On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 17:12:27 +0200, "Michele" <nospammiarmel@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>- Now, much of the misunderstandings in this thread, to which you seem to
>subscribe, depend on the definition of Nazism which we choose to employ.
>It is true that all of its ingredients existed already, and indeed, it
would
>have been surprising if it could have achieved that popularity if it had
>been an entirely new thing. However, none of the many existing rightist,
>nationalist, militarist, anti-Semitic etc. movements would have brought
>_all_ of those ingredients and more to their extreme lengths, as did
>Nazism - and Nazism did because it was Hitler's creation. Because there
was
>Hitler. And because Hitler had Hitler's psychology.
>If we want, we can call "Nazism" something that isn't exactly the real
>thing. We could say that Antonescu, Mussolini or Franco were "Nazis" - a
>simplification. Likewise, going back from OTL to alternate history, we
can
>assume that we can call "Nazi" some other would-be German ruler. But it
>would also be a simplification.
While I agree with the first half of what you say, early Fascism was
as much an outgrowth of the left rather than the right. Consider what
party Mussolini belonged to in the decade before coming to power.
(That's why I tend to view Oswald Mosley more as a disciple of
Mussolini rather than Hitler despite the fact that modern Britons have
tended to regard Germans more highly than Italians)
Hitler was more of a pragmatist than an ideologue - there's no
question he had his program but particularly in 1929-33 he
demonstrated that he was willing to make all kinds of deals
particularly with industrialists and the military to come to power. He
knew clearly his program could not be carried out without power and
once in power made very sure he'd stay that way.
>- Note by the way how all the bad guys mentioned above, and you can add
>Stalin, were nasty dictators, yes, but also pragmatic people (or
>op****tunists, in the case of Mussolini). This means that while they had
>their preferences and therefore they preferred ideas and therefore their
>preferred ideological solutions, they were rather able to disregard
>ideological doctrine and theories when it would not have worked in
practice.
>But Hitler? No. When the world doesn't adapt itself to the ideological
>theory, he goes for the latter anyway.
I don't think that's really true - the Night of the Long Knives was as
much about cementing his deal with the military than any one other
single factor.
>- So you have a doctrinal body which has been built with contributions by
>many people, and to which many people could subscribe more or less, but
one
>person is the ultimate ruler of the state, and also the man, of all the
>decision-makers in this system, who will be totally unrelenting and
>unyielding when it comes to making the compromises that actually
governing a
>country always implies. So much so that people did things behind his back
>when they knew how he would react to some uncomfortable practical
necessity.
>This is also why I believe that once Hitler is in power, some long-term
>intentions cannot be averted. He was not a man to change ideas as to his
>main driving ambitions, fears and hatreds.
I don't think we strongly disagree - but by 1943-44 Hitler was well
aware of his situation and knew Germany being just another country in
Europe wasn't happening regardless and that he may as well push his
program as far as he could. How else does one interpret concentration
camp trains getting priority over the military in Poland in the summer
of 1944 when the Red Army is in the midst of its biggest attack to
date?
Similarly during the 1939 Polish Crisis Hitler's greatest fear was
that someone would bring about a second Munich - he actively wanted
war by August 1939.
>- By way of further comparison, note how a political philosophy,
Communism,
>was already existing and robust both in theory and practical applications
>before Stalin came to power. Stalin was not another Party apparatchik,
and
>the end result is that many historians prefer to coin and use a
name-based
>trademark, Stalinism, not to be mixed up with Communism.
>So if you insist, I can even go to the length of saying that OK, "Nazism"
>might exist without Hitler; all I have to do is to say that on the
contrary
>"Hitlerism" wouldn't, and to apply my stated claims to the latter. With
the
>proviso that, as mentioned, Communism had a life of its own before Stalin
>and after him. Nazism, much less, before and after Hitler.
I still don't think Nazism and Hitlerism can reasonably be separated.
A Rohmist / Strasserite NSDAP would be similar to early Italian
fascism rather than anything we would recognize as Nazi. I can't see
such a party scaring anyone outside Germany for a moment.
How such a party would achieve power is a mystery to me. I can see it
playing the role Le Pen does these days but nothing more. Without the
1933-45 heritage of terror it's no scarier than the anti-Dreyfusards
were in France.
|
