From the Liberal Fascist's Killing Fields to the Tea Party
(too old to reply)
Chas. Chan
2010-09-11 19:56:16 UTC
Nickname unavailable
2010-09-11 20:28:56 UTC
 here are the three 3 phases of conservative decay.
1.conservatism(policies always fail)
2. libertarianism(the drive for purity, the conservative polices and
those that implemented them, were not pure enough)
3. fascism(the rise of the strong man to ensure purity, the strongman
will drive out the impure, liberals, jews, immigrants, trade
unionists, communists, socialists, those mental and physical defects,
gypsies, etc. this to fails on a huge scale. just look what happened
to the central european fascists. they collapsed their economies, and
came up millions of workers and soldiers short.

because conservatism is a form of mental illness. its based on greed,
hatred, bigotry, racism, envy, and selfishness to the extreme. once
you allow a society to be based on those values, you are finished. it
happens to every great society, the forces of
extremism(conservatism)bleed the society dry till it can no longer
function, then others step in to take over whats left, and the society
the conservative can turn out reams and reams of meaningless factless
baseless papers extorting the values and virtues of all of the above.
and the gullible sop it up, but, the path downward does not alter, it
picks up steam.
leadership becomes almost a joke, as the conservative hammers away at
society in their never ending quest for more. the society becomes
rudderless, as the conservative stretches their tentacles ever deeper
into society. thus exacerbating the downward trajectory.
all policy decisions by then are for the benefit of the conservative.
the conservative fans the flames of collapse by deflecting all blame
onto others. just as the nazis blamed all of Germany's problems on the
liberals. the confused, gullible, and the stupid go along with the
drive for ever more purity, even as the collapse intensifies.
so look for more of the same no matter who wins.

The most reliable barometer ever known for assessing what Republicans
really thinking and doing: look at what they're accusing their
enemies of.

it is impossible for liberals to be fascists. fascists hate liberals,
trade unionist, socialists, communists, jews(because most of them are
liberal), the weak, the disabled, minorities, homosexuals. they are
intolerant of other views and religions. they practice bigotry,
racism, and homophobia, etc. say, i just described the modern
conservative movement:)
Nickname unavailable
2010-09-11 20:29:31 UTC
The aristocrats and gentlemen of the Right who made up the majority of
Hitler's cabinet hated the concept of democracy even more than the
Nazis did, All over Germany, thugs in brown shirts took possession of
the streets and roughed up Communists, socialists, and Jews; they
chased socialist mayors and officials out of government buildings


Chapter 1: Financing the 1933 Elections
On the cold winter weekend of January 28, 1933, Germany was officially
without a government. Chancellor Kurt von Schleicher and his cabinet
had resigned on Saturday afternoon, and eighty-six-year-old President
von Hindenburg had not yet appointed a new chancellor. A nervous
tension spread over Berlin. Everyone waited for news; most felt
Germany was at an historic turning point.
Who would be the next chancellor? Hitler - the leader of the largest
party, the Nazis, who pledged to destroy democracy? Papen - the
aristocratic horseman who had been chancellor before Schleicher, but
who had no popular following? Perhaps Schleicher again, if he could
persuade the Social Democrats, the second largest political party in
the country, to join him in a coalition? Governing Germany in the
middle of an economic depression with nine million unemployed was not
an enviable task. The country had just had three different chancellors
in rapid succession. By tradition, the leader of the largest party was
usually appointed chancellor. But the Nazis had been the largest party
for over a year, and so far intrigues and political maneuvering had
succeeded in keeping Hitler out of power. Everyone guessed what a
Hitler government would mean. He had not kept his militarism, anti-
Semitism, and dictatorial ambitions a secret.
Political intrigues were so numerous that weekend that no one really
knew what was going on. Sensational rumors were being spread
throughout the city. Some said an army coup was imminent, that
Schleicher and the generals were about to abduct President von
Hindenburg and declare martial law. There were also rumors of an armed
Nazi uprising and a general strike by the socialist workers.
Hitler and Hermann Goering, the second most powerful man in the Nazi
party, stayed up all night on Sunday, January 29, trying to figure out
what Hindenburg might do. It was not until after 10 A.M. on Monday
that Hitler received a summons to the president's office. Even at that
point, the Nazis were not certain whether Hitler would be appointed
chancellor or Hindenburg would ask him to serve as vice-chancellor.
Across the street from the Chancellery, in the Kaiserhof Hotel,
Hitler's lieutenants were waiting, unsure of what was going on.
Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda chief, said:

In the street the crowd stands waiting between the Kaiserhof and the
Chancellery. We are torn between doubt, hope, joy and despair. We have
been deceived too often to be able, wholeheartedly, to believe in the
great miracle. [S.A.] Chief of Staff Roehm stands at the window (with
binoculars) watching the door of the Chancellery from which the
Fuehrer [the leader, Hitler] must emerge. We shall be able to judge by
his face if the interview was a success. Torturing hours of waiting.
At last, a car draws up in front of the entrance. The crowd cheers.
They seem to feel that a great change is taking place....
A few moments later, he is with us. He says nothing. His eyes are full
of tears. It has come! The Fuehrer is appointed Chancellor. He has
already been sworn in by the President of the Reich. All of us are
dumb with emotion. Everyone clasps the Fuehrer's hand....Outside the
Kaiserhof, the masses are in a wild uproar....The thousands soon
become tens of thousands. Endless streams of people flood the
Wilhelmstrasse. We set to work...at once.
Hitler's victory was not a complete one by any means. He had been
appointed chancellor in a coalition government. Papen was to be his
vice-chancellor, and all the powerful cabinet posts were held by
Papen's conservative allies, rather than the Nazis. But at the moment,
Hitler's followers weren't worried about the details; for them the
only thing that mattered was that Hitler was chancellor. They had come
to power! All day, crowds gathered in the square outside the Kaiserhof
Hotel and the Chancellery.
At dusk Nazi storm troopers in their brown uniforms gathered in the
Tiergarten park, along with men of the Stahlhelm, an
ultranationalistic veterans' organization, for a torchlight victory
parade through the center of Berlin. As soon as it was dark, they came
marching by the thousands through the Brandenburg Gate, carrying
swastika flags and the black, white, and red flags of the German
empire. Bands marched between the units, beating their big drums as
the men sang old German military songs. But as each band came to the
Pariser Platz, where the French embassy was located, they stopped
whatever they were playing and, with an introductory roll of drums,
broke into the tune of the challenging war song "Victorious We Will
Crush the French."
The torches carried by the marchers glowed hypnotically in the
darkness. To foreign witnesses, it was a frightening sight. "The river
of fire flowed past the French Embassy," Ambassador François-Poncet
wrote, "whence, with heavy heart and filled with foreboding, I watched
this luminous wake." Liberal Germans found it an "ominous sight." It
was, wrote one German reporter, "a night of deadly menace, a nightmare
in...blazing torches."
As the marchers came by the Chancellery, there were tumultuous cheers
for Hitler, who stood in an open window saluting them. He was so
excited that night, he could hardly stand still. He was raising his
arm up and down heiling, smiling, and laughing so much, his eyes
filled with tears. "It was an extraordinary experience," recalled
Papen, who was standing behind Hitler. "The endless repetition of the
triumphal cry: 'Heil, Heil, Sieg Heil!' rang in my ears like a
tocsin." When Hitler turned to speak with Papen, his voice choked with
emotion. "What an immense task we have set for ourselves, Herr von
Papen - we must never part until our work is accomplished." Hitler and
Papen were much closer allies than anyone at the time imagined.
It was after midnight when the parade ended. Being too excited to
sleep, Hitler, Goering, Goebbels, and a few other Nazis sat up talking
for hours. They could hardly believe it had actually happened: they
were in the Chancellery at last. That evening, Hitler said to
Goebbels, "No one gets me out of here alive." It was one of the few
promises he kept.
On the morning of January 31, Hitler's storm troopers gave the German
people a glimpse of what Nazi rule would be like. All over Germany,
thugs in brown shirts took possession of the streets and roughed up
Communists, socialists, and Jews; they chased socialist mayors and
officials out of government buildings and even broke into the private
homes of their political enemies. When people complained to Papen, he
laughed. "Let the storm troopers have their fling." Among his friends
at the Herrenklub, an exclusive gentlemens club, he boasted: "We've
hired Hitler." To a skeptic he replied: "What do you want? I have
Hindenburg's confidence. Within two months we will have pushed Hitler
so far in the corner that he'll squeak."
The facts seemed to support Papen's optimism. Not only did Papen have
Hindenburg"s confidence, but in fact the old president had promised
never to receive Hitler unless he was accompanied by his vice-
chancellor. Papen also held the important post of minister-president
of Prussia, Germany's largest and most powerful state. From the
composition of the cabinet, it seemed all the real power was in the
hands of the conservatives: the aristocratic General von Blomberg was
minister of defense, Baron von Neurath, a career diplomat, was foreign
minister, and the old archreactionary Hugenberg was both minister of
economics and minister of agriculture. The Nazis were outnumbered six
to two.
The two Nazis in the cabinet, Wilhelm Frick and Goering, held posts
that were thought to be insignificant. Frick was minister of the
interior, but he did not control the police, which in Germany was
under the jurisdiction of the individual state governments. Goering
was made minister without portfolio, but with the promise that he
would be minister of aviation as soon as Germany had an air force. He
was also named minister of the interior of Prussia, an office that did
not receive much notice by the public but did control the Prussian
The aristocrats and gentlemen of the Right who made up the majority of
Hitler's cabinet hated the concept of democracy even more than the
Nazis did. These men belonged to the old ruling class of the kaiser's
Germany. They wanted to regain their old position of supremacy, lost
in 1918. They wanted to restore the monarchy, suppress the socialist
unions, avenge the loss of World War I, and make Germany the dominant
power in Europe. It was obvious why such reactionary nationalists
helped put Hitler in power: their goals and his were very similar.
Few people knew the full extent of Papen's collaboration with Hitler.
Historians have said he "did more than anyone else outside the Nazi
party to help Hitler to power." Papen helped Hitler because he was
trying to control him and use the Nazis for his own aims.
Papen was a handsome aristocratic-looking man with distinguished gray
hair and an officer's mustache. From an impoverished family of the
Westphalian nobility, he became a General Staff officer, a skillful
horseman, and a man of great charm. After a successful marriage to the
daughter of a wealthy Saar industrialist, he bought a large block of
shares in the Center party's newspaper, Germania. For a short time in
1932, Papen was chancellor, but his government had no popular support.
Papen believed it would be rather easy for an aristocratic officer
like himself to manipulate a former corporal, like Hitler, and thus be
able to use the Nazi's mass following to accomplish the aims of the
upper-class conservative nationalists.
Hitler immediately began to outmaneuver his conservative colleagues.
He reported to the cabinet that the Center party was making impossible
demands and could not be counted on to form a coalition with the Nazis
and the Nationalists that would have a majority in the Reichstag.
Because of this situation, Hitler argued he would have to call for new
elections. The only "demand" the Center party made was that Hitler
promise to govern constitutionally, but none of the other members of
the cabinet bothered to check Hitler's statement. They agreed to new
elections on the condition that Hitler promise that the composition of
the cabinet would not change regardless of the outcome of the voting.
New elections would provide Hitler with a chance to improve on the
poor results the Nazis had received at the polls the past November. If
the Nazis won a clear majority in the elections, they might be able to
get rid of their coalition partners. Hitler had every reason to
believe the election campaign would be a big success. The entire
machinery of government, including the radio, was now under Nazi
control and could be used for campaigning. The party had been flooded
with new applicants for membership since he had become chancellor. In
the cabinet meeting on February 2, Hitler discussed his preparations
for the elections. Wilhelm Frick, the Nazi minister of the interior,
proposed that the government set aside a million marks for the
election campaign. Count von Schwerin von Krosigk, the minister of
finance, rejected this suggestion. Hitler did not force the issue. He
would have to get the money elsewhere.
The theme of the Nazi election campaign was to be the fight against
communism. Hitler opened the attack in a late-night radio broadcast to
the nation on February 1. He blamed the hard times Germany had gone
through since 1918 on the Social Democrats, which had been the largest
party in the Reichstag during most of those years. The Social
Democrats, he reminded his listeners, were actually a Marxist party.
"Fourteen years of Marxism," he said, "have ruined Germany; one year
of bolshevism [communism] would destroy her. The richest and fairest
territories of the world would be turned into a smoking heap of ruins.
Even the sufferings of the last decade and a half could not be
compared to the misery of a Europe in the heart of which the red flag
of destruction has been hoisted." He went on to promise to put the
unemployed back to work and save the peasants from bankruptcy.

On his fourth day in office, just after opening the election
campaign, Hitler took time off to attend a very important dinner. He
had been invited to the home of General von Hammerstein, chief of
staff of the army, to meet the leading officers of the army and navy.
In a speech that lasted almost two hours, Hitler explained his plans
for rebuilding German military power.
The generals were the real power in Germany during the Weimar period.
After World War II, many Germans tried to cover up the role certain
members of the Officer Corps had played in helping to put Hitler in
power. Many historians naively accepted this view, but the real story
is quite different. Traditionally, the German Army ruled from behind
the scenes and had the final "power to veto" any important issue.
After the loss of World War I, the Versailles Treaty severely
restricted the size of the German Army. The only way the generals
could maintain mass training and develop new weapons was to finance
private paramilitary units, like the Free Corps, with secret army
Hitler not only began his career as an army agent, but even in the
1930s he was supported by a powerful faction in the army. Over several
years, General von Schleicher, who was in charge of a secret informal
political department of the army, funneled over ten million marks to
Hitler. Why? Many military officers wanted an authoritarian government
that could unify the nation. The people needed to be infused with a
new spirit of patriotism because powerful interests were planning a
war of revenge against the Allies. Naturally there was a division of
opinion among the generals as to how much power to give Hitler.
Hindenburg originally had strong reservations about appointing a man
from a lower-class background, like Hitler, chancellor. However, the
aggressive action the Nazis took against Communists was admired by
Hindenburg, and his relationship with Hitler rapidly improved.
One day, Hindenburg summoned Hitler when Papen was away from Berlin.
Hitler informed the president that Papen was out of town and reminded
him of the rule he (Hindenburg) had made, that the chancellor could
visit him only when accompanied by the vice-chancellor. "The old
gentleman [Hindenburg]," said Hitler, "replied that he wished to see
me alone, and that in the future the presence of Papen could be
regarded as unnecessary. Within three weeks, he had progressed so far
that his attitude towards me became affectionate and paternal. Talking
of the elections fixed for the 3rd of March, he said, 'What are we
going to do if you fail to get a majority? We shall have the same
difficulties all over again.'"
At the beginning of the election campaign, Hitler and Papen persuaded
old President von Hindenburg to sign an emergency decree to protect
law and order. The decree gave Nazi officials the right to prohibit
public meetings. Newspapers could be suppressed if they "incited"
civil disobedience or published "false" reports.
Nickname unavailable
2010-09-11 20:30:24 UTC
the GOP, its not fascism when we do it:)Back to the ‘30s:how the GOP
uses Nazi techniques to rally the mob:New agencies all the world over
are for the most part in the hands of Jews:If you substitute liberal
for jew you have the same language


Back to the ‘30s: how the GOP uses Nazi techniques to rally the mob
December 10, 2009
Posted by Jules Siegel
By Hrafnkell Har­alds­son
Instead of Der Angriff and the Völkischer Beobachter we have FOX News
and World Net Daily. Instead of Joseph Goebbels and Alfred Rosen­berg
we have Rupert Mur­doch and Joseph Farah. These media out­lets spout
anti- liberalism as vocif­er­ously and viciously as any NSDAP pro­pa­
ganda organ. Like the party ide­o­logues noted above, they employ ad
hominem attacks in place of cogent analy­sis and pre­fer name- calling
to actual news.
Mur­doch, Farah and their min­ions take street- fighting tech­niques
in front of min­ions through use of glossy mod­ern technology.
Wit­ness, for exam­ple, Glenn Beck and Rush Lim­baugh went on the
attacked Sen. Mary Lan­drieu (D- LA) for her stance on the health­care
debate in the Sen­ate. But they did not cri­tique her posi­tion based
on its mer­its, and by offer­ing a cogent counter- argument. Instead,
both called a female US sen­a­tor a pros­ti­tute (The Rush Lim­baugh
Show Novem­ber 23 2009 and The Glenn Beck Pro­gram Novem­ber 23,2009).
This sort of attack is com­mon­place and dif­fers not at all from the
tac­tics used by the National Social­ist Press in the 20’s and 30’s.
• Glenn Beck listed peo­ple he’d like to “beat to death with a
shovel.” In 2001, Beck enu­mer­ated the var­i­ous peo­ple that he
“would want to kill with a shovel,” or “line up” and “shoot … in the
head,” includ­ing Rep. Charles Rangel (D- NY). (Glenn Beck Pro­gram,
3/ 9/ 01)
• The Repub­li­can Tea- Party mobs embrace this prin­ci­ple. Ide­o­
log­i­cal rhetoric backs it up: We see for exam­ple from Ann Coul­ter,
Vester: You say you’d rather not talk to lib­er­als at all? Coul­ter:
I think a base­ball bat is the most effec­tive way these days. (FOX
News Chan­nel, Day­Side with Linda Vester, 10/ 6)
• “Would you kill some­one for that?…I’m think­ing about killing
Michael Moore…I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire some­
body to do it,… No, I think I could. I think he could be look­ing me
in the eye, you know, and I could just be chok­ing the life out. Is
this wrong? I stopped wear­ing my What Would Jesus — band — Do, and
I’ve lost all sense of right and wrong now. I used to be able to say,
‘Yeah, I’d kill Michael Moore,’ and then I’d see the lit­tle band:
What Would Jesus Do? And then I’d real­ize, ‘Oh, you wouldn’t kill
Michael Moore. Or at least you wouldn’t choke him to death.’ And you
know, well, I’m not sure.” (Glenn Beck Pro­gram, 5/ 17/ 05)
• Beck, jok­ing about poi­son­ing Nancy Pelosi: “So, Speaker Pelosi,
I just wanted to — you gonna drink your wine? Are you blind? Do those
eyes not work? There you — I want you to drink it now. Drink it. Drink
it. Drink it… By the way, I put poi­son in your —” (Glenn Beck Pro­
gram, 8/ 6/ 09)
• Bill O’Reilly, of peo­ple who crit­i­cize him, The Radio Fac­tor,
Sep­tem­ber 27, 2007: “You know, look, if I could stran­gle these peo­
ple and not go to hell and get exe­cuted, I would, but I can’t.”
• Bill O’Reilly — radio show, Sept. 14, 2005: “I just wish Kat­rina
had only hit the United Nations build­ing, noth­ing else, just had
flooded them out, and I wouldn’t have res­cued them.”
• Rush Lim­baugh Octo­ber 20, 2009, The Rush Lim­baugh Show: “This
guy from The New York Times, if he really thinks that human­ity is
destroy­ing the planet, human­ity is destroy­ing the cli­mate, that
human beings in their nat­ural exis­tence are going to cause the
extinc­tion of life on Earth — Andrew Revkin. Mr. Revkin, why don’t
you just go kill your­self and help the planet by dying?”
• Right Wing blog­ger Roger Erick­son March 31, 2009: “At what point
do the peo­ple tell the politi­cians to go to hell? At what point do
they get off the couch, march down to their state legislator’s house,
pull him out­side, and beat him to a bloody pulp for being an idiot?”

Part 2: Liberal/Jewish Media and Right Wing Propaganda. This is the
second installment of a detailed examination of the parallels between
the Nazi movement in Germany and the new Republican methodology since
the election of Obama. Also see parts 1, 3, 4, and 5.

Now that we’ve examined the street-level thuggery in Part One, let’s
look at some examples of how the Republican “elite” work.

NSDAP and GOP: Two Medias; One Tactic
Everyone is familiar by now with the Right-wing rhetoric concerning
the “liberal media elite.” Personal responsibility goes right out the
window if you can just blame the other guy for lying about you. Again
we see a striking similarity between the National Socialists and the
Republicans – fix blame, and then accuse them of controlling the
media. The two seem to go hand-in-hand.
“Barack Obama only won because the media favored him and unfairly
denigrated the abilities and accomplishments of John McCain and Sarah
Palin.” We’ve heard this before, of course. It probably won’t surprise
you to know where:
Hitler, July 5, 1942, “New agencies all the world over…are for the
most part in the hands of Jews.”1
If you substitute “liberal” for “Jew” you have the same language.
Again, the liberals, like the Jews, are guilty of “fabrications”:
Sarah Palin, June 3, 2009, Anchorage: Palin spoke of “the entrenched
bureaucrats and the elite self-proclaimed intellectuals, and the smug
lobbyists who dominate Washington, and the liberal media that is
imposing its will on Washington, embracing that status quo, that
business as usual…” 2
This is the same language Hitler used of the “Jewish intellectuals”
and communists who dominated Weimar government. As an aside, she was
displaying typical intellectual dishonesty by lifting much of her
speech from “an article written four years ago by Newt Gingrich and
Craig Shirley without attribution.”3
The Conservapedia echoes Hitler: “The Liberal media elite is the
clique of highly paid, left-leaning executives and journalists who
directly control most output of the main newspapers and broadcasting
The media is in the hands of the Jews (communists)! The media is in
the hands of the liberals (communists)! I don’t have to make this
stuff up. This is like shooting ducks in a pond or fishing with a hand
If that is not enough, surely you remember the Nazi (mis)use of the
press. The National Socialist media became an outlet not for news, but
for propaganda. There is the most famous newspaper owner of all,
Joseph Goebbels and his paper Der Angriff (The Attack – aptly named).
Then there is the Völkischer Beobachter (Folkish [Ethnic] Observer)
edited first by Dietrich Eckart, an infamous “Jew-baiter”, then by
crank-ideologist Alfred Rosenberg.

