PDA

View Full Version : Would There have Been National Socialism Without Hitler?



ogenoct
Friday, July 9th, 2004, 10:34 PM
Wasn't Hitler central to N-S?
I do not see why, except that he made himself the focal point. I dare argue that National Socialism was a success (while it lasted) IN SPITE of Hitler and not because of him. After all, Hitler was the one most reluctant to go pan-European. Hence, his early refusal to incorporate non-Germanics into the ranks of the Waffen-SS.

Constantin

Fraxinus Excelsior
Monday, July 12th, 2004, 06:15 AM
Hence, his early refusal to incorporate non-Germanics into the ranks of the Waffen-SS.
Not so.
[/url]
http://ukr-ww2.onestop.net/lah.html[url="http://ukr-ww2.onestop.net/lah.html"]
(http://ukr-ww2.onestop.net/lah.html)http://ukr-ww2.onestop.net/totenkopf.html

Moody
Monday, July 12th, 2004, 04:26 PM
I do not see why, except that he made himself the focal point. I dare argue that National Socialism was a success (while it lasted) IN SPITE of Hitler and not because of him. After all, Hitler was the one most reluctant to go pan-European. Hence, his early refusal to incorporate non-Germanics into the ranks of the Waffen-SS.

Constantin

I would say that Hitler INVENTED N-S ... As We Know It.

He synthesised the necessary elements and brought together the symbolism.
He established the necessary militaristic underpinning and helped develop a political philosophy that became a spring-board for modern WN.

If N-S WERE a religion, then Hitler would be its Jesus, its Mohammed, its Buddha etc., etc.,

Nordgau
Monday, July 12th, 2004, 06:34 PM
I would say that Hitler INVENTED N-S ... As We Know It.

He synthesised the necessary elements and brought together the symbolism.
He established the necessary militaristic underpinning and helped develop a political philosophy that became a spring-board for modern WN.

If N-S WERE a religion, then Hitler would be its Jesus, its Mohammed, its Buddha etc., etc.,

Indeed. If Hitler would have never lived, there would have been in Germany after the First World War other groups (probably not even becoming in the same way "movements") with that name (there was indeed in German-Bohemia [Sudetenland] since 1905 a party which called itself then since May 1918 German National Socialist Worker's Party). There would have been other völkisch, nationalist, social revolutionary groups; others would have been inspired by Mussolini's fascism and would have tried to create something similar; others would have tried to fusion Nationalism with Socialism. Strasser, Goebbels, Göring may would have found their place in politics.

But the phenomenon National Socialism as it came into being then in post-revolutionary Munich, as it then became a movement in whole Germany and then seized power and transformed Germany; the original amalgamation of the various old and new elements, its looking, its spirit, its energy and true radicalism was essentially Hitler's creation, and Hitler was the motor of the movement, its true Führer.

National Socialism was his mind moulded into ideology; the National Socialist state beared his features, structered into a system. Hitler was the personification of the NS movement as much as a man ever could be it - not just a more or less hollow, meaningless figurehead.

The Dagda
Monday, July 12th, 2004, 07:15 PM
Many people before Hitler combined Nationalism and Socialism, so yes there
not just would, but was, NS without Hitler.
National Socialism is nothing more than Fascism, but like I keep saying it's been twisted about over the years by WN into something it was never meant
to be.

ogenoct
Monday, July 12th, 2004, 11:45 PM
I would say that Hitler INVENTED N-S ... As We Know It.

He synthesised the necessary elements and brought together the symbolism.
He established the necessary militaristic underpinning and helped develop a political philosophy that became a spring-board for modern WN.

If N-S WERE a religion, then Hitler would be its Jesus, its Mohammed, its Buddha etc., etc.,
What about Maurice Barres? He was clearly the one who "invented" the system of National Socialism in France in the late 19th century. Also, NS in Germany existed before Hitler joined the DAP. The same goes for the symbolism of the NSDAP. The Swastika was already in use by many occult societies in Germany, such as the Thule Gesellschaft. It was all in existence when Hitler was still in diapers! It was Hitler that was influenced and not the other way round.

Constantin

Mac Seafraidh
Tuesday, July 13th, 2004, 06:10 AM
Indeed. If Hitler would have never lived, there would have been in Germany after the First World War other groups (probably not even becoming in the same way "movements") with that name (there was indeed in German-Bohemia [Sudetenland] since 1905 a party which called itself then since May 1918 German National Socialist Worker's Party). There would have been other völkisch, nationalist, social revolutionary groups; others would have been inspired by Mussolini's fascism and would have tried to create something similar; others would have tried to fusion Nationalism with Socialism. Strasser, Goebbels, Göring may would have found their place in politics.

