"The ***** Goat" <lcraver@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:jcvn74pkmi40ljc2m1072doc4jeo9r2l7i@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> 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.
I disagree there. Hitler was willing to make deals as to the means. But as
to his true leading long-term objectives, or we could call them manias
given
the psychology, he would accept no watering down. Mussolini, at the other
end, on the contrary had _no_ long-term objectives better defined than
staying in power himself.
>
>>- 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?
>
Yes. That's my point. The long-term objectives take precedence over
reality.
> 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.
>
Yes.
>>- 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.
>
Indeed coming up with the "Hitlerism" concept was a concession I was
making.
> 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.
Well, it might happen, though it would be more unlikely. If it is a
smaller
party than OTL NSDAP, then Von Schleicher might be even more tempted than
in
OTL to recruit it. Note how more traditional rightist conservatives also
in
Italy thought they could "use" and tame the PNF. A ride-the-tiger scenario
which could still end with the tiger in command.
|