Today, media has moved on to television and the Internet. Instead of
Der Angriff and the Völkischer Beobachter we have FOX News and World
Net Daily. Instead of Joseph Goebbels and Alfred Rosenberg we have
Rupert Murdoch and Joseph Farah. These media outlets spout anti-
liberalism as vociferously and viciously as any NSDAP propaganda
organ. Like the party ideologues noted above, they employ ad hominem
attacks in place of cogent analysis and prefer name-calling to actual
Murdoch, Farah and their minions take street-fighting techniques in
front of minions through use of glossy modern technology.
Witness, for example, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh went on the
attacked Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) for her stance on the healthcare
debate in the Senate. But they did not critique her position based on
its merits, and by offering a cogent counter-argument. Instead, both
called a female US senator a prostitute (The Rush Limbaugh Show
November 23 2009 and The Glenn Beck Program November 23,2009).
This sort of attack is commonplace and differs not at all from the
tactics used by the National Socialist Press in the 20’s and 30’s.
Vilification is the order of the day. Analysis of the facts, when it
takes place at all, comes in a distant second. As Media Matters for
America reports,
Under its president, Roger Ailes, Fox News routinely employs racially
charged appeals to foment opposition to the Obama administration and
other progressive figures, such as Glenn Beck’s comments that
President Obama is a “racist” and “has a deep-seated hatred for white
people or the white culture.” Before launching the Fox News Channel,
Ailes worked as a media consultant for several Republican campaigns
where evidence shows he similarly appealed to racial fears and biases
for political gain, and as executive producer for Rush Limbaugh’s
television show, during which Limbaugh made several controversial

And of course, just as National Socialist ideologues and leaders
motivated the mob, so do Republican ideologues. As I noted above,
Republican objections are not generally issued as cogent and well-
thought-out rebuttals of liberal positions but as ad hominem attacks,
character assassinations, and even suggested violence. This is true
not only of the rank-and-file but of the leadership, the party
ideologues, as can be seen from the examples below.
• Glenn Beck listed people he’d like to “beat to death with a
shovel.” In 2001, Beck enumerated the various people that he “would
want to kill with a shovel,” or “line up” and “shoot … in the head,”
including Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY). (Glenn Beck Program, 3/9/01)
• The Republican Tea-Party mobs embrace this principle. Ideological
rhetoric backs it up: We see for example from Ann Coulter, Vester: You
say you’d rather not talk to liberals at all? Coulter: I think a
baseball bat is the most effective way these days. (FOX News Channel,
DaySide with Linda Vester, 10/6)
• “Would you kill someone for that?…I’m thinking about killing
Michael Moore…I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire
somebody to do it,… No, I think I could. I think he could be looking
me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out. Is
this wrong? I stopped wearing my What Would Jesus — band — Do, and
I’ve lost all sense of right and wrong now. I used to be able to say,
‘Yeah, I’d kill Michael Moore,’ and then I’d see the little band: What
Would Jesus Do? And then I’d realize, ‘Oh, you wouldn’t kill Michael
Moore. Or at least you wouldn’t choke him to death.’ And you know,
well, I’m not sure.” (Glenn Beck Program, 5/17/05)
• Beck, joking about poisoning Nancy Pelosi: “So, Speaker Pelosi, I
just wanted to — you gonna drink your wine? Are you blind? Do those
eyes not work? There you — I want you to drink it now. Drink it. Drink
it. Drink it… By the way, I put poison in your —”
(Glenn Beck Program,
• Bill O’Reilly, of people who criticize him, The Radio Factor,
September 27, 2007: “You know, look, if I could strangle these people
and not go to hell and get executed, I would, but I can’t.”
• Bill O’Reilly - radio show, Sept. 14, 2005: “I just wish Katrina
had only hit the United Nations building, nothing else, just had
flooded them out, and I wouldn’t have rescued them.”
• Rush Limbaugh October 20, 2009, The Rush Limbaugh Show: “This guy
from The New York Times, if he really thinks that humanity is
destroying the planet, humanity is destroying the climate, that human
beings in their natural existence are going to cause the extinction of
life on Earth — Andrew Revkin. Mr. Revkin, why don’t you just go kill
yourself and help the planet by dying?”
• Right Wing blogger Roger Erickson March 31, 2009: “At what point do
the people tell the politicians to go to hell? At what point do
they get off the couch, march down to their state legislator’s house,
pull him outside, and beat him to a bloody pulp for being an idiot?”

1Adolf Hitler, Hitler’s Table Talk 1941-1944 tr. By Norman Cameron and
R.H. Stevens (New York 2000 [1953]), 561.
2The Conservative Book Service even has this offering: Matthew
Continetti , The Persecution of Sarah Palin: How the Elite Media Tried
to Bring Down a Rising Star (2009) which makes the case that, “Palin
was a strong and popular conservative with traditional values-work,
family, and religion-and Washington Democrats and their allies in the
so-called mainstream media decided she had to be destroyed. These
elite liberals attacked everything from Palin’s clothing to her
parenting style to her church. They spread one malicious and untrue
rumor after another…”
3Huffington Post, June 6, 2009
4Consevapedia, http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal_media_elite
5Media Matters for America http://mediamatters.org/research/200910270001
6Fox News, Your World with Neal Cavuto, November 11, 2009.
7The Rush Limbaugh Show, April 1, 2005.
8Glenn Beck Program, April 27, 2006.
9The O’Reilly Factor, May 29, 2007.
10Hitler’s Table Talk, 47.
Nickname unavailable
2010-09-11 20:32:30 UTC
hitler the conservative:As a master of the "big lie", he was able to
build substantial grass-roots support, based on a platform of anti-
Semitism and anti-communism, conservative values


Interesting People 
If there is one person in history whose activities changed the world
the most, that person is Adolf Hitler. Hitler (1889-1945) was the
German dictator who founded the National Socialism (Nazi) movement in
1920. Within twonty years, Hitler had led Germany and its allies into
World War II (1939-1945), by any measure, the most devastating war in
history, with over 60 million people killed.
As a young man, Hitler served in the Bavarian army during World War I.
(Bavaria is a part of Germany.) Although he was recognized for
bravery, the experience embittered him, and he blamed Germany's defeat
on Jews and Marxists.
In 1921, Hitler became the leader of the German National Socialist
(Nazi) Party. In 1923, he unsuccessfully attempted to overthrow the
Bavarian government — the so-called Beer Hall Putsch — and was
imprisoned for nine months. During that time, Hitler wrote the book
Mein Kampf ("My Struggle"), in which he laid bare his theories of hate
and anti-Semitism, and his plans for world domination, a vision in
which the German master race would create the so-called Third Reich.
("Germany will either become a World Power or will not continue to
exist at all." — Vol. 2, Ch. XIV)
In time, Mein Kampf would become the bible of the Nazi party. The grew
slowly, however, until the Great Depression, during which Hitler's
skills as a speaker and organizer allowed him to capitalize on the
growing social and economic unrest. As a master of the "big lie", he
was able to build substantial grass-roots support, based on a platform
of anti-Semitism and anti-communism.
Although he had some false starts, Hitler became Chancellor of Germany
in 1933 and, within a year, was given full dictatorial powers by the
government. In concert with other Nazi leaders — principally Goering,
Himmler and Goebbels — Hitler crushed all opposition and took control
of most facets of German life. In 1934, laws were passed to establish
official anti-Semitism and to create the first concentration camps.
On August 2, 1934, the elderly president of Germany died. Within
hours, Hitler declared himself Fuhrer (supreme ruler) of Germany.
Technically, the declaration was illegal. However, less than three
weeks later, a special election was held in which 90 percent of the
German people voted to confirm Hitler as Fuhrer. Hitler was now the
absolute ruler of Germany, a law unto himself.
Over the next few years, Hitler prepared Germany for war, carrying out
many political maneuvers that allowed him to extend his power into
smaller, less powerful countries. On September 1, 1939, Germany
invaded Poland. Two days later, Britain, France, Australia and New
Zealand (the Allies) declared war on Germany, formally starting World
War II.
At first, Germany had a great deal of military success, invading and
conquering much of Europe, North Africa and Russia. On December 11,
1941, Germany declared war on the United States, upon which the U.S.
entered the war on the side of the Allies. Still, it was some time
before the Germans would be stopped. Indeed, on April 26, 1942, Hitler
declared, "This war no longer bears the characteristics of former
inter-European conflicts. It is one of those elemental conflicts which
usher in a new millennium and which shake the world once in a thousand
In the fullness of time, Hitler was proved to be wrong. On February 2,
1943, he received his first major setback when the Germans were
defeated at Stalingrad in southwest Russia. Over the next two years,
the Allies began to defeat Germany, one battle at a time and, by the
spring of 1945, virtually all of Europe and North Africa had been
With the Third Reich collapsing around him and the Russians
approaching, Hitler hid in an underground bunker in Berlin. On April
29, 1945, as the Russians approached the city, Hitler married his
longtime mistress Eva Braun. The next day, both Hitler and Braun
committed suicide.
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, rec.radio.shortwave, alt.news-media,
alt.religion.christian, alt.politics.economics

Mussolini the father of fascism hated liberalism; his movement was the
first fascist movement – a halfway house between
conservative authoritarianism and modern totalitarianism


Mussolini and fascism in Italy
A. Mussolini hated liberalism; his movement was the first fascist
movement – a halfway house between
conservative authoritarianism and modern totalitarianism.
B. The fascist seizure of power
1. Prior to 1914, Italy was moving toward democracy but with problems:
Catholics, conservatives, and
landowners hated liberalism and the country was divided.
a. Only in Italy did the Socialist party gain leadership prior to
2. The First World War and postwar problems ended the move toward
democracy in Italy.
a. Workers and peasants felt cheated because wartime promises of
reform were not carried out.
b. Nationalists felt cheated by the war settlement.

Page 4
c. The Russian Revolution energized Italy’s socialists into occupying
factories and farms.
3. By 1922, most Italians were opposed to liberal, parliamentary
4. Mussolini’s Fascists opposed the “Socialist threat” with physical
force (the Black Shirts).
5. Mussolini marched on Rome in 1922 and forced the king to name him
head of the government.
C. The regime in action
1. Mussolini’s Fascists manipulated elections and killed the Socialist
leader Matteotti.
2. Between 1924 and 1926, Mussolini built a one-party Fascist
dictatorship but did not establish a fully
totalitarian state.
a. Much of the old power structure remained, particularly the
conservatives, who controlled the
army, economy, and state.
b. The Catholic church supported Mussolini because he recognized the
Vatican as an independent
state and gave the church heavy financial support.
c. Women were repressed, but Jews were not persecuted until late in
the Second World War.
d. Overall, Mussolini’s fascist Italy was never really totalitarian.
IV.Hitler and Nazism in Germany
A. The roots of Nazism
1. German Nazism was a product of Hitler, of Germany’s social and
political crisis, and the general
attack on liberalism and rationality.
2. Hitler was born in Austria, was a school dropout, and was rejected
by the Imperial art school.
3. Hitler became a fanatical nationalist while in Vienna, vhere he
absorbed anti-Semitic and racist
4. He adopted the ideas of some fanatical Christians (e.g., Lueger)
that capitalism and liberalism
resulted in excessive individualism.
5. He became obsessed with anti-Semitism and racism, and believed that
Jews and Marxists lost the
First World War for Germany.
a. He believed in a Jewish-Marxist plot to destroy German culture.
6. By 1921, he had reshaped the tiny extremist German Workers’ group
into the Nazi party, using the
mass rally as a particularly effective tool of propaganda.
a. The party grew rapidly.
b. Hitler and the party attempted to overthrow the Weimar government,
but he was defeated and
sent to jail (1923).
B. Hitler’s road to power
1. The trial after Hitler’s attempted coup brought him much publicity,
but the Nazi party remained
small until 1929.
2. Written in jail, his autobiography, Mein Kampf, was an outline of
his desire to achieve German
racial supremacy and domination of Europe, under the leadership of a
dictator (Führer).
3. The depression made the Nazi party attractive to the lower middle
class, who were seized by panic
as unemployment soared and Communists made election gains.
a. By late 1932, some 43 percent of the labor force was unemployed.
b. Hitler favored government programs to bring about economic
4. By 1932, the Nazi party was the largest in the Reichstag-having 38
percent of the total.
5. Hitler wisely stressed the economic issue rather than the anti-
Jewish and racist nationalism issues.
6. He stressed simple slogans tied to national rebirth to arouse
hysterical fanaticism in the masses.

Page 5
7. He appealed to the youth. Almost 40 percent of the Nazi party were
under 30 years of age.
8. One reason for his rise to power is that Bruning and Hindenburg had
already turned to rule by way
of emergency decree.
9. Another reason Hitler won is that the communists welcomed Hitler as
the last breath of monopoly
10. Key people in the army and big business along with conservative
and nationalistic politicians
believed that they could control Hitler; Hitler was legally appointed
chancellor in 1933.
C. The Nazi state and society
I. The Enabling Act of March 1933 gave Hitler absolute dictatorial
2. Germany became a one-party state-only the Nazi party was legal.
a. The Nazi government was hill of rivalries and inefficiencies,
leaving Hitler to act as he wished.
b. Strikes were forbidden and labor unions were replaced by the Nazi
Labor Front.
c. The Nazis took over the government bureaucracy.
d. The Nazis took control of universities, writers, publishing houses;
democratic, socialist, and
Jewish literature was blacklisted.
3. Hitler gained control of the military by crushing his own storm
troopers, the SA, thus ending the
“second revolution.”
4. The Gestapo, or secret police, used tenor and purges to strengthen
Hitler’s hold on power.
5. Hitler set out to eliminate the Jews.
a. The Nuremberg Laws (1935) deprived Jews of their citizenship.
b. By 1938, 150,000 of Germany’s 500,000 Jews had left Germany.
c. Kristallnacht was a wave of violence directed at Jews and their
synagogues and businesses.
D. Hitler’s popularity
1. Hitler promised and delivered economic recovery through public
works projects and military
a. Unemployment dropped. The standard of living rose moderately – but
business profits rose
b. Those who were not Jews, Slays, Gypsies, Jehovah’s Witnesses,
communists, or homosexuals
experienced greater opportunities and equality.
2. Hitler reduced Germany’s traditional class distinctions; the old
ruling elites had to give way to
lower-middle-class people in Hitler’s train.
a. Yet few historians believe that Hitler brought on a real social
revolution: the well-educated classes
held on to their advantaged position, and women remained largely
housewives and mothers.
3. He appealed to Germans for nationalistic reasons.
4. Communists, trade unionists, and some Christians opposed Hitler;
many who opposed him were
V. Nazi expansion and the Second World War
A. The chief concepts of Nazism were space and race-which demanded
territorial expansion.
B. Aggression and appeasement (1933-1939)
1. When he was in a weak position, Hitler voiced his intention to
overturn an unjust system; when
strong, he kept increasing his demands.
2. He lied about his intentions; he withdrew from the League of
Nations in order to rearm Germany.

Page 6
3. Germany worked to add Austria to a greater Germany, established a
military draft, and declared the
Treaty of Versailles null and void.
a. An Anglo-German naval agreement in 1935 broke Germany’s isolation.
b. In violation of the Treaty of Versailles, Hitler occupied the
demilitarized Rhineland in 1936.
4. The British policy of appeasement, motivated by guilt, fear of
communism, and pacifism, lasted far
into 1939.
5. Mussolini attacked Ethiopia in 1935 and joined Germany in
supporting the fascists in Spain (the
Rome-Berlin Axis alliance).
6. Germany, Italy, and Japan formed an alliance.
7. Hitler annexed Austria and demanded part of Czechoslovakia in 1938.
8. Chamberlain flew to Munich to appease Hitler and agree to his
territorial demands.
9. Hitler accelerated his aggression and occupied all of
Czechoslovakia in 1939.
10. In 1939, Hitler and Stalin signed a public nonaggression pact and
a secret pact that divided eastern
Europe into German and Russian zones.
11. Germany attacked Poland, and Britain and France declared war on
Germany (1939).
C. Hitler’s empire (1939-1942)
1. The key to Hitler’s military success was speed and force (the
2. He crushed Poland quickly and then France; by July 1940, the Nazis
ruled nearly all of Europe
except Britain.
3. He bombed British cities in an attempt to break British morale but
did not succeed.
4. In 1941, Hitler’s forces invaded Russia and conquered the Ukraine
and got as far as Leningrad and
Moscow until stopped by the severe winter weather.
5. After Japan attacked Pearl Harbor (1941), Hitler also declared war
on the United States.
6. Hitler began building a New Order based on racial imperialism.
a. Nordic peoples were treated with preference; the French were
heavily taxed; the Slays were
treated as “subhumans.”
b. The 55 evacuated Polish peasants to create a German “settlement
c. Polish workers and Russian prisoners of war were sent to Germany to
work as slave laborers.
Most did not survive.
d. Jews, Gypsies, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and communists were condemned
to death.
7. Six million Jews from all over Europe were murdered by killing
squads, in ghettos, or in
concentration camps.
a. At the extermination camps such as Auschwitz-Birkenau the victims
were forced into gas
b. Recent research suggests that many Germans knew of and participated
in these killings.
c. Some scholars believe that the key reason so many Germans (and non-
Germans) did not protest
the murders is that they felt no personal responsibility for Jews.
E. The Grand Alliance
1. The Allies had three policies that led them to victory.
a. The United States concentrated on European victory first, then
b. The Americans and British put military needs before political
questions, thus avoiding conflict
over postwar settlements.

Page 7
c. The Allies adopted the principle of “unconditional surrender” of
Germany and Japan, denying
Hitler the possibility of dividing his foes.
2. American aid to Britain and the Soviets, along with the heroic
support of the British and Soviet
peoples and the assistance of resistance groups throughout Europe,
contributed to the eventual
F. The tide of battle
1. The Germans were defeated at Stalingrad at the end of 1942, and
from there on the Soviets took the
2. At the same time, American, British, and Australian victories in
the Pacific put Japan on the
a. The Battle of the Coral Sea (1942) stopped the Japanese advance.
b. The Battle of Midway Island (1942) established American naval
superiority in the Pacific.
3. The British defeat of Rommel at the Battle of El Alamein (1942)
helped drive the Axis powers from
North Africa in 1943.
4. Italy surrendered in 1943, but fighting continued as the Germans
seized Rome and northern Italy.
5. Bombing of Germany and Hitler’s brutal elimination of opposition
caused the Germans to fight on.
6. The British and Americans invaded German-held France in June 1944
but did not cross into
Germany until March 1945.
a. The Soviets pushed from the east, crossing the Elbe and meeting the
Americans on the other
side on April 26, 1945; Hitler committed suicide, and Germany
surrendered on May 7, 1945.
b. The United States dropped two atomic bombs on Japan in August 1945,
and it too surrendered.
Nickname unavailable
2010-09-11 20:33:50 UTC
franco the fascist was anti-communist, for conservative family values,
and was supported by hitler and mussolini:During Franco's rule, trade
unions and all political opponents across the political spectrum, from
communist and anarchist organizations to liberal democrats were
either suppressed or tightly controlled by all means, up to and
including violent police repression

Francisco Franco
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For other uses see, Franco (disambiguation).

Francisco Franco Bahamonde (4 December 1892 in Ferrol – 20 November
1975 in Madrid), commonly known as Francisco Franco (Spanish
pronunciation: [fɾanˈθisko ˈfɾaŋko]) was a military general and
dictator of Spain from October 1936, and de facto regent of the
nominally restored Kingdom of Spain from 1947 until his death in 1975.
During his almost forty year reign, Franco's governance of Spain went
through various different phases. Although the most common ideological
features which were present throughout included a strong sense of
Spanish nationalism and protection of its territorial integrity,
Catholicism, anti-communism and traditional values.[1]
From a military family, Franco originally set out for a career in the
Spanish Navy—however this had reduced since Spain has lost much of its
empire so he became a solider instead. During the early period of his
career he fought in Morocco during the Rif War, rising to the position
of general. Afterwards he was stationed on the Spanish mainland and
saw service suppressing an anarchist led strike in 1934; defending the
stability of Alcalá-Zamora's conservative republican government.
Everything changed in 1936 with the election of the Popular Front, a
far left coalition of socialists, communists, anarchists and liberal
republicans. A period of severe instability ensued, with escalating
violence and distrust between supporters of each side. Anti-clerical
violence against the Church by leftist militants raised tensions.
After the assassination of José Calvo Sotelo, by a commando unit of
the Assault Guards—the military felt a communist dictatorship was
nearing. Franco and the military participated in a coup d'etat against
the Popular Front government.
The coup failed and devolved into the Spanish Civil War during which
he emerged as the leader of the Nationalists against the Popular Front
government. After winning the civil war with support from Benito
Mussolini's Italy and Adolf Hitler's Germany—while the Soviet Union
provided help to the Popular Party—he dissolved the Spanish
Parliament. He then established a right-wing authoritarian regime that
lasted until 1978, when a new constitution was drafted. During the
Second World War, Franco officially maintained a policy of non-
belligerency and later of neutrality. However, he agreed to allow the
many Spanish volunteers, known as the Blue Division to join the
Germany Army in the fight against Communism on the Eastern Front.
After the end of World War II, Franco maintained his control in Spain
through the implementation of repressive and authoritarian measures:
the systematic suppression of dissident views through censorship and
coercion,[2][3] the institutionalization of torture,[4] the
imprisonment of ideological enemies in concentration camps throughout
the country (such as Los Merinales in Seville, San Marcos in León,
Castuera in Extremadura, and Miranda de Ebro)[5], the implementation
of forced labor in prisons[6] and the use of the death penalty and
heavy prison sentences as deterrents for his ideological enemies[7].
During the Cold War, the United States established a diplomatic
alliance with Spain, due to Franco's strong anti-Communist policy.
American President Richard Nixon toasted Franco, [8] and, after
Franco's death, stated: "General Franco was a loyal friend and ally of
the United States[9]." After his death Spain gradually began its
transition to democracy. Today, pre-constitutional symbols from the
Franco regime (such as the national flag with the Imperial Eagle) are
banned by law in Spain.
Contents [hide]

Early life

Francisco Franco was born on 4 December 1892, in El Ferrol, Galicia,
which is Spain's chief naval base in the north. The Franco family was
originally from Andalucia and are thought to have a degree of
aristocratic ancestry.[note 1] Since relocating to Galicia they were
strongly involved in the Spanish Navy and over two centuries produced
naval officers for six generations uninterupted, right down to
Franco's father Nicolás Franco y Salgado.
Franco's mother was María del Pilar Bahamonde y Pardo de Andrade and
his parents maried in 1890. The Bahamonde family was of local Galician
aristocratic stock, she was descended from VII Conde de Lemos and his
wife the third Condessa de Villalva, who were descended from
Portuguese royalty and thus from many other European kings.[10][11] He
had two brothers, Nicolás (Ferrol, 1891 - 1977), Spanish Navy Officer
and Diplomat married to María Isabel Pascual del Pobil y Ravello, and
Ramón, a pioneering Aviator, and two sisters María del Pilar (Ferrol,
1894 - Madrid, 1989) and María de la Paz (Ferrol, 1899 - Ferrol,
1900), with whom he spent much of his childhood.