But the phenomenon National Socialism as it came into being then in post-revolutionary Munich, as it then became a movement in whole Germany and then seized power and transformed Germany; the original amalgamation of the various old and new elements, its looking, its spirit, its energy and true radicalism was essentially Hitler's creation, and Hitler was the motor of the movement, its true Führer.

National Socialism was his mind moulded into ideology; the National Socialist state beared his features, structered into a system. Hitler was the personification of the NS movement as much as a man ever could be it - not just a more or less hollow, meaningless figurehead.
Totally agree Gau, couldn't of said it better. I was going to say something in relation to yours, but that canceled it out.

Moody
Tuesday, July 13th, 2004, 04:05 PM
Totally agree Gau, couldn't of said it better. I was going to say something in relation to yours, but that canceled it out.

I agree with your agreement.

While the elements of N-S were around before Hitler, it was Hitler who synthesised them, and then ENERGISED them.

His incredible Will was what made N-S into the great movement that was able to mount a challenge to the Judaised world powers of plutocracy and communism.

Barres's movement was reactionary in comparison; while Mussolini's Fascism drew on Roman Imperialism, and not on the Nordic/Aryan Mythos of N-S.

N-S is UNTHINKABLE without Hitler; it would have been a fringe-group at most; a tiny nationalist faction which would have been overwhelmed by communism before it even got started.

Prussian
Sunday, July 18th, 2004, 08:59 PM
Would there have been National Socialism without hitler?

hmmm hard question to answer, I would say both yes & no, it could have went many ways, but speculation on such a scenario is illrelevent.

But what must be realised of course that there is no doubt hitler was a major part of the vigour injected into National Socialism, his rhetoric toward his foes was undeniably near genius at times.

However large portions of National Socialism's ideological base as it is known is not the product of one man nor just of a particular era rather it should be seen as more an evolutionary process within the german political context.

The National Socialists took what was already there and remodelled it whilst injecting it with an energy that cannot be compared with in most revolutionary occurances.

What most people do not realise is that the National Socialist state was modelled in a lot of ways (not all) around the past empire, a good example is Kulturkaammp (German cultural law) which was made official law during the Kaiserreich period, hence you can see the resurfacing of it in the national socialist state after the Weimar years, most evident in culturally & ethnically based laws.

When it comes to the wehrmacht indeed it is a legendary army with high interest among war historians the world over, however the wehrmacht was built upon something already long established in germany and that was a highly trained competent officer core reflective of Prussia's great military tradition founded during the reign of freidrich the great.

Though it can be said that National Socialist germany did indeed work on that all ready established base and speed up the motorisation of the german armed forces and gave a strong emphasis on ensuring that tradition followed on.

As for National Socialism starting in france, the term & ideology of socialism did indeed come out of & was established during the french revolution and yes it was on the national scale at the time as it happened within the borders of france, but the comparisions between french revolutionary period socialism and national socialism are not well founded nor is marxist based socialism, indeed they are all ideologies pertaining to the word socialism but all very different.

Considering National Socialism was based on a cultural tradition going back centuries even to a thousand years in that degree, I make this statement in the knowledge that kulturkaammp is in fact so old that nobody knows who actually wrote it or how old it actually is, but it is clear it is german cultural law passed down over many centuries.

Also comparisions between the french revolution socialism and also marxist period socialism toward National Socialism is again a poorly founded one, considering that during the french revolutionary socialist period the countries noble class were executed and also with the same degree of distaste for the noble class marx indeed did not include that class within his ideal socialist state with it based solely on his "proletarian" class stucture.

Where as within the National Socialist state people of all classes were still evidently part of mainstream german society, the noble class still existent in the third reich years and many serving within the german armed forces.

Anyway there is no doubt that Hilter indeed was a gifted man with many qualities of leadership however the rise of national socialism very much has it roots in the past being merely part of an evolutionary process and a reaction to the treaty of versailles.

Moody
Tuesday, July 20th, 2004, 05:10 PM
Would there have been National Socialism without hitler?

hmmm hard question to answer, I would say both yes & no, it could have went many ways, but speculation on such a scenario is illrelevent.

I disagree; it is relevant to the position of N-S in a post-Hitler world.


What most people do not realise is that the National Socialist state was modelled in a lot of ways (not all) around the past empire, a good example is Kulturkaammp (German cultural law) .

Do you mean the Kulturkampf?
I thought that this was related to the conflict between the Protestant Prussians and Roman Catholicism ,and therefore not a feature of N-S which sought to unite all confessions.
If you mean something else, then please explain.

