Nazi's as Conservatives, Redux

Post Reply New Topic

I just finished reading ‘The Third Reich in Power’, a book by Richard Evans. Having finished it, I have changed my mind on the subject of the Nazi's as a conservative force. I think most people agree that the definition of conservatism, like that of its opposite, breaks down towards the extremes. This has traditionally been my view, that the Nazi's were conservative but that the definition wears down due to their extreme behavior. The conclusion of my reading of this book has changed me mind, I no longer think the term conservative is really applicable to the Nazi's, due to their practices in government. To labor further under my prior assumption would to be the intellectual equivalent of smashing a square peg, into a round hole.

The policies and actions of the party whilst in government were far more socially radical than I previously considered. Most of the party's modern critics, focusing on the personalities, events and speeches (themselves well worth both the criticism and study), have perhaps, neglected the study of their governing practices. Don't misunderstand me, Evan's book is not the conceptual masterwork of Ian Kershaw, whose study of both the historical events and development of the practical view of Nazi Governance, remains the best on the subject. Evans however, does refute the practicalist position of Kershaw to some extent. He presents a government not working towards the short term aims of the Fuhrer, but rather a party attempting to break down the very social fabric of Germany, as part of a long term plan. A plan derailed by among the war. I recommend anyone interested in the subject to pick the book up and read it themselves. The party's attempt to break down the family through the Hitler Youth, the 1936 divorce laws, the revolutionary expropriation of the Jews and the attack upon the Churches. The book also details the brave resistance of the social-democrats, in particular the efforts of Otto Wels and the narrow minded self-interest of many of the traditional authorities, who had no conception of the threat they were under. The book does however highlight the unappreciated efforts of Cardinal Archbishop Graf von Galen whose battle with the Nazi's over euthanasia should be required reading for social conservatives like myself, but for some reason is not.

I don't really have a category for the Nazi's at the moment, I suppose I shall just label them nuts and look for context in further reading and discussion.

The Nazis were radicals. And they did not have a sense of shame, either.

For Nazis the Race and the State come first. Family was little or nothing.

ruveyn

We are talking Richard J. Evans here right not the author of the x-mas box?
The nazis were radicals but the message was embraced by Germany's conservatives.
Much like the libertarianism in America.
before anyone goes Godwin on me I am saying Libertarians are radical not that they are Nazis

I used to think this was true. But not now; I think that view is simplistic. If the conservatives of Germany knew what Hitler and his party were about, I don't think they would have had a bar of it. They embraced Hitler, they embraced change, the message as it was said to them and Hitler knew how to reassure and undermine. In the end both the Social Democrats and the Centre Party ended up opposing Hitler, but too late for it to matter, on the grounds that the revolution was not something they could or should participate in. Heinrich Bruning made the terrible error of supporting Hitler's passage of the enabling act; out of fear that the next Nazi leader would be worse; during the vote, he had to watch the SA thugs intimidate and co-opt the democratic process out of existance. It was the conservatives, however who got the last final political act that hindered Hitler through the Wiemar system; the Marburg Speech.

I would recommend you read the book.

Before I read it is not the Christmas box guy right?

I had not heard of the Christmas box until you bought it up.

Hitler didn't spend much time on economics. He was not an educated man. His interest was the German people and their special destiny. He was interested in power, his ethnic cult and military affairs. Everything else was negotiable.

But to me, ultra-nationalism, militarism, racist fear mongering and hatred of communism is more associated with the ugly side of the right than the left in the United States today. You can maybe find some parallels with the Russian left, but not the American left. And of course he was willing to throw over the left and deal with the right when it suited his needs.

The part about race and state are certainly true, but I don't know about the family bit. They believed in the traditional family for sure--women in the kitchen (actually part of their slogan, along with "Kirche" and "Kinder"--church and children). And of course gays were not aloud. Strikes me as somewhat reminiscent (although much more extreme, of course) of the family values you here touted by right wing groups today.

Look up Lebensborn sometime.

ruveyn

glad you could see that they tend toward socialist type government structure.

Well, 91 I'm glad you can admit you were in error in our earlier debate on the subject.

I was.

what party was Dolfie and his chums in coalition with when he became chancellor?
was in the SD the communists. of course Nazis are radicals.
radicals of the right.
I don't think there is any thing that connects Nazis mit liberalism, is there?

His coalition was mainly with the DNVP a precursor to the NSDAP,. The Centre Party (the main conservative party) was not technically in coalition with the NSDAP-DNVP at the parliamentary level. The cabinet was a broad representation of wider parties that were not required to give one another parliamentary support. After the elections of March 1933, the DNVP-NSDAP alliance had 52% of the vote, enough to govern independently. The combined with the suspension of civil right and the enabling act pretty much destroyed mainline conservatism at the political level within Germany.



A party that seeks to dissolve the traditional family through radicalizing and indoctrinating the children against the parents, that advocates no fault divorce (decades before the left of Europe would accomplish the same), that wishes to destroy the Church and euthanize people... this is right wing? Like I said, despite my previous proclivities towards believing this stuff... one is left attempting to smash a square peg into a round hole. Britain's left would not succeed in the recognition of 'irretrievable breakdown' as grounds for divorce until 1969... the Nazis passed this as grounds in 1933. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying Hitler was a leftist, I just don't think left or right applies to the Nazi party while in office

this rings true for most dictatorships,

one thing i always found odd about the nazi party was their willingness to use military resources for some pretty out there projects.

Nazism, in all fairness, was not representative of the American right, but they were still a right wing movement. They had courted Germany's military establishment (hardly of a leftist tradition), gained the support of Germany's industrial base by breaking the unions, played up to values of Germany's conservative peasant culture in rural areas, made it clear that Germany had been stabbed in the back by not only Jews, but also left wing Bolsheviks, and played up on notions of only the strong have the right to survive. I think the Nazis come across as looking far right.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer