Myth: Hitler Was A Leftist - Fact: Hitler Was A Rightist

Myth: Hitler was a leftist.

Fact: Nearly all of Hitler's beliefs placed him on the far right.

Summary

Many conservatives accuse Hitler of being a leftist, on the grounds that his

party was named "National Socialist."

But socialism requires worker ownership and control of the means of

production. In Nazi Germany, private capitalist

individuals owned the means of production, and they in turn were frequently

controlled by the Nazi party and state.

True socialism does not advocate such economic dictatorship -- it can only be

democratic. Hitler's other political

beliefs place him almost always on the far right. He advocated racism over

racial tolerance, eugenics over freedom of

reproduction, merit over equality, competition over cooperation, power

politics and militarism over pacifism,

dictatorship over democracy, capitalism over Marxism, realism over idealism,

nationalism over internationalism,

exclusiveness over inclusiveness, common sense over theory or science,

pragmatism over principle, and even held

friendly relations with the Church, even though he was an atheist.

Argument

To most people, Hitler's beliefs belong to the extreme far right. For

example, most conservatives believe in

patriotism and a strong military; carry these beliefs far enough, and you

arrive at Hitler's warring nationalism.

This association has long been something of an embarrassment to the far

right. To deflect such criticism,

conservatives have recently launched a counter-attack, claiming that Hitler

was a socialist, and therefore belongs to

the political left, not the right.

The primary basis for this claim is that Hitler was a National Socialist. The

word "National" evokes the state, and

the word "Socialist" openly identifies itself as such.

However, there is no academic controversy over the status of this term: it

was a misnomer. Misnomers are quite common

in the history of political labels. Examples include the German Democratic

Republic (which was neither) and Vladimir

Zhirinovsky's "Liberal Democrat" party (which was also neither). The true

question is not whether Hitler called his

party "socialist," but whether or not it actually was.

In fact, socialism has never been tried at the national level anywhere in the

world. This may surprise some people --

after all, wasn't the Soviet Union socialist? The answer is no. Many nations

and political parties have called

themselves "socialist," but none have actually tried socialism. To understand

why, we should revisit a few basic

political terms.

Perhaps the primary concern of any political ideology is who gets to own and

control the means the production. This

includes factories, farmlands, machinery, etc. Generally there have been

three approaches to this question. The first

was aristocracy, in which a ruling elite owned the land and productive

wealth, and peasants and serfs had to obey

their orders in return for their livelihood. The second is capitalism, which

has disbanded the ruling elite and

allows a much broader range of private individuals to own the means of

production. However, this ownership is limited

to those who can afford to buy productive wealth; nearly all workers are

excluded. The third (and untried) approach

is socialism, where everyone owns and controls the means of production, by

means of the vote. As you can see, there

is a spectrum here, ranging from a few people owning productive wealth at one

end, to everyone owning it at the

other.

Socialism has been proposed in many forms. The most common is social

democracy, where workers vote for their

supervisors, as well as their industry representatives to regional or

national congresses. Another proposed form is

anarcho-socialism, where workers own companies that would operate on a free

market, without any central government at

all. As you can see, a central planning committee is hardly a necessary

feature of socialism. The primary feature is

worker ownership of production.

The Soviet Union failed to qualify as socialist because it was a dictatorship

over workers -- that is, a type of

aristocracy, with a ruling elite in Moscow calling all the shots. Workers

cannot own or control anything under a

totalitarian government. In variants of socialism that call for a central

government, that government is always a

strong or even direct democracy? never a dictatorship. It doesn't matter if

the dictator claims to be carrying out

the will of the people, or calls himself a "socialist" or a "democrat." If

the people themselves are not in control,

then the system is, by definition, non-democratic and non-socialist.

And what of Nazi Germany? The idea that workers controlled the means of

production in Nazi Germany is a bitter joke.

It was actually a combination of aristocracy and capitalism. Technically,

private businessmen owned and controlled

the means of production. The Nazi "Charter of Labor" gave employers complete

power over their workers. It established

the employer as the "leader of the enterprise," and read: "The leader of the

enterprise makes the decisions for the

employees and laborers in all matters concerning the enterprise." (1)

The employer, however, was subject to the frequent orders of the ruling Nazi

elite. After the Nazis took power in

1933, they quickly established a highly controlled war economy under the

direction of Dr. Hjalmar Schacht. Like all

war economies, it boomed, making Germany the second nation to recover fully

from the Great Depression, in 1936. (The

first nation was Sweden, in 1934. Following Keynesian-like policies, the

Swedish government spent its way out of the

Depression, proving that state economic policies can be successful without

resorting to dictatorship or war.)