Prussian
Tuesday, July 20th, 2004, 05:27 PM
Do you mean the Kulturkampf?
I thought that this was related to the conflict between the Protestant Prussians and Roman Catholicism ,and therefore not a feature of N-S which sought to unite all confessions.
If you mean something else, then please explain.There is nothing overly religious about kulturkaammp and is not related the kulturkampf (the religious struggles of doctrine & church during the bismarck period), kulturkaammp is a huge book on traditional german cultural law that essentially reflects on the ethnic hegemony of the traditional cultural ties of the german people, basically it has everything that could be covered, there is also an simplified small script from it which is relates to everyday living.

These days it is not a very well known book simply because it's number one rule has been not to expose it's content to outsiders in any degree, but the kaiserreich period kulturkaammp was very dominate finding it's way to become the basis of a lot of laws of the period and it has relevent relation to National Socialism in every degree since the ideological stance of National Socialism is inherent in the pages of Kulturkaammp therefore ideology always reflects upon the laws instituted within a certain state regardless of the particular ideology at hand.

It is a very sacred & old book and it's contents will remain sacred because the essence of it's beauty is it's unacknowledged existence on a massive scale, yes I do very much agree with you on the stance of National Socialism seeking to unite all confessions whether it be protestant or roman catholic & there are actually prussians that I know of personally that live by the kulturkaammp but actually are roman catholics. No one actually knows who authored kulturkaammp itself rather most believe it is ancient and reflective of the teutonic spirit and beginnings.

Prussian
Tuesday, July 20th, 2004, 06:50 PM
As for Hitler being the mainstream success of the NSDAP , this is can be said to be true and I am in agreement with it. But thinking a little deeper into the matter I do not think it is merely of just the man himself but the conciousness inherently in him that made the decisive differences between a mainstream politician or something that was exclusively known as Hitler.

Moody
Tuesday, July 20th, 2004, 07:03 PM
As for Hitler ... I do not think it is merely of just the man himself but the conciousness inherently in him ...

Would that be the 'Providence' which He Himself spoke of?

"I go the way that Providence dictates, with the assurance of a sleep-walker".
[Hitler, 1936]

Prussian
Tuesday, July 20th, 2004, 07:20 PM
Would that be the 'Providence' which He Himself spoke of?

"I go the way that Providence dictates, with the assurance of a sleep-walker".
[Hitler, 1936]It could be quiet possible, though we can never know for sure considering the fact those were his words and in this he would have had the true understanding to what he meant, we can only in this degree speculate but I think you brought up a very interesting question in regards to his words at a particular point in time and my comments on the conciousness he pocessed and it in my mind is more then likely.

Moody
Tuesday, July 20th, 2004, 07:23 PM
It could be quiet possible, though we can never know for sure considering the fact those were his words and in this he would have had the true understanding to what he meant, we can only in this degree speculate but I think you brought up a very interesting question in regards to his words at a particular point in time and my comments on the conciousness he pocessed and it in my mind is more then likely.

Then it would be correct to say that Hitler was to N-S what Mohammed was to Islam?

Prussian
Tuesday, July 20th, 2004, 07:34 PM
Then it would be correct to say that Hitler was to N-S what Mohammed was to Islam?
From the philosophical viewpoint it could be said to be so or even possibly not, again we have speculation but at the same time we have his legacy through the impact and energy he put into the process itself.

I am not sure if religious undertones are valid in this yet at the same time with his reference to "providence" then maybe it is. But what is certain is Hitler himself was undoubtably a key figure in the process of it all.

I would even go as far to say that traditional & cultural values were in fact the foundation of the NSDAP with Hitler himself being one the key architects & the leading representive of this development backed by others with worthy expertise that added to the fold to produce what we know as the third reich.

Moody
Tuesday, July 20th, 2004, 07:47 PM
From the philosophical viewpoint it could be said to be so or even possibly not, again we have speculation but at the same time we have his legacy through the impact and energy he put into the process itself.

I am not sure if religious undertones are valid in this yet at the same time with his reference to "providence" then maybe it is. But what is certain is Hitler himself was undoubtably a key figure in the process of it all.

I would even go as far to say that traditional & cultural values were in fact the foundation of the NSDAP with Hitler himself being one the key architects & the leading representive of this development backed by others with worthy expertise that added to the fold to produce what we know as the third reich.

Surely we are now agreeing that Hitler was the most important part of this 'architecture' - the 'key stone' in fact.

Just as many aspects of Islam preceeded Mohammed, it was the latter who gave IMPETUS and FOCUS to the movement.
Making it effective in his lifetime and a self-sustaining movement after his death.