Military career

Rif War, rise through the ranks

Francisco was to follow his father into the Navy but as a result of
the Spanish-American War the country had lost much of its navy as well
as most of its colonies. Not needing more officers, entry into the
Naval Academy was closed from 1906 to 1913. To his father's chagrin,
he decided to join the Spanish Army. In 1907, he entered the Infantry
Academy in Toledo, from which he graduated in 1910. He was
commissioned as a lieutenant. Two years later, he obtained a
commission to Morocco. Spanish efforts to physically occupy their new
African protectorate provoked the protracted Rif War (from 1909 to
1927) with native Moroccans. Tactics at the time resulted in heavy
losses among Spanish military officers, but also gave the chance of
earning promotion through merit. It was said that officers would get
either la caja o la faja (a coffin or a general's sash). Franco soon
gained a reputation as a good officer. He joined the newly formed
regulares, colonial native troops with Spanish officers, who acted as
shock troops.
In 1916, at the age of 23 and already a captain, he was badly wounded
in a skirmish at El Biutz and possibly lost a testicle.[12] His
survival marked him permanently in the eyes of the native troops as a
man of baraka (good luck). He was also recommended unsuccessfully for
Spain's highest honor for gallantry, the coveted Cruz Laureada de San
Fernando. Instead, he was promoted to major (comandante), becoming the
youngest field grade officer in the Spanish Army. From 1917 to 1920,
he was posted on the Spanish mainland. That last year, Lieutenant
Colonel José Millán Astray, a histrionic but charismatic officer,
founded the Spanish Foreign Legion, along similar lines to the French
Foreign Legion. Franco became the Legion's second-in-command and
returned to Africa. On 24 July 1921, the poorly commanded and
overextended Spanish Army suffered a crushing defeat at Annual at the
hands of the Rif tribes led by the Abd el-Krim brothers. The Legion
symbolically, if not materially, saved the Spanish enclave of Melilla
after a gruelling three-day forced march led by Franco. In 1923,
already a lieutenant colonel, he was made commander of the Legion.
The same year, he married María del Carmen Polo y Martínez-Valdès;
they had one child, a daughter, María del Carmen, born in 1926.[13] As
a special mark of honor, his best man (padrino) at the wedding was
King Alfonso XIII, a fact that would mark him during the Republic as a
monarchical officer. Promoted to colonel, Franco led the first wave of
troops ashore at Al Hoceima in 1925. This landing in the heartland of
Abd el-Krim's tribe, combined with the French invasion from the south,
spelled the beginning of the end for the short-lived Republic of the
Rif. Becoming the youngest general in Spain in 1926, Franco was
appointed in 1928 director of the newly created the General Military
Academy of Zaragoza, a new college for all Army cadets, replacing the
former separate institutions for young men seeking to become officers
in infantry, cavalry, artillery, and other branches of the army.

During the Second Spanish Republic
With the fall of the monarchy in 1931, in keeping with his long-
standing apolitical record, Franco did not take any notable stand. But
the closing of the Academy, in June, by War Minister Manuel Azaña,
provoked his first clash with the Republic. Azaña found Franco's
farewell speech to the cadets[14] insulting. For six months, Franco
was without a post and under surveillance.
On 5 February 1932, he was given a command in La Coruña. Franco
avoided involvement in José Sanjurjo's attempted coup that year, and
even wrote a hostile letter to Sanjurjo expressing his anger over the
attempt. As a side result of Azaña's military reform, in January 1933,
Franco was relegated from the first to the 24th in the list of
Brigadiers; conversely, the same year (17 February), he was given the
military command of the Balearic Islands: a post above his rank.
New elections held in October 1933 resulted in a center-right
majority. In opposition to this government, a revolutionary movement
broke out 5 October 1934. This uprising was rapidly quelled in most of
the country, but gained a stronghold in Asturias, with the support of
the miners' unions. Franco, already general of a Division and aide to
the war minister, Diego Hidalgo, was put in command of the operations
directed to suppress the insurgency. The forces of the Army in Africa
were to carry the brunt of this, with General Eduardo López Ochoa as
commander in the field. After two weeks of heavy fighting (and a death
toll estimated between 1,200 and 2,000), the rebellion was suppressed.
The insurgency in Asturias sharpened the antagonism between Left and
Right. Franco and López Ochoa—who, prior to the campaign in Asturias,
was seen as a left-leaning officer—were marked by the left as enemies.
At the start of the Civil War, López Ochoa was assassinated. Some time
after these events, Franco was briefly commander-in-chief of the Army
of Africa (from 15 February onwards), and from 19 May 1935 on, Chief
of the General Staff.

1936 general election
After the ruling centre-right coalition collapsed amid the Straperlo
corruption scandal, new elections were scheduled. Two wide coalitions
formed: the Popular Front on the left, ranging from Republican Union
Party to Communists, and the Frente Nacional on the right, ranging
from the center radicals to the conservative Carlists. On February 16,
1936, the left won by a narrow margin.[15] Growing political
bitterness surfaced again. The government and its supporters, the
Popular Front, had launched a campaign against the Opposition whom
they accused of plotting against the Republic. The Opposition parties,
on the other hand, had reacted with increasing vigour. The latter
claimed that the Popular Front had illegally obtained two hundred
seats in a Parliament of 473 members. After the loss of 200 seats, the
Opposition Parties claimed the government represented only a small
minority, adding claims that the Popular Front's parliamentary
majority was the result of large-scale electoral fraud, of Government-
sponsored mob terror and intimidation, of the arbitrary annulment of
all election certificates in many Right-wing constituencies, and of
the expulsion, the arrest, or even the assassination, of many legally
elected deputies of the Right. According to the Opposition, the real
enemies of the Republic were not on the Right but on the Left; Spain
was in imminent danger of falling under a Communist dictatorship, and
therefore by fighting the Popular Front they, the Opposition, were
merely doing their duty in defence of law and order and of the freedom
and the fundamental rights of the Spanish people.[16]
The days after the election were marked by near-chaotic circumstances.
Franco lobbied unsuccessfully to have a state of emergency declared,
with the stated purpose of quelling the disturbances and allowing an
orderly vote recount.[citation needed]
Instead, on 23 February, Franco was sent to the distant Canary Islands
to serve as the islands' military commander, a position in which he
had few troops under his command.
Meanwhile, a conspiracy led by Emilio Mola was taking shape. In June,
Franco was contacted and a secret meeting was held in Tenerife's La
Esperanza Forest to discuss a military coup. (A commemorative obelisk
commemorating this historic meeting can be found in a clearing at Las
Outwardly, Franco maintained an ambiguous attitude almost up until
July. On June 23, 1936, he wrote to the head of the government,
Casares Quiroga, offering to quell the discontent in the army, but was
not answered. The other rebels were determined to go ahead, con
Paquito o sin Paquito (with Franco or without him), as it was put by
José Sanjurjo, the honorary leader of the military uprising. After
various postponements, July 18 was fixed as the date of the uprising.
The situation reached a point of no return and, as presented to Franco
by Mola, the coup was unavoidable and he had to choose a side. He
decided to join the rebels and was given the task of commanding the
Army of Africa. A privately owned DH 89 De Havilland Dragon Rapide,
was chartered in England July 11 to take Franco to Africa.
The assassination of the right-wing opposition leader José Calvo
Sotelo by government police troops, possibly acting on their own in
retaliation for the murder of José Castillo, precipitated the
uprising. On July 17, one day earlier than planned, the African Army
rebelled, detaining their commanders. On July 18, Franco published a
manifesto[17] and left for Africa, where he arrived the next day to
take command.
A week later, the rebels, who soon called themselves the Nationalists,
controlled only a third of Spain, and most navy units remained under
control of the Republican loyalist forces, which left Franco isolated.
The coup had failed, but the Spanish Civil War had begun.

From the Spanish Civil War to World War II
Main articles: Spanish Civil War and Spain in World War II
The Spanish Civil War began in July 1936 and officially ended with
Franco's victory in April 1939, leaving 190,000[18] to 500,000[19]
dead. Despite the Non-Intervention Agreement of August 1936, the war
was marked by foreign intervention on behalf of both sides, leading to
international repercussions. The nationalist side was supported by
Fascist Italy, which sent the Corpo Truppe Volontarie and later Nazi
Germany, which assisted with the Condor Legion infamous for their
bombing of Guernica in April 1937. Britain and France strictly adhered
to the arms embargo, provoking dissensions within the French Popular
Front coalition led by Léon Blum, but the Republican side was
nonetheless supported by volunteers fighting in the International
Brigades and the Soviet Union. (See for example Ken Loach's Land and
Because Hitler and Stalin used the war as a testing ground for modern
warfare, some historians, such as Ernst Nolte, have considered the
Spanish Civil War, along with the Second World War, part of a
"European Civil War" lasting from 1936 to 1945 and characterized
mainly as a Left/Right ideological conflict. However, this
interpretation has not found acceptance among most historians, who
consider the Second World War and the Spanish Civil War two distinct
conflicts. Among other things, they point to the political
heterogeneity on both sides (See Spanish Civil War: Other Factions in
the War) and criticize a monolithic interpretation which overlooks the
local nuances of Spanish history.

The first months
Despite Franco having no money, while the state treasury was in Madrid
with the government, there was an organized economic lobby in London
looking after his financial needs with Lisbon as their operational
base. Eventually, he was to receive important help from his economic
and diplomatic boosters abroad.
Following the 18 July 1936, pronunciamento, Franco assumed the
leadership of the 30,000 soldiers of the Spanish Army of Africa. The
first days of the insurgency were marked with a serious need to secure
control over the Spanish Moroccan Protectorate. On one side, Franco
managed to win the support of the natives and their (nominal)
authorities, and, on the other, to ensure his control over the army.
This led to the summary execution of some 200 senior officers loyal to
the Republic (one of them his own first cousin). Also his loyal
bodyguard was shot by a man known as Manuel Blanco. [20] Franco's
first problem was how to move his troops to the Iberian Peninsula,
since most units of the Navy had remained in control of the Republic
and were blocking the Strait of Gibraltar. He requested help from
Mussolini, who responded with an unconditional offer of arms and
planes; Wilhelm Canaris, the head of the Abwehr military intelligence,
persuaded Hitler, as well, to support the Nationalists. From July 20
onward he was able, with a small group of 22 mainly German Junkers Ju
52 airplanes, to initiate an air bridge to Seville, where his troops
helped to ensure the rebel control of the city. Through
representatives, Franco started to negotiate with the United Kingdom,
Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy for more military support, and above
all for more airplanes. Negotiations were successful with the last two
on July 25, and airplanes began to arrive in Tetouan on August 2. On
August 5, Franco was able to break the blockade with the newly arrived
air support, successfully deploying a ship convoy with some 2,000
In early August, the situation in western Andalusia was stable enough
to allow him to organize a column (some 15,000 men at its height),
under the command of then Lieutenant-Colonel Juan Yagüe, which would
march through Extremadura towards Madrid. On August 11, Mérida was
taken, and on August 15 Badajoz, thus joining both nationalist-
controlled areas. Additionally, Mussolini ordered a voluntary army,
the Corpo Truppe Volontarie (CTV) of some 12,000 Italians of fully
motorized units to Seville and Hitler added to them a professional
squadron from the Luftwaffe (2JG/88) with about 24 planes. All these
planes had the Nationalist Spanish insignia painted on them, but were
flown by Italian and German troops. The backbone of Franco's aviation
in those days were the Italian SM.79 and SM.81 bombers, the biplane
Fiat CR.32 fighter and the German Junkers Ju 52 cargo-bomber and the
Heinkel He 51 biplane fighter.
On 21 September, with the head of the column at the town of Maqueda
(some 80 km away from Madrid), Franco ordered a detour to free the
besieged garrison at the Alcázar of Toledo, which was achieved
September 27. This controversial decision gave the Popular Front time
to strengthen its defenses in Madrid and hold the city that year but
was an important morale and propaganda success.

Rise to power
The designated leader of the uprising, Gen. José Sanjurjo died on July
20 1936 in an air crash. Therefore, in the nationalist zone,
"Political life ceased."[21] Initially, only military command
mattered; this was divided into regional commands (Emilio Mola in the
North, Gonzalo Queipo de Llano in Seville commanding Andalusia, Franco
with an independent command and Miguel Cabanellas in Zaragoza
commanding Aragon). The Spanish Army of Morocco itself was split into
two columns, one commanded by General Juan Yagüe and the other
commanded by Colonel José Varela.
From 24 July, a coordinating junta was established, based at Burgos.
Nominally led by Cabanellas, as the most senior general,[22] it
initially included Mola, three other generals, and two colonels;
Franco was added in early August.[23] On September 21, it was decided
that Franco was to be commander-in-chief (this unified command was
opposed only by Cabanellas),[24] and, after some discussion, with no
more than a lukewarm agreement from Queipo de Llano and from Mola,
also head of government.[25] He was doubtless helped to this primacy
by the fact that, in late July, Hitler had decided that all of
Germany's aid to the nationalists would go to Franco.[26]
Mola considered Franco as unfit and not part of the initial rebel
group.[citation needed] But Mola himself had been somewhat discredited
as the main planner of the attempted coup that had now degenerated
into a civil war, and was strongly identified with the Carlists
monarchists and not at all with the Falange, a party with Fascist
leanings and connections, nor did he have good relations with Germans;
Queipo de Llano and Cabanellas had both previously rebelled against
the dictatorship of Miguel Primo de Rivera and were therefore
discredited in some nationalist circles; and Falangist leader José
Antonio Primo de Rivera was in prison in Madrid (he would be executed
a few months later) and the desire to keep a place open for him
prevented any other falangist leader from emerging as a possible head
of state. Franco's previous aloofness from politics meant that he had
few active enemies in any of the factions that needed to be placated,
and had cooperated in recent months with both Germany and Italy.[27]
On 1 October 1936, in Burgos, Franco was publicly proclaimed as
Generalísimo of the National army and Jefe del Estado (Head of State).
[28] Mola was furious and Cabanellas intervened to calm the spirits
down.[citation needed] When Mola was killed in another air accident a
year later (which some believe was an assassination) (June 2, 1937),
no military leader was left from those who organized the conspiracy
against the Republic between 1933 and 1935.[29]

Military command
From that time until the end of the war, Franco personally guided
military operations. After the failed assault on Madrid in November
1936, Franco settled to a piecemeal approach to winning the war,
rather than bold maneuvering. As with his decision to relieve the
garrison at Toledo, this approach has been subject of some debate;
some of his decisions, such as, in June 1938, when he preferred to
head for Valencia instead of Catalonia, remain particularly
controversial from a military viewpoint. It was however, in Valencia,
Castellon and Alicante where the last troops were defeated by Franco
Franco's army was supported by Nazi Germany in the form of the Condor
Legion, infamous for the bombing of Guernica on April 26, 1937. These
German forces also provided maintenance personnel and trainers, and
some Germans and Italians served over the entire war period in Spain.
Principal assistance was received from Fascist Italy (Corpo Truppe
Volontarie), but the degree of influence of both powers on Franco's
direction of the war seems to have been very limited. Nevertheless,
the Italian troops, despite not being always effective, were present
in most of the large operations in big numbers, while the CTV helped
the Nationalist airforce dominate the skies for most of the war.
António de Oliveira Salazar's Portugal also openly assisted the
Nationalists from the start, contributing some 20,000 troops.
It is said that Franco's direction of the Nazi and Fascist forces was
limited, particularly in the direction of the Condor Legion, however,
he was officially, by default, their supreme commander and they rarely
made decisions on their own. For reasons of prestige, it was decided
to continue assisting Franco until the end of the war, and Italian and
German troops paraded on the day of the final victory in Madrid.[30]

Political command
In April 1937, Franco managed to fuse the ideologically incompatible
national-syndicalist Falange ("phalanx", a far-right Spanish political
party founded by José Antonio Primo de Rivera) and the Carlist
monarchist parties under a single-party under his rule, dubbed Falange
Española Tradicionalista y de las Juntas de Ofensiva Nacional-
Sindicalista (FET y de las JONS), which became the only legal party in
1939. The Falangists' hymn, Cara al Sol, became the semi-national
anthem of Franco's not yet established regime.
This new political formation appeased the pro-Nazi Falangists while
tempering them with the anti-German Carlists. Franco's brother-in-law
Ramón Serrano Súñer, who was his main political advisor, was able to
turn the various parties under Franco against each other to absorb a
series of political confrontations against Franco himself. At a
certain moment he even expelled the original leading members of both
the Carlists (Manuel Fal Conde) and the Falangists (Manuel Hedilla) to
secure Franco's political future. Franco also appeased the Carlists by
exploiting the Republicans' anti-clericalism in his propaganda, in
particular concerning the "Martyrs of the war". While the loyalist
forces presented the war as a struggle to defend the Republic against
Fascism, Franco depicted himself as the defender of "Christian Europe"
against "atheist Communism."
From early 1937, every death sentence had to be signed (or
acknowledged) by Franco. From the beginning of the revolt, all the
Junta generals ordered massive public and summary executions to spread
fear and reduce resistance among the civilians.

The end of the Civil War
Before the fall of Catalonia in February 1939, the Prime Minister of
Spain Juan Negrín unsuccessfully proposed, in the meeting of the
Cortes in Figueres, capitulation with the sole condition of respecting
the lives of the vanquished. Negrín was ultimately deposed by Colonel
Segismundo Casado, later joined by José Miaja.
Thereafter, only Madrid (see History of Madrid) and a few other areas
remained under control of the government forces. On February 27,
Chamberlain and Daladier's governments recognized the Franco regime,
before the official end of the war. The PCE attempted a mutiny in
Madrid with the aim of re-establishing Negrín's leadership, but José
Miaja retained control. Finally, on March 28, 1939, with the help of
pro-Franco forces inside the city (the "fifth column" General Mola had
mentioned in propaganda broadcasts in 1936), Madrid fell to the
Nationalists. The next day, Valencia, which had held out under the
guns of the Nationalists for close to two years, also surrendered.
Victory was proclaimed on April 1, 1939, when the last of the
Republican forces surrendered. On this very date, Franco placed his
sword upon the altar in a church and in a vow, promised that he would
never again take up his sword unless Spain itself was threatened with
At least 50,000 people were executed during the civil war.[19][31][32]
Franco's victory was followed by thousands of summary executions (from
15,000 to 25,000 people [33]) and imprisonments, while many were put
to forced labour, building railways, drying out swamps, digging canals
(La Corchuela, the Canal of the Bajo Guadalquivir), construction of
the Valle de los Caídos monument, etc. The 1940 shooting of the
president of the Catalan government, Lluís Companys, was one of the
most notable cases of this early suppression of opponents and
Although leftists suffered from an important death-toll, the Spanish
intelligentsia, atheists and military and government figures who had
remained loyal to the Madrid government during the war were also
targeted for oppression.
In his recent, updated history of the Spanish Civil War, Antony Beevor
"reckons Franco's ensuing 'white terror' claimed 200,000 lives. The
'red terror' had already killed 38,000."[34] Julius Ruiz concludes
that "although the figures remain disputed, a minimum of 37,843
executions were carried out in the Republican zone with a maximum of
150,000 executions (including 50,000 after the war) in Nationalist
Spain."[35] In Checas de Madrid, César Vidal comes to a nationwide
total of 110,965 victims of Republican violence; 11,705 people being
killed in Madrid alone.[36]
Despite the official end of the war, guerrilla resistance to Franco
(known as "the maquis") was widespread in many mountainous regions,
and continued well into the 1950s. In 1944, a group of republican
veterans, which also fought in the French resistance against the
Nazis, invaded the Val d'Aran in northwest Catalonia, but they were
quickly defeated.
The end of the war led to hundreds of thousands of exilees, mostly to
France (but also Mexico, Chile, Cuba, the USA and so on.).[37] On the
other side of the Pyrenees, refugees were confined in internment camps
of the French Third Republic, such as Camp Gurs or Camp Vernet, where
12,000 Republicans were housed in squalid conditions (mostly soldiers
from the Durruti Division [38]). The 17,000 refugees housed in Gurs
were divided into four categories (Brigadists, pilots, Gudaris and
ordinary 'Spaniards'). The Gudaris (Basques) and the pilots easily
found local backers and jobs, and were allowed to quit the camp, but
the farmers and ordinary people, who could not find relations in
France, were encouraged by the Third Republic, in agreement with the
Francoist government, to return to Spain. The great majority did so
and were turned over to the Francoist authorities in Irún. From there
they were transferred to the Miranda de Ebro camp for "purification"
according to the Law of Political Responsibilities.
After the proclamation by Marshal Philippe Pétain of the Vichy France
regime, the refugees became political prisoners, and the French police
attempted to round-up those who had been liberated from the camp.
Along with other "undesirables", they were sent to the Drancy
internment camp before being deported to Nazi Germany. 5,000 Spaniards
thus died in Mauthausen concentration camp [39]. The Chilean poet
Pablo Neruda, who had been named by the Chilean President Pedro
Aguirre Cerda special consul for immigration in Paris, was given
responsibility for what he called "the noblest mission I have ever
undertaken": shipping more than 2,000 Spanish refugees, who had been
housed by the French in squalid camps, to Chile on an old cargo ship,
the Winnipeg.