Prior to the Nazi seizure of power in 1933, worker protests had spread all

across Germany in response to the Great

Depression. During his drive to power, Hitler exploited this social unrest by

promising workers to strengthen their

labor unions and increase their standard of living. But these were empty

promises; privately, he was reassuring

wealthy German businessmen that he would crack down on labor once he achieved

power. Historian William Shirer

describes the Nazi's dual strategy:

"The party had to play both sides of the tracks. It had to allow [Nazi

officials] Strasser, Goebbels and the

crank Feder to beguile the masses with the cry that the National Socialists

were truly 'socialists' and against the

money barons. On the other hand, money to keep the party going had to be

wheedled out of those who had an ample

supply of it." (2)

Once in power, Hitler showed his true colors by promptly breaking all his

promises to workers. The Nazis abolished

trade unions, collective bargaining and the right to strike. An organization

called the "Labor Front" replaced the

old trade unions, but it was an instrument of the Nazi party and did not

represent workers. According to the law that

created it, "Its task is to see that every individual should be able? to

perform the maximum of work." Workers would

indeed greatly boost their productivity under Nazi rule. But they also became

exploited. Between 1932 and 1936,

workers wages fell, from 20.4 to 19.5 cents an hour for skilled labor, and

from 16.1 to 13 cents an hour for

unskilled labor. (3) Yet workers did not protest. This was partly because the

Nazis had restored order to the

economy, but an even bigger reason was that the Nazis would have cracked down

on any protest.

There was no part of Nazism, therefore, that even remotely resembled

socialism. But what about the political nature

of Nazism in general? Did it belong to the left, or to the right? Let's take

a closer look:

The politics of Nazism

The political right is popularly associated with the following principles. Of

course, it goes without saying that

these are generalizations, and not every person on the far right believes in

every principle, or disbelieves its

opposite. Most people's political beliefs are complex, and cannot be neatly

pigeonholed. This is as true of Hitler as

anyone. But since the far right is trying peg Hitler as a leftist, it's worth

reviewing the tenets popularly

associated with the right. These include:

Individualism over collectivism.

Racism or racial segregation over racial tolerance.

Eugenics over freedom of reproduction.

Merit over equality.

Competition over cooperation.

Power politics and militarism over pacifism.

One-person rule or self-rule over democracy.

Capitalism over Marxism.

Realism over idealism.

Nationalism over internationalism.

Exclusiveness over inclusiveness.

Meat-eating over vegetarianism.

Gun ownership over gun control

Common sense over theory or science.

Pragmatism over principle.

Religion over secularism.

Let's review these spectrums one by one, and see where Hitler stood in his

own words. Ultimately, Hitler's views are

not monolithically conservative -- on a few issues, his views are complex and

difficult to label. But as you will

see, the vast majority of them belong on the far right:

Individualism over collectivism.

Many conservatives argue that Hitler was a leftist because he subjugated the

individual to the state. However, this

characterization is wrong, for several reasons.

The first error is in assuming that this is exclusively a liberal trait.

Actually, U.S. conservatives take

considerable pride in being patriotic Americans, and they deeply honor those

who have sacrificed their lives for

their country. The Marine Corps is a classic example: as every Marine knows,

all sense of individuality is

obliterated in the Marines Corps, and one is subject first, foremost and

always to the group.

The second error is forgetting that all human beings subscribe to

individualism and collectivism. If you believe that

you are personally responsible for taking care of yourself, you are an

individualist. If you freely belong and

contribute to any group -- say, an employing business, church, club, family,

nation, or cause -- then you are a

collectivist as well. Neither of these traits makes a person inherently

"liberal" or "conservative," and to claim

that you are an "evil socialist" because you champion a particular group is

not a serious argument.

Political scientists therefore do not label people "liberal" or

"conservative" on the basis of their individualism or

collectivism. Much more important is how they approach their individualism

and collectivism. What groups does a

person belong to? How is power distributed in the group? Does it practice

one-person rule, minority rule, majority

rule, or self-rule? Liberals believe in majority rule. Hitler practiced one-

person rule. Thus, there is no

comparison.

And on that score, conservatives might feel that they are off the hook, too,

because they claim to prefer self-rule

to one-person rule. But their actions say otherwise. Many of the institutions

that conservatives favor are really

quite dictatorial: the military, the church, the patriarchal family, the

business firm.

Hitler himself downplayed all groups except for the state, which he raised to

supreme significance in his writings.

However, he did not identify the state as most people do, as a random

collection of people in artificially drawn

borders. Instead, he identified the German state as its racially pure stock

of German or Aryan blood. In Mein Kampf,

Hitler freely and interchangeably used the terms "Aryan race," "German

culture" and "folkish state." To him they were

synonyms, as the quotes below show. There were citizens inside Germany (like

Jews) who were not part of Hitler's

state, while there were Germans outside Germany (for example, in Austria) who

were. But the main point is that

Hitler's political philosophy was not really based on "statism" as we know it

today. It was actually based on racism

-- again, a subject that hits uncomfortably closer to home for conservatives,

not liberals.