The same could be said of Hitler and N-S.

Similarly, Mein Kampf is to N-S what the Koran is to Islam.

Any N-S who needs guidance can look up the index of MK and find his answers there.

Prussian
Tuesday, July 20th, 2004, 08:12 PM
Surely we are now agreeing that Hitler was the most important part of this 'architecture' - the 'key stone' in fact.

Just as many aspects of Islam preceeded Mohammed, it was the latter who gave IMPETUS and FOCUS to the movement.
Making it effective in his lifetime and a self-sustaining movement after his death.

The same could be said of Hitler and N-S.

Similarly, Mein Kampf is to N-S what the Koran is to Islam.

Any N-S who needs guidance can look up the index of MK and find his answers there.No more important then the others though he definitely was the key figure and leading hand in it all, without the expertise of others he could quiet possibly have failed to a greater degree in it all.

It is undeniably important that a leader regardless of who he or she may be has the support and reliance of others behind them, would have Mohammed succeeded in his endeavours if he had not had the support, it is natural that that figure heads of movements regardless of whether it be religious or political are latter admired and are key representative figure to which all others later relate too when thinking of the movement at hand.

It is correct in saying Hitler certainly was the key figure head of the NSDAP and in later times the state of germany, but without certain individuals brought into the fold to support him his qualities would have amounted to nothing. Take feder out of the picture for one moment and think what would have the NSDAP been without his influence into the program and on early economic policies? It is hard to imagine.

Maybe in an abstact context you could say that indeed Hitler was under the will of providence and through this his support structure were introduced into the fold in some sort of fate if you could put it that way. But when people think of National Socialism they do indeed think of Hitler.

In some ways Mein Kampf and the Koran can be seen as similiar in there distinct existence as the core doctrinal & ideological manuals of their respective movements.

Moody
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 04:04 PM
No more important then the others though he definitely was the key figure and leading hand in it all, without the expertise of others he could quiet possibly have failed to a greater degree in it all.

Slight contradiction - a 'key figure' is by definition more important than the others. It was also to His own credit that He surrounded himself with people of 'expertise'; all good leaders must be able to do this.


It is undeniably important that a leader regardless of who he or she may be has the support and reliance of others behind them, would have Mohammed succeeded in his endeavours if he had not had the support, it is natural that that figure heads of movements regardless of whether it be religious or political are latter admired and are key representative figure to which all others later relate too when thinking of the movement at hand.

I adhere to the Carlyle philosophy, which says that history is the biographies of great men.
Without the leading figure-heads, even though there may be an army of experts, nothing will happen.


It is correct in saying Hitler certainly was the key figure head of the NSDAP and in later times the state of Germany, but without certain individuals brought into the fold to support him his qualities would have amounted to nothing. Take Feder out of the picture for one moment and think what would have the NSDAP been without his influence into the program and on early economic policies? It is hard to imagine.

I disagree; Hitler was such an effective leader of men that He would have found another Feder, just as Bormann took over from Hess when the latter was captured.
Hitler NEEDED good people about Him, yes, but He had a knack of finding them again and again.
Without Hitler the DAP would have remained on the margins in the beer-halls and would then have been crushed by the Communist take-over of Germany.


Maybe in an abstact context you could say that indeed Hitler was under the will of providence and through this his support structure were introduced into the fold in some sort of fate if you could put it that way. But when people think of National Socialism they do indeed think of Hitler.

It was Dietrich Eckart was it not, who said that the political aspect of the Thulian movement was looking for a man like Hilter; only such a man could call the tune and fulfill the movement's Destiny.
That's why Hitler was 'The Man of Destiny'.
Such figures are very rare in history.


In some ways Mein Kampf and the Koran can be seen as similiar in there distinct existence as the core doctrinal & ideological manuals of their respective movements.

Yes, and that is why Hitler is INDISPENSABLE to N-S [unless you can think of another N-S book that can compare with MK].

Prussian
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 05:34 PM
Slight contradiction - a 'key figure' is by definition more important than the others. It was also to His own credit that He surrounded himself with people of 'expertise'; all good leaders must be able to do this.....or you could see it as people of expertise are attracted to great men.

I adhere to the Carlyle philosophy, which says that history is the biographies of great men.
Without the leading figure-heads, even though there may be an army of experts, nothing will happen.This can be seen from both aspects though undeniably the "great men" tend to lead the way, without a great man there is an army of experts and without an army of experts there is no great man.

