Continuing to restore the real WW2 history because we’re now entering the Netflix adaptation of the same script.
So here’s why, someone hurry to tell Lavrov too:
The Bavarian Soviet Republic
The roots of the republic lay in the German Empire‘s defeat in the First World War and the social tensions that came to a head shortly thereafter. From this chaos erupted the German Revolution of 1918. At the end of October 1918, German sailors began a series of revolts in Kiel and other naval ports. In early November, these disturbances spread civil unrest across Germany. On 7 November 1918, the first anniversary of the Russian revolution, King Ludwig III of Bavaria fled from the Residenz Palace in Munich with his family, and Kurt Eisner, a politician of the Independent Social Democratic Party of Germany (USPD), became minister-president of a newly proclaimed People’s State of Bavaria.
Though he advocated a socialist republic, Eisner distanced himself from the Russian Bolsheviks, declaring that his government would protect property rights. As the new government was unable to provide basic services, Eisner’s USPD was defeated in the January 1919 election, coming in sixth place. On 21 February 1919, as he was on his way to parliament to announce his resignation, he was shot dead by the right-wing nationalist Anton Graf von Arco auf Valley, also known as Arco-Valley.
After Eisner’s assassination, the Landtag convened, and Erhard Auer – the leader of the Social Democrats and the Minister of the Interior in Eisner’s government – began to eulogize Eisner, but rumours had already begun to spread that Auer was behind the assassination. Acting on these false allegations, Alois Linder, a saloon waiter who was a fervent supporter of Eisner, shot Auer twice with a rifle, seriously wounding him. This prompted other armed supporters of Eisner to open fire, causing a melee, killing one delegate and provoking nervous breakdowns in at least two ministers. There was effectively no government in Bavaria thereafter.
Unrest and lawlessness followed. The assassination of Eisner created a martyr for the leftist cause and prompted demonstrations, the closing of the University of Munich, the kidnapping of aristocrats, and the forced pealing of church bells. The support for the Left was greater than Eisner himself had been able to command.
On 7 March 1919, the Socialists’ new leader, Johannes Hoffmann, an anti-militarist and former schoolteacher, patched together a parliamentary coalition government, but a month later, on the night of 6–7 April, Communists and anarchists, energized by the news of a communist revolution in Hungary, declared a Soviet Republic, with Ernst Toller as chief of state. Toller called on the nonexistent “Bavarian Red Army” to support the new dictatorship of the proletariat and ruthlessly deal with any counter-revolutionary behavior.
The Hoffmann government fled to Bamberg in Northern Bavaria, which it declared the new seat of government.
Active participants in the Freikorps units – those of Oven, Franz Ritter von Epp, and Hermann Erhardt – that suppressed the Bavarian Soviet Republic included future powerful members of the Nazi Party, including Rudolf Hess, a member of the Freikorps Epp.
One notable supporter of the Soviet Republic was the artist Georg Schrimpf, then aged 30, who was arrested when the movement was crushed. His friend, the writer Oskar Maria Graf, who was also arrested, wrote about the events in his autobiographical novel, Wir sind Gefangene (1927). The famed anarchist novelist Ret Marut (later known as B.Traven) was an active participant in the establishment of Soviet power and worked as head of the Press Department of the Soviet Republic. During the early days of the Soviet Republic, representatives of cultural life also played an important role in the revolution. Some intellectuals such as the economist Lujo Brentano, the conductor Bruno Walter and the writers Heinrich Mann and Rainer Maria Rilke formed the Rat der geistigen Arbeit (Council of Intellectual Work) with Mann as its chairman.
Adolf Hitler‘s longstanding chauffeur and first leader of the Schutzstaffel (SS) Julius Schreck signed up and served as a member of the Red Army in late April 1919. Balthasar Brandmayer, one of Hitler’s closest wartime friends, remarked “how he at first welcomed the end of the monarchies” and the establishment of the republic in Bavaria.
Adolf Hitler himself acted as a liaison between his army battalion – he had been elected “deputy battalion representative” – and the Soviet’s Department of Propaganda. Both film footage and a still photograph appear to show Hitler marching in Eisner’s funeral procession.
He wears both a black mourning band and a red band showing support for the Far-Left Government. It is uncertain whether this indicated that Hitler was a true supporter of the soviet, or that he was simply taking an available opportunity not to return to his impoverished pre-war civilian life. His choice may therefore have been a tactical one, rather than one of political belief. It is also known that once the government had fallen, Hitler aligned himself with the Weimar Republic and – as part of a three-person committee assigned to investigate the behavior of his regiment’s soldiers – informed on those who had shown sympathy for the Far-Left Governments.
V. I. Lenin: Message Of Greetings To The Bavarian Soviet Republic
Delivered: 27 April, 1919
First Published: Pravda No. 111, April 22, 1930; Published according to the manuscript
Source: Lenin’s Collected Works, 4th English Edition, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1972 Volume 29, pages 325-326
Translated: George Hanna
Transcription/HTML Markup: David Walters & Robert Cymbala
Copyleft: V. I. Lenin Internet Archive (www.marx.org) 2002. Permission is granted to copy and/or distribute this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License
We thank you for your message of greetings, and on our part whole heartedly greet the Soviet Republic of Bavaria. We ask you insistently to give us more frequent, definite information on the following. What measures have you taken to fight the bourgeois executioners, the Scheidernanns and Co.; have councils of workers and servants been formed in the different sections of the city; have the workers been armed; have the bourgeoisie been disarmed; has use been made of the stocks of clothing and other items for immediate and extensive aid to the workers, and especially to the farm labourers and small peasants; have the capitalist factories and wealth in Munich and the capitalist farms in its environs been confiscated; have mortgage and rent payments by small peasants been cancelled; have the wages of farm labourers and unskilled workers been doubled or trebled; have all paper stocks and all printing-presses been confis-cated so as to enable popular leaflets and newspapers to be printed for the masses; has the six-hour working day with two or three-hour instruction in state administration been introduced; have the bourgeoisie in Munich been made to give up surplus housing so that workers may be immediately moved into comfortable flats; have you taken over all the banks; have you taken hostages from the ranks of the bourgeoisie; have you introduced higher rations for the workers than for the bourgeoisie; have all the workers been mobilised for defence and for ideological propaganda in the neighbouring villages? The most urgent and most extensive implementation of these and similar measures, coupled with the initiative of workers’, farm labourers’ and— ;acting apart from them— ;small peasants’ councils, should strengthen your position. An emergency tax must be levied on the bourgeoisie, and an actual improvement effected in the condition of the workers, farm labourers and small peasants at once and at all costs.
With sincere greetings and wishes of success.
ADOLF HITLER ON THE NAZI FORM OF ‘SOCIALISM’ (1932)
from Alpha History
The relationship between Nazism and socialism has provoked considerable debate. The majority of historians contend that Nazism sits alongside Italian fascism on the right-wing of the political spectrum. The Nazis, they argue, were hyper-nationalists obsessed with military and state power and social control. Unlike those of Marxists, Nazi policies did not seek economic levelling, the eradication of class or private property or the redistribution of wealth.