As Hitler himself wrote:

"The main plank in the Nationalist Socialist program is to abolish the

liberalistic concept of the individual

and the Marxist concept of humanity and to substitute for them the folk

community, rooted in the soil and bound

together by the bond of its common blood." (4)

"The state is a means to an end. Its end lies in the preservation and

advancement of a community of physically

and psychically homogenous creatures. This preservation itself comprises

first of all existence as a race? Thus, the

highest purpose of a folkish state is concern for the preservation of those

original racial elements which bestow

culture and create the beauty and dignity of a higher mankind. We, as Aryans,

can conceive of the state only as the

living organism of a nationality which? assures the preservation of this

nationality?" (5)

"The German Reich as a state must embrace all Germans and has the task,

not only of assembling and preserving

the most valuable stocks of basic racial elements in this people, but slowly

and surely of raising them to a dominant

position." (6)

And it was in the service of this racial state that Hitler encourage

individuals to sacrifice themselves:

"In [the Aryan], the instinct for self-preservation has reached its

noblest form, since he willingly

subordinates his own ego to the life of the community and, if the hour

demands it, even sacrifices it." (7)

"This state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the ego to the

conservation of the community, is

really the first premise for every truly human culture." (8)

Racism or racial segregation over racial tolerance.

"All the human culture, all the results of art, science, and technology

that we see before us today, are almost

exclusively the creative product of the Aryan." (9)

"Aryan races -- often absurdly small numerically -- subject foreign

peoples, and then? develop the intellectual

and organizational capacities dormant within them." (10)

"If beginning today all further Aryan influence on Japan should stop?

Japan's present rise in science and

technology might continue for a short time; but even in a few years the well

would dry up? the present culture would

freeze and sink back into the slumber from which it awakened seven decades

ago by the wave of Aryan culture." (11)

"Every racial crossing leads inevitably sooner or later to the decline

of the hybrid product?" (12)

"It is the function above all of the Germanic states first and foremost

to call a fundamental halt to any

further bastardization." (13)

"What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and reproduction

of our race and our people, the

sustenance of our children and the purity of our blood?" (14)

Eugenics over freedom of reproduction

"The folkish philosophy of life must succeed in bringing about that

nobler age in which men no longer are

concerned with breeding dogs, horses, and cats, but in elevating man

himself?" (15)

"The folkish state must make up for what everyone else today has

neglected in this field. It must set race in

the center of all life. It must take care to keep it pure? It must see to it

that only the healthy beget children;

that there is only one disgrace: despite one's own sickness and deficiencies,

to bring children into the world, and

one highest honor: to renounce doing so. And conversely it must be considered

reprehensible: to withhold healthy

children from the nation. Here the state? must put the most modern medical

means in the service of this knowledge. It

must declare unfit for propagation all who are in any way visibly sick or who

have inherited a disease and therefore

pass it on?" (16)

Merit over equality.

"The best state constitution and state form is that which, with the

most unquestioned certainty, raises the

best minds in the national community to leading position and leading

influence. But as in economic life, the able men

cannot be appointed from above, but must struggle through for themselves?"

(17)

"It must not be lamented if so many men set out on the road to arrive

at the same goal: the most powerful and

swiftest will in this way be recognized, and will be the victor." (p. 512.)

Competition over cooperation.

"Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to

fight in this world of eternal struggle

do not deserve to live." (18)

"It must never be forgotten that nothing that is really great in this

world has ever been achieved by

coalitions, but that it has always been the success of a single victor.

Coalition successes bear by the very nature

of their origin the germ of future crumbling, in fact of the loss of what has

already been achieved. Great, truly

world-shaking revolutions of a spiritual nature are not even conceivable and

realizable except as the titanic

struggles of individual formations, never as enterprises of coalitions." (19)

"The idea of struggle is old as life itself, for life is only preserved

because other living things perish

through struggle? In this struggle, the stronger, the more able, win, while

the less able, the weak, lose. Struggle

is the father of all things? It is not by the principles of humanity that man

lives or is able to preserve himself in

the animal world, but solely by means of the most brutal struggle? If you do

not fight for life, then life will never

be won." (20)

Power politics and militarism over pacifism.

Allan Bullock, probably the world's greatest Hitler historian, sums up

Hitler's political method in one sentence:

"Stripped of their romantic trimmings, all Hitler's ideas can be

reduced to a simple claim for power which

recognizes only one relationship, that of domination, and only one argument,

that of force." (21)

The following quotes by Hitler portray his rather stunning contempt for

pacifism:

"If the German people in its historic development had possessed that

herd unity [defined here by Hitler as

racial solidarity] which other peoples enjoyed, the German Reich today would

doubtless be mistress of the globe.

