The Nazis were not Conservative

As I read your opening argument, it struck me that we were merely emphasising two different sides of the same coin. I emphasised Nazi nationalism and you, Nazi socialism. Thus, the propositions we are arguing about is whether or not the Nazis were born from nationalism first, with socialism just being a means to its success (1), or whether its nationalism was just a means for establishing its socialism (2), or whether both were integral to its ideals and methodologies (3). To argue that all three options are false, is an untenable position. All permit a degree of conservatism, unless you argue that nationalism at the time was not linked to it. What I am trying to establish is that the National Socialist party was born out of a conservative reaction to the Weimar period within Germany, evident in how some of the tropes and policies of the regime reverted back to some strong and conservative background beliefs. Of course, change occurred in this period of history but it was change trying to restore Germany to some of its traditional values and then amplify these methodologically to constitute a great Third Reich. Prior to 1933, the Jews as you drew attention to were not socially impotent; indeed, they were one of the wealthiest social demographics (this was no ungrounded stereotype). But, just because some Jews did well under Weimar, does not mean that the anti-Semites in Germany did not exist or were sparse in number. Hitler undeniably united and unified the hatred of Jews in this period, especially after 1933, but he did not devise these beliefs himself. He adopted a long-standing and underlying xenophobia in factions of the German nation itself. This is undeniable when we take into account that Nietzsche wrote out against anti-Semitism; he died when Hitler was around eleven, and coincidentally had a mental breakdown which he would not recover from at the time of Hitler’s birth. Anti-Semitism was not new and existed prior to Hitler: it was a traditional, conservative prejudice that the Nazis took up and amplified. They appealed and resonated to the traditional factions of German society in its nationalistic desire to make Germany great again, and encouraged others by propaganda to give in to their control. Some in Germany, as you say, may have deemed “his ideology as outdated and extreme” but this is exactly my point. He was born from the traditional, conservative side of German culture, not all of Germany itself; that “outdated” bit was conservative and sought to preserve certain traditional values like its militancy, its culture and Aryan supremacy as laid out in the policy of Germanification. WW1 as well as the 1917 Russian Revolution, caused a reactionary conservativism in Germany to call for a right-wing restoration of values after their loss under the Weimar period. These people existed as localised factions in Germany, much as racists exist today, with Hitler drawing on their traditions. It was even quite popular in academia: ‘Their anti-republican ideology, antisemitism and anti-Marxism were expressed in their activities in right-wing antisemitic university circles. Those circles provided the soil from which grew the Nazi terror and genocide of the 1930s and 1940s.’ (1) And under a ‘gradually radicalising process’ (2), the Nazis united underlying anti-Semitism in Germany as a scapegoat at the rate that the nation was devastated by post-war positions and increasingly afraid of left-wing Marxism. The nationalised holiday resorts introduced in Germany in this period were by no means left-wing Marxist, emphasising worker “benefit” and recreational time. They, at their heart, were redolent of an idyllic image of Germany where workers could go on holiday, not restricted by their mass poverty. But, more sinisterly, what we have here is the control and manipulation of the non-working hours to extend state control into the family corpus. The socialist mechanisms, nationalising the means of production and other such industries, was to get right under the skin of the German volk in so that they could be more easily manipulated. You will find that the ‘Strength through Joy’ holiday organisation that you state was a mark of socialism, was too likewise dominated by Hitler’s propaganda staff. It was a tool for nationalism and not for progressing socialism for-itself. It regulated the recreational time of the worker as a mode to strengthen their nationalism, their sense of being a part of German tradition and identity, as well as to gain further worker acceptance which could be utilised in later years by the Nazi party. Indeed, Hitler did instigate many socialist policies after the Enabling Act. Healthcare, education and worker employment measures were developed for the benefit of the German populous. But, all these institutions were highly regulative and merely modes of creating a dependence of people on their government so that they could be coerced and regulated, imbued with an image of German pride (of conservative romanticism) through them. How did Hitler create more jobs for the German people in this period? He had them proliferating German weaponry, enhancing its military, improving its national infrastructure as to improve its efficiency. He enlisted a large faction of the populous into the army to reduce unemployment and others, such as road builders, were merely preparing the geographical Germany for the oncoming war. Hitler didn’t have any of the money to introduce these measures, Germany was practically insolvent in this period, but rather hoped to pay for them by his imperialist conquests. Hitler’s socialist economy was highly war-orientated. His socialist means were just a mode for his nationalistic ends, unifying the German identity as traditional policies had done and improving economic efficiency as was occurring in the time prior to WW1. He was preparing them for war. Books like ‘Mein Kampf’ and 'Thoughts and Tasks of the Future' were simply of national propaganda. The National Socialists of course proclaimed the power of the people first before subjugating them as cogs in a military machine wholly dependent on the centralised government, who saw Europe through the lenses of social conservativism and ambition. The machine may have looked socialist but it was producing bigoted, right-wing and war-ready Germans. It was producing Germans in accordance with the worst traditions and factions of the German nation. Take another example, a proclaimed Catholic, Hitler promoted the fecundity of German women. The Mother’s Cross awarded German women in accordance to the number of children they produced. It is hard not to draw parallels with the Catholic church here who, against contraception and abortion, have encouraged its members to have large families. For not only does this expand future numbers of the population, but it also creates a much larger workforce. Hence, Hitler drew here from a religious tradition to constitute his religious Nazism. Other races of women were not Aryan and thereby where excluded from this, encouraged to abort. This is basic biopolitics and population control. The xenophobic beliefs held by German government made these groups subhuman and thereby abortion was permissible for they were giving birth not to humans, but subhumans with no real soul or social value. And responding to your other points, not wanting to conflate political conservatism with the Conservative party, the two being quite different things, mentioning that Clementee Atlee (a Labour socialist) was voted in government in 1945 fails to note how Churchill won the election replacing him instigating a Conservative majority that would last from 1951-1964. Throughout this debate, you’ve made the mistake of conflating ‘conservative parties’ with ‘conservatism’ as a political position. This is ludicrous; if you accept this position, you must also accept how conservative parties in the USA and UK alike can promote socialist policies undermining your position considerably. Additionally, Hitler as the young artist, may not have conformed to a traditional masculine role; this does not mean that he did not conform to conservative values. Indeed, his time in WW1 developed in him the most fervent and nationalistic values, helping him identify with a faction of the German people that pre-existed him. And from this, in later years he would harness the underlying racial and spiritual disdain in the German people to animate the people in loyalty and fear of him, ready for war. Sources (1) O. Heilbronner. (2004) German or Nazi Antisemitism? P.14 (2) U. Herbert. (2000) Extermination Policy: New Answers and Questions about the History of the “Holocaust” p. 27.