Despite this, some conservative historians argue that Nazism is a factional offshoot or bastardised form of socialism. They point to nomenclature (“National Socialism”), Nazi control and regulation of the German economy and their vast public spending programs. This line of argument has, in recent times, been repeated by many conservative and far-right political pundits.
The following document contains Adolf Hitler‘s explanation of the Nazi form of socialism. It comes from an interview with Hitler conducted by German-American writer and Nazi sympathiser George Sylvester Viereck. The interview appeared in Liberty magazine on July 9th 1932:
“‘When I take charge of Germany, I shall end tribute abroad and Bolshevism at home.’
Adolf Hitler drained his cup as if it contained not tea but the lifeblood of Bolshevism.
‘Bolshevism’, the chief of the Brown Shirts, the Fascists of Germany continued, ‘is our greatest menace. Kill Bolshevism in Germany and you restore 70 million people to power. France owes her strength not to her armies but to the forces of Bolshevism and dissension in our midst’…
I met Hitler not in his headquarters, the Brown House in Munich, but in a private home, the dwelling of a former admiral of the German Navy. We discussed the fate of Germany over the teacups.
‘Why’, I asked Hitler, ‘do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party program is the very anthesis of that commonly accredited to Socialism?’
‘Socialism’, he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, ‘is the science of dealing with the common weal [health or well-being]. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists.
‘Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality and, unlike Marxism, it is patriotic.
‘We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our Socialism is national. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the State on the basis of race solidarity. To us, State and race are one…
‘What’, I continued my cross-examination, ‘are the fundamental planks of your platform?’
‘We believe in a healthy mind, in a healthy body. The body politic must be sound if the soul is to be healthy. Moral and physical health are synonymous.’
‘Mussolini’, I interjected, ‘said the same to me’. Hitler beamed.
‘The slums’, he added, ‘are responsible for nine-tenths, alcohol for one-tenth of all human depravity. No healthy man is a Marxian. Healthy men recognise the value of personality. We contend against the forces of disaster and degeneration. Bavaria is comparatively healthy because it is not completely industrialised… If we wish to save Germany, we must see to it that our farmers remain faithful to the land. To do so, they must have room to breathe and room to work.’
‘Where will you find the room to work?’
‘We must retain our colonies and expand eastward. There was a time when we could have shared world domination with England. Now we must stretch our cramped limbs only toward the east. The Baltic is necessarily a German lake.’”
Hitler the Communist
Andrew Roberts reviews Thomas Weber’s “Hitler’s First War.”
by Andrew Roberts, 2010
Hitler’s First War:
the Men of the List Regiment,
and the First World War
By Thomas Weber
Oxford, 416 pages
It might seem impossible for the moral character of Adolf Hitler to be revealed as more cynical and opportunistic than we already suppose, yet that is precisely the revelation arising from the painstaking archival work of Thomas Weber in his superb new work of history, Hitler’s First War. An investigation into young Hitler’s service with an infantry regiment in the First World War, Hitler’s First War also tells the story of the future Fuehrer’s ideological journey in the year following Germany’s surrender in 1918. This is where the book’s true importance lies. Weber—who was educated at Oxford, Harvard, and Princeton and is now a fellow at Aberdeen University—proves beyond doubt that Hitler’s own account in Mein Kampf of how and when he formed his National Socialist theories and policies, hitherto accepted as accurate by his many biographers, was at best tendentious and full of gaps, and at worst completely invented.
Those biographers have generally accepted Hitler’s own contention that his National Socialist views were fully formed by November 1918, when, in an army hospital during his recovery from a temporary gas blinding, he heard of Germany’s surrender. In the year that followed, those views were, we have been told, merely cemented by the revolutionary ferment inside Germany following the defeat; by September 1919, he had joined the National Socialist Party. Weber demonstrates that, far from being a convinced radical proto-fascist in this vital period of political maelstrom, Hitler was in fact politically “confused and disoriented.” At one point, Hitler was an active supporter of the peculiar experiment in revolutionary governance called the Bavarian Soviet Republic and demonstrated public support for its founding father, Kurt Eisner, a Jew and a Communist. “Hitler made sure figuratively and quite possibly literally to burn any traces of his activities during this period,” writes Weber, and small wonder.
But that comes later in the book. The early sections feature eye-opening material on the medals Hitler was awarded during the war—the Iron Cross 2nd Class in 1914 and 1st Class in 1918. Weber has investigated tales of Hitler’s heroism minutely and shows in each case that they were wildly exaggerated by Nazi propagandists or by former comrades keen to curry favor. Far from exhibiting notable courage, Hitler was in fact no braver than the next man, and those decorations were handed out almost “with the rations” to people the officers in his regiment knew and liked. Hitler’s Iron Cross 1st Class, he writes, “was less a sign of bravery than of his position and long service within regimental headquarters.” Indeed, Hitler and others who ran dispatches from commander to commander were dubbed “rear area pigs” by the front-line soldiers whom they almost never saw.
“An incorrigible embellisher of his own war service,” Weber calls Hitler, especially once he had the power of Josef Goebbels’s state propaganda apparatus behind him. The stories of his single-handedly capturing a dozen enemy combatants—some accounts claim a score—are proved here to be ludicrous. (In one letter, Hitler said his regiment had even captured the Belgian village of Messines, when it had been miles away and uninvolved.) Far from spending three months fighting in the Battle of the Somme, as John Toland stated in his self-proclaimed “definitive biography” published in 1976, Hitler was there for only four days.
Weber subjects the gullibility of Toland and other prominent biographers, including the eminent Alan Bullock and Joachim Fest, to coruscating ire. Their willingness to take Hitler at face value is even more apparent when it comes to Hitler’s postwar political awakening. “It is impossible convincingly to arrange the existing evidence from Hitler’s time after the war,” Weber writes, “in any way consistent with either a portrayal of Hitler as a Socialist or as the hyper-nationalist Pan-German anti-Semite that he was to become for one simple reason: he was neither.”
In fact, like so many other Germans at the time, Hitler was politically disoriented, with no clear Weltanshauung (worldview). Weber shows how at this vital but politically fluid moment, Hitler’s “future was undetermined and he could have moved in the direction of diametrically different political movements, as long as they combined the promise of a classless society with some kind of nationalism.”
The author of Mein Kampf skates very quickly and superficially over the first five months after the end of the war, which is unsurprising, since in the spring of 1919 in Munich, he, in Weber’s words, “served a government that he was later to deride as treacherous, criminal and Jewish. And he did not keep his head down.”
The story is complicated. Eisner, then the head of state in Bavaria, was assassinated on February 21 by a would-be member of the proto-fascist Thule Society. At Eisner’s funeral in Munich, Hitler actually walked behind the coffin in his role as head of a military unit, the Ersatz Battalion of the 2nd Infantry Regiment. Surviving film footage shows Hitler wearing two armbands at Eisner’s funeral: one the black band of mourning, the other a red armband of the socialist revolution. There are also still photographs of Hitler so attired (taken, ironically enough, by the man who was to become his court photographer, Heinrich Hoffmann). Hitler chose publicly to side with the fallen Jewish Communist leader rather than with the Thule Society, among whose members were several future Nazi leaders, and continued to serve as deputy battalion representative after the Bavarian Soviet Republic was declared in the wake of the riots following Eisner’s death. It came to an end three months later, in May.
Weber goes to pains to show how all the traditional explanations for Hitler’s tergiversations of this period—that he was a socialist, or an agent provocateur, or a secret nationalist counter-revolutionary, and so on—simply do not stand up to the kind of rigorous analysis steeped in the realities of the contemporary political scene to which historians and biographers ought to have subjected them. “If he really had been a committed dyed-in-the-wool Pan-German anti-Socialist, anti-Semite and hyper-nationalist and had only overtly cooperated with the new regime to steer the men around him away from Communism and Social Democracy,” Weber points out, he would have done what many right-wing youths in Germany were doing at the time and joined, even in secret, a Freikorps, a paramilitary gang.
Weber shows that Hitler could easily have resigned his post, as other comrades did, if he had wished. Nor did he do anything to overthrow the regime, unlike genuine fascists of the day, such as Otto Strasser, who later taunted Hitler with his absence. Equally, asks Weber, “If Hitler really had been hiding his true colors and had been the champion of all the other anti-revolutionary men in the unit who were also keeping their heads down, why did none of those men make a statement to the effect once Hitler had become famous, and…why did he not brag about it in Mein Kampf instead of keeping silent about this time?” The answer was that Hitler had not determined which way he was going to move; he had not even yet decided that anti-Semitism was likely to be a useful political tool.
On March 13, 1920, Hitler was formally discharged from the army after 2,050 days of service. He was now free to concentrate on the Nazi Party full-time and to create its policies and philosophies from the maelstrom of often contradictory impulses that had hitherto made up his political thinking. Hitler may have adopted an anti-Semitism that had not previously been evident in his psychological makeup from an opportunistic power-lust rather than a set of racist principles to which he had long adhered.
Hitler’s cynicism about politics and human nature, and his growing faith in his own leadership abilities once he had secured control of the National Socialist Party, were such that he took Germany down the path to unprecedented horror. Yet that specific path had been far from predetermined at the end of the Great War, despite what Hitler himself subsequently claimed. He was always going to be a vicious totalitarian dictator, but whether it was of the fascist or the Communist type would be determined, on the evidence presented in this highly important revisionist work, by the prevailing winds of his calamitous time.
“We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak… we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions”.Adolf Hitler (Speech of May 1, 1927. Quoted by Toland, 1976, p. 306)
The Truth about Private Hitler—Historian Thomas Weber on His New Book “Hitler’s First War”
A long-hidden treasure trove of new evidence discovered by historian Thomas Weber, PhD, presents the clearest picture yet of Hitler’s war years and debunks the Nazi myths. Dr. Weber’s new book, Hitler’s First War: Adolf Hitler, the Men of the List Regiment, and the First World War (Oxford University Press, 2010), includes new revelations based on documents from Hitler’s comrades and army records, including:
- Hitler served a few miles behind the lines as a runner for regimental headquarters in relative comfort, and was considered a mere “tea boy” messenger or “rear-area pig” (Etappenschwein) by frontline soldiers.
- Hitler was a loner and occasional object of ridicule who never displayed leadership qualities, never rose above the rank equivalent to a U.S. Army private first class, and never had authority over any other men in his four years of service.
- There is no evidence that Hitler shared anti-Semitic or anti-Bolshevist views with comrades, and indeed, he served with the leftist Soviet Republic of Munich after the war ended before he embraced fascism.
- There is virtually no evidence of anti-Semitism in Hitler’s regiment during the war.
- Few of Hitler’s fellow soldiers in his regiment joined the Nazi Party, and many indeed cold-shouldered him at a 1922 veterans’ reunion.
- The Nazi Party suppressed records from the war that cast Hitler as anything other than a gallant soldier.
- The First World War did not radicalize Hitler contrary to Nazi propaganda.
Dr. Weber studied the archives of Hitler’s regiment, the List Regiment (the 16th Bavarian Reserve Infantry Regiment—RIR 16) and personal documents of soldiers from the regiment, and also conducted interviews with family members. Much of the material on Hitler’s regiment in the Bavarian War Archive was uncataloged and not considered in previous biographies, and many documents pertaining to Hitler’s unit had been untouched. Dr. Weber and his researchers compiled a database with a sample of more than seven hundred soldiers and followed the lives of fifty-nine Jewish veterans from the regiment. According to Dr. Weber, over 70 percent of his book is based on new material.
Hitler’s First War has been acclaimed for its groundbreaking findings based on original research of previously unknown material. Norman Stone wrote in The Wall Street Journal: “With some luck and a lot of diligence, Mr. Weber has discovered the missing documents of Hitler’s war service, and it is fair to say that very little of Hitler’s own account survives the discovery.”
Dr. Weber teaches history and is also the Director of the Research Centre on Global Uncertainties at the University of Aberdeen, United Kingdom. He earned a doctorate at Oxford University, and after that taught or held fellowships at Harvard University, the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Chicago, and the University of Glasgow. Dr. Weber’s first book, Lodz Ghetto Album, won a 2004 Golden Light Award and a 2005 Infinity Award. His second book, Our Friend “The Enemy” received the 2008 Duc d’Arenberg History Prize for the best book of a general nature, intended for a wide public, on the history and culture of the European continent.
Dr. Weber spoke at length about his new book from his office at Harvard University during a speaking tour in the United States.
Lindley: Hitler must be the most scrutinized historical figure in recent memory. What sparked your biography focusing on World War I?
Weber: I also thought everything had been written about Hitler, but when I was looking for a new topic to write about, a historian at Oxford, Adrian Gregory, said it was really surprising that no one had ever written about Hitler and his regiment in the First World War. We concluded that everything we think we know about Hitler and the First World War is based on Mein Kampf and propagandistic claims, but that by looking at the regimental papers of Hitler’s First World War unit I would be able to look beyond the tales told by Nazi propaganda and thus be able to tell if the war really “made” Hitler. We quickly came to the conclusion that it would be a great idea to do a book using this approach, and the rest is history, I suppose.
Lindley: When you set out, did you know that documents were in archives in Germany that had not been reviewed or found by other historians?
Weber: I kind of knew they existed. While doing my graduate work at Oxford in the second half of the 1990s, I once briefly discussed the issue with one of my professors, Hartmut Pogge von Strandmann. And that’s how I generally knew there had to be papers, but at that point nobody knew how extensive they would be.
Obviously, Hitler biographers had visited the Bavarian War Archive in Munich and had looked for facts specific to Adolf Hitler, but they did not find many files, of course, as they looked for documents that specifically mentioned Hitler—and Hitler was just a dispatch runner. There was also some suggestion that Hitler had files removed from these papers after 1933. And the second and more significant reason is that researchers didn’t realize that most of the files relating to Hitler’s regiment were not housed with the papers of the regiment, but with the division and the brigade to which the regiment belonged. And the extensive Military Justice files were not cataloged at all. So, if you went to the archives and asked for materials on Hitler’s regiment, you wouldn’t easily know these files existed.
The Military Justice files were an extraordinary set of sources. There were about 190 cases of files on Hitler’s regiment, and each case included [information] on the soldiers and officers, and often also confiscated letters and diary fragments. They were really wonderful in shedding light on what really happened in Hitler’s regiment.
