On 14 hein=E4, 18:12, "Michele" <nospammiar...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> - Well, it depends. Hitler saw himself as indispensable for Germany. I
se=
e him as
> almost indispensable for his own unique brand of political philosophy.
It=
's different,
> don't you think?
Mh, not really. Inasmuch as the Nazis had a political "philosophy", it
existed pretty much independently of Hitler.
The Thule Society and the "Schutz- und Trutz-Bund" both existed
independently of Hitler; and both Alfred Rosenberg and Julius
Streicher were cranking out their crap well before Hitler had even
considered joining the Party. Hitler made his contribution, but at
that point, he was just one of the many.
So no, I don't think one can state that Hitler was almost
indispensable for the Nazi ideology... unless one simultaneously wants
to absolve a number of other people from the responsibility.
> However, none of the many existing rightist, nationalist, militarist,
ant=
i-Semitic etc. movements would have brought
> _all_ of those ingredients and more to their extreme lengths, as did
Nazi=
sm - and Nazism did because it was Hitler's
> creation. Because there was Hitler. And because Hitler had Hitler's
psych=
ology.
I get the feeling that now you're talking of the organizational base,
and not of the ideology. That's fine.
> We could say that Antonescu, Mussolini or Franco were "Nazis" - a
simplif=
ication.
Sure it would be, but then again, I wouldn't say that.
> 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.
Not really, because people such as Streicher, R=F6hm, Rosenberg, Hess
and others _were_ historically Nazis, and they would have been Nazis
even without Hitler.
I'll note that the very term "National Socialist", as well as the
inclusion of this attribute to the name of the party, was not coined
by Hitler, but instead by Rudolf Jung. Hitler himself initially
opposed the term.
> - Note by the way how all the bad guys mentioned above, and you can add
S=
talin, were nasty dictators, yes, but also pragmatic people (or
> op****tunists, in the case of Mussolini). This means that while they had
t=
heir preferences and therefore they preferred ideas and therefore their
> preferred ideological solutions, they were rather able to disregard
ideol=
ogical doctrine and theories when it would not have worked in practice.
> But Hitler? No. When the world doesn't adapt itself to the ideological
th=
eory, he goes for the latter anyway.
Really? Well, I could point out that historically, Hitler had no
trouble jettisoning several of the 25 articles of the original NSDAP
programme - because those were too politically radical, and at the
time, he was more interested in co-opting the traditional German
conservatives. So, I wouldn't say that he was completely wedded to all
aspects of his ideology.
On the other hand, Stalin made hardly any compromises in his own
political programme, ever. Collectivization or nothing, everywhere,
even if it demonstrably didn't work or fit with the local conditions.
> 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
contra=
ry
> "Hitlerism" wouldn't, and to apply my stated claims to the latter.
I think that it would be a more accurate description, certainly.
"German nazism without Hitler", by the way, would also be a perfectly
valid and interesting what-if on its own right.
Cheers,
J. J.
|