World history would have taken a different course, and no one can distinguish

whether in this way we would not have

obtained what so many blinded pacifists today hope to gain by begging,

whining and whimpering: a peace, supported not

by the palm branches of tearful, pacifist female mourners, but based on the

victorious sword of a master people,

putting the world into the service of a higher culture." (22)

"We must clearly recognize the fact that the recovery of the lost

territories is not won through solemn appeals

to the Lord or through pious hopes in a League of Nations, but only by force

of arms." (23)

"In actual fact the pacifistic-humane idea is perfectly all right

perhaps when the highest type of man has

previously conquered and subjected the world to an extent that makes him the

sole ruler of this earth? Therefore,

first struggle and then perhaps pacifism." (24)

One-person rule or self-rule over democracy.

"The young [Nazi] movement is in its nature and inner organization

anti-parliamentarian; that is, it rejects? a

principle of majority rule in which the leader is degraded to the level of

mere executant of other people's wills and

opinion." (25)

"The [Nazi party] should not become a constable of public opinion, but

must dominate it. It must not become a

servant of the masses, but their master!" (26)

"By rejecting the authority of the individual and replacing it by the

numbers of some momentary mob, the

parliamentary principle of majority rule sins against the basic aristocratic

principle of Nature?" (27)

"For there is one thing we must never forget? the majority can never

replace the man. And no more than a

hundred empty heads make one wise man will an heroic decision arise from a

hundred cowards." (28)

"There must be no majority decisions, but only responsible persons, and

the word 'council' must be restored to

its original meaning. Surely every man will have advisers by his side, but

the decision will be made by one man."

(29)

"When I recognized the Jew as the leader of the Social Democracy, the

scales dropped from my eyes." (30)

"The Western democracy of today is the forerunner of Marxism?" (31)

"Only a knowledge of the Jews provides the key with which to comprehend

the inner, and consequently real, aims

of Social Democracy." (32)

Capitalism over Marxism.

Bullock writes of Hitler's views on Marxism:

"While Hitler's attitude towards liberalism was one of contempt,

towards Marxism he showed an implacable

hostility? Ignoring the profound differences between Communism and Social

Democracy in practice and the bitter

hostility between the rival working class parties, he saw in their common

ideology the embodiment of all that he

detested -- mass democracy and a leveling egalitarianism as opposed to the

authoritarian state and the rule of an

elite; equality and friendship among peoples as opposed to racial inequality

and the domination of the strong; class

solidarity versus national unity; internationalism versus nationalism." (33)

As Hitler himself would write:

"The German state is gravely attacked by Marxism." (34)

"In the years 1913 and 1914, I? expressed the conviction that the

question of the future of the German nation

was the question of destroying Marxism." (35)

"In the economic sphere Communism is analogous to democracy in the

political sphere." (36)

"The Marxists will march with democracy until they succeed in

indirectly obtaining for their criminal aims the

support of even the national intellectual world, destined by them for

extinction." (37)

"Marxism itself systematically plans to hand the world over to the

Jews." (38)

"The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of

Nature and replaces the eternal privilege

of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight." (39)

Realism over idealism.

Hitler was hardly an "idealist" in the sense that political scientists use

the term. The standard definition of an

idealist is someone who believes that cooperation and peaceful coexistence

can occur among peoples. A realist,

however, is someone who sees the world as an unstable and dangerous place,

and prepares for war, if not to deter it,

then to survive it. It goes without saying that Hitler was one of the

greatest realists of all time. Nonetheless,

Hitler had his own twisted utopia, which he described:

"We are not simple enough, either, to believe that it could ever be

possible to bring about a perfect era. But

this relieves no one of the obligation to combat recognized errors, to

overcome weaknesses, and strive for the ideal.

Harsh reality of its own accord will create only too many limitations. For

that very reason, however, man must try to

serve the ultimate goal, and failures must not deter him, any more than he

can abandon a system of justice merely

because mistakes creep into it?" (40)

"The same boy who feels like throwing up when he hears the tirades of a

pacifist 'idealist' is ready to give up

his life for the ideal of his nationality." (41)

Nationalism over internationalism.

"The nationalization of our masses will succeed only when? their

international poisoners are exterminated."

(42)

"The severest obstacle to the present-day worker's approach to the

national community lies not in the defense

of his class interests, but in his international leadership and attitude

which are hostile to the people and the

fatherland." (43)

"Thus, the reservoir from which the young [Nazi] movement must gather

its supporters will primarily be the

masses of our workers. Its work will be to tear these away from the

international delusion? and lead them to the

national community?" (44)

Exclusiveness over inclusiveness.

"Thus men without exception wander about in the garden of Nature; they

imagine that they know practically

everything and yet with few exceptions pass blindly by one of the most patent

principles of Nature: the inner

segregation of the species of all living beings on earth." (45)

"The greatness of every mighty organization embodying an idea in this

world lies in the religious fanaticism

and intolerance with which, fanatically convinced of its own right, it

intolerantly imposes its will against all

others." (46)

Meat-eating over vegetarianism.

It may seem ridiculous to include this issue in a review of Hitler's

politics, but, believe it or not, conservatives

on the Internet frequently equate Hitler's vegetarianism with the

vegetarianism practised by liberals concerned about

the environment and the ethical treatment of animals.

Hitler's vegetarianism had nothing to do with his political beliefs. He

became a vegetarian shortly after the death

of his girlfriend and half-niece, Geli Raubal. Their relationship was a

stormy one, and it ended in her apparent

suicide. There were rumors that Hitler had arranged her murder, but Hitler

would remain deeply distraught over her

loss for the rest of his life. As one historian writes:

"Curiously, shortly after her death, Hitler looked with disdain on a

piece of ham being served during breakfast

and refused to eat it, saying it was like eating a corpse. From that moment

on, he refused to eat meat." (47)

Hitler's vegetarianism, then, was no more than a phobia, triggered by an

association with his niece's death.

Gun ownership over gun control

Perhaps one of the pro-gun lobby's favorite arguments is that if German

citizens had had the right to keep and bear

arms, Hitler would have never been able to tyrannize the country. And to this

effect, pro-gun advocates often quote

the following:

"1935 will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation

has full gun registration. Our streets

will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead

into the future." - Adolf Hitler

However, this quote is almost certainly a fraud. There is no reputable record

of him ever making it: neither at the

Nuremberg rallies, nor in any of his weekly radio addresses. Furthermore,

there was no reason for him to even make

such a statement; for Germany already had strict gun control as a term of

surrender in the Treaty of Versailles. The

Allies had wanted to make Germany as impotent as possible, and one of the

ways they did that was to disarm its

citizenry. Only a handful of local authorities were allowed arms at all, and

the few German citizens who did possess

weapons were already subject to full gun registration. Seen in this light,

the above quote makes no sense whatsoever.

The Firearms Policy Journal (January 1997) writes:

"The Nazi Party did not ride to power confiscating guns. They rode to

power on the inability of the Weimar

Republic to confiscate their guns. They did not consolidate their power

confiscating guns either. There is no

historical evidence that Nazis ever went door to door in Germany confiscating

guns. The Germans had a fetish about

paperwork and documented everything. These searches and confiscations would

have been carefully recorded. If the

documents are there, let them be presented as evidence."

On April 12, 1928, five years before Hitler seized power, Germany passed the

Law on Firearms and Ammunition. This law

substantially tightened restrictions on gun ownership in an effort to curb

street violence between Nazis and

Communists. The law was ineffectual and poorly enforced. It was not until

March 18, 1938 -- five years after Hitler

came to power -- that the Nazis passed the German Weapons Law, their first

known change in the firearm code. And this

law actually relaxed restrictions on citizen firearms.

Common sense over theory or science.

Hitler was notorious for his anti-intellectualism:

"The youthful brain should in general not be burdened with things

ninety-five percent of which it cannot use

and hence forgets again? In many cases, the material to be learned in the

various subjects is so swollen that only a

fraction of it remains in the head of the individual pupil, and only a

fraction of this abundance can find

application, while on the other hand it is not adequate for the man working

and earning his living in a definite

field." (48)

"Knowledge above the average can be crammed into the average man, but

it remains dead, and in the last analysis

sterile knowledge. The result is a man who may be a living dictionary but

nevertheless falls down miserably in all

special situations and decisive moments in life." (49)

"The folkish state must not adjust its entire educational work

primarily to the inoculation of mere knowledge,

but to the breeding of absolutely healthy bodies. The training of mental

abilities is only secondary. And here again,

first place must be taken by the development of character, especially the

promotion of will-power and determination,

combined with the training of joy in responsibility, and only in last place

comes scientific schooling." (50)

"A people of scholars, if they are physically degenerate, weak-willed

and cowardly pacifists, will not storm

the heavens, indeed, they will not be able to safeguard their existence on

this earth." (51)

Pragmatism over principle.

"The question of the movement's inner organization is one of expediency

and not of principle." (52)

Religion over secularism.

Hitler's views on religion were complex. Although ostensibly an atheist, he

considered himself a cultural Catholic,

and frequently evoked God, the Creator and Providence in his writings.

