray

Ratings: (0)|Views: 28 |Likes:
Published by PRMurphy
EPITOME:
Hitler was a fairly mainstream Leftist of his day. It must be remembered that he gained
power by way of a democratic election, not by way of a revolution or a military coup. If
any of that seems wrong to you, you need to keep reading.
EPITOME:
Hitler was a fairly mainstream Leftist of his day. It must be remembered that he gained
power by way of a democratic election, not by way of a revolution or a military coup. If
any of that seems wrong to you, you need to keep reading.

More info:

Categories:Types, Research
Published by: PRMurphy on Jun 23, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

01/23/2014

pdf

text

original

 
HITLER WAS A SOCIALIST
John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.)Source:http://jonjayray.tripod.com/hitler.html
This article is published on the internet only. This is the version of May, 2012. Thisversion is largely a remedial lesson in pre-war history for those who know only whatthey have learnt via school textbooks, popular encyclopaedias, movies etc. The articletherefore does to a considerable extent go back to original sources and has to provide alot of information that is not generally known. This does make the article rather long.For those who already know the history of the period well, however, I have keptavailable the June 2001 version of the article--which is MUCH shorter. You can find ithere. To make this longer version more navigable there is a clickable index at the end
EPITOME:
Hitlerwas a fairly mainstream Leftist of his day. It must be remembered that he gainedpower by way of a democratic election, not by way of a revolution or a military coup. If any of that seems wrong to you, you need to keep reading
The Demand for Explanation
Now that more than 60 years have passed since the military defeat of Nazi Germany,one might have thought that the name of its leader would be all but forgotten. This isfar from the case, however. Even in the popular press, references to Hitler areincessant and the trickle of TV documentaries on the Germany of his era would seem tobe unceasing. Hitler even featured on the cover of a 1995
Time
magazine.This finds its counterpart in the academic literature too. Scholarly works on Hitler'sdeeds continue to emerge many years after his death (e.g. Feuchtwanger, 1995) and ina survey of the history of Western civilization, Lipson (1993) named Hitlerism and thenuclear bomb as the two great evils of the 20th century. Stalin's tyranny lasted longer,PolPot killed a higher proportion of his country's population and Hitler was not the firstFascist but the name of Hitler nonetheless hangs over the entire 20th century as
 
something inescapably and inexplicably malign. It seems doubtful that even the wholeof the 21st century will erase from the minds of thinking people the still largelyunfulfilled need to understand how and why Hitler became so influential and wrought somuch evil.The fact that so many young Germans (particular from the formerly Communist East)today still salute his name and perpetuate much of his politics is also an amazementand a deep concern to many and what can only be called the resurgence of Nazismamong many young Germans at the close of the 20th century and onwards would seemtogenerate a continuing and pressing need to understand the Hitler phenomenon.So what was it that made Hitler so influential? What was it that made him (as pre-warhistories such as Roberts, 1938, attest) the most popular man in the Germany of hisday? Why does he still have many admirers now in the Germany on which he inflictedsuch disasters? What was (is?) his appeal? And why, of all things, are the youngproducts of an East German Communist upbringing still so susceptible to his message?
The context of Nazism
"True, it is a fixed idea with the French that the Rhine is their property, but tothis arrogant demand the only reply worthy of the German nation is Arndt's:"Give back Alsace and Lorraine". For I am of the opinion, perhaps in contrast tomany whose standpoint I share in other respects, that the reconquest of theGerman-speaking left bank of the Rhine is a matter of national honour, and thatthe Germanisation of a disloyal Holland and of Belgium is a political necessity forus. Shall we let the German nationality be completely suppressed in thesecountries, while the Slavs are rising ever more powerfully in the East?"Have a look at the quote immediately above and say who wrote it. It is a typical Hitlerrant, is it not? Give it to 100 peoplewho know Hitler's speeches and 100 would identifyit as something said by Adolf. The fierce German nationalism and territorial ambition isunmistakeable. And if there is any doubt, have a look at another quote from the sameauthor: “This is our calling, that we shall become the templars of this Grail, gird thesword round our loins for its sake and stake our lives joyfully in the last, holy warwhich will be followed by the thousand-year reign of freedom.” That settles it, doesn't it? Who does not know ofHitler's glorification of military sacrificeand his aim to establish a "thousand-year
Reich
"?
 
But neither quote is in fact from Hitler.Both quotes were written by Friedrich Engels, Karl Marx's co-author (Seehereandhere). So let that be an introduction to the idea that Hitler not only called himself a socialist but that he WAS in fact a socialist by thestandards of his day. Ideas that are now condemned as Rightist were in Hitler's dayperfectly normal ideas among Leftists. And if Friedrich Engels was not a Leftist, I do notknow who would be.But the most spectacular aspect of Nazism wassurely its antisemitism. And that had agrounding in Marx himself. Thefollowing passageis from Marx but it could just as wellhave been from Hitler:"Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew--not the Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does,but the everyday Jew. Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion,but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew. What is the secularbasis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of theJew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. Very well then! Emancipationfrom huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Jewry, would bethe self-emancipation ofour time.... We recognize in Jewry, therefore, a generalpresent-time-oriented anti-social element, an element which through historicaldevelopment--to which in this harmful respect the Jews have zealouslycontributed--has been brought to its present high level, at which it mustnecessarily dissolve itself. In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews isthe emancipation of mankind from Jewry".Note that Marx wanted to "emancipate" (free) mankind from Jewry (
"Judentum"
inMarx's original German), just as Hitler did and that the title of Marx's essay in Germanwas
"Zur Judenfrage"
, which--while not necessarily derogatory in itself--isnonetheless exactly the same expression ("Jewish question") that Hitler used in hisfamous phrase
"Endloesungder Judenfrage"
("Final solution of the Jewish question"). And when Marx speaks of the end of Jewry by saying that Jewish identity mustnecessarily "dissolve" itself, the word he uses in German is "aufloesen", which is a closerelative of Hitler's word "Endloesung" ("final solution"). So all the most condemnedfeatures of Nazism can be traced back to Marx and Engels, right down to the languageused. The thinking of Hitler, Marx and Engels differed mainly in emphasis rather than incontent. All three were second-rate German intellectuals of their times. Anybody whodoubts that practically all Hitler's ideas were also to be found in Marx & Engels shouldspend a little time reading the quotations from Marx & Engels archivedhere. A nother point:"Everything must be different!" or
"Alles muss anders sein!"
was a slogan of theNazi Party. It is also the heart's desire of everyLeftist since Karl Marx. Nazismwas a deeply revolutionary creed, a fact that is always denied by the Left; but it's

Activity (5)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
OLS liked this
PRMurphy liked this
PRMurphy liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->