World War II

In September 1939, World War II broke out in Europe, and although
Hitler met Franco once in Hendaye, France (October 23, 1940), to
discuss Spanish entry on the side of the Axis, Franco's demands (food,
military equipment, Gibraltar, French North Africa, Portugal, etc.)
proved too much and no agreement was reached. (An oft-cited remark
attributed to Hitler is that the German leader would rather have some
teeth extracted than to have to deal further with Franco.) Franco's
tactics received important support from Adolf Hitler and Benito
Mussolini during the civil war. He remained emphatically neutral in
the Second World War, but nonetheless offered various kinds of support
to Italy and Germany. He allowed Spanish soldiers to volunteer to
fight in the German Army against the USSR (the Blue Division), but
forbade Spaniards to fight in the West against the democracies.
Franco's common ground with Hitler was particularly weakened by
Hitler's propagation of a pseudo-pagan mysticism and his attempts to
manipulate Christianity, which went against Franco's deep commitment
to defending Christianity and Catholicism.[citation
needed]Contributing to the disagreement was an ongoing dispute over
German mining rights in Spain. Some historians argue that Franco made
demands that he knew Hitler would not accede to in order to stay out
of the war. Other historians argue that he, as leader of a destroyed
country in chaos, simply had nothing to offer the Germans and their
military. Yet, after the collapse of France in June 1940, Spain did
adopt a pro-Axis non-belligerency stance (for example, he offered
Spanish naval facilities to German ships) until returning to complete
neutrality in 1943 when the tide of the war had turned decisively
against Germany and its allies. Some volunteer Spanish troops (the
División Azul, or "Blue Division")—not given official state sanction
by Franco—went to fight on the Eastern Front under German command from
1941–1943. Some historians have argued that not all of the Blue
Division were true volunteers and that Franco expended relatively
small but significant resources to aid the Axis powers' battle against
the Soviet Union.
During the entire war, especially after 1942, the Spanish borders were
more or less kept open for Jewish refugees from Vichy France and Nazi-
occupied territories in Europe. Franco's diplomats extended their
diplomatic protection over Sephardic Jews in Hungary, Slovakia and the
Balkans. Spain was a safe haven for all Jewish refugees and
antisemitism was not official policy under the Franco regime.
On June 14, 1940, the Spanish forces in Morocco occupied Tangier (a
city under the rule of the League of Nations) and did not leave it
until 1945.

Spain under Franco
Main article: Spain under Franco

Franco was recognized as the Spanish head of state by Britain and
France in February 1939, two months before the war officially ended.
Already proclaimed Generalísimo of the Nationalists and Jefe del
Estado (Head of State) in October 1936 [28], he thereafter assumed the
official title of "Su Excelencia el Jefe de Estado" ("His Excellency
the Head of State"). However, he was also referred to in state and
official documents as "Caudillo de España" ("the Leader of Spain"),
and sometimes called "el Caudillo de la Última Cruzada y de la
Hispanidad" ("the Leader of the Last Crusade and of the Hispanic
World") and "el Caudillo de la Guerra de Liberación contra el
Comunismo y sus Cómplices" ("the Leader of the War of Liberation
Against Communism and Its Accomplices").
In 1947, Franco proclaimed Spain a monarchy, but did not designate a
monarch. This gesture was largely done to appease the Movimiento
Nacional (Carlists and Alfonsists). Although a self-proclaimed
monarchist himself, Franco had no particular desire for a King yet,
and as such, he left the throne vacant, with himself as de facto
Regent. He wore the uniform of a Captain General (a rank traditionally
reserved for the King) and resided in the El Pardo Palace. In
addition, he appropriated the royal privilege of walking beneath a
canopy, and his portrait appeared on most Spanish coins and postage
stamps. He also added "by the grace of God," a phrase usually part of
the styles of monarchs, to his style.
Franco initially sought support from various groups. He initially
garnered support from the fascist elements of the Falange, but
distanced himself from fascist ideology after the defeat of the Axis
in World War II. Franco's administration marginalized fascist
ideologues in favor of technocrats, many of whom were linked with Opus
Dei, who promoted the economic modernization under Franco[40].
Although Franco and Spain under his rule adopted some trappings of
fascism, he, and Spain under his rule, are not generally considered to
be fascist; among the distinctions, fascism entails a revolutionary
aim to transform society, where Franco and Franco's Spain did not seek
to do so, and, to the contrary, although authoritarian, were
conservative and traditional.[41][42][43][44][45] Stanley Payne, the
preeminent conservative scholar on fascism and Spain notes: "scarcely
any of the serious historians and analysts of Franco consider the
generalissimo to be a core fascist". [44][46] The consistent points in
Franco's long rule included above all authoritarianism, nationalism,
the defense of Catholicism and the family, anti-Freemasonry, and anti-
The aftermath of the Civil War was socially bleak: many of those who
had supported the Republic fled into exile. Spain lost thousands of
doctors, nurses, teachers, lawyers, judges, professors, businessmen,
artists,etc. Many of those who had to stay lost their jobs or lost
their rank. Sometimes those jobs were given to unskilled and even
untrained personnel. This deprived the country of many of its
brightest minds, and also of a very capable workforce.[citation
needed]. However, this was done to keep Spain's citizens consistent
with the ideals sought by the Nationalists and Franco.
With the end of World War II, Spain suffered from the economic
consequences of its isolation from the international community. This
situation ended in part when, due to Spain's strategic location in
light of Cold War tensions, the United States entered into a trade and
military alliance with Spain. This historic alliance commenced with
United States President Eisenhower's visit in 1953 which resulted in
the Pact of Madrid. Spain was then admitted to the United Nations in
Nickname unavailable
2010-09-11 20:42:35 UTC

• Socialism and Nazism
Nazism and socialism refers to a polemical, and political claim that
Nazism, or the "German National Socialism" of the 1930s to mid 1940s
is comparable in some way to the ideology of socialism. Political
figures —in the US, Britain, and elsewhere —may at times employ the
comparison as a rhetorical device aimed at discrediting pro-labor and
otherwise socially liberal platforms, by implying a guilt by
association between socialist economic philosophy and the tyrannical
rule of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis.
While the claim has little meaning among educated scholars, the
argument has some social resonance among "layman majorities" who tend
to be less able to discern (or have less access to) factual claims and
materials related to history and economics —easy to sway with polemic
rhetoric, even if the claim has little substance or merit.

The definition of Nazism
The name "National Socialist German Workers Party," was a misnomer,
much like the "Peoples Republic of China," the "Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics," the "German Democratic Republic" and the
"Liberal Democratic Party of Russia." Few would argue that any of the
above countries were infact democracies or republics, and it is to
this above category that the Hitlerian self-image as a "National
Socialist German Workers Party," belongs.
The shortened term, "National Socialism," is a misnomer as well, and
by itself simply means a 'nationalist flavor of socialism.' But
because it is a very general term, it has some current resonance in
popular discourse —particularly when it's used synonymously with
It's polemical use within Western capitalist societies, is designed to
evoke the twin demons of Naziism and (Soviet) "socialism," perhaps
generating a Pavlovian response to the common "enemy", in this case .
The accusation of political liberals as "socialists," (and hence by
implication "Nazis" and "Soviets Communists") is a rather typical and
well-documented cornerstone of conservative rhetoric in the United
States and other capitalist democracies. (See smear campaign, Red
scare, McCarthyism)
The Nazi party-appropriated-term "socialism," like "democracy" in the
cases above, was used to appeal to German workers for political
support during the tentative early years of Hitler's ascent to power.
Apart from the occasional use of empty pro-worker political rhetoric,
Adolf Hitler and his Nazi party had no inclination towards true
socialism, in the sense (democratic socialism) that it's used today.
Within the context of Hitler's unified, "racially-pure" Germany,
Hitler instituted and supported social programs that on their surface
had socialist structure. For example, his youth programs, education
and indoctrination programs, reproduction programs, all borrowed some
of their structure from existing "socialist" ideas, but insead of
keeping the democratic spirit of socialist ideals, he simply borrowed
what was popular to serve is quest for power. Whatever appeals Nazism
made to the German worker, family, culture, and society —while in a
very general sense were socialist —they were simply components in the
totalitarian rule of the Nazi party.
The claim that socialism and nazism are one in the same are an example
of the ignatoriao ilenchi fallacy —for example, the same could be said
of the United States military industrial complex, which operates with
socialist/communist-like safeguards and protections, though its a part
of a capitalist system.

The term Nazism typically has such a bad name that to link it to
anything tends to tarnish the reputation of that other thing. A "law"
of internet culture called Godwin's Law humorously states that whoever
first brings up Hitler or the Nazis in a usenet discussion
automatically loses the argument.
[1] [2] (tarring them with the same brush, as it were). Those who see
a connection insist that rather then being driven by ideology, they
seek only greater accuracy in political science.

Reasons Nazism is considered socialist

• Self-depiction: the German Nazi Party called itself the "National
Socialist Worker's Party", and in 1927, Hitler said, "We are

• The Left Wing (examples include Gregor Strasser and Ernst Röhm),
and working class brownshirts (or Sturmabteilung) within the Nazi
Party supported socialist programs.

• One writer, Lew Rockwell at the Ludwig von Mises Institute,
suggests that the chief difference beween Nazism and (as he puts it)
others forms of socialism is that the Hitler's socialism was
nationalistic while other forms (such as Communism) were
internationalist. [3]

Reasons Nazism is not considered socialist

• Throughout its rise to power and rule, the Nazis were strongly
opposed by left-wing and socialist parties, and Nazi rhetoric was
virulently anti-Marxist, attacking both communists and social
democrats. A central appeal of Nazism was its opposition to Marxism
and other forms of socialism and its claim to be a bulwark against
Bolshevism and this is why they recieved so much material and
political support from industrialists and conservatives.

• The Nazi ideology saw socialist collectivism as part of a Jewish
conspiracy (Judeo-Bolshevism) meant to undermine the elitist

• Nazis proposed that only people who were considered "racially pure"
or Aryan would benefit from their policies. This can be seen as
contrary to the socialist ideal of a society for the benefit of all.

• In his rise to power, Hitler reassured German industrialists that
he would respect private property and fight labor unions. To the
extent that permitting private property to exist is contrary to
"socialism", then Nazism was not "socialist". On the other hand, some
democratic countries (like Sweden) have adopted some (but not all)
socialist ideas while retaining a degree of freedom to own private
property and have labor unions.

• Hitler received strong support from conservatives for the "Enabling
Act." This legislation was opposed by social democrats.

• After coming to power, Hitler sent thousand of communists, social
democrats and unionists to concentration camps and killed communist
leaders in Germany. He outlawed labor unions and guaranteed corporate
profits for Krupp & Co.

• The profits of large corporations soared under the Nazis. With the
exception of Jewish property which was seized and sold, capitalist
enterprises were not expropriated or nationalised but remained in
private hands.

• The Nazis were anti-egalitarian believing in neither equality
(either among Germans or between Germans and non-Germans),
collectivism, nor the rights of the "masses". According to Hitler
biographer Ian Kershaw they had an elitist view of society and
asserted that in competition with each other the superior individual
would emerge on top. Despite the use of slogans such as "the common
good comes before the private good" their vision of social relations,
in practice, was in line with the ideas of Nietzche rather than Karl

• During the party's ascendency in the 1930s, so called "left wing"
Nazis such as Gregor Strasser and Ernst Röhm were ruthlessly purged
and even killed.
Nickname unavailable
2010-09-11 20:44:29 UTC
i realize that this is most probably a waste of time. your type, are
almost un-educational. as mussolini stated, fascism should be renamed


What Fascism Is & Isn't

No other word causes so much misunderstanding, confusion, and heated
debate in politics than fascism. The term has been applied to many
individuals such as McCarthy, Hoover, and others. It is frequently
used to describe government policies and government themselves, often
incorrectly. What then is fascism exactly? Webster's Dictionary
defines it as: "A government system marked by a centralized
dictatorship, stringent socioeconomic controls and belligerent
nationalism." But the author takes exception with that definition. At
best, the definition is vague and abstract. Nor does the definition
seem capable of taking into all forms of fascism.
There is a resurgent, widespread attempt by the far right to label
fascism as a form of socialism. Fredrick von Hayek was the first to
attempt labeling the Nazis as socialists in his book The Road to
Serfdom published in 1944.70 The hard right quickly adopted it, as it
allowed the hard right to escape the charges that they had much in
common with the Nazis.2 Such endeavors are not only silly, but
dishonest as well and represent an attempt by the far right to
distance themselves for their earlier support of Hitler.
Hayek's book is based on two erroneous assumptions from the very
beginning. He first assumes that fascism and communism are one and the
same, as they are both totalitarian systems. This makes about as much
sense as calling a maple tree a pine tree because both are trees. His
second erroneous assumption lays in his belief that only socialism or
liberalism leads to totalitarian systems. In fact, all political
systems can lead to totalitarian systems and all political systems are
inherently unstable, as is any system created by man.
From there, Hayek takes severe liberties with history. For instance,
he goes on to claim that by deliberate policy the United States by
allowed the growth of cartels and syndicates after 1878.71 Indeed this
date and time period is significant, but not for a move towards
socialism or liberalism. Rather, it's the opposite a move towards
fascism and corporate rule. Even a reader with a rudimentary knowledge
of American history would recognize this time frame as the beginning
of the robber baron era and laissez faire economics, precisely the
type of economic policy Hayek holds in utmost esteem.
 Hayek offers little proof to support his conclusions; in fact the
book is devoid of any proof or even examples to support his findings.
The book degenerates into an argument based upon unsubstantiated
assertion. He argues against the nation state and proposes a
supernational authority or world federation made up of the financial
elite. In essence, Hayek proposes a world made up of sovereign
corporations accountable to no one. Not only did Hayek take severe
liberties with American history, he ignored the very nature of fascism
in Germany and Italy.
In various speeches made shortly after the March on Rome, Mussolini
stated, "We must take from state authority those functions for which
it is incompetent and which it performs badly... I believe the state
should renounce its economic functions, especially those carried out
through monopolies, because the state is incompetent in such
matters... We must put an end to state railways, state postal service
and state insurance." The state returned large monopolies to the
private sector after returning them to profitability such as the
Consortium of Match Manufactures, privatized the insurance system in
1923, the telephone system in 1925, and many of the public works.
In Germany the Nazis announced they would end nationalization of
private industries when they seized power. In 1932, Hitler returned
control of the Gelsenkirhen company to private hands and in 1936
returned the stock of "United Steel" to private hands. Throughout
1933-1936, the Nazi returned to private hands the control of several
banks: Dresdner, Danat, Commerz and Privatbank, the Deutsche Bank, and
several others. In 1936, the steamship company Deutcher Schiff and
Maschinenbau was returned to the private sector. In 1934, Dr. Schacht,
the Nazi Minister of Economy, gave instructions to hasten the
privatization of municipal enterprises. These enterprises were
especially coveted by the rich industrialists, as they had been
prosperous even during the depression.
Both in fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, the tax system was changed to
one favoring business and the wealthy. The Nazis allowed industries to
deduct from their taxable income all sums used to purchase new
equipment. Rich families employing a maid were allowed to count the
maid as a dependent child and reap the tax benefit. In Italy, the
Minister of Finance stated: "We have broken with the practice of
persecuting capital."73
 Such programs, catering to big business and the rich elite, are more
akin to the policies of the Reagan Administration than it is to any
liberal administration including FDR's. Likewise, it was the rich
industrialists that were behind the fascist movement in the United
States during the 1930s. Thus it is no surprise that the right wing
attempts to try and label fascism as socialism in trying to distance
themselves from their previous support of fascism.
Perhaps the only redeeming feature in Hayek's book is his
acknowledgement of environmental problems.72 Indeed this is
significant, considering the book was first published in the 1940s,
long before the birth of the environmental movement. Hayek readily
acknowledges the problem of industrial pollution and the harmful
effects of deforestation, yet he stops short of any meaningful
solution. Instead of offering a viable solution Hayek condemns
government regulation and would allow market forces to provide the
solution. However, it was these same market forces that produced the
problem. We have plenty of proof of such a fool hearty approach both
here and globally. As late as the 1970s rivers caught fire in the
United States, cities were smog stricken and harmful pollutants were
damaging the environment world wide. Today we face the problems of
global warming and ozone depletion, and the problem of environmental
estrogens, which has the potential of being even more threatening than
both global warming and ozone depletion.
But perhaps the most damning of all evidence that Hayek was dead wrong
comes from the implementation of an economic system based on his
beliefs. Hayek later taught at the University of Chicago, the same
university that trained the "Boys from Chicago" who were the economic
brains behind the fascist regime of Pinochet in Chile. There is no
question in the matter that under Pinochet, Chile was indeed fascist.
More alarming, Hayek is an idol to several top-level officials in the
George W. Bush administration. They are dangerous close to imposing a
fascist style economy on the United States.
In order to dispel the myth of the Nazis being socialists we need to
first define socialism. Socialism is rigidly defined as an economic
system in which the workers own the means of production and
distribution of goods. A more relaxed definition would be simply that
the workers maintain political control over the production and
distribution of goods. Even using the more relaxed definition of
socialism, the Nazis can not be labeled as socialists as there simply
was no worker control over the production or distribution of goods in
Nazi Germany. In fact, the Nazis outlawed legitimate labor unions. In
place of the original unions, the Nazis implemented quasi-like unions
that were controlled by the industrialists. In a déjà vu manner, the
Republican Party has recently tried to enact a similar measure,
conferring legal status on worker groups controlled by corporations.
Some writers and historians have argued that you cannot have fascism
without corporatism, as the corporate power structure has much in
common with fascism. During the period preceding the outbreak of WWII
it was common to refer to fascism as corporatism in polite English
More recently others have tried to define fascism as the "Third Way",
in the sense that it borrowed ideas from both capitalism and
socialism. The basic philosophy behind the "Third Way" incorrectly
labels any regulations or government controls over businesses as
socialism; essentially it's just a restatement of syndicalism. Such
nonsense should be rejected whole heartily. It again represents an
attempt to distance the right from their support of Hitler in the
1930s and ignores that the basis of the German economy under Hitler
was a capitalist system where the means of production remained in
private hands. Further, following the logic of the "Third Way," one
would have to label all capitalistic systems as "Third Way," for
throughout history there has never been a pure capitalistic system. A
pure capitalist economy is so inherently and fatally flawed that it's
never even been tried. But that is to be expected for any system that
awards the winner with all the eggs. Nor has there been a pure
socialistic system. Human greed simply prevents it.
The dangers of such nonsense can be illustrated with the following
quote taken from a Baptists fundamentalist's web page in their
labeling of the Japanese economy as fascist: However, Fascism is an
economic term, denoting the type of economy where the Means of
Production [factories, companies] and the ownership of raw materials
[mines, oil wells] remains in the hands of private individuals, but
where the government intervenes to determine how many competitors will
be allowed to produce the same thing, how much is produced, and what
prices may be charged.1
Here it can be seen that the term fascism has been clearly misapplied.
This description could past for the economic theory of the fascist
philosopher George Sorel. This is a description of syndicalism; it was
the economic model of fascist Italy and Nazi Germany to a large
extent. Syndicalism does draw some aspects from socialism, but the
system is still a capitalistic system as ownership of the means of
production and distribution of goods remain in private hands. It is no
more socialism than the conclusion of the Robber Barons and the
corrupt politicians of Tammy Hall. The only difference between this
example of syndicalism is that the government participation is open
versus the backroom corruption of politicians in Tammy Hall.
Not only Japan invoke syndicalism, but almost all the Pacific Rim
nations do, to some extent. These are the same nations that the hard
right has held up in the past as darlings of capitalism and free
enterprise. Yet these are precisely the same economic policies of the
Nazis that they have tried to foist off as socialism. The key
distinction here is the means of production still remains in private
hands, just as it did in Nazi Germany. No capitalistic society has
ever existed without some form of syndicalism or government control
over the economy. The closest America came to an entirely capitalistic
system was either the 1890s and the Robber Barons or the laissez faire
policies of Herbert Hoover, and as we all know, that didn't end too
well in the Great Depression of the 1930s.
No where does the quote above refer to totalitarian control or extreme
nationalism. In fact, they have tried to define fascism in strictly
economic terms for their own purposes. But it does serve to point out
the dangers of inventing the "Third Way" or the use of syndicalism in
an attempt to label the Nazis. The problem here is determining where
syndicalism ends and capitalism begins. Is the trading of pollution
credits a form of syndicalism or is it free enterprise? In America
today, the hard right would attempt to label it as socialism, as they
try to do with any laws or regulations of business. In fact, the past
laws regulating corporations were much more severe and restrictive in
the 1800s than today. One could argue that it was through syndicalism
that the power elite and corporations gradually eroded those laws
until corporations now enjoy more freedoms than what an individual
enjoys. This is precisely what has happened in America.
But environmental and labor laws are not socialism. They are in fact
nothing more than an attempt to bring an out of control system hell
bent on exploitation of the environment and labor back to order. No
labor law or environment law was ever passed in a vacuum. All of these
laws were brought about by a need to correct an unhealthy or unsafe
situation. While there are some corporations that strive to provide a
clean and safe workplace, there are many whose only concern is the
bottom line and they turn a blind eye towards safety and view their
employees as expendable commodities.
Regulation of businesses or corporations by itself is not socialism. A
business entity such as a corporation has no rights other than what
privileges a society wishes to grant it. People have rights; a paper
creation of a society such as a corporation has no inherent rights.
Business entities such as corporations only have conditional
privileges based upon providing for the common good of the society,
which granted the charter. All such paper creations have an obligation
to serve the society, which created it. Failing to perform that
obligation, it loses any right for its continuing existence. It the
obligation of that society to restrict the rights of such entities to
promote equality for all and to prevent a ruling aristocracy from
developing. This view is hardly socialism or even radical, unless one
wishes to label Thomas Jefferson as a radical socialist as he more
eloquently stated it:
"I hope we shall take warning from the example of England and crush in
its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare
already to challenge our Government to trial, and bid defiance to the
laws of our country."3
Perhaps one of the better definitions of fascism comes from Heywood
Broun, a noted American columnist in the 1930s:
"Fascism, is a dictatorship from the extreme right or to put it a
little more closely into our local idiom, a government which is run by
a small group of large industrialists and financial lords...I think it
is not unfair to say that any businessman in America, or public
leader, who goes out to break unions is laying the foundations for