I disagree; Hitler was such an effective leader of men that He would have found another Feder, just as Bormann took over from Hess when the latter was captured.
Hitler NEEDED good people about Him, yes, but He had a knack of finding them again and again.
Without Hitler the DAP would have remained on the margins in the beer-halls .and would then have been crushed by the Communist take-over of Germany.Indeed that is a possible scenario so are many others. Based on Hitler finding himself another feder in such a scenario the same can be applied to germany easily finding itself another Hitler, the theory works both ways.

It was Dietrich Eckart was it not, who said that the political aspect of the Thulian movement was looking for a man like Hilter; only such a man could call the tune and fulfill the movement's Destiny.
That's why Hitler was 'The Man of Destiny'.
Such figures are very rare in history.Indeed they are very rare and the Thule society were indeed searching for somewhat more of a certain conciousness and that conciousness they found in Hitler.

Moody
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 05:50 PM
To demonstrate the other side of the argument [i.e., that a movement like N-S would have been possible without a Hitler], can you think of any movements - whether political or religious or both - that thrived without such a Leader figure?

If so, we can then compare that with N-S to see if Hitler was essential or not.

HC-9
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 06:15 PM
Yes, there would have been NS without Hitler I think!

The SA under Roehm where the second power behind Hitler. They we´re strong enough to led the way for the national-socialist revolution against the republic and against the KPD-communists.

On the other hand there are the Strasser brothers, who were very popular, they wanted the true socialist revolution like the SA-men.

So wee see, there were enough men without Adolf Hitler.

Prussian
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 06:20 PM
To demonstrate the other side of the argument [i.e., that a movement like N-S would have been possible without a Hitler], can you think of any movements - whether political or religious or both - that thrived without such a Leader figure?
Without a singular leader or solid core leadership establishment of some kind no movement will achieve the ultimate success and that is meeting their objectives regardless of what they are and you are right in suggesting that National Socialism would have not taken off without a "Hilter" or figure head of authority.

The success of NSDAP can be judged on it's overall leadership core in most aspects with exceptions to the fact that a Hitler figure in such a scenario could have easily been someone else then Hitler himself, as history shows us the man just so happened to be Adolf Hitler.

If so, we can then compare that with N-S to see if Hitler was essential or not.The character and qualities of the man known as Adolf Hitler were an essential ingredient in it all , however in this I emphasize the fact a man with the same qualities as Hitler himself.

Prussian
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 06:29 PM
Yes, there would have been NS without Hitler I think!

The SA under Roehm where the second power behind Hitler. They we´re strong enough to led the way for the national-socialist revolution against the republic and against the KPD-communists.

On the other hand there are the Strasser brothers, who were very popular, they wanted the true socialist revolution like the SA-men.

So wee see, there were enough men without Adolf Hitler.Agreed, I believe that thinking without Hitler that germany would have been engulfed by the cancer of communism does the german people an injustice and in thinking they are somehow incapable of reacting to the changing situation without Hitler in the picture.

Moody
Thursday, July 22nd, 2004, 04:46 PM
Yes, there would have been NS without Hitler I think!

The SA under Roehm where the second power behind Hitler. They we´re strong enough to led the way for the national-socialist revolution against the republic and against the KPD-communists.

On the other hand there are the Strasser brothers, who were very popular, they wanted the true socialist revolution like the SA-men.

So we see, there were enough men without Adolf Hitler.

Are you really suggesting that the likes of Rohm and the Strassers had the requisite LEADERSHIP qualities necessary?

They were "second-power" men, as you put it, because they were not BORN leaders.

Hitler was a born leader of men.

Rohm and the Strassers were rudderless without their Fuhrer.

How is it that Hitler's unique and superhuman qualities are now being doubted?

Who else could lead like this?
http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/online/szyk/intro/media/05316z.jpg
The One and Only.

Moody
Thursday, July 22nd, 2004, 05:24 PM
... a Hitler figure in such a scenario could have easily been someone else then Hitler himself, as history shows us the man just so happened to be Adolf Hitler.

In a parallel universe it could have been someone else!

However, in this life there are no rehearsals, and it was Hitler and no one else who was able to lead the revolution.

Hitler himself intimated that it was He because no-one else was available.

The Dagda
Thursday, July 22nd, 2004, 06:09 PM
National Socialism/Fascism is individual to every country as every country has an individual history and culture and of course problems. Hitler, Mussolini, Barres, Szalasi and Pavelich all had the interests of their own countries at heart and that's why their politics was not exactly the same.

ogenoct
Monday, August 9th, 2004, 01:47 AM
Hitler himself intimated that it was He because no-one else was available.
That is because everybody else that would have been able was ruthlessly "liquidated" by Herr Hitler! But if Gott Hitler said it, well, it must be true... Brr... I cannot stand the worship of that arrogant Austrian painter.

Constantin