Throughout his life he would remain an envious

admirer of the Christian Church and its power over the masses. Here is but

one example:

"We can learn by the example of the Catholic Church. Though its

doctrinal edifice? comes into collision with

exact science and research, it is none the less unwilling to sacrifice so

much as one little syllable of its dogmas.

It has recognized quite correctly that its power of resistance does not lie

in its lesser or greater adaptation to

the scientific findings of the moment, which in reality are always

fluctuating, but rather in rigidly holding to

dogmas once established, for it is only such dogmas which lend to the whole

body the character of faith. And so it

stands today more firmly than ever." (53)

Hitler also saw a useful purpose for the Church:

"The great masses of people do not consist of philosophers; precisely

for the masses, [religious] faith is

often the sole foundation of a moral attitude? For the political man, the

value of a religion must be estimated less

by its deficiencies than by the virtue of a visibly better substitute. As

long as this appears to be lacking, what is

present can be demolished only by fools or criminals." (54)

Hitler thus advocated freedom of religious belief. Although he would later

press churches into the service of Nazism,

often at the point of a gun, Hitler did not attempt to impose a state

religion or mandate the basic philosophical

content of German religions. As long as they did not interfere with his

program, he allowed them to continue

fuctioning. And this policy was foreshadowed in his writings:

"For the political leader the religious doctrines and institutions of

his people must always remain inviolable;

or else he has no right to be in politics?" (55)

"Political parties have nothing to do with religious problems, as long

as these are not alien to the nation,

undermining the morals and ethics of the race; just as religion cannot be

amalgamated with the scheming of political

parties." (56)

"Worst of all, however, is the devastation wrought by the misuse of

religious conviction for political ends."

(57)

"Therefore, let every man be active, each in his own denomination if

you please, and let every man take it as

his first and most sacred duty to oppose anyone who in his activity by word

or deed steps outside the confines of his

religious community and tries to butt into the other." (58)

Hitler was raised a Catholic, even going to school for two years at the

monastery at Lambauch, Austria. As late as 24

he still called himself a Catholic, but somewhere along the way he became an

atheist. It is highly doubtful that this

was an intellectual decision, as a reading of his disordered thoughts in Mein

Kampf will attest. The decision was

most likely a pragmatic one, based on power and personal ambition. Bullock

reveals an interesting anecdote showing

how these considerations worked on the young Hitler. After five years of

eking out a miserable existence in Vienna

and four years of war, Hitler walked into his first German Worker's Party

meeting:

"'Under the dim light shed by a grimy gas-lamp I could see four people

sitting around a table?' As Hitler

frankly acknowledges, this very obscurity was an attraction. It was only in a

party which, like himself, was

beginning at the bottom that he had any prospect of playing a leading part

and imposing his ideas. In the established

parties there was no room for him, he would be a nobody." (59)

Hitler probably realized that a frustrated artist and pipe-dreamer like

himself would have no chance of achieving

power in the world-wide, 2000-year old Christian Church. It was most likely

for this reason that he rejected

Christianity and pursued a political life instead. Yet, curiously enough, he

never renounced his membership in the

Catholic Church, and the Church never excommunicated him. Nor did the Church

place his Mein Kampf on the Index of

Prohibited Books, in spite of its knowledge of his atrocities. Later the

Church would come under intense criticism

for its friendly and cooperative relationship with Hitler. A brief review of

this history is instructive.

In 1933, the Catholic Center Party cast its large and decisive vote in favor

of Hitler's Enabling Bill. This bill

essentially gave Chancellor Hitler the sweeping dictatorial powers he was

seeking. Historian Guenter Lewy describes a

meeting between Hitler and the German Catholic authorities shortly

afterwards:

"On 26 April 1933 Hitler had a conversation with Bishop Berning and

Monsignor Steinmann [the Catholic

leadership in Germany]. The subject was the common fight against liberalism,

Socialism and Bolshevism, discussed in

the friendliest terms. In the course of the conversation Hitler said that he

was only doing to the Jews what the

church had done to them over the past fifteen hundred years. The prelates did

not contradict him." (60)

As anyone familiar with Christian history knows, the Church has always been a

primary source of anti-Semitism.

Hitler's anti-Semitism therefore found a receptive audience among Catholic

authorities. The Church also had an

intense fear and hatred of Russian communism, and Hitler's attack on Russia

was the best that could have happened.

The Jesuit Michael Serafin wrote: "It cannot be denied that [Pope] Pius XII's

closest advisors for some time regarded

Hitler's armoured divisions as the right hand of God." (61) As Pope Pius

himself would say after Germany conquered

Poland: "Let us end this war between brothers and unite our forces against

the common enemy of atheism" -- Russia.

(62)

Once Hitler assumed power, he signed a Concordat, or agreement, with the

Catholic Church. Eugenio Pacelli (the man

who would eventually become Pope Pius XII) was the Vatican diplomat who drew

up the Concordat, and he considered it a

triumph. In return for promises which Hitler increasingly broke, the Church

dissolved all Catholic organizations in

Germany, including the Catholic Center Party. Bishops were to take an oath of

loyalty to the Nazi regime. Clergy were

to see to the pastoral care of Germany's armed forces (regardless of what

those armed forces did). (63)

The Concordat eliminated all Catholic resistance to Hitler; after this, the

German bishops gave Hitler their full and

unqualified support. A bishops' conference at Fulda, 1933, resulted in

agreement with Hitler's case for extending

Lebensraum, or German territory. (64) Bishop Bornewasser told a congregation

of Catholic young people at Trier: "With

our heads high and with firm steps we have entered the new Reich and are

ready to serve it body and soul." (65)

Vicar-General Steinman greeted each Berlin mass with the shout, "Heil

Hitler!" (66)

Hitler, on the other hand, kept up his attack on the Church. Nazi bands

stormed into the few remaining Catholic

institutions, beat up Catholic youths and arrested Catholic officials. The

Vatican was dismayed, but it did not

protest. (67) In some instances, it was hard to tell if the Church supported

its own persecution. Hitler muzzled the

independent Catholic press (about 400 daily papers in 1933) and subordinated

it to Goebbels' Ministry of Propaganda

and Enlightenment. Yet soon the Catholic Press was doing more than what the

Nazis required of it -- for example,

coordinating their Nazi propaganda to prepare the people for the 1940

offensive against the West. (68) Throughout the

war, the Catholic press would remain one of the Third Reich's best

disseminators of propaganda.

Pacelli became the new Pope Pius XII in 1939, and he immediately improved

relations with Hitler. He broke protocol by

personally signing a letter in German to Hitler expressing warm hopes of

friendly relations. Shortly afterwards, the

Church celebrated Hitler's birthday by ringing bells, flying swastika flags

from church towers and holding

thanksgiving services for the Fuhrer. (69) Ringing church bells to celebrate

and affirm the bishops' allegiance to

the Reich would become quite common throughout the war; after the German army

conquered France, the church bells rang

for an entire week, and swastikas flew over the churches for ten days.

But perhaps the greatest failure of Pope Pius XII was his silence over the

Holocaust, even though he knew it was in

progress. Although there are many heroic stories of Catholics helping Jews

survive the Holocaust, they do not include

Pope Pius, the Holy See, or the German Catholic authorities. When a reporter

asked Pius why he did not protest the

liquidation of the Jews, the Pope answered, "Dear friend, do not forget that

millions of Catholics are serving in the

German armies. Am I to involve them in a conflict of conscience?" (70) As

perhaps the world's greatest moral leader,

he was charged with precisely that responsibility.

The history of Hitler and the Church reveals a relationship built on mutual

distrust and philosophical rejection, but

also shared goals, benefits, admiration, envy, friendliness, and ultimate

alliance.

Return to Overview

Endnotes:

1. William Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, (New York: Simon &

Schuster, 1960), p. 263.

2. Ibid., p. 143.

3. Ibid., p. 264.

4. Hitler, quoted in Alan Bullock, Hitler: A Study in Tyranny, abridged

edition, (New York: HarperCollins, 1971), p.

228.

5. Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, trans. by Ralph Manheim (Boston: Houghton

Mifflin Company, 1962), pp. 393-4.

6. Ibid., p. 398.

7. Ibid., p. 297.

8. Ibid., p. 298.

9. Ibid., p. 290.

10. Ibid., pp. 291-2.

11. Ibid., p. 291.

12. Ibid., p. 401.

13. Ibid., p. 402.

14. Ibid., p. 214.

15. Ibid., p. 405.

16. Ibid., p. 404.

17. Ibid., p. 449.

18. Ibid., p. 289.

19. Ibid., p. 516-17.

20. Quoted in Bullock, pp. 11-12.

21. Ibid., p. 230.

22. Hitler, p. 396.

23. Ibid., p. 627.

24. Ibid., p. 288.

25. Ibid., p. 344.

26. Ibid., p. 465.

27. Ibid., p. 81.

28. Ibid., p. 82.

29. Ibid., p. 449.

30. Ibid., p. 60.

31. Ibid., p. 78

32. Ibid., p. 51.

33. Bullock, p. 228-9.

34. Hitler, p. 535.

35. Ibid., p. 155.

36. Quoted in Bullock, p. 102.

37. Hitler, p. 376.

38. Ibid., p. 382.

39. Ibid., p. 65.

40. Ibid., p. 437.

41. Ibid., p. 299.

42. Ibid., p. 338.

43. Ibid., p. 340.

44. Ibid., p. 340.

45. Ibid., p. 284.

46. Ibid., p. 351.

47. The History Place, "The Rise of Adolf Hitler: Success and a Suicide,"

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/success.htm

48. Hitler, p. 418.

49. Ibid., p. 429.

50. Ibid., p. 408.

51. Ibid., p. 408.

52. Ibid., p. 346.

53. Ibid., p. 459.

54. Ibid., p. 267.

55. Ibid., p. 116.

56. Ibid., p. 116.

57. Ibid., p. 268.

58. Ibid., p. 563.

59. Bullock, p. 35.

60. Guenter Lewy, The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany (London and New York)

1964, p. 50ff.

61. Friedrich Heer, God's First Love (New York: Weybright and Talley, 1967),

p. 320, citing Lewy, pp. 249-250; see

also Falconi, Carlo, Il silenzio di Pio XII (Milan) 1965.

62. Heer, p. 319.

63. Lewy, p. 57 ff.

64. Ibid., p. 94 ff.

65. Ibid., p. 100f.

66. Ibid., p. 105.

67. Heer, p. 310.

68. Heer, p. 110.

69. Giovannetti, A., Der Vatikan und der Krieg (Cologne) 1961.

70. Lewy, p. 304.

Brainiac 55 <brainiac55@excite.com> wrote:

> Myth: Hitler was a leftist.

>

> Fact: Nearly all of Hitler's beliefs placed him on the far right.

snip

The left-right spectrum is nonsensical and anyone who seriously uses it

to place either himself, his preferrred political group, others or the

political group of others, is a mindless fool not far removed from

religious fundamentalists and old-school racists.

And yes, I'm referring to you, "brainiac".

--

regards , Peter B. P. http://macplanet.dk

Washington D.C.: District of Criminals

"I dont drink anymore... of course, i don't drink any less, either!

a...@me.com (PeterBP) does not grasp it:

> Brainiac 55 wrote:

> > Myth: Hitler was a leftist.

> > Fact: Nearly all of Hitler's beliefs placed him on the far right.

> snip

Why? Can't you argue with what he has posted factually?

> The left-right spectrum is nonsensical and anyone who seriously uses it

> to place either himself, his preferrred political group, others or the

> political group of others, is a mindless fool not far removed from

> religious fundamentalists and old-school racists.

Care to explain, or should one just accept your assertion on its face

value?

I don't think so.

It is however true that the right/left descriptor is often used in the

wrong context.

Strangely the assertion that Hitler was a leftist comes from the

extreme fringes of the political right where most of the old and new

Nazis found a good home after the demise of the Third Reich. The only

rational explanation I can come up with for the propagation of this

revisionist myth is that certain political groupings have great

interest in confusing the general public (mainly the post war

generations) about nature of the dominating ideological streams of the

Twentieth Century .

As for their motivations I must assume that they do not want to be

readily identified as the ones dedicated to Hitler's ideology.

BTW what I am strongly objecting to is the stupid trolling header:

"aus.politics, alt.politics.greens, talk.politics.libertarian,

alt.politics.bush, alt.politics.democrats, alt.politics.liberalism,

alt.politics, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, talk.politics.misc"

Brainiac 55 wrote:

> Myth: Hitler was a leftist.

>

> Fact: Nearly all of Hitler's beliefs placed him on the far right.

>

> Summary

> <snip reams of regurgitation>

Recycling zillions of unrelated quotes isn't going to help in this case.

As I've pointed out a number of times, Hitler was a complete

megalomaniac, left, far right or anywhere in between is irrelevant,

power was the only item relevant.

And Hitler was an out and out sexual pervert, who conveniently

persecuted those of other pervert persuasions to boot.

Adolf the nutter has been the subject of just about more myths than

anyone else in the past hundred years, but the contention above is an

utter waste of time.

Cheers,

Ray

On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 16:38:33 +1100, ray

<ferret57@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

>Brainiac 55 wrote:

>> Myth: Hitler was a leftist.

>>

>> Fact: Nearly all of Hitler's beliefs placed him on the far right.

>>

>> Summary

>> <snip reams of regurgitation>

>Recycling zillions of unrelated quotes isn't going to help in this case.

> As I've pointed out a number of times, Hitler was a complete

>megalomaniac, left, far right or anywhere in between is irrelevant,

>power was the only item relevant.

>And Hitler was an out and out sexual pervert, who conveniently

>persecuted those of other pervert persuasions to boot.

>Adolf the nutter has been the subject of just about more myths than

>anyone else in the past hundred years, but the contention above is an

>utter waste of time.

>Cheers,

However, those atttributes are akin to the ideological

and behavior of Conservative, (rightwing) ideologues

here.......Craig, Livingston, Dick Morris, O'Reilly,

etc.