A definitive definition of fascism is a totalitarian government with
extreme nationalist tendencies in which the government is controlled
and operated for the benefit of a few elite. However, it should be
noted that an all-encompassing definition of a complex system can not
be simply stated. Such simple definitions undoubtedly fail in time. A
caveat to the above definition would be anytime the government places
the rights of corporations or the elite above the rights of the
citizens, it represents a step towards fascism. A better insight into
what fascism is can be obtained by listing the traits that are common
to the classical fascist states of Franco's Spain, Nazi Germany and
fascist Italy. A list of traits of fascism is presented below. Note
that the first two are the two most defining traits, obviously many of
the others can be applied to many other social-political systems as
one moves down the list.
1. Totalitarian
2. Extreme nationalism
3. Top down revolution or movement
4. Destructive divisionism such as racism and class warfare
5. Extreme anti-communism, anti socialism, and anti-liberal views
6. Extreme exploitation
7. Opportunistic ideology lacking in consistency as a means to grab
8. Unbridled Corporatism
9. Reactionary
10. The use of violence and terror to attain and maintain power
11. Cult-like figurehead
12. The expounding of mysticism or religious beliefs
Not all fascists need exhibit all of the traits once again it should
be emphasized that all fascist states will exhibit a totalitarian
view. Most fascist states will have an extreme nationalism policy.
However, extreme nationalism is not mandatory. States such as Spain
under Franco and Chile under Pinochet were indeed fascist states, but
they could hardly be described as having a policy of extreme
A brief look at the above traits and how they relate to fascism will
convey a better understanding of what fascism really is, using Nazi
Germany as an example. First, because it was undisputedly fascist and
secondly because there is more literature available on the Nazis than
on either fascist Italy or Franco's Spain. Moreover, the use of the
Nazi's as an example is closer to the focus of this book, which is
creeping fascism in America.
Creeping fascism is the gradual lost of freedoms of the masses to the
power elite. Full-blown fascism has never appeared all at once. The
Nazis took several years to reach the final state of full-blown
fascism. It took the Nazis five years before Kristallnacht, which
marks the beginning of the "Final Solution." The Nazis gradually took
away the freedoms of the citizens of Germany until they were able to
launch the Holocaust. This was the reason for including the caveat in
the definition of fascism above, "Any action taken by the government
that places the rights of the elites and corporations above the
citizens is a step towards fascism."
Such actions will not look like fascism some may even appear to be
reasonable. Its only when the summation of many such actions ends in a
fascist state that such actions can be seen as a step towards fascism.
Make no mistake in understanding that the power elite, those that own
and run America's corporations, are fascist. They have forced war on
this country to protect their assets, they have over-exploited their
employees, they have used violence to bust unions, and they rely on
divisionist policies such as racism and class warfare to maintain
their power.
The erosion of our freedoms in the United States was prolonged by our
constitution. Nevertheless, over time the lost of freedoms has left
America at the edge of a chasm. Any further loss of freedoms and
America will begin an irreversible slide into the deep abyss of
Before looking at the traits of fascism a brief review of the history
of fascism and its roots in modern philosophy is needed. By looking at
the roots of fascism in philosophy, we can gain an understanding why
fascism is often described as reactionary. By looking at the various
philosophers that have come to be associated with fascism, we will be
able to see that many of these traits come directly from fascism's
roots in philosophy. In that way, we can then see how some of these
traits that can be applied to other social-political system are
central to fascism.
Many writers have assumed that fascism has no intellectual or
philosophical roots due to its lack of a consistent ideology. But such
views are incorrect; the roots of fascism extend back to the French
Revolution. The French Revolution is one of those landmark events in
the history of Europe marking the beginning of a major shift in
European culture and governments. In essence, fascism was a reaction
to the French revolution. It was a reaction particularly to the slogan
of the revolution of "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" that was hated
the most.
The concept of liberty from oppressive regimes in the daily lives of
the citizens, including forced religious values, and the concept of
voting and majority rule where the minority still retained a set of
inalienable rights, incensed the early philosophers of fascism. Such a
concept was a direct threat to the kings and nobles of the time, as
well as to the church. Remember this was a time for debtor's prisons,
indentured servants, and vassal states.
Equality, in the eyes of the law, was unspeakable. How could a mere
peasant have the same rights under the law as the kings, nobles, and
merchants? This was the time when the king's word was the law. Rights
were based on the social standing of one's birth. The only rights a
person had at the time were the rights that the king was willing to
extend, and they could be withdrawn at any moment.
Fraternity, in the sense that all men and women shared humanity was
considered heresy. It was a time when slaves were still considered and
treated as animals and women were considered property, and not part of
a greater humanity that needed to be shared.
All three terms meant a loss in power and control by those in power.
But, this is exactly what the philosophers that have come to be
associated with fascism were reacting to and rejecting. The period
following the French Revolution produced a virtual intellectual stew
of various philosophies, including those of Marx and Engels. A brief
look at some of the major philosophers of fascism will show how they
relate to the traits listed early, and how they were a reaction to the
French Revolution. This list of philosophers is by no means complete,
but it will suffice to show that many of the traits attributed to
fascism above have roots going back as far as the French Revolution.
Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) was a German philosopher perhaps best
known for his The World as Will and Representation.4 His beliefs held
that the will is the underlying and ultimate reality. The whole
phenomenal world was only the expression of will. Individuals have
free will only in the sense that everyone is an expression of a will.
Thus we are not authors of our own destiny, character, or behavior,
according to Schopenhauer. His views parallel the development of
relativistic physics that came a century later. His views were
influential on Nietzche, among others.
Georg Hegel (1770-1831), a German philosopher held pantheism as the
heart of his beliefs. The Phenomenology of Spirit and Science of Logic
are two of his better-known works. He viewed that all existence and
all history was divine and that nature was sacred. He viewed God as an
absolute spirit that also manifested itself in material things and
individuals. He believed God acted through humans and embodied himself
first in nature, then in the rising stages of human consciousness and
civilization. He also had an ethnocentric and egocentric view. He
maintained that the German nation was the highest carrier of the wave
of God's development. He believed that the bureaucratic monarchy of
Prussia was the highest form of state. These later views were
certainly manifested in the Nazi's view of the Aryan race, as shown in
the following quote.
"Thus the highest purpose of the 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 not only assures the preservation of this nationality, but by
the development of its spiritual and ideal abilities leads it to the
highest freedoms."8
Fredrich Nietzche (1844-1900), also a German philosopher was best
known for his work Thus Spake Zarathustra.5 Hitler liked to be
photographed staring at a bust of Nietzche. Nietzche theorized two
sets of morals, one for the ruling class and another for the slave
class. Nietzche viewed that ancient empires grew out of the ruling
class and that religions arose out of the slave classes, (which
denigrates the rich, the powerful, rationalism, and sexuality.) He
developed a concept of an "overman," a superhuman, which symbolized
man at his most creative and highest intellectual development.
Obviously, the "overman" was manifested in the Nazi's view of the
Aryan race. He suffered a mental break down, most likely from the
advances of syphilis, and was cared for by his mother and later his
sister, Elisabeth. His sister painstakingly gathered his notes to
publish his latter works. However, she was active in the rising anti-
Semitic movement at the time and may have tainted his later work with
her views. From time to time, Nietzsche enjoys a rebirth of
popularity. Today is one such rebirth, fitting in well with the
unmitigated greed and corporatism of today's hard right. Nietzsche's
connection to the Nazis is obvious, as shown by the following
"with satanic joy in his face, the black haired Jewish youth lurks in
wait for the unsuspecting girl whom he defiles with his blood, thus
stealing her from her people. With every means he tries to destroy the
racial foundations of the people he has set out to subjugate. Just as
he himself systematically ruins women and girls, he does not shrink
back from pulling down the blood barriers for others, even on a large
scale. It was and it is Jews who bring Negroes into the Rhineland,
always with the same secret thought and clear aim of ruining the hated
white race by necessarily resulting bastardization, throwing it down
from its culture and political height, and himself rising to be
Notice the similarity in this passage and the Council of Conservative
Citizens that Senator Lott and representative Barr supported before
becoming embroiled in the resulting scandal in late 1998.10 The web
site for this white supremacist group described interracial marriage
to the mixing of chocolate milk with plain milk, and labeled it as a
path to racial extinction. They also described Lincoln as a communist.
Henri Bergson (1859-1941) was a French philosopher with a Jewish
father and an English mother. He was the winner of the Nobel Prize for
literature in 1927. He rejected the idea that scientific principles
could explain all existence. He was a promoter of what has become
known as Social Darwinism.6 Perhaps one of his better known works was
Time and Free Will. He was also a believer in pantheism. Once again,
we see the obvious connection with the Nazis of a master race in the
following quote concerning the Nazi's euthanasia program:
"...a secret circular went out from the Reich interior Ministry which
marked the beginning of a programme of euthanasia for mentally ill or
deformed children up to three years old. Doctors would be required to
report all such cases to the health authority on special forms; the
forms would then be forwarded to a panel of three medical assessors
who would adjucate over life or death by appending "-" or "+." Should
all three place a "+", a euthanasia warrant would be issued, signed by
the Reichsleiter Philipp Bouhler of the Fuhrer's Chancellery or
SS_Oberfuhrer Dr Viktor Brack, head of the Chancellery's Euthanasia
Department II. And so it happened: infants marked for death were
transferred to what were referred to as Children's Special Departments
in political reliable clinics, there to be given a "mercy death" by
injection or in one institution at Eglfing-Haar simply starved by a
progressive reduction of diet."7
Geroge Sorel (1847-1922) was a French philosopher who had considerable
influence on Mussolini. His writings promoted an economic model based
on syndicalism. He also believed in the degeneration of societies and
believed that social decay could only be delayed by idealists who were
willing to use violence to obtain power. His views were extremely anti-
democratic and anti-liberal.
With this very brief review of philosophy has shown that the fascist
traits of nationalism, totalitarian, racist, violence, unbridled
corporatism, reactionary, and the top down nature of fascism all are
grounded in the works of past philosophers.
A totalitarian government is one that seeks to maintain control over
all aspects of public and private life by using propaganda, terror,
and technology. Totalitarian regimes seek control over political,
social, and the culture. However, economic control is left in the
hands of a few elites in the fascist state. While the means of
economic control is left in the private hands of a few elites, this
same group controls the government. In essence the government becomes
the tool by which the rich and the corporations maintain control. The
distinction is important to note as it separates communism from
fascism. In a communist state the control over the economy moves to
the inside of government, while in the fascist state it remains in
private hands. Dictatorships differ in seeking only limited control
over the political environment of a society.
There was only limited government ownership under the Nazis. Prior to
the Nazi take over, the German governments took over failing
businesses and continued to operate them. When the Nazis took over the
government already owned a large number of enterprises. When the Nazis
took over they began to privatize many of these businesses, especially
the ones that had remained profitable during the depression like the
electric utilities.
Once Hitler assured big business that they would be free to continue
to operate, they failed to raise any further objections to the Nazis.
The large German steel and coal industries especially welcomed the
Nazis. Hitler's plans for rearmament meant large contracts for new
ships, tanks, etc. Later during the war when a labor shortage
appeared, it was Krupp from the German steel industry that first
raised the question of using slave labor from the concentration camps.
At first the Nazis were reluctant to allow the inmates to be used as
slaves as it would slow the progress of the "final solution." However,
once Krupp offered to pay for the slaves the Nazis readily agreed and
soon there was no shortage of companies seeking slaves.

What is less understood about the totalitarian power Hitler achieved
was the path he took to obtain that power. There never has been
totalitarian regime that gained instant total control. Such a sudden
change would spawn sudden revolutions. Mussolini took three years
before consolidating his power in Italy. In case of the Nazis, it took
even longer. Nor did the path to totalitarian Nazi state start with
the elevation of Hitler to the position of chancellor. Some historians
trace the roots of the path all the way back into the 1800s. A
complete analysis of German history from the time of the monarchy to
the seating of Hitler is beyond the scope of this book, if not beyond
the scope of any single book, as volumes could be written. What
follows is a very brief look at the slow erosion of freedom and the
concentration of power as it relates to the final totalitarian state.
For the most part, the period following WWI was a period dominated by
raucous politics and a series of crisis in Germany. The two periods in
which the Nazis gained the most strength was the early 1920s, during
the hyper inflationary period, culminating with the Beer Hall Putsch
and the depression of 1929-1931. There is little need to examine the
raucous politics of that period, everyone is well aware of Hitler's SA
thugs breaking up political rallies of other parties which also
resorted to the same tactics. It would not be untrue to describe many
political rallies of the time as ending in brawls.
Hitler and the Nazis were extremists, and mostly rejected by the
German voters during the good economic times of the 1920s. For
example, in 1928 they only polled 2.6 percent of the vote, gaining
just 14 seats out of the 491 seats in the Reichstag by virtue of the
republic's proportional representation. By 1930 and the start of the
depression, the Nazis had increased their seats to 107 out of 577
seats in the Reichstag. In the July 1932 election, at the height of
the depression, the Nazis polled 37.4 percent of the vote winning 230
seats in the Reichstag, becoming Germany's largest party.13 In the Nov
1932 election, they only won 196 seats as an anemic economic recovery
was already underway, the people began rejecting the Nazis and their
radical views and actions.
Germany's plunge into a totalitarian state began before the Nazis took
over. It was as much a result of a lack of a strong leadership as
anything else. For the first eleven years of the German Republic there
had been seventeen cabinets headed by nine different chancellors.12
Undoubtedly, the country faced grave crisis in this period such as
hyperinflation, but the lack of strong leadership and an increased
polarization was readily apparent. The Nazis were the most notorious
radicals unwilling to compromise, but the other parties have to share
some of the blame for this polarization as well. The blame can be
extended beyond the parties to the vested interests behind each party,
including that of big businesses. Fracturing the electorate by
polarization was playing right into the divisionist character of the
Nazis, whose radical program lacked a broad base of support as the
election results from 1928 showed.
The policies of the German governments during the 1920s inadvertently
aided the rise of the Nazis. Throughout the 1920s the government
arrested many of the leaders from the left. It would not be unfair to
term these arrests as purges. The arrest of any strong leaders
emerging from the left only served to further polarize the country by
creating a vacuum on the left that was only filled with the more
radical communists. A similar situation is emerging in the United
States, throughout this century the United States has conducted purges
of the left: the Great Red Scare of 1919, McCartyism of the 1950s, and
COINTELPRO operations during the sixties. Without the voices from the
left to moderate policy, the political center in the United States has
shifted to the hard right.
The immediate result in the lack of strong leadership is frequent
chances in government, which only lead to more instability and chaos.
An ideal parallel is the long string one term Presidents ending with
Lincoln and the Civil War. The polarization of the Unite States
gradually increased from about 1820 on resulting in one term
presidents. Another string of one term Presidents ended with the
election of Roosevelt in the middle of the Great Depression. In both
U.S. case the ending result was not pleasant: a civil war and a
Such frequent change in government does not allow businesses to make
long range plans, nor does it allow for enough to time for programs
enacted by a government to work. These effects then act as negative
feedback, further increasing the polarization and the resulting chaos.
Additionally, the German constitution was flawed and did not account
for a negative parliament. Power in Germany was concentrated in the
office of the president, headed by Hindenburg, who initially had been
elected by conservatives and reactionary rightists. He was a member of
the aristocratics from the Junker class and had been a war hero; he
likewise held sentiments for the monarchy. The president had the power
to appoint cabinets and chancellors. Beginning in 1930, Hindenburg
began the practice of appointing chancellors of his choice that were
not beholding to the parliament. To allow the chancellors to
circumvent parliament, he granted these chancellors emergency powers
that had been given to the president by the constitution. Starting in
1930, almost all national laws, including the power to tax, were
enacted by presidential decrees and not by the parliament. Such
presidential decrees would be similar to the executive orders in the
United States.
Hence, even before Hitler was appointed to the chancellor position,
power was being concentrated into the two offices of the chancellor
and the president. At least twice before appointing Hitler as
chancellor, Hindenburg entertained ideas of violating the constitution
by not holding elections within the sixty days as required by the
Hindenburg had also avoided appoint Hitler as chancellor twice before
January 1933. Even with the support of big business Hindeburg failed
to appoint Hitler when the Nazis held more seats in the Reichstag than
any other party.
It wasn't until after Hitler met in secret with von Pappen at the
Cologne home of Baron Kurt von Schroder that Hindenburg would relent
and appoint Hitler chancellor. The baron was the head of the
international Schroder banking empire and had previously raised funds
to pay off the Nazi's debt.
The secret meeting on January 4, 1933 allowed Hitler and von Pappen to
work out their differences and to agree to a new cabinet under the
direction of both. This secret meeting was the birthplace of the Third
However, there were two Americans that also were in attendance: John
Foster Dulles and his brother Allen. The Dulles brothers were there as
legal representatives for Kuhn Loeb Company, which had extended large
short term credits to Germany. Their presence was to secure a
guarantee of repayment from Hitler.
Moreover, Kurt von Schroder had extensive financial contacts in New
York and London. He was a co-director of Thyssen foundry along with
Johann Groeninger, Prescott Bush's New York bank partner. Schroeder
was also the vice president and director of the Hamburg-Amerika Line,
the same shipping line seized from Prescott Bush for trading with the
Throughout 1932, actions taken by the Bush-Harriman shipping line were
directly responsible for bringing Hitler to power. The constitutional
government tried to disarm the Nazi Brown Shirts to stop the mad
election melees and murders. The U.S. embassy in Berlin reported:
" Hamburg-Amerika Line was purchasing and distributing propaganda
attacks against the German government, for attempting this last-minute
crackdown on Hitler's forces."
During 1932, Hitler's thugs murdered thousands of Germans. Arms for
Hitler were shipped to Germany aboard Hamburg-Amerika Line. They were
transferred to river barges before reaching Antwerp and then
transported across Holland freely. Samuel Pryor, founder of Union Bank
and a partner in the Hamburg-America Line was also executive committee
chairman of Remington Arms. Hitler's Brown Shirts were armed primarily
with Remington arms and Thompson submachine guns. A Senate
investigation of Remington concluded that all of the political
factions in Germany were armed with mostly American made guns.
Once Hitler and von Pappen had reached an agreement on their future
course of actions. Pappen pressured Hindenburg to appoint Hitler as
chancellor. The success of the meeting was recorded in Goebbels. On
January 5, 1933 Goebbels wrote in his diary "If this coup succeeds, we
are not far from power. . . . Our finances have suddenly improved."
Hindenburg appointed Hitler, as chancellor with the understanding
Hitler would be a parliamentary rather than a presidential chancellor.
Hitler immediately set about sabotaging the efforts to from a
parliamentary majority. Here is one of the first examples of fascism
and divisionism.
On February 1, 1933 the German parliament was dissolved and new
elections were scheduled for early March. Using his henchmen, Hilter
had the Reichstag building burnt. The fire was blamed on the
communist, his main revivals. Using the fire as an excuse, Hitler
banned the communist from the upcoming election. Additionally, Goring
deputized his storm troopers to harass any political opposition from
his position in the cabinet; even then the Nazis could not achieve a
majority in parliament as they polled only 43.9 votes.14 By summer,
all political parties except the Nazis had been dissolved. On the
death of Hindenburg in 1934, Hitler assumed the office of president
and further consolidated his gripe on power, but it would take a
couple of additional years before Hitler was a true totalitarian. He
purged the justice system of judges with adverse views, appointing
rabid Nazis in their place, and the storm troopers were given police
powers. Justice was now the Nazi party line.
One does not need to expound upon the extreme nationalism of the
fascist. The history of their invasion in a quest for world dominion
is well known. Mussolini turned his attention to Ethiopia and North
Africa; Hitler first to Austria, then Czechoslovakia, followed by
Western Europe and later to Norway and the east.
Hilter had left a blueprint for his extreme nationalism and the quest
for lebensraum in Mien Kampf as shown by the quote below.
"If the National Socialist movement really wants to be consecrated by
history with a great mission for our nation, it must be permeated by
knowledge and filled with pain at our true situation in this world;
boldly and conscious of its goal, it must take up the struggle against
the aimlessness and incompetence which have hitherto guided our German
nation in the line of foreign affairs. Then without consideration of
traditions and prejudices it must find the courage to gather our
people and their strength for an advance along the road that will lead
this people from its present restricted living space to new land and
soil; and hence also free it from danger of vanishing from the earth
or of serving others as a slave nation.
The Nationalist Socialist movement must strive to eliminate the
disproportion between our population and our area-viewing this later
as a source of food as well as a basis for power politics---between
our historical past and the helplessness of our present impotence."15
The third trait of fascism is that it consists of a top down
revolution or movement. It is becoming more accepted today that the
Nazis drew support from all classes. Indeed, this seems a reasonable
assumption when looking at all of the evidence. The storm troopers for
the most part drew their numbers from the lower and middle classes.
They were typically were unemployed laborers, inept middle management,
or failed businessmen. Likewise, given the vote tally of over thirty
percent in the 1932 elections, the Nazis had to have drawn votes from
all social classes. But this has no bearing on who controlled the
direction of the party. Control of the party rested solely with Hitler
and whom he allied with. He chose to ally with the upper class and big
business as borne out by his policies after gaining power. There is
little controversy over the considerable support Hitler drew from the
aristocrats, the military, or the Junkers.
Telltale signs forewarning of the elite control was evident from the
very formation of the party until the final days before gaining power.
A brief look at those that financed the Nazis rise to power will
reveal the real support behind Hitler. This is becoming an increasing
issue of contention as American hard right tries to distance
themselves from the similarities of their policies with fascism.
Hitler himself did not form the Nazi party initially. He joined an
existing party and then molded it according to his wishes. In fact,
his company commander had ordered him to attend a meeting of what was
the German Workers Party. Here was Hitler's initial reaction to the
"My impression was neither good or bad; a new organization like so many others. This was the time in which anyone who was not satisfied with developments and no longer had confidence in the existing parties felt called upon to found a new party. Everywhere these organizations sprang from the ground, only to vanish silently after a time. The founders for the most part had no idea what it means to make a party---let alone a movement---out of a club. And so these organizations nearly always stifle automatically in their absurd phillistinism."16
The order from his company commander provides the first evidence that
the elite backed Hitler from the very beginning. At any point from
this date the German military could have withdrawn its support of
Hitler and disbanded the Nazi party
Hitler was a good orator by all reports, as well as an astute
political observer. He knew how to motivate the masses in his name and
how to sustain a movement. Someone once remarked recently that you
needed only gain control of the 3Ms to gain power. The three "Ms" are
the military, media, and money. Hitler had all three behind him. As
shown by the passage from Mein Kampf, Hitler started with the blessing
of the military. The military, as well as big business, played a
behind the scenes role in the appointment of Hitler as chancellor.
It's the last of the 3Ms where much confusion and debate arise,
Hitler's source of funds or money.
Big business likewise had a large hand in bringing down Bruning in
1930. In a large part, it was the constant bickering by special
interest groups that led to the falling of Bruning's cabinet. Big
1. The government must take steps to lower the cost of production and widen the profit margin.
2. Lower taxes
3. Reduce the size of government.
4. Lower unemployment insurance benefit
5. The government must allow wages to progress to lower levels, by
voiding labor contracts and binding arbitration.26
If these demands from the business community seem familiar to the
reader, it's because in a large part they are the same policies that
the Republican Party has been advocating for the last twenty years.
Throughout the 1920s and up until Hitler was appointed chancellor the
Nazi party was plagued with a shortage of money. After release for
prison for the failed Beer Hall Putsch, Hitler's only known source of
income was from the sale of Mein Kampf and fees for newspaper articles
he would write. The first edition of Mein Kampf was published July 18,
1925 in an edition of 10,000 copies selling for 12 marks. By the end
of the year almost all copies had been sold. A new edition was printed
but sales in the following year plummeted.
Nevertheless, almost immediately after being pardoned he bought a new
super-charged Mercedes-Benz for 28,000 marks.17 Additionally, Hitler
did not drive, so he had the additional expense of a chauffeur.
Likewise, from 1925 until his appointment as chancellor in 1933,
Hitler lived in increasing comforts, if not outright lavishness for
the times. Certainly, the royalties from Mein Kampf and fees for his
other writings were insufficient to cover even his living expenses,
not to mention the party's expenses.
Also, the funding for an ever-increasing number of SA troopers (many
of which were unemployed) had to be secured. Turner has suggested that
the Nazis were self sufficient from dues, speaker's fees, and
donations at rallies. However, this seems almost improbable looking at
the numbers from 1930. In 1930 there were about 100,000 storm troopers
that had to be fed, housed and otherwise supported. Additionally there
were 15,000 in the SS. Nazi membership at the beginning of 1931 was
only 389,000.18 Thus it seems very reasonable that outside sources of
funding was needed to maintain the SA and SS, as well as the ever
increasing lifestyle of Hitler. Membership fees in the Nazi party
started at a mark per month, non-paying members were quickly dropped
from the party.
From the very beginning of the Nazi party Hitler showed a knack for
obtaining funding from the more privileged members of German society.
For instance, everyone is well aware of the trial following the Beer
Hall Putsch, but less well known was a secondary trial following the
putsch. In the secondary trial, several businessmen that had donated
money or other support for Hitler were put on trial. Some have
attributed much of this early funding of the Nazis to the secret Thule
Society.19 Another early source of funds in the early 20s came from
the efforts of Scheubner-Richter, who was adept at gaining funds from
Bavarian aristocrats, big businessmen, bankers, and leaders of heavy
industry.20 Another source of early funds came indirectly from Fritz
Thyssen. Henry Ford also exerted a considerable influence over Hitler
in the early 1920s, as well as money. Some passages from Ford's
International Jew are nearly identical to passages in Mein Kampf.
Ford's book is reported to have had a large effect on many of the
school children of the time that were suffering through hyperinflation
and economic hard times while reading a book written by the world's
foremost capitalist.