It was this material in the Bavarian War Archive that was the starting point of my research on Hitler’s regiment. But I then quickly realized that there was more material to be found in other archives. I decided early on to compile a database of a random selection of approximately seven hundred soldiers. I checked the names of these soldiers against Nazi Party membership files and de-Nazification files to tell how typical Hitler was compared in his political development to other men of the regiment. I also compiled a database of the fifty-nine Jewish soldiers and then systematically looked for material on them and on the communities from which they came. This allowed me to identify where some of those Jewish soldiers had emigrated after 1933, and it allowed me to find some sources on them in other archives and even to find the families of two of the Jewish soldiers. I also went to northern France to look for sources on the communities in which Hitler’s regiment had stayed during the war.
What also greatly helped was a newspaper in Upper Bavaria, which published a story on my research and encouraged people to come forward if any of their family members had served in Hitler’s regiment in the First World War. A surprising number of people got in touch with me and offered the letters or papers of their [forebears].
But some finds also resulted from serendipity. For instance, one day I talked to someone whom I encountered in the Bavarian War Archives who turned out to be an archivist in a small Bavarian town and I told him I was working on Hitler in the war. He replied that the great-granddaughter of a soldier from Hitler’s regiment had come to him for a high school project the previous year and she had asked him to help her with some records. He put me in touch with her, which allowed me to see the papers of a soldier who knew Hitler well.
So there was a lot of detective work involved. And without the computer and Internet revolution of the past few years, I could not have written the book. For instance, Google Books allowed me to search millions of books for the names of the Jewish soldiers, which led me to often obscure books, which sometimes would refer to files in archives relating to the Jewish soldiers that I otherwise would not have found. For example, this is how I found the personal papers of a daughter of Jewish soldier from Hitler’s regiment in an archive in New York City.
Lindley: How long did the book project take?
Weber: The actual writing and research for the book took about four years.
Lindley: You dispel many of the previous views of Hitler’s First World War service in your book, and you come up with a wealth of information that was missed by noted Hitler biographers and probably thousands of researchers. Can you talk about your new findings and how earlier historians missed the story you tell?
Weber: My view is that we as scholars constantly have to deal with new evidence, and to use new tools, and constantly to go back to old questions and revise those interpretations in light of new evidence.
I would be the last person to criticize historians [and Hitler biographers] such as Joachim Fest, Ian Kershaw and Alan Bullock. I can only be in awe about the productivity and the intelligence of these historians. But they also had to base their books on evidence available at the time. And if you write a biography of Hitler’s entire life from 1889 to 1945, you inevitably have to base your book on what specialized studies of evidence exists, and those specialized studies on Hitler in the First World War had either not been done or were not particularly good studies.
I’m not criticizing at all the magisterial Hitler biographies by people like Kershaw or Bullock or Fest, but they could only be as good as the material and research that existed on these questions. Ian Kershaw’s book necessarily had to rely on publications about Hitler in the First World War that existed when he wrote his Hitler biography. I spent about four years researching Hitler in the First World War. If Ian Kershaw had spent a similar amount of time on each of Hitler’s years of his life, he would never have been able to write his biography. And also, a majority of Hitler biographers—including Ian Kershaw—are experts on the Third Reich itself. Therefore, and this is no criticism, they knew the archives for the years 1933 to 1945 much better than for the earlier years.
Lindley: You debunk popular notions about Hitler’s First World War service such as the idea that Hitler served with gallantry in the war with comrades who were mostly just as hyper-nationalistic and anti-Semitic as he became. What was Hitler’s role in the war?
Weber: With the exception of the first few days of the war when he was a combat soldier, he was a dispatch runner for regimental headquarters. Of course, people knew all along that he was a dispatch runner. But the conventional view, which was facilitated by Nazi propaganda, was that as a dispatch runner his job was more dangerous than that of a combat soldier in the trenches because, unlike soldiers who were somewhat protected in the trenches, he had to run on a day-to-day basis from trench to trench through machine gun fire and therefore risk his life every day.
In reality, his job was very different. He was a dispatch runner for regimental headquarters and he operated a few miles behind the front and took messages from regimental headquarters, for example, to division headquarters or to the command of a battalion. I’m not saying that this was a pleasant job or that it was not dangerous and I’m not saying it’s something I would want to do myself. The point here is twofold. The first one is, even objectively speaking, Hitler grossly exaggerated the dangers and realities of his work during the war. The second, and more important, is what the soldiers in the front line thought of Hitler’s tasks rather than what dangers of his job objectively were. Hitler was seen by front-line soldiers as an Etappenschwein, or a “rear-area pig,” or the term in American forces would be “rear echelon motherfucker.”
I found this in a letter from one of Hitler’s peers at regimental headquarters, written in 1932, when Hitler was waging a legal campaign against some of his critics who were questioning his war record when he ran for the German presidency. The letter basically said—and I’m paraphrasing, “Look Hitler, you know as well as I do that we both served honorably, but you also know as well as I do that everyone in the trenches thought otherwise. They thought that we were Etappenschweine. They thought our job wasn’t as dangerous. They thought we could sleep in a warm bed at night while they slept in trenches and were exposed to the cold and the rain and enemy fire.”
The letter confirmed the claims made in accounts critical of Hitler’s war record which had been published by newspapers in the twenties and thirties but which have been dismissed as not trustworthy by Hitler biographers. I managed to demonstrate that the most important and most scathing of these articles—which was anonymous and against which Hitler took legal action on in 1932—was, in fact,
written by an officer in Hitler’s regiment. He himself had served as a dispatch runner earlier in the war and later became the commander of the company to which Hitler at least nominally belonged.
The more I looked, the more I found ample evidence that ordinary soldiers thought Hitler’s job was a much lesser, cushy job. This is so important because of the gulf that emerged during the war between soldiers in the trenches and the support staff of regimental headquarters. This gulf existed during and after the war, and explains why a majority of the veterans of Hitler’s regiment cold-shouldered him later.
To be sure, a number of people, particularly from regimental headquarters, joined Hitler’s Nazi Party early on, but the majority of the veterans did not join the Nazi Party. And Hitler ever attended only one veterans’ reunion of his regiment in 1922, in high hopes of recruiting people for his movement, but he was cold-shouldered there. In fact, the veterans at the 1922 reunion were celebrating the main speaker at the event, an officer who later became a member of a resistance group to Hitler and was married to someone who, according to Nazi criteria, was Jewish.
After that, Hitler never again attended a reunion of the veterans’ association. Even in 1934 when Nazi propagandists staged a huge reunion amidst much pageantry in Munich, Hitler did not attend the meeting. Among the materials I received from the great-granddaughter of one of Hitler’s wartime peers—the one the local archivist I met in the War Archive had told me about—I found a postcard written the day after the 1934 reunion by the wife of another of Hitler’s wartime peers. She wrote: “I hope that the day will come soon when Hitler can stay with his loyal comrades. My heart is bleeding that there are still comrades who lack the holiness and inner conviction that the future lies with Hitler. This is why Hitler cannot attend [reunions of the List Regiment]. I understand this all even though I am just a woman.”
The fact that ordinary soldiers of the List Regiment did not think of Hitler as one of them meant a great deal later on when Hitler tried to recruit people for his party. It also shows that the Nazi myth about Hitler’s war years that became the conventional view of Hitler’s First World War to the present day—according to which he was “made” by the war and a typical product of the regiment politically and in every other sense—is just not true.
Lindley: A fellow member of the support staff of regimental headquarters of Hitler described his job as being a “postmistress.”
Lindley: Hitler was awarded two Iron Crosses, including the somewhat rare Iron Cross, First Class. Did you see the citations and the reasons noted for awarding these medals to Hitler?
Weber: There’s a copy of the official citation in Munich in the Bavarian Archives. The citations were written in very general terms, basically saying that Hitler had been courageous and served honorably, but not singling out any specific action or event for which he was honored.
Lindley: Wouldn’t a specific event be noted with particulars in most cases?
Weber: I think it would be especially true for the Iron Cross, First Class, except maybe for high-ranking officers. For ordinary soldiers, they would be more specific, and especially for infantrymen, they would mention what specifically was done because it was a rare award. It’s curious that the one [awarded to] Hitler was so non-specific.
Lindley: And ironically, the Iron Cross was awarded to Hitler by Hugo Gutmann, a Jewish officer.
Weber: It was proposed by Gutmann.
Lindley: Did Hitler then get the award for longevity, since he served through the entire war, and because he was submissive to his superiors?
Weber: It’s difficult to tell for certain. It’s probably a combination of two things. In a traditional sense, he was a very good soldier. He did what he was asked to do without complaining. It seems likely that there was a specific incident, which triggered the proposal by Gutmann. There’s a suggestion that the proposal was triggered, in the summer of 1918, when Hitler and someone else offered to take a message forward through difficult terrain. Apparently Gutmann said, “If you make it through there, you will get an Iron Cross.” There is a suggestion that Gutmann had difficulty in delivering on his promise as Hitler’s action was insufficient for an Iron Cross, First Class, which if true might explain why the citation is so general. That suggests that Gutmann and the other officers of regimental headquarters felt they had to deliver on the promise and probably also considered Hitler’s longevity and the fact that Hitler was well liked by his superiors. There seems to have been a sense that, if we put down in the citation what he actually did, we might not get it through higher ranks, and therefore we have to come up with something general to get the proposal through.
Lindley: And Hitler was wounded twice. Once by shrapnel in the leg, and later supposedly blinded by gas. With his wounds and hospitalizations, he missed some of the most brutal fighting of the war.
Weber: That is correct.
Lindley: And some writers suggest the blindness was psychosomatic rather than resulting from exposure to gas.
Weber: As far as the blindness is concerned, part of the Nazi Party or Hitler myth was that he had been blinded by mustard gas to show how dangerous his job was, how brave he was. There also was a claim that he had been recovering, and as he understood Germany had lost the war, he temporarily lost his eyesight again.
A few publications from recent years, however, have presented evidence that Hitler’s blindness indeed was not caused by mustard gas, but rather was psychosomatic or triggered by war hysteria. In September of this year, following the British release of my book, I found more evidence. In San Francisco, a radio listener who had listened to my interview with the BBC World Service at the time, came forward and gave letters to me from his father that provide further evidence that Hitler’s blindness was indeed psychosomatic.
It’s possible he suffered from post-combat stress. There has been some suggestion that he was released from hospital early, and his treatment was at a stage where he was left uncured. This may explain some personality traits he developed. Whether that is raw speculation or plausible, I find difficult to determine. However, I think we can safely say that, in 1919, Hitler is not just radicalized but also suddenly moves from being an unremarkable soldier without any leadership qualities to becoming a leader. No one around him saw leadership qualities in Hitler in the First World War.
Lindley: Yes. His lack of any leadership qualities in the war is stunning.
Weber: Suddenly this follower, within months, turns into this charismatic leader who found his voice and preached with a high degree of certitude. To understand not only his radicalization but also this change in personality, we really have to look at the psychological development of Hitler. I can’t really say what happened, but it’s plausible that Hitler’s mental makeup changed, and that he developed some kind of personality disorder that helped him become a charismatic leader able to exercise leadership functions.
Lindley: He seemed to display an authoritarian personality disorder.
Weber: When you compare Hitler and Stalin, it’s complicated. Hitler is this absolute tyrant, responsible arguably for the largest number of people ever killed. On the other hand, people who personally interacted with him in the 1920s and 1930s generally found him quite charming. That could explain why people who met Hitler underestimated him, or said what was happening was horrible but was probably not Hitler’s fault because they tried to divorce Hitler from the violent reality of the Third Reich.
Stalin, by contrast, was on every level of the word a thug. He tyrannized and killed people in his immediate entourage. He enjoyed having the people who surrounded him drink themselves senseless and then watch their behavior. Hitler treated his immediate entourage very differently, which also raises questions about Hitler’s mental development and personality traits.
Lindley: Unlike Stalin, he didn’t usually execute his officers.
Weber: Except for the Night of the Long Knives. But that‘s the exception rather than the rule. For Stalin, the rule was that he had no qualms about executing people with whom he had had personal interaction.
Lindley: You note that Hitler had little social contact with other soldiers and didn’t join in carousing but preferred to paint or read political books. Can you say more about his rather atypical behavior?
Weber: We cannot know for sure what he did beyond these activities but it seems that he did not do much else—as he did not indulge in the favorite pastime of many soldiers: drinking. Unlike many of his peers, all evidence suggests that he also did not frequent brothels. It’s important to remember that soldiers often suffered from extreme boredom during the war. So there is really a limit as to what Hitler could do during the war to keep himself occupied when he was not on duty. While on leave, he once visited Brussels and probably also took part in a day trip to the Belgian coast while not on duty. Hitler had a real thirst for knowledge, particularly as far as it related either to architecture or to history, and would have thus been excited to visit Brussels—less for the temptations of drink and sex that a city behind the front offered (as would have been the case for many other soldiers) than for the architectural wonders of Brussels.
Lindley: Some of Hitler’s List Regiment comrades joked that he was so inept that he couldn’t even feed himself in a canned food factory because he couldn’t open a can with a bayonet.
Weber: Yes, but almost all of his immediate comrades seem to have gotten on with him. There seems to have been no people who really hated him amongst those who had frequent interaction with him. But it also seems that almost everyone, irrespective of whether they later sided with Hitler or not, saw him as a bit of a loner, an awkward person, as someone they accepted in their midst, but not someone who they really saw as one of them. His immediate comrades showed no sign that they were rallying around Hitler or even that Hitler was formulating political ideas in the trenches (with which they either agreed or disagreed). Even people who later joined him and who genuinely liked him seemed not to have taken Hitler particularly seriously during the war.
Lindley: You put to rest in your book the idea that Hitler was openly anti-Semitic and anti-Bolshevik during the First World War.
Lindley: It will be stunning for most readers that Hitler displayed no leadership qualities during the war.
Weber: It was stunning to me. Of course, once Hitler becomes a charismatic leader, his experience in the First World War, particularly his experience in his unit at regimental headquarters, became very important. The regimental headquarters provided for him a model of a functioning organization and of how to set up an organization and how leadership might work. While he had not shown leadership qualities himself during the war, and there was not a single soldier who had to answer to Hitler, it was still those experiences that mattered retrospectively when Hitler was trying to find a way of how to build an organization and deal with people.
And of course, when he built the Nazi Party, he turned to Max Amann, the staff sergeant of regimental headquarters, and asked him to join as managing director of the Nazi Party because Hitler could trust him in building an organization. And, during the peacetime years of the Third Reich, Hitler turns to Fritz Wiedemann, the regimental adjutant, and asks him to become one of his personal adjutants in the Reich Chancellery in Berlin. Hitler indeed tries to reproduce the organization model of regimental headquarters in the First World War.
Lindley: Was Hitler ever at a rank equivalent to a U.S. Army corporal during the First World War?
Weber: No, he wasn’t. It’s basically a mistranslation of the German term Gefreiter. To be fair, it’s also a reflection of the difficulty of translating military ranks. But the correct translation for Gefreiter would be private first class. Hitler had no line of command over anyone else. It’s quite wrong to describe Hitler as Corporal Hitler.
Lindley: Among his lies, Hitler falsely claimed that he was a sole survivor of one battle with Scotland’s Gordon Highlanders and the Black Watch. What did Nazi Party do to spread such stories and suppress the truth?
Weber: They disseminated stories like this one through textbooks for primary and high school students, through newspaper and magazine articles, photo books, textbooks for members of the Hitler Youth, etc. They suppressed the truth mainly through intimidation, by putting people temporarily into concentration camps. They also liquidated people who had knowledge of Hitler’s medical record from 1918, which showed that his blindness resulted from war hysteria and not from mustard gas. And they of course also suppressed the truth by cleverly discrediting critics of Hitler. They also cleverly made use of the code of honor of the military which made it very difficult openly to attack a former wartime peer without the risk of being ostracized themselves for such an attack.
Lindley: You indicate that Hitler’s war experience dictated the way he fought World War II.
Weber: I wouldn’t say fully dictated. The First World War provided lessons to Hitler on how to fight and not fight a war. Particularly, in the second part of the Second World War, he no longer trusted the generals and very often overrode their decisions, saying—I’m paraphrasing, “Look, you generals may have been officers in the First World War, but you were behind the front,” leveling the same criticism at them as his comrades leveled against him. “I know what the realities of the First World War were, and this is what we did, for instance, in the Spring Offensive of 1918, and this is what we are going to do in Russia.” He’d use those retroactively reconfigured experiences to advance nonsensical propositions of how to fight the Second World War.
Lindley: I think readers will also be surprised that, just after the First World War ended, Hitler served with the left-wing Soviet Republic of Munich, rather than with the right-wing Freikorps.
Weber: Yes, it’s amazing. At the very least we can say is that Hitler’s path toward fascism was very unusual for fascists. The standard route was to be radical right wing at the end of the First World War, then through the Freikorps, to becoming a fascist. Hitler’s political socialization is very different. While his future fellow fascists are fighting the Soviet Republic, he is in the center of Munich serving the Soviet Republic. He even serves as one of the elected representatives of his postwar unit.
Hitler biographers have tried to make sense of his actions by arguing that maybe they were a smokescreen for what he really wanted to do, or that he was a secret spokesperson for hyper-nationalists, or that he was a full-fledged communist. I find none of these explanations persuasive. The problem is that scholars thought that they had to resolve Hitler’s contradictory actions during this time by showing that one action was a smokescreen for another.
My argument is that the whole point is that Hitler’s actions should not be resolved. His actions were contradictory and he had flexible political ideas. The least we can say, whatever ideas Hitler might have secretly harbored, that was not why his fellow soldiers voted for him as a representative of his post-war battalion in 1919.
The idea that all of these soldiers [who served with Hitler] were German nationalists and Hitler had stayed in the army like other German hyper-nationalists doesn’t work. The overwhelming majority [of his fellow soldiers] in the Bavarian Elections of 1919—and we know this because special election districts had been set up in military barracks and military hospitals—voted for the Social Democrats or for other democratic parties. As up to 80 percent of soldiers in Munich still in the military in early 1919 voted for democratic parties, it is inconceivable that the soldiers from Hitler’s postwar unit would have voted for Hitler if they saw him as some sort of anti-socialist and anti-democratic radical.
After all, that’s exactly why we call ourselves National Socialists! We want to start by implementing socialism in our nation among our Volk! It is not until the individual nations are socialist that they can address themselves to international socialism.Adolf Hitler, As quoted by Otto Wagener in Hitler—Memoirs of a Confidant, editor, Henry Ashby Turner, Jr., Yale University Press (1985) p. 288
Lindley: What do you think sparked Hitler’s radical anti-Bolshevist and anti-Semitic views?
Weber: It’s a difficult question on what is cause and what is effect here: whether his morbid anti-Semitism and anti-Bolshevism were the cause of his fascism or the effect. It’s remarkable that this person with no leadership qualities suddenly became a charismatic leader, but also that his ideology goes far further than that of most other fascists in Germany during this time. To be sure, other fascists shared his ideas and his eliminationist anti-Semitism, but not all of them. Indeed, some did not take his extreme form of anti-Semitism seriously. But, as it later turned out, this extreme anti-Bolshevism and anti-Semitism was the core of his ideology and very much drove his actions from 1933, and particularly after 1941.
We can only answer that question [about the genesis of Hitler’s extreme views] once we know more about what happened to Hitler between March of 1919 and the fall of 1919. I find it convincing that Hitler was not immediately radicalized in a fascist way by the experiences of the Soviet Republic. He even had fluctuating political ideas in the summer of 1919, and he was intermingling with people with similarly fluctuating ideas. His political mentor during this time, Karl Mayr, who was also his commanding officer, ends up as a defender of the Weimar Republic and a Social Democrat. In 1933, he fled Germany for France but after the German invasion of France, he was put in a concentration camp. And Ernst Schmidt, Hitler’s fellow dispatch runner during the war with whom Hitler spent almost all the time during the revolutionary period, becomes a Nazi in the 1920s, but, like Mayr, shows democratic leanings until the mid-1920s.
This is all to say that it’s difficult to know what exactly triggered Hitler’s move to fascism in 1919. It might have been the result of a politicization, or other contingent factors, including an attempt to find a new ersatz family now that his ersatz family from regimental headquarters from the war had disintegrated. And maybe there was an element of him trying to distance himself from his actions during the Soviet Republic of Munich, but that’s speculation.
Lindley: It seems Hitler was disappointed that List Regiment veterans did not rally to his fascist cause, and that most indeed rejected his political views.
Weber: I’m just speculating, but I think he was genuinely hurt by this rejection because I think he sought acceptance by the members of his regiment. And he respected even those veterans who were critical of him.
Interestingly—and this goes back to the Hitler-Stalin comparison—despite the fact that a significant number of veterans openly challenged Hitler, he did not have any of them liquidated. He put some of them temporarily in concentration camps or prison, but he did not order any of them liquidated, not even Jewish veterans. Gutmann was put into a Gestapo prison in 1937, but was not eliminated, and crucially, he came out of prison again. The same is true of another Jewish veteran, Siegfried Heumann, who is tried in 1936, and gets away with it. Of course, a significant number of Jewish veterans, including Heumann, ultimately died in the death camps of the East in the Holocaust. But the important point here is that they die as Jews and not as members of his regiment. Hitler did not order any of his fellow Jewish or non-Jewish fellow soldiers liquidated. So, despite being hurt and cold-shouldered, there’s a sense that Hitler seeks approval from his regiment, and in a way he respects them more than they respect him.
Lindley: You grew up in Germany, and your grandfather served with the Luftwaffe during the Second World War. Did your background prompt your research on Hitler?
Weber: I find it difficult to answer. I prefer other people answer, rather than analyze myself. It’s true that if you grow up in a country that’s a Western democratic modern state, but you realize that not long before, your state was very different, and it was your country that committed unspeakable crimes, you ask why. The people that you know and you experience as friendly neighbors or loving grandparents were involved with this regime. I’m not saying they all fully supported it, but they were all some way or another involved in this regime. I suppose that raises the question of how do we make sense of this. Why is it that a country that was arguably the most educated in the world and a country of nice neighbors and loving grandparents managed to unleash war and genocide at an unprecedented level? I’m sure that triggered at least in part my questions.
Lindley: In the United States some fear a similarly repressive regime here. We trust our system of checks and balances to prevent such an extremist nightmare. Yet Germany had a democratic government with the Weimar Republic in the 1920s when Hitler and his thugs were marginalized, but with a bad economy and a tragic series of events, Hitler came to power in 1933.
Weber: I think it’s unlikely that anything like Nazi Germany could happen in the United States, which after all is one of the great success stories of the modern world. However, I don’t want to sound like a doomsayer, but even seemingly strong democratic states can rapidly de-democratize and radicalize in certain periods of time. Periods of extreme economic volatility may go hand in hand with war or other extreme crises. Any kind of war creates an atmosphere of you’re with us or against us. I’m the last person who would want to equate the United States with fascist regimes. Nevertheless, I am still with Fritz Stern—the eminent historian and public intellectual—who in a series of articles and talks since 9/11 has warned the American public about the danger of how even democratic societies can radicalize. In extreme periods of crisis, even stable democratic states quickly can become prone to radicalization and to an undermining of democracy.
Lindley: How do you think your book adds to our understanding of Hitler?
Weber: It changes our understanding in two ways. First, on seeing how Hitler was “made” or radicalized. If you can show that the most extreme political leader of the twentieth century was politicized and radicalized in a very different manner than was previously believed, then that in itself is a very significant finding.
In addition, it changes our understanding of how Hitler came to power, and how he was inventing and re-inventing himself in a way that made him attractive to a German electorate. And it sheds new light on how Hitler rose to power.
It also changes our understanding of many other issues. For instance, we now know that, when Hitler based decisions in the Second World War on experiences from the First World War, he was not governed by immediate experience, but rather by reconfigured or reinvented experience. It changes our understanding of how Hitler’s anti-Semitism came about.
Beyond Hitler, it changes our understanding of Jewish-Gentile relations and it raises the question of whether the First World War was the “seminal catastrophe” of the twentieth century that George F. Kennan famously thought it was. I’m convinced it was a catastrophe for Eastern Europe, but I’m not sure it was the “seminal catastrophe” of the twentieth century for Germany or for Hitler.
Lindley: What does it mean that the First World War was not the “seminal catastrophe” in twentieth-century German history? Didn’t Hitler derail democracy by stressing the war myth?
Weber: The idea of World War I being the “seminal catastrophe” in twentieth century German history really is that the First World War planted the seeds of all subsequent problems and disasters in German (and European) history. My argument is that that is not really true but that despite First World War, the future of a democratic (or at least semi-democratic) Germany still looks fairly bright as soldiers return from the war. The argument is that subsequent events (and not the war itself) functioned as the root problems of Germany’s subsequent descent into darkness.
Yes, Hitler did derail democracy by stressing the war myth but my point is that there is no direct line from Hitler’s war experience to the failure of democracy in Germany. I think your question implicitly already answers why the war not the seminal catastrophe of Germany’s twentieth century: You refer to “the war myth” rather than “Hitler’s war experience.” In other words, not the war itself but what was made of the war after the event was the problem. This is to say that only because of things that happened after the war was it possible for the war to be “reinvented” in a way that derailed democracy.
Hitler on Marxism
“National Socialism derives from each of the two camps the pure idea that characterizes it, national resolution from bourgeois tradition; vital, creative socialism from the teaching of Marxism.” – January 27, 1934, interview with Hanns Johst in Frankforter Volksblatt
Hitler on Teaching Socialism
“There is a difference between the theoretical knowledge of socialism and the practical life of socialism. People are not born socialists, but must first be taught how to become them.” – October 5, 1937, speech in Berlin
Hitler on Capitalism
“In those countries, it is actually capital that rules; that is, nothing more than a clique of a few hundred men who possess untold wealth and, as a consequence of the peculiar structure of their national life, are more or less independent and free. They say: ‘Here we have liberty.’ By this they mean, above all, an uncontrolled economy, and by an uncontrolled economy, the freedom not only to acquire capital but to make absolutely free use of it. That means freedom from national control or control by the people both in the acquisition of capital and in its employment. This is really what they mean when they speak of liberty. These capitalists create their own press and then speak of the ‘freedom of the press.’ In reality, every one of the newspapers has a master, and in every case this master is the capitalist, the owner. This master, not the editor, is the one who directs the policy of the paper. If the editor tries to write other than what suits the master, he is ousted the next day. This press, which is the absolutely submissive and characterless slave of the owners, molds public opinion. Yes, certainly, we jeopardize the liberty to profiteer at the expense of the community, and, if necessary, we even abolish it.” – December 10, 1940, speech in Berlin
Hitler on Socialism
“Socialism as the final concept of duty, the ethical duty of work, not just for oneself but also for one’s fellow man’s sake, and above all the principle: Common good before own good, a struggle against all parasitism and especially against easy and unearned income. And we were aware that in this fight we can rely on no one but our own people. We are convinced that socialism in the right sense will only be possible in nations and races that are Aryan, and there in the first place we hope for our own people and are convinced that socialism is inseparable from nationalism.” – August 15, 1920, speech in Munich at the Hofbräuhaus.
Hitler on Social Justice
“Because it seems inseparable from the social idea and we do not believe that there could ever exist a state with lasting inner health if it is not built on internal social justice, and so we have joined forces with this knowledge.” – August 15, 1920, speech in Munich at the Hofbräuhaus
Hitler on Class Abolition
“We must on principle free ourselves from any class standpoint.” – April 12, 1922, speech in Munich
“There are no such things as classes: they cannot be. … here there can be no class, here there can be only a single people and beyond that nothing else.” – April 12, 1922, speech in Munich
Hitler on Marxism and Socialism
(Editor’s Note: StoppingSocialism.com does not agree with Hitler’s description of socialism, communism, and Marxism below. He deliberately misled people about the meaning of these terms for political reasons.)
“Socialism is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists. Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic. We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national.” – 1923, Interview with George Sylvester Viereck
Hitler on State Property Control
“To put it quite clearly: we have an economic program. Point 13 in that program demands the nationalization of all public companies, in other words socialization, or what is known here as socialism. … the good of the community takes priority over that of the individual. But the State should retain control; every owner should feel himself to be an agent of the State; it is his duty not to misuse his possessions to the detriment of the State or the interests of his fellow countrymen. That is the overriding point. The Third Reich will always retain the right to control property owners. If you say that the bourgeoisie is tearing its hair over the question of private property, that does not affect me in the least. Does the bourgeoisie expect some consideration from me? Today’s bourgeoisie is rotten to the core; it has no ideals anymore; all it wants to do is earn money and so it does me what damage it can. The bourgeois press does me damage too and would like to consign me and my movement to the devil.” – May 4, 1931, interview with Richard Breiting
Hitler on the Bourgeoisie
“Over the last 40 years, the German bourgeoisie has been a lamentable failure; it has not given the German people a single leader; it will have to bow without gainsaying to the totality of my ideology.” – May 4, 1931, interview with Richard Breiting
Hitler on German Socialism
“What they hate is the Germany which sets a dangerous example for them, this social Germany. It is the Germany of a social labor legislation which they already hated before the World War and which they still hate today. It is the Germany of social welfare, of social equality, of the elimination of class differences—this is what they hate! They hate this Germany which in the course of seven years has labored to afford its Volksgenossen a decent life. They hate this Germany which has eliminated unemployment, which, in spite of all their wealth, they have not been able to eliminate. This Germany which grants its laborers decent housing—this is what they hate because they have a feeling their own peoples could be ‘infected’ thereby. They hate this Germany of social legislation, this Germany which celebrates the first of May as the day of honest labor.” – May 8, 1939, speech “Party Comrades! My German Volksgenossen!” at the Bürgerbräukeller in Munich
Hitler on the Hammer and Sickle
“The hammer will once more become the symbol of the German worker and the sickle the sign of the German peasant.” – May 1, 1934, May Day speech in Berlin
Hitler on German Socialism
“Is there a nobler or more excellent kind of Socialism and is there a truer form of Democracy than this National Socialism which is so organized that through it each one among the millions of German boys is given the possibility of finding his way to the highest office in the nation, should it please Providence to come to his aid?” – January 30, 1937, On National Socialism and World Relations speech in the German Reichstag
Hitler on Profits
“And justice is on the side of those nations that fight for their threatened existence. And this struggle for existence will spur these nations on to the most tremendous accomplishments in world history. If profit is the driving force for production in the democracies—a profit that industrialists, bankers, and corrupt politicians pocket—then the driving force in National Socialist Germany and Fascist Italy is the realization by millions of laborers that, in this war, it is they who are being fought against. They realize that the democracies, if they should ever win, would rage with the full capitalist cruelty, that cruelty of which only those are capable whose only god is gold, who know no human sentiments other than their obsession with profit, and who are ready to sacrifice all noble thought to this profit instinct without hesitation. This struggle is not an attack on the rights of other nations, but on the arrogance and avarice of a narrow capitalist upper class, one which refuses to acknowledge that the days are over when gold ruled the world, and that, by contrast, a future is dawning when the people will be the determining force in the life of a nation.” – January 1, 1941, speech in Berlin
Hitler on His Own Fanatical Socialism
“Germany’s economic policy is conducted exclusively in accordance with the interests of the German people. In this respect I am a fanatical socialist, one who has ever in mind the interests of all his people.” – February 24, 1941, speech on the 21st anniversary of the Nazi Party
Hitler on the Triumph of Socialism
“All the more so after the war, the German National Socialist state, which pursued this goal from the beginning, will tirelessly work for the realization of a program that will ultimately lead to a complete elimination of class differences and to the creation of a true socialist community.” – March 21, 1943, speech for Heroes’ Memorial Day
The following quotes are attributed by Otto Wagener in Hitler: Memoirs of a Confidant
“In the past—that is, for most people it is still the present-the individual is everything, everything is directed at maintaining his life and improving his existence, everything focuses on him. … In socialism of the future, on the other hand, what counts is the whole, the community of the Volk. The individual and his life play only a subsidiary role. He can be sacrificed—he is prepared to sacrifice himself should the whole demand it.”
“Aren’t these liberals, those reprobate defenders of individualism, ashamed to see the tears of the mothers and wives, or don’t these cold-blooded accountants even notice? Have they already grown so inhuman that they are no longer capable of feeling? It is understandable why bolshevism simply removed such creatures. They were worthless to humanity, nothing but an encumbrance to their Volk. Even the bees get rid of the drones when they can no longer be of service to the hive. The Bolshevik procedures are thus quite natural.”
“What Marxism, Leninism, and Stalinism failed to accomplish, we shall be in a position to achieve.”
“But first, there will have to be national socialism. Otherwise the people and their governments are not ready for the socialism of nations. It is not possible to be liberal to one’s own country and demand socialism among nations.”
“After all, that’s exactly why we call ourselves National Socialists! We want to start by implementing socialism in our nation among our Volk! It is not until the individual nations are socialist that they can address themselves to international socialism.”
“But we National Socialists wish precisely to attract all socialists, even the Communists; we wish to win them over from their international camp to the national one.”
Mussolini: The Young Socialist Radical
Roots of Fascism: Part 3
Samuel Griswold. Fighting Fascism, Apr 15
Benito Mussolini emigrated to Switzerland in 1902, where he became active in the Italian socialist movement. He worked for the L’Avvenire del Lavoratore newspaper, served as secretary of the Italian workers union in Lausanne, gave speeches and organized meetings for socialist activists and sympathizers. He continued to study socialist philosophers including Friedrich Nietzche, Vilfredo Pareto of the Lausanne School, and the syndicalist Georges Sorel. It was Sorel’s ideas about the need for a violent overthrow of liberal democracy and capitalism through violence, general strikes and direct action that highly influenced Mussolini’s own political views and were later incorporated into his Fascist movement. He also credited Christian socialist Charles Peguy and the syndicalist Hubert Lagardelle as being some of his mentors.
Mussolini denounced Italy’s “imperialist war” in Libya
Mussolini spent two weeks in jail in 1903, after having been arrested for advocating for a general strike. The Swiss government deported him back to Italy, but he returned after falsifying his papers. He studied at the University of Lausanne and was arrested, a year later, in Geneva, Switzerland. Subscribe
In February of 1909, he moved to the Italian-speaking city of Trento which was then part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. There, he worked in the office of the local socialist party.
Mussolini returned to his hometown in Italy, in 1910, to edit the weekly newspaper, Lotta di Classe (The Class Struggle). He also published “Il Trentino veduto da un Socialista (Trentino as seen by a Socialist), in the Left-Wing periodical La Voce.
Mussolini described Marx as the “greatest of all theorists of socialism”
In September of 1911, he denounced Italy’s “imperialist war” in Libya, as a participant in a socialist-led riot. This protest caused him to be arrested and to spend five months in jail. But, it also built his credibility and led to his becoming editor of the Socialist Party newspaper, Avanti.
Describing Marx as the “greatest of all theorists of socialism,” Mussolini fully considered himself a follower of the Communist founder. Vladimir Lenin would later criticize Italian socialists for expelling him from their ranks. So, why did he separate from the Italian Socialist Party? Did his political philosophy really change?
In Roots of Fascism: Part 4, we shall see that his passion for socialism remained strong and true. It was his philosophy about Italian involvement in World War I that evolved.
IF YOU MADE IT SO FAR, YOU DESERVE A BONUS
To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them