The extent of Ford's financial donations to Hitler still remains a mystery. The U. S. ambassador to Germany, William Dodd, was quoted saying "certain American industrialists had a great deal to do with bringing fascist regimes into being in both Germany and Italy."21 The extent of corporate America's collaboration with the Nazis before the war and even during the war, in some cases, is not fully known. However, as time goes by and more information becomes available, the collaboration begins to appear significant, as shown in the following article.
"Bernd Greiner said 26 of the top 100 US companies in the 1930s
collaborated to some degree with the Nazis before, and in some cases
after, Hitler declared war on the United States in December 1941.
Company headquarters in the US have denied they knew what was going on
in Germany, but there is evidence to suggest they knew their German
subsidiaries used slave labor, tolerated it and in some cases were
actively involved, Greiner said.
Greiner confirmed a report in the newspaper Die Zeit, based on his
findings of US corporate involvement in Nazi Germany. The findings
went beyond allegations of US lawyers and historians last year that
automakers General Motors and Ford collaborated with the Nazi
One of the more historically accurate, but shamefully apologetic to
big business sources is the book, German Big Business and the Rise of
Hitler by Turner.23 Turner does a good job in detailing the extensive
participation of the leaders of business with the Nazis. However, he
reaches the conclusion that big business did not support Hitler with a
rather contrived definition of what big business is. He based his
definition on the value of the float of stock on the market. His
definition limited the number of companies that he would classify as
big business to only 14 companies in the Ruhr industrial area and a
smattering of companies located elsewhere. Essentially, his definition
would be the equivalent of saying that only the Dow 30 companies in
the U. S. could truly be called big business. This of course is
nonsense. The majority of people would certainly consider Chrysler,
Texas Instruments, Hewitt Packard, John Deere and Chase Manhattan Bank
to be big business, but according to Turner's book they are not. It is
from this group of second and third tier businesses (in keeping with
Turner's definition) that provided the most help and support for
Hitler. Furthermore, Turner neglects the effect of cartel agreements
as well as subsidiaries in his analysis. Many of these second and
third tier corporations were owned and controlled by the 14
corporations, he considered to be big business.
Secondly, Turner focuses much of his attention on the period of
1920-1928, when the Nazis were at best a minor noisy party. During
this time, the Nazis were lucky to poll more than three percent of the
vote. Yet Turner tries to use this as proof that big business did not
support Hitler's rise to power, although he does admit that Fritz
Thyssen and Kirdolf were supporters of the Nazis during this time. An
equivalent situation would be today's Libertarian Party, a party that
draws support from Koch, head of Koch refinery (a second tier company
by Turner's reasoning). But no one is rushing to fund the Libertarians
today when they cannot even poll five percent of the vote.
Finally, when the source of funds were unquestionably from big
business Turner attempts to discredit them by claiming the source of
the funds was a junior level executive that couldn't be responsible
for overall company policy. Or he attempts to say they were given to
an individual Nazi. In one shameful passage Turner attempts to
discredit the funds given to Nazi fund-raiser Walther Funk by claiming
they were not a donation to the party as they may have been spent by
Funk for entertainment. Turner describes a particular drunken binge
across town by Funk in which he passed out some rather large tips and
then draws the conclusion that perhaps none of the funds given Funk
ever reached the Nazis.24 This is not the work of a historian, as
Turner claims to be. This is nothing more than conjecture by a
propagandist. There is also one other speculative conclusion one could
draw from this passage, and that is that the amount of money Funk was
receiving was so enormous that it permitted such behavior.
Turner does a good job in showing that it was those second and third
tier businesses that supported the Nazis. In Duren, a Rhenish
manufacturing town, the Nazis received considerable support from local
industrialists such as the millionaire dynasties (a term in use from
the 1820s in describing these two families) of the Schoellers and the
Schulls. Another area in which the Nazis received broad support from
businesses was Solingen, an industrial town.25 Overall, Turner
documents the participation of business leaders and their support for
the Nazis, leaving no question in the reader's mind that business
leaders exerted a considerable influence on the Nazis. Unfortunately,
he ends his study just as the Nazis seize power.
Many businesses chose to align with and support the Nazis after they
gained power. Krupp and I.G. Faben were both executors' of Goring's
Four-Year Plan to make Germany militarily self-sufficient by 1940. One
can view the details of Krupp's involvement and support for the Nazis
after March 1933 in the documents from the War Crimes Tribunal at
Nuremberg.31 The full set of available documents from Nuremberg is
also available on the Internet.32 By 1939, I.G. Faben provided the
Nazis with 90 percent of their foreign exchange, 95 percent of
imports, and 85 percent of all military and commercial goods. In 1932,
Hermann Schmitz Faben's joint chairman joined forces with Kurt von
Schroder, director of a wealthy private bank. Schroder was a fanatical
Nazi, often times dressed in his black SS uniform. Schroder is the man
that is closely linked with Chase Bank, Standard Oil and William
Teagle, and ITT. In 1932, Schroder and Wilhelm Keppler formed the
group known as "The Fraternity." This group guaranteed a source of
money to the Gestapo. Members agreed to contribute an average of one
million marks a year to Himmler's personally marked "S" account and
the transferable secret "R" account of the Gestapo.27
In April of 1933, Gustav Krupp sought out a private meeting with
Hitler. Krupp agreed to become Hitler's chief fundraiser and chairman
of the Adolf Hitler Fund. In return Hitler promised to appoint Krupp
as the fuehrer of Germany industry. Over the years, Krupp contributed
over six million marks of his own money to the Nazis, and his
correspondence shows that he truly enjoyed his job as chairman.28
Likewise, it is common knowledge that after Hitler was appointed
chancellor Krupp greeted people cheerfully with the Heil Hitler
Schirer writes that in 1931, when Hitler decided to cultivate
relationships between influential industrial leaders, he kept their
identity a secret.
"The party still had to play both sides of the tracks. The party had
to allow Strasser, Goebbels and Feder to beguile the masses with
socialist talk and denigrating the industrial magnates."
Some of the meetings were so secretive that they were held in forest
Further proof of the industrialist involvement and support of the
Nazis comes from the testimony of Funk at Nuremberg. The entire list
implicated by Funk is far too long to reproduce here, but besides
Thyssen and Krupp it included Georg von Schnitzler-I.G. Farben, August
Rosterg and August Diehn of the potash industry, Cuno of the Hamburg
Amerika Line, Otto Wolf, Kurt von Schroder, and many other wealthy
On May 2, 1933, the Nazis raided and occupied all trade union
headquarters. The leaders were beaten and arrested; some were placed
in the concentration camps. Union funds were confiscated and the
unions were dissolved. Members of the communist party and the social
democrats had already been arrested. On June 20, 1934, in what has
become known as the Night of Long Knifes, Hitler purged the socialists
within the Nazi party, chief among them Roehm.
With the broad financial support from the leaders of the business
community as well as from the military leaders and aristocrats, the
Nazis were truly a top down organization, while the Nazis used the
lower class as foot soldiers to gain power. They did so in a deceiving
manner, and once in power, immediately set about betraying the lower
We have already shown one example of divisionism by the Nazis in their
rise to power. But what sets fascist divisionism apart from the
ordinary divisionism of any other political ideology? Certainly any
politician in a democracy appeals to some sort of divisionism, as he
is fully aware that he can not possibly appeal to the entire
electorate. The difference lies in the fact that divisionism is always
destructive in fascism and serves only as a means to gain and maintain
power. Even after gaining power, Hitler went to great pains in
dividing power, playing one follower against another, creating
rivalries in the party in the process. In short, Hitler kept the Nazi
party divided as if it was a set of small fiefdoms. One of the biggest
myths about the Nazis is that they were a single unit, when in fact
they were a conglomeration of various fractured parts. Eatwell states
the paradox within Hitler's power structure as: "because the party was
so divided that he had power and in turn the party was divided from
other key centers of power such as the army." 47 In other ideologies,
the divisionism is not inherently destructive. Rather, it's based on
differing approaches coming together to reach an equable solution to a
problem. In his rise to power, Hitler had no intention of compromising
with the other parties to form a parliamentary president. His moves
were calculated to destroy any chance of that.
A couple of examples from the present can further delineate the
difference between the two. Certainly many of the tax proposals coming
from the Republican party today could be classed as divisionism as
they favor the upper income earners over the lower income groups.
While the measures are divisive they can hardly be labeled as
destructive divisionism. They are more a reflection of difference in
However, an example of an act that could be termed a fascist
divisionism was the Republican caused shut down of the government in
November 1995 after Clinton vetoed the budget bill. Clinton had
previously warned Congress that unless changes were made in the budget
he would veto the bill. Members of the hard right Council for National
Policy and many of their Republican members openly had declared they
would shut down the government. In essence, the Republicans adopted
the same policy that Hitler had in his bid to dismiss parliament; they
refused to negotiate honorably.
Just as Hitler had taken a position to subvert democracy, so had the
Republicans, led by Gingrich. The constitution defines the passing of
the budget in detail. The spending bills originate in the House after
passage by both the House and the Senate. It is then sent to the
President, who may either veto it or sign it. If the bill is vetoed,
it is up to Congress and the President to reach a compromise bill.
Otherwise, Congress must pass a bill with a two-thirds majority. The
failure of Congress to pass a bill to advert a government shutdown was
a dereliction of their constitutional duty. Fortunately, the outrage
coming from the general public forced the Republicans back to the
negotiation table. The point to be made is the only difference between
the two events---the Republicans feared the wrath of the people and
capitulated, Hitler had no such fear and parliament was dismissed.
The Republican shut down of the government also serves to point out a
flaw in our constitution, just as there was a flaw in the German
constitution. In the case of the U. S. constitution there is no other
mechanism other than shutting down the government if Congress fails to
pass a budget. If the fascists in America can be successful in
polarizing American politics to such an extent that the public, or at
least a considerable portion of it, tolerates a government shut down,
then the entire budget process becomes a fracas. And after observing
the behavior of the Republicans in their ill fated attempt to impeach
Clinton such a possibility does not appear so remote.
Another example of divisionism that is solely destructive that is not
based on racism or class warfare was the impeachment of Bill Clinton.
It served no purpose other than to smear the president, the articles
of impeachment fell far short of what the founding fathers had defined
in the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors." That phrase refers back
to the misuse of offices in England under the king. Additionally, the
investigation of Ken Starr has been plagued by civil rights abuse and
possible criminal action by Starr himself. It resembles a coup headed
by the multi millionaire Scaife with the aid of the religious right,
more than it resembled a justified impeachment.
But perhaps, the greatest illustration of the divisionism was seeing
support for the impeachment evaporate like rain on hot pavement in the
Senate following the State of the Union address and a thorough defense
of the charges by Clinton's legal team. The House prosecutors with the
conclusion of Ken Starr questioned Monica Lewinsky further in secret.
This single action by the House Republicans invoked criticism from
even members of their own party in the Senate. It was conducted
against the agreed upon rules, and it was unconstitutional in that the
power of investigation is delegated to the Senate. Likewise, it is
against the statute of the Independent Council. It served no purpose
other than to further divide and disgust the country. In short, it is
nothing but an attempt at a power play.

Often times, this divisionism takes the form of racism or class
warfare. It is often stated that Mussolini tried to eliminate class
distinctions in fascist Italy. But the reality is that he only
reinforced those distinctions. Certainly the Nazis practiced racism in
an outrageous manner, ending in the Holocaust. On the other hand,
fascist Italy was not racist in nature until after Mussolini adopted
Hitler's Jewish solution. Fascism doesn't necessary have to be racist
in nature, but racism is often used to divide the citizens, as their
radical platform isn't appealing to the broad masses. In addition,
racism is violent in nature and the resulting chaos from the violence
serves to further divide the masses. Whether or not a fascist state is
racist seems to depend more upon the culture of the society in which
it arises. Before fascism, Italy had a long history of generally
equable racial relationships, going all the way back to the old Roman
Empire. For instance, even the slaves were eventually given full
rights in Rome. However, the roots of anti-Semitism goes back much
further in Germany as shown in the following quote.
"This is a good month to reflect on the toxicity of words meant to
kill. Nov. 9 marks the 60th anniversary of Kristallnacht, the 1938
'Night of Shattered Glass' unleashed by the Nazis to terrorize
Germany's Jews. The date was chosen specially by Josef Goebbels,
Hitler's propagandist, to honor the birthday of Martin Luther, the
16th century monk who was a father of the protestant Reformation and
the founder of what became the Lutheran church.
Hitler greatly admired Luther: "He saw the Jew as we are only
beginning to see him today." Indeed. Luther saw the Jews as 'hopeless,
wicked, venomous, and devilish... our pest, torment, and misfortune.'
Initially, certain that his version of Christianity would appeal to
Jews, he expected large numbers of them to covert. When that failed to
happen, he turned violently against them. In 1543, Luther Published
"On the Jews and Their Lies," a work that would become known
throughout Germany, perhaps the most widely disseminated work of anti-
Semitism by a German until the rise of the Nazis 400, years later.
"What then shall we Christians do with this damned, rejected race of
Jews?" Luther asked.
"First, their synagogues should be set on fire, and whatever does not
burn up should be covered or spread over with dirt, so that no one may
ever be able to see a cinder or stone of it...
Secondly, their homes should likewise be broken down and destroyed...
Thirdly, they should be deprived of their prayer books and Talmuds, in
which such idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are taught.
Fourthly, their rabbis must be forbidden under threat of death to
teach any more...
Fifthly, passports and traveling privileges should be absolutely
forbidden to the Jews...
Sixthly, I advise that...all cash and treasure of silver and gold be
taken from them...
Burn down their synagogues, forbid all that I enumerated earlier,
force them to work, and deal harshly with them... If this does not
help we must drive them out like mad dogs, so we do not become
partakers of their abominable blasphemy and all their other vices. I
have done my duty. Now let everyone see to his."
This is hate speech.
< Sixty years ago next Monday on the night of Luther's birthday, Nazi
gangs rampaged across Germany. In every Jewish neighborhood, windows
were smashed and buildings were torched. All told, 101 synagogues were
destroyed, and nearly 7,500 Jewish-owned businesses were demolished.
On that night, 91 Jews were murdered; 26,000 were rounded up and sent
to concentration camps. It was the greatest pogrom in history. And it
was nothing compared with what was to come."33
The question then remains whether the fascism in America can be
considered racist or not. The past history of racism in the United
States would tend to support such. As a nation, we was one of the last
industrial nations to allow slavery, and it took the Civil War to end
slavery. It has been less than fifty years since "separate but equal"
was the rule of the land. It's only been sixty years since Japanese
citizens and immigrants were interred in camps following the bombing
of Pearl Harbor. The Rosewood incident happened less than a hundred
years ago, and lynching of blacks was common well into the 20th
century. This country has had a long, incredulous history of bigotry
and even genocide. There is no question of the genocide of Native
Americans in the efforts of the U. S. Army in passing out blankets
infected with small pox, or the slaughter of the Plains Indian's
primary source of food, the buffalo. Then there was the Trail of
Tears, as well. The Irish immigrants, following the potato famine,
were greeted by the Know Nothings, a party that based its support on
the hate of Catholics.
All of the hard right groups are racist, although more than one tries
to play their racism down or to hide it, such as the John Birch
Society and some of the various militia groups. Others are openly
racists, such as the Klan, the Nazis and the skinheads. The great
unifier of the far right, the Identity religion, links many of the
hard right groups. The Identity religion is based on anti-Semitic
belief that the true followers of Jesus immigrated to Britain and
northern Europe, that today's Jews are the descendents of Satan. It's
the mainstay religion among the militias, the Posse Comitatus, and
even among some of the Klan groups.
Besides the normal hate groups based on racism or anti-Semitism. the
religious right has emerged in the 1990s as a venomous hate group
basing their hate on gays and abortion. Abortion clinics increasingly
are becoming targets of bombings, arson, and vandalism. Late in 1998,
Matthew Shepard was murdered in Wyoming after being tie to a fence and
then pistol whipped, for being gay. Below are some quotes about gays
from one of the leaders of the religious right, Pat Robertson.
"This conduct [homosexuality] is anti-social, and it is a pathology.
It is a sickness, and it needs to be treated. It doesn't need to be
taught in the classroom as a preferred way of life..." - 700 Club,
"...the acceptance of homosexuality is the last step in the decline of
Gentile civilization." --Pat Robertson, of the Christian Broadcasting
Network, warned that hurricanes could hit Orlando, Fla., because of
gay events there. Time magazine, Oct 26, 1998
"If the world accepts homosexuality as its norm and if it moves the
entire world in that regard, the whole world is then going to be
sitting like Sodom and Gomorrah before a Holy God. And when the wrath
of God comes on this earth, we will all be guilty and we will all
suffer for it." - 700 Club, 9-6-9534
Compare that last quote of Robertson's to the following quote of
Hitler on syphilis.
"...they speak of this whole field as if it were a great sin, and
above all express their profound indignation against every sinner
caught in the act, then close their eyes in pious horror to this
godless plague and pray God to let sulfur and brimstone preferably
after their own death rain down on this Sodom and Gomorrah, thus once
making an instructive example of this shameless humanity."39
Such evidence, as Robertson's words, abounds that they would persecute
gays, it abounds in the numerous ballot measures in various states
that would deny gays their civil rights. Such a measure passed in
Colorado, only to be overturned by the Supreme Court. Another measure,
led by Lon Mabon in Oregon failed state wide, but was reintroduced on
local ballots in the following election. Mabon has also led ballot
measures to limit the concept of a family and limiting abortions to
only the first trimester. The first was another attempt to limit the
rights of gays.
In June 1998, near Jasper, Texas a black man named James Byrd was
dragged behind a pickup. Body parts were found over a two mile length
of the roadway.35 It is too early for trends in hate crimes to emerge,
as the FBI only began tracking hate crimes in 1991. The one trend that
does seem to be emerging is the hate crimes are becoming increasingly
violent as evident from the murders of Shepard and Byrd. The real
danger of these two murders is they serve to desensitize us, leading
to more numerous and increasing levels of violence, just as the Nazis
used increasing levels of violence against the Jews.
Racism is reemerging in various forms in the 1990s in political issues
and in the Republican Party. "English only" laws are being promoted
with increasing frequency by various Republican candidates, including
Robert Dole, and have even appeared on some ballot measures such as
California Prop 187. The obvious targets are immigrants from Mexico.
In effect, its nothing more than the reemergence of nativism. Other
forms of nativism have appeared, such as denying immigrants access to
welfare and the school system for children of immigrants. Nativism is
also behind various immigration bills and the increasing efforts
directed at illegals.
Perhaps the most dangerous form of racism to emerge has been the
Republican efforts to 'monitor' the polls. And videotape those
leaving. Cases have arisen in the 1998 election in North Carolina,
Georgia, Michigan, Maryland, Kentucky, Texas and Maine. The efforts
are directed primarily at districts in which have a high percentage of
minorities. Such efforts serve no useful purpose and do constitute a
violation of the Voting Rights Act.36 More disturbing is the Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court, William Rehnquist, served as the
director of Republican 'ballot security' in the poor areas of Phoenix,
Arizona between 1958-1962.37 He likewise wrote a pro separate but
equal memo as a law clerk for Justice Robert Jackson. All of which was
brought out in his confirmation hearings.
An even more subtle effort on the part of Republicans in denying votes
to the minorities and the poor is centered on the debate to allow a
statistical correction to the 2000 census. Such effort on the part of
the Republicans goes far beyond the election of 2000. The census will
be used to reapportionment of the congressional districts for the
decade. Thus, by denying the correction, they in effect are
perpetuating their power to 2010 by undercounting groups that
historically vote for Democrats
n Dec 1998, Republican House member Bob Barr and Senator Trent Lott
were exposed as keynote speakers before the Council of Conservative
Citizens, a racist organization. Lott was later determined to have
been an honorary member and had written several articles for their
paper dating back to the early 1990s. In January, Republican National
Chairman, Jim Nicholson asked members to dissociate themselves from
this group and directly appealed to national committee member Buddy
Witherspoon from South Carolina to resign. The request was refused.38
Once before, the Republicans were asked to denounce the radical John
Birch Society at their National Convention in the early 1960s.
Moderate members such as the former President Jerry Ford, did so.
However the measure failed.
Another Republican that deserves mention here is Pat Buchanan and his anti-Semitic views. Buchanan has opposed virtually all civil rights bills and favorable court decisions; he has supported apartheid in South Africa; he has spewed forth views of Holocaust denial; he has called fascists such as Franco and Pinochet soldier-patriots. And Buchanan was a key figure in urging Reagan to visit the SS cemetery in Bitburg.40
Thus as we prepare to enter a new century, the Republican Party has
adopted racism as a divisionist tool to divide the electorate in an
attempt to maintain power and enact their extremist agenda. Not all
members of the Republican Party are racist, but many of the members
from the hard right that controls the party are racists. There are
honorable members of the party, but they are being forced into lesser
and lesser roles. The extremists have gained control. It is the burden
of those honorable members to take back control of their party and
denounce the extremist before it becomes too late.
 Perhaps the best assessment of the use of destructive divisionism by
fascist in the United States comes from a 1945 War department
"Three Ways to Spot U.S. Fascists.
Fascists in America may differ slightly from fascists in other
countries, but there are a number of attitudes and practices that they
have in common. Following are three. Every person who has one of them
is not necessarily a fascist. But he is in a mental state that lends
itself to the acceptance of fascist aims.
1.Pitting religion, racial, and economic groups against one another in
order to break down the national unity is a device of the divide and
conquer technique used by Hitler to gain power in Germany and in other
countries. With slight variations, to suit local conditions, fascists
everywhere have used this Hitler method. In many countries, anti-
Semitism is a dominant devise of fascism. In the United States native
fascists have often been anti-Catholic, anti-Jew, anti-Negro, anti-
Labor and anti-foreign born. In South America native fascists use the
same scapegoats except that they substitute anti-Protestantism for
Interwoven with the master race theory of fascism is a well planned
hate campaign against minority races, religions, and other groups. To
suit their particular needs and aims, fascists will use any one or a
combination of such groups as a convenient scapegoat.
2. Fascism cannot tolerate such religious and ethical concepts as the
brotherhood of man. Fascists deny the need for international
cooperation. These ideas contradict the fascist theory of the master
race. The color, race, creed or nationality-have rights. International
cooperation, as expressed in the Dumbarton Oaks proposals, run counter
to the fascist program of war and world domination. Right now our
native fascists are spreading anti-British, anti-Soviet, anti-French
and anti-United nations propaganda.
3. It is accurate to call a member of a communist party a communist.
For short, he is often called a Red. Indiscriminate pinning of the
label Red on people and proposals which one opposes is a common
political device. It is a favorite trick of native as well as foreign
Many fascists make the spurious claim that the world has but two
choices---either fascism or communism and they label as communist
everyone who refuses to support them. By attacking our free
enterprise, capitalist democracy and by deny the effectiveness of our
way of life they hope to trap many people."74

The extreme anti-communism and anti-socialism stance of the fascist is
beyond dispute among honest historians. Both communists and socialists
were the first to enter the concentration camps in Nazi Germany. Both
Mussolini and Franco fought against communist influence. From the
brief survey of the fascist philosophers and extreme anti-liberal
stance has been a factor in fascism from the beginning. The Nazi used
socialism as a ruse to gain power, but once in power they purged the
socialists within their party. The following quotes taken from Mein
Kampf will illuminate the anti-communism, anti-parliamentary
democracy, and the social darwinism of Hitler.
"Just as in 1918 we paid with our blood for the fact that in 1914 and
1915 we did not proceed to trample the head of Marxist serpent once
and for all, we would have to pay most catastrophically if in the
spring of 1923 we did not avail ourselves of the opportunity to halt
the activity of the Marist traitors and murders of the nation for
good"41 >
"As regards the possibility of putting these ideas into practice, I
beg you not to forget that the parliamentary principle of democratic
majority rule has by no means always dominated mankind, but to the
contrary is to be found only in brief periods of history, which are
always epochs of decay of peoples and states."42
"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,..."43
The second quote certainly is anti-liberal as it shows Hitler's
contempt for the democratic process. The last quote reveals Hitler as
a social Darwinist of which Turner makes the point in several places
in his book.44 Social Darwinism runs counter to the aims of socialism.
In fact it is the antithesis. It allows the elite to gain further
power, it willingly discards the poor and the weak as expendables.
With the anti-communism stance and social Darwinism character of
Hitler, it is not surprising that the fascist in America would come
from the extreme right. The United States was right in opposing
communism. But to what links? As with anything else moderation is an
admirable quality, excesses of any nature are damaging. Truman or
Eisenhower were not fascists for their anti-communism actions.
However, Tail Gunner Joe was either a fascist or a willing dupe of
fascists. The type of anti-communism of McCarthy served no other
purpose than to further his political career. He openly violated the
right to free speech and assembly of his victims. His aim was to
destroy them with out any regard to the evidence.
The social Darwinism as initiated by Reagan and his attacks on the
poor, and the dismantling of the welfare program led by Newt Gingrich
will also be labeled as examples of creeping fascism. Throwing people
into the streets arbitrarily to fend for themselves is destructive; it
is social Darwinism at its worst. Forcing them to except wages below
the minimum wage law is denying them their equal rights. But it was
precisely the economic woes of Germany that allowed the Nazis to rise
to power. Currently America is enjoying good economic times, but when
the economy takes a turn to the south the full impact of the lack of a
social safety net is going to be felt hard.
The next trait of fascism, extreme exploitation, is a direct result of
one of the primary traits of fascism, extreme nationalism. The form of
nationalism promoted by fascism not only concerns the standing in the
world but also applies to the sacrifices that are expected of
citizens. In short, the fascist state reigns supreme while the
individuals are subordinate to the state. The subordination of
individuals to the state is the antithesis of liberalism. Once again
some quotes from Mein Kampf will suffice.
"Since for us the state as such is the only form, but the essential is
its content, the nation, the people, it is clear that everything else
must be subordinated to its sovereign interests."45
"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."46
Certainly from those two quotes there can be no question of the
subordination of individuals as practiced under the Nazis or to any
limits short of world domination by the Nazis. It is often stated that
Hitler left a road map to his future goals in Mein Kampf. There is no
greater evidence of that than in the last quote. How then did he rise
to power? The problem was nobody was listening. Nobody challenged his
aggressive views toward war, or at best they believed that they could
control or contain him. Only later did they find out the errors of
that false assumption.
This writer can find only two instances of this extreme exploitation
in America. Thanks to the efforts of CBS 60 Minutes and Evening News,
the story broke about the Tomb of the Unknown and how the Reagan White
House pressured the military to find an unknown to bury on Memorial
Day 1984. Turns out that in their haste to respond to the pressure
coming from the White House, they deliberately buried a fallen soldier
that wasn't so unknown. The unknown was Michael Bassie. This man had
given everything to his country except for his name. And the lowlife
filth occupying the White House had that stripped from him so he could
have a photo op on Memorial Day in an election year. This writer can
think of no other action that is more despicable; it's unforgivable.
Of course Reagan made sure he was the star of this photo op and used
it to promote and build support for his extremist military agenda.
The second instance comes at the hands of Newt Gingrich and the
Republicans of the 104th and 105th Congress. They have stripped the
rights of welfare recipients and required that they participate in
workfare. The problem comes in that these poor souls are not even
entitled to be paid the minimum wage or the right to unionize in some
cases. In other words, the Republican's answer to the poor is to force
the to work in perpetual slavery with no chance of ever breaking out
of poverty.
But this event is much more dangerous and goes much further than it
appears. The danger here lies in the suspension of the constitutional
equality under the eyes of the law. The Republicans have in effect
created a sub-class in which one of the very fundamental tenets of our
constitution, equality under the eyes of the law was ignored and
thrown out the window. Nor is this the only example of unequal
treatment of the poor at the hands of the Republicans. They also have
advocated cut backs in the budget for the public defender's office.
The Republicans have been very successful in their propaganda in
demonizing the poor. There seems to be an almost gutter level hatred
of the poor and any aid to assist them. Instead of reaching out a
compassionate helping hand towards the poor, the Republicans have
adopted a mean spirited social Darwinist view.
This brings us to the trait of opportunistic ideology of fascism. It
is perhaps one of the more confusing aspects of fascism. Mussolini
appears to have been indeed a socialist before founding the fascist
party. Mussolini likewise went from a pacifist to a rabid warmonger.
Clearly such dramatic changes in ideology could only be based in an
opportunistic grab for power. Mussolini started supporting a
syndicalism economy, but by 1923, with clear objections from business
leaders, he concluded the Palazzo Chigi Pact. This pact's main intent
was to simplify business relations by making the fascist the sole
representative of labor. In 1925, the Plazzo Vidoni agreement was
signed. This agreement made Rossoni's union the sole representative of
labor. It likewise prohibited the challenging of factory management.
By the close of the year, the grateful employer's federation publicly
announced adherence to the fascist regime.48 Such transformations
illistrate the opportunistic ideology present in fascism or is it a
lack of ideology, as well as further dispeling the myth that fascism
is another form of socialism.
Part of the problem with the ever-changing ideology of fascism arises
from the divisionism. Strasser was a socialist and it seems that
Goebbels was a Marxist. Both were allowed almost free reign in
promoting their own economic views as long as it gathered more support
of serve Hitler's purpose. But once their views failed to serve
Hitler, they were then brow beaten severely. An example of such
reversal in party ideology of the Nazis occurred on February 14,1926.
Prior to this date, both Strasser and Goebbels had approved of a
plebiscite campaign to deprive former royalty of their possessions, a
measure, that was popular with the common citizens. On the given date,
Hitler summoned both men to a meeting in Bamberg. Before those
gathered, Hitler forced both to capitulate and abandon the program.49
Similar events have already been given, in which various Nazis were
initially allowed to promote socialism in efforts to appease the lower
classes in an effort to gain their support.
Examples abound throughout the history of the Nazis where they adopted
their ideology to suit the audience. In October 1932, Strasser
announced a new program that was a stark reversal of the program the
Nazis had advocated in July. Higher taxes on the rich had been
replaced with a general reduction of taxes, instead of price controls
it centered on freeing prices. Instead of protectionism trade policy,
export and global trade was now promoted. Likewise, much of the
inflammatory rhetoric had been dropped.50
Hitler seems to have sensed the explosive nature of economics and
tried to avoid the subject both publicly and within the party. From
all indications, he was dissatisfied with the party planks on economic
matters. The only official stance on economic matters was the 1920
twenty-five point program. However, he only referred to this policy
document disparagingly in Mein Kampf and distanced himself from the
document.51 Likewise Hitler would never take an aggressive stance on
minor issues, he played to his audience to win their support.
Perhaps the most dramatic evidence of the opportunistic character of
the Nazis is illustrated by the actions of thirty-nine businessmen in
November 1932. The group contained such notables as Krupp, Thyssen,
Bosch, Siemens, and others. In a signed letter to Hindenburg they
urged him to appoint Hitler as chancellor. In essence they were
placing a bet that the socialism ideology was a fraud and that once in
power he would be a tool of capitalist.52
The only other reversal in policy that could rival the bet that the
leaders of big business made was Hitler's writings. In the first part
of Mein Kampf he argued that France was the sworn and greater enemy of
Germany. However, the second part to Mein Kampf he reversed course and
argued that Russia was the enemy as opposed to the first book in which
he proposed an alliance with Russia.53 This was a complete change in
his foreign policy. One can only speculate as to the reasons behind
such a switch.
Many writers have tried to label the Nazis as socialists in a folly to
distance themselves from fascist theory. They are quick to point to
the syndicalism policy as proof of socialist regulation of business.
They are in error, of course. Syndicalism is neither left nor right in
itself. It can be either, depending upon the political structure.
Syndicalism with labor groups or consumers dominating the issues would
indeed be socialistic in nature. On the other hand, syndicalism with
only industry or business groups dominating is certainly from the
right wing of the political spectrum. The issuing of controls or goals
over the production of war material by the government in a syndicalism
system is neither left nor right, it's simply self-preservation. The
goals and controls, including the 4-Year Plan issued by Goring, were
nothing more than gearing the economy up for war time production. In
essence, they were merely self-preservation measures.


Secondly, they will point toward many of the public works projects
that were implemented under the Nazis as examples of socialism. An
example of this is the construction of the autobahn, a project that
had been planned by previous governments, as were many of the public
work projects. They likewise forget that the Nazis took over at the
bottom of an economic depression, public work projects were enacted
not only in Germany, but in the U. S. as well as a means to end the
depression. Many of those projects in the U. S. were the construction
of useful infrastructure, such as the building of the high school in
New Ulm, Minnesota. Others had a definite commercialism bent to them,
such as the construction of Timberline Lodge on Mount Hood in Oregon.
Labeling the construction of a facility for a commercial business as
socialism is simply fools folly. The same applies to many of the
public works projects that were implemented under the Nazis.
Labeling such programs as socialism would be the same as labeling the
construction of the interstate highway system as socialism. If the
Eisenhower administration had one shinning moment, it was his support
for the construction of the freeway system. For those that are silly
enough to label such work as socialism, let them be reminded that no
other single event, other than the construction of the cross
continental railroad aided the development of business. Besides the
obvious advantage to shippers, the interstate highway system has
spawned many new businesses. Think of the number of motels/hotels as
well as the tourist traps, service stations, and others that have
grown up along the freeway system. The same applies to Germany and the
Finally, the same writers that label fascism as socialism would like
their readers to believe that these government regulations and
bureaucratic offices held ultimate power. Failure to comply would
result in the owners being shot. Nothing could be further from the
truth. The Nazis for a large part lived in fear of the leaders of big
business. They were aware that they had no comprehensive economic plan
and would defer to the judgement of the business leaders.
This point can be driven home with one simple example. Goering was one
of the Nazis that had little economic knowledge, but harbored some of
the more radical economic ideas and was fond of using regulatory
offices. Goering tried first to persuade the steel industry, both the
smelters and miners, to use low-grade German ore as opposed to the
high-grade Swedish ore. Importation of ore from Sweden would use up
precious foreign currency, as well as being a less reliable source in
the event of war. The invasions of Denmark and Norway were conducted
solely to protect the Nazis shipping routes for the Swedish ore. Most
of the industrialists politely refused Goering's request; even under
threats of arrest for sabotage, they still declined.54 None were
arrested for refusal. Instead Goering formed the Herman Goering Works
to take on the task. By the time of the outbreak of the war it had
evolved to be one of the largest companies in Germany.
Farben is another example of the Nazis bowing to the expertise of
leading corporations. With the advent of the first 4-Year Plan, they
realized they needed the cooperation of business leadership in order
to achieve self-sufficiency in a series of raw materials and finished
products. Most of which were items would be crucial to wartime
production. By the end of the war Farben, had a series of factories
around concentration camps, were major users of slave labor, along
with Krupp and many other corporations.
But the most damning evidence of the Nazi's unbridled corporatism was
evident shortly after passage of the Enabling Act, when Hjalmar
Schacht was appointed president of the Reichsbank. Schacht was a
brilliant financier who helped negotiate the Dawes Plan and was
largely responsible for stabilizing the currency in 1923; he also
detested democracy and parliamentarianism. His first official act was
the creation of Metall-Forschungsgesellschaft A.G. (Mefo), a dummy
corporation of four armament firms. The state assumed the liability
for their debts. The Mefo bills were not unlike promissory notes, they
were issued to government contractors and could be extended to five
years.55 Such favoritism of business is certainly not socialism. Today
in America such corporate aid is labeled as corporate welfare. Note
the similarity here not only to the present corporate welfare that's
being doled out, but also to Eisenhower's warning of the military-
industrial complex. The American military-industrial complex didn't
need to invent a new plan, they were simply free to follow the example
the Nazis used. In fact fascism is inseparatable from corporatism. You
simply cannot have a fascist government without corporations and a
capitalistic economy.
Schacht was later appointed to minister of economics in 1934, a post
he retained until he resigned in 1937 over policy disputes. He was not
an anti-Semitic and was conscious of the negative aspects of the
takeover of Jewish business on both the economy and world opinion. By
1936, he was advocating slowing down the rearmament program, fearing
the return of inflation.56 The return of inflation dispenses with the
myths that the Nazis maintained strict control of corporations and the
prices of goods in short order. In effect, such controls were non-
existent. It should also be pointed out here that the economy at this
time had taken on considerable shades of a consumer economy.
Italy used their form of syndicalism to eliminate labor unions; the
Nazis followed a similar path. The workers benefited little from this
unbridled corporatism. Unemployment went from an official figure of
six million unemployed in 1933, to 2.7 million in 1937, and by the
time of the outbreak of war there was a serious shortage of workers.
But growth in wages was far less spectacular, real wages rose only
sparingly. The index of wages rose from 92.5 in 1933 to 103 in 1937,
an increase of a meager eleven-percent.57 Much of the increase in
wages was achieved only from working longer hours. The only real
increases in the plight of the workers came with more unpaid leave.
Many of the other benefits produced no real benefits to the worker,
such as the factory beautification program.
From looking at the philosophers of fascism, it was revealed that
fascism was a reactionary movement. What then was the fascist reacting
to that led to the rise of Mussolini and Hitler? Many people
responding to the question would simply answer the Treaty of
Versailles. But such an answer is only partially correct. It doesn't
account for the widespread rise of fascism in many European countries
following WWI. In fact, during the period between the two world wars,
every government from the Rhine to the Pacific underwent drastic
changes. In many of those fascism had ample support but in the end was
rejected. Some of the problem can be laid to the beginning dissolution
of the British Empire and the arbitrary way in which maps were redrawn
following WWI without regard to ethnic or natural barriers. An example
would be the cobbled mess of ethnic groups that formed the former
republic of Yugoslavia, an area that remains a hot spot today.
Britain and the United States were about the only two governments that
did not undergo a major change during the period between the wars.
However, neither was immune to the rise of fascism. The U. S. saw a
rise of a great many fascist groups and groups closely aligned with
the fascist in the period between the wars. The German Bund, the
Silver Shirts and the mother's movement were all aligned closely with
fascism. It was also this period that seen the greatest membership in
the Ku Klux Klan.
The United States avoided full-blown fascism by essentially adopting
fascist methods on a milder scale. This was a shameful period in the
history of America. The infamous Palmer raids rounded up those with
communist connections. The I.W.W was harassed constantly by Hoover and
the FBI. In short, only those with non-approved political beliefs
would be prosecuted. This suppression of liberty had actually begun
around 1900. At the turn of the century, both conservative and liberal
elements combined to pass a blizzard of new laws. This effort aimed at
curbing lawless quickly became dominated by conservative elements and
evolved in a tool for the right wing for the remainder of the century.
As head of the FBI, Hoover quickly targeted the leaders of the left
for prosecution, ignoring the criminal actions of the hard right
groups. This has left the United States without any noticeable left
wing compared to the rest of the industrial world.
Perhaps one of the first and most notable events was the trial of
Sacco and Vanzetti, two immigrants charged with murder in
Massachusetts. They were found guilty more on their political beliefs
than on evidence. They were anarchists, atheists, and reportedly draft
dodgers, beliefs that threatened the industrialists of the time.64
Both were executed after considerable protest. Their trial set a
dangerous standard that people could be prosecuted for their political
beliefs. The inclusion of this trial here is to serve as a reminder of
a new problem that is emerging to confront the hard right, jury
nullification. Today there is considerable debate from both sides of
the political spectrum on jury nullification arising in death penalty
and drug cases. It warrants close observation. If the public becomes
too polarized, it could spell the end to the trial by jury system,
which has served admirably for over 200 years.
Various members of the right wing are now using this as an issue in
another attempt to polarize the electorate for their own selfish
purposes. These members of the right wing are promoting a system of
justice backed by mob or vigilante justice. Essentially, it's a system
backed by violence that is not unlike the tactics used by the Posse
Comitatus, the Freemen, or various militias to corrupt the justice
The first example of political repression came in Minnesota. The then
Republican Governor Burnquist used the newly created Minnesota
Commission of Public Safety to suspend New Ulm's Mayor Fritsche and
City Attorney Pfaender for their pacifist views after war had been
declared on Germany in 1917. The following quote details some of the
shameful actions taken by the commission and its connection to the
hard right.
In April 1917, soon after America declared war on Germany, the
Minnesota Legislature, following ferocious debate, created the
Minnesota Commission of Public Safety. This remarkable body, chaired
and appointed by the governor, was given "all necessary power" to
maintain order and enhance Minnesota's contribution to the war effort.
Technically limited by the state and federal constitutions, the
commission essentially wielded all the authority of state government
during the 18 months of its active existence. >
The commission came to be dominated by representatives of the Twin
Cities business community. It used its sweeping authority with gusto,
not only to root out ``disloyalty'' but to combat labor unionism and
agrarian activism as well.
The commission dispatched detectives throughout Minnesota to
investigate people and organizations suspected of disloyalty. It
regulated food prices and the liquor trade, imposing prohibition in
some parts of the state. It banned union organizing and intervened on
the side of management in a bitter Twin Cities streetcar strike. It
created a ``Home Guard'' of some 8,000 troops to back up its decrees.
The commission served as a virtual campaign committee for Republican
Gov. Joseph Burnquist in his 1918 re-election bid. It turned a blind
eye toward frequent mob harassment of his opponents. It interrogated
and intimidated Minnesotans who declined to purchase Liberty Bonds to
finance the war effort.63
Nor was such action confined to just Minnesota, many states set up
similar commissions. State sponsored violence against leaders from the
left was common place. One group that suffered immeasurably was the
I.W.W, the Wobblies. On Nov 5, 1916, Washington State suffered its
bloodiest labor battle of all time. The resulting carnage between a
local sheriff and the Wobblies left seven dead and over fifty wounded
in the city of Everett.65
All three of these events illustrate that the United States repressed
those with radical ideas in the time period of WWI and immediately
thereafter. Pacifist, labor leaders, and leftist political leaders
were all prosecuted with equal zeal. Remember, this was the time
period of the Rosewood incident and other atrocities. The prosecution
was lead by the hard right and business leaders.
But the real answer to the question is that fascism following WWI was
a reaction to the Bolshevik revolution and the rise of liberalism
ideals. Up until the Russian revolution, the only economic system was
capitalism. Communism was a new revolutionary system. It threatened
the power elite directly and gave way to a rise not only in communism
but socialism and liberalism as well. It was no accident that fascism
arose first in Italy, where in the period of 1919-1922, socialists
ruled in many localities. Here fascism arose in the countryside were
old practices such as sharecropping were giving way to new methods. In
1920, the largest strike in Italian agriculture ever was settled when
the landowners capitulated. Elsewhere, unions were wringing out
concessions from the owners through strikes and boycotts.58
The real appeal of European fascism was the protection it afforded
against working class movements, socialism, and communism.59 Hobsbawm
states it even more forcefully in claiming that without the October
revolution and Leninism there would have been no need for fascism. For
up until that time, the demagogic right, although politically active
and noisy in many countries, had been kept in check.60 The entire Nazi
movement was a reactionary movement. The reaction to the Treaty of
Versailles is well known and needs no further comment, as is the
opposition of fascism to liberalism, socialism and communism. Rather,
the following quote will show how complete the reaction was to the
events of the time.
"Today Christians... stand at the head of Germany... I pledge that I
never will tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity...We
want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit... We want to
burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the
theater, and in the press- in short, we want to burn out the poison of
immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a
result of liberal excess during the past...few years."61 <
The quote above was taken from a speech delivered by Hitler. It
provides the illustration that the Nazi movement was completely a
reactionary movement, reacting not only to global power politics and
the rise of the left, but also to the changes in arts and culture of
the time. It also provides the link to demonstrate that today's hard
right movement in the U. S. is equally reactionary, in particular, the
element of the so-called religious right. Contrast it with the quote
by Pat Robertson below.
"The Constitution of the United States, for instance, is a marvelous
document for self-governmentby Christian people. But the minute you
turn the document into the hands of non-Christian and atheistic people
they can use it to destroy the very foundation of our society."-Pat
Robertson (The 700 Club, Dec. 30, 1981)62
Apparently, Robertson is under the impression that the constitution
applies to only those he chooses and is null and void for the rest of
us. Hitler held a similar contempt for democracy. However, the point
that the Nazis were reactionary has been established beyond any doubt.
The reaction was not just confined to the global political scene or
economic conditions, but extended into the very roots of the culture.
Starting around 1980, fascism reared its ugly head globally. Unlike
the rise of fascism in the 1920s, this time the Reagan administration
embraced it. The administration openly promoted class warfare, allowed
the LaRocuhians access to security and intelligence agencies, filled
the EPA with Coor's lackeys, and openly supported none but the elite.
In essence, the Reagan administration was the American equivalent of
the passage of the Enabling Act.
There is no need to expand on the violent behavior of the Nazis or
fascists, as there is no dispute of their long history of violence.
Instead, the violence of various groups in the United States will be
explored. Many readers will immediately think of the violence that
arose in the 60s during the war protests. In fact, that is the great
illusion of the media. The truth is that little violence was directly
attributed to war protestors. In fact much of the violence that did
come out of the war protests was the work of the FBI.
The real story of violence in the 60s was the violence inflicted upon
the civil rights workers by the Klan. The early part of the 60s was
marred by violence, inspired by the Klan and racial hatred of right
wing groups. Eisenhower had to use National Guards to integrate the
Little Rock school system. Kennedy had to use federal marshals to
integrate Old Miss. When the Supreme Court order that busing was to be
used as a tool for integration, the violence spread nationally. The
Klan burnt school busses in Michigan to prevent integration.
Since 1980, right wing groups such as the Order, which murdered the
Denver talk show host, Berg, likewise have dominated the violence. The
leader of the Order was killed in a shoot out with law enforcement.
Another right wing group, the Posse Comitatus became a household word
only after the Kahl shoot out with law enforcement in North Dakota.
And of course there was the bombing of the Oklahoma federal building
by the right winger McVeigh. Perhaps the greatest widespread use of
violence since the Klan has been the bombing and violence directed
against abortion clinics by members of the religious right.
Violence has been the hallmark of the hard right in America dating
back at least as far as the Know Nothing Party in the 1800s and their
hatred of Catholics. It was business leaders that hired Pinkertons to
murder union organizers in earlier times. Yet there is relatively
little in the way to support that left wing groups were equally
violent. Groups like the Weathermen were violent, but the group was
never more than a small fringe group. Its extremely small size limited
the extent of its violence. One of the reasons for the lack of
widespread violence from leftist groups has already been mentioned,
the suppression of left wing groups by the FBI.
The last two traits of fascism will be explored together, as they are
related by an underlying use of symbols and the inseparable nature of
cults and religions. There is no doubt that both Hitler and Mussolini
were in effect leaders of a cult. Their extremist views would rule out
a major following otherwise. In fact, both promoted imagines
consistent with cults. Both chose to use propaganda to promote larger
than life imagines of themselves. Both Hitler and Mussolini were
Catholics; neither appeared to be particularly active members of the
church. Hitler referred to Christianity throughout Mein Kampf, as
already shown by quotes of which a few more will be included here.
"The sword will become our plow, and from the tears of war the daily
bread of future generations will grow."
"The more the linguistic Babel corroded and disorganized parliament,
the closer drew the inevitable hour of the disintegration of this
Babylonian Empire and with it the hour of freedom for my German-
Austria people."
< " the Lord's grace smiled on his ungrateful children." >
Officially, the Nazis were a Christian group, if one can assign a
religion to the group by the public policies they enacted. In this
case, the assignment is based on the following prayer that the Nazis
required to be recited in all public schools.
"Almighty God, dear heavenly Father. In Thy name let us now, in pious
spirit, begin our instruction. Enlighten us, teach us all truth,
strengthen us in all that is good, lead us not into temptation,
deliver us from all evil in order that, as good human beings, we may
faithfully perform our duties and thereby, in time and eternity, be
made truly happy. Amen."67
It is also true that the Nazis dabbled in mysticism as well. Certainly
some of the philosophers were pantheistic. But what really underlies
both the religious and mysticism aspects of the Nazis is the symbolism
buried underneath. In fact, one follower of fascism believed that the
masses were unable to understand anything other than mere slogans.
From Mein Kampf the following quote concerns the symbolism hidden
behind the Nazi flag.
" Not only that the unique colors, which all of us so passionately
love and which once won so much honor for the German people, attest
our veneration for the past; they were also the best embodiment of the
movement's will. As National Socialists, we see our program in our
flag. In red we see the social idea of the movement, in white the
nationalistic idea, in the swastika the mission of the struggle for
victory of the Aryan man, and by the same token, the victory of the
idea of creative work, which as such always has been and always will
be anti-Semitic."66
At first in the quote above, Hitler is referring to the old flag of
Germany. The choice of red was based on stealing from the communists
and was chosen deliberately to enflame the Marxists. Throughout Mein
Kampf, Hitler refers to the value of propaganda and made extensive use
of symbols to convene a subtle message of hatred.
The similarities to the right wing in America is seen. The Republicans
have introduced a flag desecration amendment to protect their
symbolism. Even more revealing was the letter Newt Gingrich
distributed to members of GOPAC. In this letter, members were to use
the following words to impart a negative image: decay, failure, sick,
liberal, unionized, welfare, corrupt, greed and intolerant. The
following words were to impart a positive imagine: share, legacy,
control, truth, and courage.68
Cults are inherently fascist in nature. The leader demands total
submersion into the cult. America today has seen far too many examples
of cults and cult behavior. A recent example, would be the Waco
incident that ended badly. However, there are several right wing
groups that do exhibit cult behavior besides the religious groups; the
LaRouchians, many of the militias, and the Order would all qualify as
cults. In addition, much of the hard right inside the Republican Party
has taken on a cult like behavior in their idolizing Reagan. The 105th
Congress renamed the Washington airport after him. In the present
Congress Congressman Matt Salmmon of Arizona has introduced a bill to
deface Mt Rushmore by adding Reagan's imagine to the monument.69
It has been shown beyond any reasonable doubt that Hitler and the
Nazis were right wing extremists best described as social darwinists,
the antithesis of socialism. It was showed that the Nazis were best
described by syndicalism model and that syndicalism is neither
socialistic nor capitalistic, inherently. Syndicalism can be either
depending upon the makeup; the Nazis were definitely capitalists in
that there was no input from labor. All input was reserved for the
industrialist. Further, it was shown that the industrialists openly
defied Nazi desires in the case of the use of low-grade ores. It was
also shown that many of the businesses that was government owned were
taken over by the government prior to the Nazis, some dating all the
way from the monarchy. Likewise, it was shown that many of the Nazi
programs would be classified as corporate welfare today. And it was
shown that the real power behind the Nazi movement was the top
elitist. This should be sufficient for anyone to dispel the myth that
the Nazis were socialist, when in fact they were capitalistic
In defining fascism, three traits stand above all others,
totalitarian, nationalism, and extreme corporatism. In fact, one can
not have fascism without corporatism. Other traits of fascism, such as
destructive divisionism and the use of violence are secondary. As
fascist ideology evolved in the later half of the 20th Century, a
happy face was put on fascism by its leaders as they down played the
violence and racism. This can be seen best in the far right wing
extremist groups currently active in the United States.
Additionally, there is one fact that absolutely places the Nazis and
fascism in the extreme right wing portion of the political spectrum,
and not the left. No one disputes that a communist revolution attacks
the ruling elite of a country. Similarly, socialism and liberalism
also attacks the same ruling elite, but the right wing extremists try
to claim the opposite. In reality these systems merely seek methods to
ease the burden and allow the lower classes to prosper rather than
attacking the elite. The Nazis, on the other hand, did not attack the
ruling elite of Germany. The rich industrialists were allowed to
continue their ways, eased by laws that the Nazis enacted for their
benefit. Likewise, the nobility of Germany was supported by the Nazis.
In short, the Nazis adopted the ruling elite in Germany and supported
them, the exact opposite of what a left leaning political ideology
would support.
There is no better proof of the Nazi support for the ruling elite than
looking at who supported Hitler in the 1930s in America. Granted, many
lower class people were involved in the pro-Hitler movement just as in
Germany. But like Germany, it was the rich industrialists that funded
these groups. Hearst ordered his newspapers to print pro-Nazi
articles. In fact, he had them print the Nazi propaganda directly from
Gobbels. Irenee du Pont funded several pro-fascist groups. Henry Ford
was well known for his praise of Hitler and funded many pro-Nazis in
the 30s. Andrew Mellon and John D. Rockefeller were supporters of
Hitler as well. No one is foolish enough to argue that these men were
not part of the ruling elite or rich industrialists in America at the
time. In fact, support for Hitler among the rich industrialists was
The continued propagation of such nonsense by the present right wing
is nothing short of propaganda. It fits closely with the Nazis' use of
propaganda and the symbolism proposed by Gingrich and his negative
words. nor will it change the history of the right wing support of the

1. http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1124.cfm
2. Why Americans Hate Politics, E. J. Dionne, Touchstone, 1991,
3. Thomas Jefferson: In his Own Words, Maureen Harrison & Steve
Gilbert, Barnes & Noble, 1996, p369.
4. http://www.friesian.com/arthur.htm
5. http://www.miami.edu/phi/schopnh.htm
< http://www.us.itd.umich.edu/~alexboko/zar/
6. http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/bergson.htm
7. Himmler, Peter Padfield, MJF books,1990, p260.
8. Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler, Houghton Mifflin, 1971, p 394.
9. Mein Kampf, p325.
< 10. Lott renounces White Racialist Group He praised in 1992, Thomas
Edsell, Washington Post, Dec 16,1998.
11. http://www.cofcc.org/
12. Thirty Days, Henry Ashby Turner, Addison-Welsey, 1996, p5.
13. Thirty Days, p9-15.
14. Thirty Days, p164.
15. Mein Kampf, p645-646.<
16. Mein Kampf, p218.
17. Adolf Hitler, Robert Payne, Barnes & Noble,1995, p213.
18. Adolf Hitler, p237
19. Who Financed Hitler, James Pool, Pocket Books, 1997, p11.
< 20. Who Financed Hitler, p45
21. Who Financed Hitler, p83.<
22. U. S. Firms' Connections to Nazis Detailed, Reuters, 1/14/1999.
Appeared in Boston Globe of same date
23. German Big Business and the Rise of Hitler, Henry Ashby Turner,
Oxford University Press, 1985.
24. German Big Business, p151-152.
25. German Big Business, p198-200.
26. German Big Business, p159.
27. Trading with the Enemy, Charles Higham, Barnes & Noble,
28. Hitler and His secret Partners, James Pool, Pocket Books,1997,
29. The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, William Schirer, Fawcett,
1992, p202.
30.The Rise and Fall, p203.
31. http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/nca/nca-02-16-13-index.html
32. http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/nca/
33. What Real Hate Speech Sounds Like, Jeff Jacony, Boston Globe, 11,
2, 1998.
34. http://www.tialliance.org/tia/page4.htm
35. A Trial of Alleged hate to Begin in Texas, AP wire, Boston Globe,
1, 24, 1999 .
36. Minority Voter Intimidation Becomes election Eve Issue, AP wire,
11, 3, 1998.
37. Quite and Odd Couple to Sit in Judgement, Jim Dwyer, New York
Daily news, 1, 7, 1999.
38. RNC Chiarman Urges Party Member to Leave Conservative Group, Glen
Johnson, AP wire, Boston Globe, 1, 19, 1999.
39. Mein Kampf, p248.
40. http://www.fair.org/current/buchanan-bigot.html<
41. Mein Kampf, p678.
42. Mein Kampf, p651.
43. Mein Kampf, p449.
44. Big Business &
45. Mein Kampf, p575.
46. Mein Kampf, p396.
47. Fascism, Roger Eatwell, Penguin, 1995, p149.
48. >Fascism, p77.
49. The Rise and Fall, p181. <
50. Big Business, p288.
51. Big Business, p 81
52. Hitler, John Toland, Doubleday, 1976, p276.<
53. Hitler, p221.
54. Fascism, p156.
55.Hitler, p308.
56. Fascism, p155.
57. Fascism, p160.
58. Fascism, p53-54.
59. The Age of Extremes, Eric Hobsbawm, Vintage Books, 1996, p 175.
60. The Age of Extremes, p124.
61. http://www.isrp.org/
62. http://www.tialliance.org/tia/page6.htm
63. http://www.pioneerplanet.com/archive/cent/dox/cent13.htm
64. http://www.english.upenn.edu/~afries/88/sacvan.html
65. http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~n9517146/everettmassacre.html
66. Mein Kampf, p498-499.
67. http://w3.trib.com/FACT/1st.religion.alert.html
68. http://www.fair.org/extra/9502/language-control.html
69. Reagan Wanted on Mt Rushmore, Rueters wire appearing in the 2/2/99
Boston Globe
70. The Road To Serfdom, F..A. Hayek, University of Chicago Press,
1994, Fiftieth Anniversary Edition.
71. The Road to Serfdom, p52.
72. The Road to Serfdom, p44. <
73. Fascism and Big Business, Daniel Guerin, Pathfinder, 1973,
74. Time Bomb, E.A. Piller, Arco Publishing, 1945, p13-14.
75. Southern Exposure, Stetson Kennedy, DoubleDay, 1946, p189
2010-09-12 17:04:25 UTC
Here are some quotes from Mein Kampf:

"The fight which Fascist Italy waged against Jewry's three
principal weapons, the profound reasons for which may not have been
consciously understood (though I do not believe this myself) furnishes
the best proof that the poison fangs of that Power which transcends
all State boundaries are being drawn, even though in an indirect way.
The prohibition of Freemasonry and secret societies, the suppression
of the supranational Press and the definite abolition of Marxism,
together with the steadily increasing consolidation of the Fascist
concept of the State--all this will enable the Italian Government, in
the course of some years, to advance more and more the interests of
the Italian people without paying any attention to the hissing of the
Jewish world-hydra.
"The English situation is not so favorable. In that country
which has 'the freest democracy' the Jew dictates his will, almost
unrestrained but indirectly, through his influence on public opinion."

http://www.ihr.org/ www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/

http://www.natvan.com http://www.nsm88.org

http://heretical.com/ http://immigration-globalization.blogspot.com/
Continue reading on narkive: