The Strasser Brothers - Honest Nationalsocialists or a Communist Fifth Column?

[sfivdf21]

Hello everyone, this is an issue that has always interested me a lot but that I have never been able to solve and that has me very confused. The question is: Were the brothers Otto and Gregor Strasser honest Nationalsocialists or were they a Communist fifth column established in order to destroy the NSDAP from within?

As is well known, the Strasser brothers, who led the left-wing faction of the NSDAP (known as Strasserism) had a great ideological and personal rivalry with Adolf Hitler. On the one hand, the Strasser brothers accused Hitler of being too "moderate" (due to his direct opposition to violence and his will to came to power through elections and with legal way) and "reactionary" (due to the alliance of the NSDAP with Alfred Hugenberg's right-wing and monarchical party, the DNVP). On the other hand, the Führer accused Gregor and Otto Strasser of being "pro-Marxists" and wanting to "Bolshevize" the Nationalsocialist movement (due to their praises to the Soviet Union and the increasingly habitual political collaboration of the Strasserists with the KPD).

The rivalry and conflict between Adolf Hitler and the Strasser brothers reached its climax when after Adolf Hitler's overwhelming electoral victories in 1932 (in which the NSDAP won the both elections of this year) the Weimar regime denied Hitler his legitimate right to be the next Reich Chancellor and only offered him the Vice-Chancellorship. Hitler of course refused, arguing that he would not hold any post other than that the Chancellorship.

With the intention of dividing, confronting and weakening the Nationalsocialist movement, Kurt von Schleicher contacted Gregor Strasser and met with him on December 4, 1932. He also negotiated with Paul von Hindenburg. In addition, his office informed the press that the Reich's President intended to appoint Gregor Strasser as Vice-Chancellor. In addition to some ministerial chairs they should be reserved for other Strasserists. A flat hoax!

While Hitler's refusal to accept the Vice-Chancellorship was supported by most of the NSDAP leaders, including Rudolf Hess, Wilhelm Frick, Joseph Goebbels, Heinrich Himmler, and Hermann Göring. Gregor Strasser followed a more inconsistent line and was willing to accept the Vice-Chancellorship and collaboration with the Weimar system. The fact of accepting the offer of the reactionary, bourgeois and parliamentary right to form a government with them in order to prevent the rise of his own party to power obviously contradicted Strasser's hypocritical claim to be more revolutionary than Hitler and to accuse the Führer to be too "moderate" and "reactionary".

Two days after Hitler learned more about Gregor Strasser's betrayal, he confronted him and Strasser resigned from all his positions within the NSDAP (although I understand he still remained in the party) because Hitler forbade him to accept the Vice-Chancellorship.

And as we all know, the Strasser brothers participated alongside Ernst Röhm and great part of the SA leadership in an attempt to overthrow Hitler in 1934, the Röhm-Putsch.

During the so-called "Night of the Long Knives", Gregor Strasser was arrested by the Gestapo in Berlin and later executed by Hitler's personal orders on June 30, 1934. His brother Otto Strasser managed to escape and went into exile in Czechoslovakia, where he remained until 1941 when he moved to Canada. In Canadian exile he was known as "the prisoner of Ottawa". From exile Otto Strasser became a fanatical propagandist against the Third Reich, to the point that his old friend and comrade from the left-wing faction of the NSDAP, the Reich Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels, declared him a public enemy of Germany for his continued writings against Adolf Hitler and his policies. After World War II he returned to Germany, living until his death in his city Munich. Since his return to Germany he continued to promote and militate in the movements related to the Strasserism, where the Deutsch-Soziale Union stands out, where he was honorary president. Otto Strasser died on August 27, 1974.

Having said all this, what do you think about it? Do you think that the Strasser brothers were infiltrated communists in order to destroy the NSDAP from within or they were honest Nationalsocialists who really thought that Hitler was a "reactionary" that was "liberalizing" the NSDAP and therefore believed that by going against his authority they were doing (in their opinion) the right thing? To me, the fact that Gregor Strasser agreed with the liberal, aristocratic and parliamentary government of Weimar to try to prevent the arrival of Adolf Hitler to power, knowing that Kurt von Schleicher's objective with this political maneuver was to confront the Nationalsocialists with each other and eventually destroying the NSDAP, adding the praise of the Strasserists to the Soviet economic system and their occasional collaboration with the communist KPD militias (no wonder that the Strasser brothers are highly revered among the Nazbols), makes me think that the Strasser brothers indeed they could have been a Marxist fifth column to destroy Nationalsocialism from within. But on the other hand, despite what I just said, there is no proof (and if there is, I have no knowledge about it, if anyone has information about it, let me know, I would appreciate it) that the Strasser brothers have received orders or funding from the Soviet Union, Kurt von Schleicher or the KPD. I'm quite confused, what do you guys think about it? Thanks in advance.

[Kretschmer]

Whether or not the Strasser Brothers were in cahoots with the Soviet Union, the Black Front's ideological basis of a supposedly "revolutionary" version of National Socialism was most certainly not compatible with the mission set out by Anton Drexler's German Workers' Party (DAP) and later the NSDAP.

The original DAP was ideologically a German counterpart to Mussolini's PNF in most respects, and it was thereafter the Hitlerites who continued the existence of National Socialism as a branch of Fascism and implemented the same ideas that had been first set out by the DAP.

When boiling down Hitler's legitimate National Socialism to the most basic level, it is once again a branch of Fascism, (just like Falangism, Classical Fascism, Metaxism, National Radicalism, Rexism, Legionnairism, and debatably Salazarism) combining a fundamentally nationalist and authoritarian worldview with the economic principles of class collaboration, maximum self-sufficiency, and independence from international financial tyranny.

On the other hand, when one does the same with Strasserism, it is in effect a milder precursor to Juche blended together in contradictory fashion with elements of Libertarianism and Fascism at certain points. The following is Otto Strasser's definitive position on private property, in his own words:

The transformation of economic policy by the establishment of autarchy, a State monopoly on foreign trade, and a currency of our own --
subsumed under the comprehensive term of a "planned economy," is today regarded as necessary by numerous groups in Germany and elsewhere in Europe. But this theoretical recognition of "planned economy" will remain sterile so long as these groups still to the prevailing capitalist economic law which decrees that "private property is sacred." With the utmost possible emphasis, therefore, the conservative revolutionist must at this point insist upon (as indispensable preliminary to a genuine and effective planned economy) the abrogation of the prevailing economic law of private property.

Otto Strasser, Germany Tomorrow (Jonathan Cape Publishing, 1940), Pp. 142 - 143

It is of course worth noting that Otto dedicates an entire section of Chapter 2 of the same book to criticizing Hitler's "anti-Semitism," demanding equal rights be secured for Jews. He also voices his opposition to Hitler's "conquest" of Austria and the Munich Agreement, insisting that the Sudetenland and Austria decide their own fate through plebiscite.

Even his more "anti-Semitic" brother Gregor only held such positions because of the over-representation of Jews within the capitalist class / bourgeoise, unlike Hitler's position that Jewry threatened Europe both spiritually and materially. While I have no proof for collaboration between the Strasser Brothers and the Soviet Union prior to the Second World War, such collaboration would not surprise me at all.

[Otium]

I hate to say it Kretschmer, but I have to disagree with most of what you've said.

Nationalsocialism and Fascism are not the same thing.

"National Socialism" as it's translated into English from the German 'Nationalsozialismus' is itself an aberration that has played a part in misunderstanding "National Socialism" as simply two ideas mashed together, "Nationalism" and "Socialism". The translation of the German term as "National Socialism" in English doesn't capture the true meaning of the word conveyed in the German - as something whole and complete. To understand the worldview you must understand "National Socialism" not as two separate ideas merged together, but as one single idea, two sides of the same coin as 'Nationalsocialism'. The whole is greater than its parts; and Nationalsocialism is not merely a sum of parts as those who willingly misinterpret it or those who genuinely misunderstand it, make the mistake of thinking. As I believe you have Kretschmer.

Though I hope you do not think I am attacking you in this post, I simply wish to explain what I'm saying.

Hitler himself defined Nationalsocialism as I have above. To him, Nationalism and Socialism were the same thing, two sides of the same coin - inseparable of natures laws:

The 'changing around of these two terms "socialism" and "nationalism"' meant

...in reality a coming together of both. Because what then occurs, socialism becomes nationalism, nationalism socialism. They are both one, socialism and nationalism. They are the greatest fighters for their own people, are the greatest fighters in the fight for existence here on earth, and with this they are no longer battle cries against each other, but a battle cry which shapes its life according to this motto: We do not recognize pride of estate, just as little as pride of class. We know only one pride, namely to be the servants of a people.

Rainer Zitelmann, Hitler: The Policies of Seduction (London House, 1999), Pp. 411-412

It is absolutely clear that Hitler unequivocally did not just use conventional terms, and justify them with equally conventional policies. He revolutionised these terms and redefined them.

If we burden the term 'socialism' with all of the dogma which social democracy and the Communist party have put into the term, and if we burden the term 'nationalism' with all of the dogma which the bourgeois parties have put into it, then the terms actually are absolutely divisive. But that is not necessary and does not lie in the terms themselves. I do not have to link the term 'socialism' to any ideas the Social Democratic Party has put into it, and I do not need to identify the term 'nationalism' with opinions of the present bourgeois parties. On the contrary, these terms should be cleansed of foreign additives.

Ibid., p. 413

In order to be a Socialist, you have to put your race, nation and community first before anything else. That is Socialism:

The national concept, said Hitler in a speech on 29 January 1923 'is identical for us Germans with the socialist one. The more fanatically national we are, the more we must take the welfare of the national community to heart, that means the more fanatically socialist we become.' The higher term for Hitler is 'nation'. For Hitler, socialism was the ruthless pursuit of the interests of the nation domestically according to the principles 'common good ahead of egoism, 'nationalism' was the ruthless pursuit of the interests of the nation abroad.

As we have seen in the portrayal of Hitler's position on the middle class, he sharply rejected bourgeois nationalism because it identified egotistic class and profit interests with the interests of the nation. This made the bourgeois definition of nationalism incompatible with socialism:

But what is the meaning of this term? What does nationalism mean? . . . If I wish to be national, this means that I want to serve this people, and if I want to serve a people, this can only mean that I want to contribute to this nation surviving, that it can preserve its existence, that it earns its daily bread, and that it can continue to develop, physically and spiritually. But if I want to be national in this sense, then I must understand that the future of our German nation will only develop favourably if we lead a people which is healthy into this future.

Ibid., p. 411

For Nationalsocialism, an authoritarian system was a means to an end, and so was the NSDAP itself, as the party was nothing more than a catalyst to seize power for the German people under the Democratic tyranny enforced upon them. Hitler had on one occasion that we know of, said that the party was to dissolve in time. He said this to Karl Wilhelm Krause (See: https://archive.org/details/HitlersShadow). In fact, this is also stated in the program of the NSDAP:

the National Socialist Party will dissolve automatically; for National Socialism will then be the entire life of the whole German Nation.

Translated by E.T.S. Dugdale., The Programme of the NSDAP and its General Conceptions (Frz. Eher Nachf., Munich, 1932), Pp. 33

This is because Nationalsocialism strives towards an "organic state" in which the life of the people is expressed in such a way as to be self-perpetuating. The racial essence of the people is to form a state that purely represents this, meaning there can be no parties, no elections, no ideologies, just Germans. That was the end goal of National Socialism. I explain this more in an article here: http://redpillaction.subvert.pw/?p=1581. This is utterly at odds with Fascism that is expressly authoritarian because it is a state structure that lacks perennialism and is mostly based on temporal considerations, government policy, economic policies etc.

The British Nationalsocialist Colin Jordan put it well:

National Socialism, properly understood, has never been a mere combination of conventional socialism spiced with nationalism, and thus yet another merely materialist doctrine.

Colin Jordan, National Socialism: Vanguard of the Future (Historical Review Press, 2011), Pp. 27

To help explain what I mean, I will use an example of one of your other points. International independence from financial tyranny. This is a good thing, I cannot deny, nor would I try to. But this isn't National Socialism. There was a time when international finance did not exist, so to define an ideology as striving to be free of it, could only have come into being once it was possible to be enslaved by an international banking and financial system in the first place. An ideology where you revolt against this system couldn't exist before the system it revolted against was created. In a sense, this might be considered part of the reactionary nature of Fascism; in its economic doctrine at least.

Maximum self sufficiency I would agree is certainly Nationalsocialist. Throughout all of history, man and his tribes has sought to be interdependent and self sufficient. You cannot put your survival in the hands of anyone else, otherwise when it comes crashing down, it's dominos.

You say "class collaboration" but this is iffy - class really doesn't exist, Hitler had spoken about this many times. Where class was to be overcome by racial solidarity by integrating all members of the nation into their basic purpose, regardless of what they were meant to do. It doesn't matter if you're a teacher or a janitor, that service only a specific person can do is a service for your people and is valuable in its own right. Class struggle is prominent in both Communism and Capitalism purely because it seeks to fracture the people and pit them against each other, not bind them together for any purpose. Both of these are economic ideologies that seek to selfishly benefit individuals among a people. If Fascism as you say, embraces the ideology of class, then this is just another reason not to associate it with Nationalsocialism.

This brings me back to the choice of teachers. Whether Nordic or Germanic, south German, Romance, or Slavic does not, therefore, matter in itself. Of course, an East Frisian will rarely be competent to teach French. Someone from Baden or Hesse or the Rhineland is probably more suited to that subject. On the other hand, a north German will generally be a better English teacher, and someone who comes from the east may well be better suited to teach Russian. This, I can also imagine that a man who grew up in the south and west–that is, more solidly on the historical soil of our German culture–is a more likely candidate for the teaching of cultural history than is the son of an East Prussian peasant. “But that requires no law or special state regulation. These things work themselves out all by themselves. For everyone will study only that subject that is congenial to him and for which he has innate ability.

Adolf Hitler - Quoted in: Otto Wagener, Memoirs of a Confidant (Yale University Press, 1985), Pp. 279

Race is another important aspect. The importance of race in Hitler's German Nationalsocialism is undisputed - however in many of these other groups you cite, the topic is more than contentious. To minimize race which is yet another perennial factor essential to Nationalsocialism is again another distinction between what can be termed "Fascism" and Nationalsocialism. In fact, Codreanu made this distinction, yet was perhaps one of the only other men in Europe at the time who understood that all aspects of state, race, and spirit were important:

'In my opinion, in the Fascist movement it is the state element that prevails, coinciding with organised force. What finds expression here is the shaping power of ancient Rome, that master of law and political organisation, the purest heirs to which are the Italians. National Socialism emphasises what is connected to vital forces: race, racial instinct, and the ethical and national element. The Romanian Legionary movement instead chiefly stresses what in a living organism corresponds to the soul: the spiritual religious aspect. This is the reason for the distinctive character of each national movement, although ultimately all three elements are taken into account, and none is overlooked.'

Corneliu Zelea Codreanu, quoted from an interview with Julius Evola, 22nd March 1938.
See: The Prison Notes (Carribean Thule Publishing, 2020), Pp. 80

Codreanu is correct, and his legionary movement, was probably the only other movement in Europe that could be considered Nationalsocialist, because he recognised the importance of race. To be fair the Italians did too to an extent, but it's argued whether this was at the prodding of Germany or not.

The point is this: What's Nationalsocialist is defined by the perennial reality of life itself - hence Hitler's constant references to nature in Mein Kampf - which gives Nationalsocialism the ability to adopt social policies with nature in in mind, not merely as contemporaneous policies that are subject to the whims of time like Fascism, Communism, or Capitalism that can largely be considered "ideology" not 'Worldview'.

For example, race has always been important in the world. Whether each race knew of the existence of others is irrelevant. Racial groups have always competed and struggled against other racial groups/tribes; race is the genetic clustering of a group of people, and people throughout history have defended their groups without knowing anything about genetics. This is something you cannot unlearn, or avoid, even those who lack a racial consciousness, still have a very strong group consciousness. If you cannot "pick up" your ideology and place it down in any other time and place, then perhaps it only has contemporary relevance and is unlikely to be a long term solution. Nationalsocialism is most definitely a long term solution that aims not to get bogged down in current systems that would only hinder the ascension of the racial essence of its people.

All of the aspects you described Kretschmer are a aims of policies, not the 'worldview' itself. It's as if you're putting a puzzle together but are missing many essential pieces. What you ought to seek is the reason behind implementing such policies in the first place - not defining a political group through the actions is takes, or the policies it endorses, but the reasons it takes those policies.

Some ideologies just pursue policies for the sake of it, because they have nothing else to substantiate their goals, and in Democracies there is never a goal, it is always a rat race to see who comes out on top and can implement a few of their policies. The entire concept of the 'Worldview' has been swept away by these massive institutions of competing capital and ideological friction that is purely the result of materialist thinking. Fascism unfortunately seems to fall victim to that system, hence why you have some people think Fascism and "National Socialism" is a "Third Position".

Anyway, anymore I think I wanted to say about this has left my mind. I'll leave this here for right now.

---------------------------------

Otto Strasser must've been living under a rock, or had his ears plugged with heavy anti-Nazi ear plugs. For if he could hear, then he would know that Austria and the Sudetenland were subject to fair plebiscites in which the overwhelming majority voted for the re-incorporation into the German Reich. If he wanted to complain about plebiscites, perhaps he should've seen what his pal Schuschnigg was up to when he decided to rig his own plebiscite in fear of a "Nazi Invasion". As if a force intending to invade would care about your plebiscite. Clearly the dude had some screws loose. For details regarding the Anschluss, see this thread: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=12836&p=99138

Gregor was killed on the Night of the Long Knives. He had prior to this left the party and promised to renounce politics. But Colin Jordan in his excellent article discuss the possibility that he was in collaboration with forces who were trying to overthrow the National Socialists. Otto was always a Marxist, a 'White Jew" Hitler called him. Rightly so. For Jordans article see: https://archive.org/details/jordannationalsocialismvanguardofthefuture2011/mode/2up Chapter 4. The Enemy Within. Klas Land, founder of the 'Nordic Resistance Movement' also wrote a similar article in regards to Strasserism: https://nordicresistancemovement.org/strasserism-the-enemy-within/ Archive: https://archive.vn/dhr6M

Hope this helps.

[Kretschmer]

You raise many good points in your post, HMS, and fortunately, I do not view any of your criticisms as personal attack. My reason for describing Nationalsocialism as one of Fascism's many different branches rests in its basic social and economic attitudes towards the means by which the nation should guide its own destiny.

Though it can be very difficult to broadly define the true meaning of Fascism, as every variant of it is adapted to meet the circumstances of an individual nation or country, every movement in subscription to Fascism, whether as a worldview or ideology outside of Nationalsocialism, is characteristically in favor of authoritarian governance (whether it be the end or a means to an end) and nationalist foreign and domestic policy, while simultaneously harboring opposition for the materialistic and internationalist constructs that are Capitalism and Marxism.

Nationalsocialism indisputably diverts itself in many ways from other forms of Fascism, but it nonetheless shares all three of these characteristics which form the universal traits of Fascism. Again, my definition of Fascism overall is quite a broad one and would even include several ideologies that historically considered themselves apart from Fascism (such as Salazarism), and you are of course welcome to disagree. To make note of several other things, I will refer to some of your points and offer accompanying commentary and criticism:

This is because Nationalsocialism strives towards an "organic state" in which the life of the people is expressed in such a way as to be self-perpetuating. The racial essence of the people is to form a state that purely represents this, meaning there can be no parties, no elections, no ideologies, just Germans. That was the end goal of National Socialism. I explain this more in an article here: http://redpillaction.subvert.pw/?p=1581. This is utterly at odds with Fascism that is expressly authoritarian because it is a state structure that lacks perennialism and is mostly based on temporal considerations, government policy, economic policies etc.

Even when excluding Nationalsocialism from the family tree of Fascist ideologies, not every form of Fascism holds the view that the Party or that the concept of ideology itself should maintain a foremost precedence in the governance of the nation on a permanent basis. Easily the most prominent example outside of Nationalsocialism is Metaxism, which condemned party politics, elections, and ideologies completely, and where the Freethinkers' Party was used as nothing more than a means to an end, to gain Ioannis Metaxas the support required to secure power in Greece.

You say "class collaboration" but this is iffy - class really doesn't exist, Hitler had spoken about this many times. Where class was to be overcome by racial solidarity by integrating all members of the nation into their basic purpose, regardless of what they were meant to do. It doesn't matter if you're a teacher or a janitor, that service only a specific person can do is a service for your people and is valuable in its own right. Class struggle is prominent in both Communism and Capitalism purely because it seeks to fracture the people and pit them against each other, not bind them together for any purpose. Both of these are economic ideologies that seek to selfishly benefit individuals among a people. If Fascism as you say, embraces the ideology of class, then this is just another reason not to associate it with Nationalsocialism.

The doctrine of "class collaboration" is precisely what you describe, and within the economic philosophies of Fascist Corporatism and National Syndicalism, the use of the word "class" simply refers to the differing conditions in wealth between the employee and employer. Both economic systems aim to discard the Capitalist and Marxist manipulation of differences in wealth as justifications for repression of the other class, instead advocating for the unification of the employee and employer in their respective duties in the spiritual and worldly favor of the nation. Neither are quite the same in practice as the economic part of Nationalsocialism, but their basic principles and end goals are identical.

Race is another important aspect. The importance of race in Hitler's German Nationalsocialism is undisputed - however in many of these other groups you cite, the topic is more than contentious. To minimize race which is yet another perennial factor essential to Nationalsocialism is again another distinction between what can be termed "Fascism" and Nationalsocialism.

While it is true that Fascism has no concrete position on race, this is largely because the circumstances of race can greatly vary between different countries, with some forms of Fascism proper emphasizing race to a much higher degree than others. In the majority of Fascist and even self-declared Nationalsocialist parties that operated in Latin America, for example, a more civic nationalist approach in regards to race was taken, while by contrast, most Fascist parties in Europe emphasized ethnic nationalism, with some exceptions. Even Mussolini prior to 1938 placed significant importance upon what he deemed the Italian Race and its unique and distinguishing quality of Romanità, roughly translated as "Roman-ness."

He was also in favor of many imperial pursuits, both territorial or economic, that were to have benefited ethnic Italians first and foremost. One must also consider that Hitler placed as great of an emphasis on caring for and protecting the German people as he did due to what "German" Jewry had demonstrated before his very eyes, involving the blatant exploitation, subversion, and moral destruction of Germany for years upon years. Mussolini arrived into office much too early for "Italian" Jewry to do the same to Italy during this period of time, while the sizeable ethnic minorities of Germans, Frenchmen, Greeks, Croats, and Slovenes did not wield any amount of influence over the country that would have classified them as a threat to ethnic Italian dominance in the view of the National Fascist Party.

was probably the only other movement in Europe that could be considered Nationalsocialist,

And finally, while a minor detail, this is nonetheless factually incorrect. There were many Nationalsocialist parties in Europe modelled after the NSDAP that shared Hitler's views on race during the 1930's, 1940's, and even the early 1950's, including but not limited to the NSB in the Netherlands, the NSAP in Sweden, the DNSAP in Denmark, the Nasjonal Samling in Norway, and the Arrow Cross Party in Hungary, among others.

Now, having composed my reply, I hope that I have managed to clarify some of my positions on the topic of Nationalsocialism and its relationship (or lack thereof) with Fascism, and perhaps even inform you. Ultimately, however, even if you still disagree with my points, you are still by far one of the most valuable people within the CODOH Forums in exposing the Big Lie and the elements that surround it, which will be one of the most important steps in securing the continued existence of our kindred, and some day, of a Free Evropa.

[Otium]

You raise many good points in your post, HMS, and fortunately, I do not view any of your criticisms as personal attack. My reason for describing Nationalsocialism as one of Fascism's many different branches rests in its basic social and economic attitudes towards the means by which the nation should guide its own destiny. [...] Though it can be very difficult to broadly define the true meaning of Fascism, as every variant of it is adapted to meet the circumstances of an individual nation or country, every movement in subscription to Fascism, whether as a worldview or ideology outside of Nationalsocialism, is characteristically in favor of authoritarian governance (whether it be the end or a means to an end) and nationalist foreign and domestic policy, while simultaneously harboring opposition for the materialistic and internationalist constructs that are Capitalism and Marxism.

Nationalsocialism indisputably diverts itself in many ways from other forms of Fascism, but it nonetheless shares all three of these characteristics which form the universal traits of Fascism. Again, my definition of Fascism overall is quite a broad one and would even include several ideologies that historically considered themselves apart from Fascism (such as Salazarism)

I pretty much agree with this, but just think the shoe and been placed on the wrong foot. The "basic social and economic attitudes towards the means by which the nation should guide its own destiny" can result in many policies which are similar in many countries, if not entirely the same. This is fine, but should be seen as a result of striving to achieve a larger goal for the people of that nation.

It seems to me that "Fascism" is the term being used here as the genesis of political ideas that can be applied internationally, rather than continuous, long standing, unalterable truths which is what I deem 'Nationalsocialism' to represent, as well as also being an international force for each race to give rise to its own spirit, in its own way, under its own circumstances. What I'm saying is that Nationalsocialism is always going to be the 'original' idea, the representation of vital forces we cannot change by politics or any other means of state organisation. While Fascism is really just about that state organisation. It would be best to identify whether these movements around the world are 'Nationalsocialist' rather than 'Fascist'. because I would agree that they're already Fascist, but what's important is that they be Nationalsocialist.

I suppose that I do not disagree with you that the movements you listed are Fascist, or can be loosely termed Fascism in a political sense. Hitler's Germany was simply much more than generic Fascism, it was timeless, and it spoke to truths about human nature as a whole that Fascism in other countries never did. To lump Hitler and his German movement into the same category isn't doing them enough justice whatsoever.

It's also true that many movements of the past could exhibit "Fascist" traits in the economic and political sphere, only because they were being guided by Nationalsocialism and the vital forces that dwelled deep within their people that sought to protect itself, and give rise to its essence in an overtly political manner.

Even when excluding Nationalsocialism from the family tree of Fascist ideologies, not every form of Fascism holds the view that the Party or that the concept of ideology itself should maintain a foremost precedence in the governance of the nation on a permanent basis. Easily the most prominent example outside of Nationalsocialism is Metaxism, which condemned party politics, elections, and ideologies completely, and where the Freethinkers' Party was used as nothing more than a means to an end, to gain Ioannis Metaxas the support required to secure power in Greece.

Sure. What I would say about this situation is that the Metaxism movement was in reality, underneath the surface, appealing to the Nationalsocialism among their people that they perhaps didn't know existed. That they were tapping into something and going in that direction, which they just didn't formulate as explicitly as Hitler was able to do.

It should also be said that many colloquially leftist ideologies condemn party politics, elections and perhaps not ideologies. Marxists, although they cannot help arguing intensely among themselves because their ideas are all theoretical and thus have no basis in reality, or human nature, nevertheless adopted a position against party politics and elections. The difference being that they did this to maintain the supremacy of their ideology, which was designed to be universal and all-encompassing, but failed in this regard spectacularly because they refused to see human beings as groups who differ immensely in multiple different ways. Their rejection of the parliamentary system was then not done in the aim of giving rise to the racial essence of the Russian people, but to subjugating them to Jewish conceptions of environmental egalitarianism. Which is definitely not Nationalsocialist!

The doctrine of "class collaboration" is precisely what you describe, and within the economic philosophies of Fascist Corporatism and National Syndicalism, the use of the word "class" simply refers to the differing conditions in wealth between the employee and employer. Both economic systems aim to discard the Capitalist and Marxist manipulation of differences in wealth as justifications for repression of the other class, instead advocating for the unification of the employee and employer in their respective duties in the spiritual and worldly favor of the nation. Neither are quite the same in practice as the economic part of Nationalsocialism, but their basic principles and end goals are identical.

I would definitely agree with this in principle if it is indeed the way you describe it here. But again, I would say that the Nationalsocialist conception of economic systems, was to have no economic "system" at all beyond whatever would ensure the survival of the people, and not put them in jeopardy. Hitler's economic system still boggles the mind of many who try and put him into a box, which you cannot do.

Hitler said:

I do not believe in any regime which is not anchored in the Volk itself. I do not believe in an economic regime. One cannot build a house from the top, one must begin at the bottom. The foundations of the State are not the Government, but rather the Volk.

Speech on October 12, 1932

--------------------

This Reich shall belong neither to a certain class, nor to a certain rank: it shall be the sole property of the German Volk. ... What I summoned to life during this time does not claim to be an end in itself. Nothing is or ever will be immortal. What remains for us is the body of flesh and blood called the German Volk. The Party, the State, the Wehrmacht, and the economy are all institutions and functions which are valuable only as being a means to an end. In the eyes of history, they will be judged on the basis of the services they performed toward this goal.

Yet their goal is always the Volk. They are short-lived phenomena compared to those which alone are everlasting. To serve these latter with all my might has been and continues to be my life's good fortune.

Speech on February 20, 1938

--------------------

We have one single doctrine which is that in economic life there is no place for doctrine.

In an interview with Madame Titayna on January 26, 1936

The problem with Fascism, is that it defines itself too much on economic policy, while Nationalsocialism viewed economic policy with much less reverence. As a means to an end, rather like the idea of the party, and didn't create some economic doctrine with which to define themselves as it would only box them in, rather than allow dynamic policy to be implemented.

While it is true that Fascism has no concrete position on race, this is largely because the circumstances of race can greatly vary between different countries, with some forms of Fascism proper emphasizing race to a much higher degree than others. In the majority of Fascist and even self-declared Nationalsocialist parties that operated in Latin America, for example, a more civic nationalist approach in regards to race was taken, while by contrast, most Fascist parties in Europe emphasized ethnic nationalism, with some exceptions. Even Mussolini prior to 1938 placed significant importance upon what he deemed the Italian Race and its unique and distinguishing quality of Romanità, roughly translated as "Roman-ness."

He was also in favor of many imperial pursuits, both territorial or economic, that were to have benefited ethnic Italians first and foremost. One must also consider that Hitler placed as great of an emphasis on caring for and protecting the German people as he did due to what "German" Jewry had demonstrated before his very eyes, involving the blatant exploitation, subversion, and moral destruction of Germany for years upon years. Mussolini arrived into office much too early for "Italian" Jewry to do the same to Italy during this period of time, while the sizeable ethnic minorities of Germans, Frenchmen, Greeks, Croats, and Slovenes did not wield any amount of influence over the country that would have classified them as a threat to ethnic Italian dominance in the view of the National Fascist Party.

All of this is true. At least historically. However, the most important difference between Nationalsocialism and Fascism, and why Nationalsocialism is not Fascism is due to this question alone. All of those other groups who adopted a Fascist creed excluding race, or just deemphasising race are not and can never be Nationalsocialist. This is why Fascism is much less valuable as a political ideology, and should not be adopted by anybody except in an attempt to revitalise the spirit of the race in ones own people, by implementing policies that are conducive to that outcome as Hitler described above. The problem with Fascism, is as Hitler said, it allows itself to be separate from the "Volk", this is unacceptable, because the people are the foundation of life, and of the state itself. All else should serve the interests of the people, and if it does not, needs to be thrown away. Hence why these Latin American hobbyists are not 'Nationalsocialists', they're misinformed "National Socialists", subscribing more to the caricature described by Colin Jordan.

In regards to the bit you wrote about Italian Fascism, imperialism, and Jewry I have no complaints. All of that is true. Or at least I find no reason to think otherwise, let alone disagree with it.

And finally, while a minor detail, this is nonetheless factually incorrect. There were many Nationalsocialist parties in Europe modelled after the NSDAP that shared Hitler's views on race during the 1930's, 1940's, and even the early 1950's, including but not limited to the NSB in the Netherlands, the NSAP in Sweden, the DNSAP in Denmark, the Nasjonal Samling in Norway, and the Arrow Cross Party in Hungary, among others.

It is not factually incorrect. If you considered those Latin American "National Socialist" groups to be a true representation of what it actually is to be a Nationalsocialist then you're only taking their word for it, not actually applying any understanding to whether natures vital forces was even considered in the creation of those crass imitations.

You are correct however, I should've specified by saying "at the time" before Codreanus assassination in 1938. Those other movements are indeed Nationalsocialist, but undeniably grew in membership and prominence thanks to the German Nationalsocialists advance to liberate Europe from the shackles of Marxism and Liberal Democracy during the Second World War. They may have existed before the war itself, but I only did not mention them because they are quite easy to forget as they didn't produce any leadership personalities on par with those of Hitler, Codreanu, or even Mussolini that I'm aware of (the only one who comes close in my mind is Knut Hamsun, although I believe it was his wife who had more contact with the German Nationalsocialists, reading from his work 'Growth of the Soil'). For this reason, albeit a rather superficial one, they utterly slipped my mind, because I so heavily associate them with the German occupation forces. If this is an error more so on my part, then I happily concede to you that I was mistaken on that.

Now, having composed my reply, I hope that I have managed to clarify some of my positions on the topic of Nationalsocialism and its relationship (or lack thereof) with Fascism, and perhaps even inform you. Ultimately, however, even if you still disagree with my points, you are still by far one of the most valuable people within the CODOH Forums in exposing the Big Lie and the elements that surround it, which will be one of the most important steps in securing the continued existence of our kindred, and some day, of a Free Evropa.

Thank you very much, I think you were right about everything regarding the historical facts, I only took some issues with the interpretation. At the end of the day I am willing to compromise as our goal, I think we'd both agree, is the same regardless of some interpretations about the worldview.

Reading the works composed from Ironmarch for example, they do essentially make the claim that Fascism and Nationalsocialism is the same thing, because it comprises much of the same elements that contribute to the worldview. While I don't entirely agree, and would personally not consider them to be the same for tactical reasons, I would only disagree on that point and not that what can be called "Fascism" hasn't been able to contribute some, if not much to the overall worldview.

[Kretschmer]

HMSendeavour wrote:

It is not factually incorrect. If you considered those Latin American "National Socialist" groups to be a true representation of what it actually is to be a Nationalsocialist then you're only taking their word for it, not actually applying any understanding to whether natures vital forces was even considered in the creation of those crass imitations.

You are correct however, I should've specified by saying "at the time" before Codreanus assassination in 1938. Those other movements are indeed Nationalsocialist, but undeniably grew in membership and prominence thanks to the German Nationalsocialists advance to liberate Europe from the shackles of Marxism and Liberal Democracy during the Second World War. They may have existed before the war itself, but I only did not mention them because they are quite easy to forget as they didn't produce any leadership personalities on par with those of Hitler, Codreanu, or even Mussolini that I'm aware of (the only one who comes close in my mind is Knut Hamsun, although I believe it was his wife who had more contact with the German Nationalsocialists, reading from his work 'Growth of the Soil'). For this reason, albeit a rather superficial one, they utterly slipped my mind, because I so heavily associate them with the German occupation forces. If this is an error more so on my part, then I happily concede to you that I was mistaken on that.

In this one instance throughout your reply, I think you're misunderstanding some what I wrote in relation to these other Nationalsocialist movements. I do not consider those Latin American "National Socialist" parties to be Nationalsocialist, hence why I referred to them as "self-declared" Nationalsocialists. This is why I excluded them in my brief list, as well as the Greek National Socialist Party, the Bulgarian National Socialist Party, and several others.

The NSB, DNSAP, NSAP, and Nasjonal Samling all shared Hitler's views on race however, (the Arrow Cross did not; this was a mistake on my part) and could therefore be considered as actual Nationalsocialists. You are certainly correct though that Germany's liberation of Europe did result in much of these parties' popularity. Prior to the war, the NSB, the largest of these parties in absolute numbers, consisted of just 32,000 members, growing to over 100,000 during the occupation of the Netherlands.

[sfivdf21]

Whether or not the Strasser Brothers were in cahoots with the Soviet Union, the Black Front's ideological basis of a supposedly "revolutionary" version of National Socialism was most certainly not compatible with the mission set out by Anton Drexler's German Workers' Party (DAP) and later the NSDAP.

The original DAP was ideologically a German counterpart to Mussolini's PNF in most respects, and it was thereafter the Hitlerites who continued the existence of National Socialism as a branch of Fascism and implemented the same ideas that had been first set out by the DAP.

When boiling down Hitler's legitimate National Socialism to the most basic level, it is once again a branch of Fascism, (just like Falangism, Classical Fascism, Metaxism, National Radicalism, Rexism, Legionnairism, and debatably Salazarism) combining a fundamentally nationalist and authoritarian worldview with the economic principles of class collaboration, maximum self-sufficiency, and independence from international financial tyranny.

On the other hand, when one does the same with Strasserism, it is in effect a milder precursor to Juche blended together in contradictory fashion with elements of Libertarianism and Fascism at certain points. The following is Otto Strasser's definitive position on private property, in his own words:

The transformation of economic policy by the establishment of autarchy, a State monopoly on foreign trade, and a currency of our own --
subsumed under the comprehensive term of a "planned economy," is today regarded as necessary by numerous groups in Germany and elsewhere in Europe. But this theoretical recognition of "planned economy" will remain sterile so long as these groups still to the prevailing capitalist economic law which decrees that "private property is sacred." With the utmost possible emphasis, therefore, the conservative revolutionist must at this point insist upon (as indispensable preliminary to a genuine and effective planned economy) the abrogation of the prevailing economic law of private property.

Otto Strasser, Germany Tomorrow (Jonathan Cape Publishing, 1940), Pp. 142 - 143

It is of course worth noting that Otto dedicates an entire section of Chapter 2 of the same book to criticizing Hitler's "anti-Semitism," demanding equal rights be secured for Jews. He also voices his opposition to Hitler's "conquest" of Austria and the Munich Agreement, insisting that the Sudetenland and Austria decide their own fate through plebiscite.

Even his more "anti-Semitic" brother Gregor only held such positions because of the over-representation of Jews within the capitalist class / bourgeoise, unlike Hitler's position that Jewry threatened Europe both spiritually and materially. While I have no proof for collaboration between the Strasser Brothers and the Soviet Union prior to the Second World War, such collaboration would not surprise me at all.

I'm agree with you. I would also not be surprised if the suspicions and accusations that many Nationalsocialists (including Adolf Hitler himself of course) leveled against the Strasserists, accusing them of being a Communist fifth column to destroy from within and destabilize the NSDAP were true.

Otto Strasser, as a good Philo-Marxist, considers that the fact of respecting the private property (a fundamental principle in the Fascist and Nationalsocialist doctrines) is "Capitalist" (in this case accusing Hitler and the orthodox Nationalsocialists of being "Capitalists"), that same absurd verbiage what the Communists say. As much as Marxists, Strasserists, Anarchists and Nazbols do not want to understand it, respecting private property has nothing to do with Capitalism, fighting for the rights of workers is not only freeing them from being under the yoke of exploiters and Capitalists without scruples, but also to guarantee them a good quality of life and respect their private properties. And that is exactly what rulers like Benito Mussolini in Italy, Adolf Hitler in Germany or Francisco Franco in Spain did.

The fact that Liberals and Capitalists always talk about private property does not mean that they really defend it, they only defend their own. As for the economic system defended by Fascism and Nationalsocialism, they differ fundamentally from both the Capitalist/Liberal and the Communist models. The capitalist system is based on what liberals call "free market", that is, bankers, tycoons and big companies can do with their property what they want to prosper and no matter if what they do tu prosper can harm others and if that means maintaining an unfair system that has millions of people in misery while a few get rich, that is why liberals are so reluctant to allow the state to intervene in the economy. The Liberals (unlike the Fascists and the Nationalsocialists) put individual freedom before collective freedom, collective freedom for them is only good when it is not a problem and benefits their individual freedom.

The Marxist economic system, because it considers private property as something "unfair" and "bourgeois", promotes its total abolition and that the State take the absolute control over all properties, expropriate and administer it at their will for (according to its absurd Communist utopia) "end" the inequality (Communism, in fact, is nothing more than State Capitalism). Communists do not distinguish between an unscrupulous Capitalist Tycoon and an honest Businessman who has prospered on his own merits or a Farmer who owns his own Lands that he has created with his own hard work and effort. For the Reds, anyone who owns private properties is a "class enemy" and all their properties and businesses must be expropriated so that the State can administer ot at their will (that is why in Communist regimes there has always been and is a lot of misery and many famines, because it is impossible for any State to control each and every one of the private properties that exist in a nation, sooner or later it will collapse). The Reds believe that the fact that there are people who have their own lands, their owns businesses or their own companies is inherently "bad" and "unfair", they never stop to reflect if that businessman, landowner, farmer or merchant in question is an exploiting capitalist or a honest businessman who has created his company or business with his effort and does not harm the workers (on the contrary, an employer or a landowner needs workers and in turn the workers need a foreman to give them work, both are complementary), but communists don't make that distinction (in contrast to the Fascists and Nationalsocialists).

And in contrast to capitalism and communism, we have the economic system defended by Fascism and Nationalsocialism that promotes that the State regulates and monitors the economic life of the Nation, but that is respectful of private property. In other words, Bussinessmen, Landowners and Tycoons can do whatever they want with their property and their business as long as they do not violate the People's collective Freedom and go against their interests.

You also say that Otto Strasser criticized Adolf Hitler's anti-Semitism. With this we can get an idea of which side Otto was on (each time I learn more information, the theory that the Strasser brothers were a communist fifth column to destroy the Nationalsocialist movement from within seems more and more likely). I wonder, then why did Otto decide to join a political party in which one of its main ideological foundations was the anti-Semitism (Hitler was not the only anti-Semite in the NSDAP, EVERYONE were anti-Semites in the NSDAP)? I can't find any explanation.

---

Strasserist Propaganda Poster calling on the Nationalsocialists to ally themselves with the Communists. Note that the illustration has anti-Semitic connotations (something that Otto Strasser criticized of Adolf Hitler), however those stupid Philo-Marxist Strasserists seem to forget to mention that who financed the Bolshevism were the Capitalist Jewish bankers of Wall Street.



When he founded the Schwarze Front, Otto Strasser wrote an article denouncing the NSDAP, hypocritically saying that under the leadership of Adolf Hitler the party had "violated" the idea of ​​Nationalsocialism. He said: "Readers, Party comrades, friends! For months, we have followed the development of the NSDAP with deep concern, and with growing apprehension we have been forced. We conceive and continue to conceive of Nationalsocialism as a consciously anti-imperialist movement, whose nationalism it limits itself to preserving and safeguarding the life and growth of the German nation without any tendency to dominate other peoples and countries [isn't that what Hitler said and preached?] ". And he continued saying that: "for us, therefore, the rejection of the interventionist war pursued against [the Bolshevik] Russia by international capitalism and by Western imperialism was and is a natural demand [Here Otto gives himself away, as I said before, were precisely the capitalist Jews from the United States who financed the Soviet Bolshevism to carry out their "revolution", something he omits to mention, and yet says that the fact that Hitler seeks to crush the Jewish-Bolshevik tyranny that seeks to enslave the peoples and the nations based on an imperialist ideal is "capitalist", a contradiction in the purest Marxist style]. Therefore, we felt that the attitude of the Party leadership, which was becoming increasingly open to interventionist warfare, was contradictory with the idea and undermined the requirements of a German foreign policy [That is, for Strasser, the fact of defending the freedom of your country and your people from the threat of a criminal and foreign ideology such as Bolshevism is "contradictory" with the Nationalsocialist ideal, but instead adopting a pro-Soviet position belonging to a party whose ideology is frontally anti-Communist is not contradictory, an interesting utopia]. For us, sympathy with the struggle of the Indian people for their freedom from English rule and capitalist exploitation was and is a necessity, arising so much from the fact that any weakening of the Versailles powers is advantageous for a German liberation policy. as well as our instinctive approval for any struggle that would oppress the peoples directly against exploiting usurpers. Because it is a necessary consequence of our Nationalist idea that the right to fulfill a Völkisch character that we claim for ourselves is also due to all other peoples and nations, so the Liberal concept of the "blessings of culture" is unknown to us. We felt, therefore, that the policy of the Party leadership, which adopted a position of open support for British imperialism against the Indian liberation struggle, was as contradictory to the tangible interests of Germany as it was to the ideological presuppositions of Nationalsocialism. [That is absolutely false, Hitler never supported British imperialism, he was always very critical about it in his speeches, both before and after coming to power, and in fact he allied himself with the Indian nationalists, who fought side by side with the Germans, Italians and Japanese against British imperialism]. We conceive and continue to conceive of Nationalsocialism in all its nature as a great German movement whose domestic mission is the creation of a great völkisch Germany, a movement that rejects those individual states that have arisen for dynastic reasons. We conceive and still conceive of Nationalsocialism as a republican movement in which there is as little room for hereditary monarchy as any other privilege that is not based on the achievements of the nation". [Did Hitler ever say anything opposed thing that it? The answer is NO].

[Kretschmer]

sfivdf21 wrote:

As much as Marxists, Strasserists, Anarchists and Nazbols do not want to understand it, respecting private property has nothing to do with Capitalism, fighting for the rights of workers is not only freeing them from being under the yoke of exploiters and Capitalists without scruples, but also to guarantee them a good quality of life and respect their private properties.

You are correct. It's absolutely mind-boggling how little of a grasp on the reality of economic practice and theory that both Capitalists and Marxists have despite all the crackpot "theory" that they tirelessly read. This is no more true when asking them about the nature of private property, to which both will virtually always respond by saying that "it's a Capitalist principle."

Of course, while the concept of private and personal ownership is an ideal in Capitalism, (at least theoretically) both Marxists and Capitalists never seem to understand that while private ownership has existed for as long as mankind has roamed the earth, Capitalism's entire history spans less than two-and-a-half centuries.

The fact that Liberals and Capitalists always talk about private property does not mean that they really defend it, they only defend their own.

Or as some within the Fascist movement would put it, that the Capitalist system (revolving solely around the amoral and materialistic acquisition of human and financial capital) is principally in direct contradiction with the concept of private property altogether. There is a 1935 speech written by José Antonio Primo de Rivera (leader of the original Spanish Falange, the FE de las JONS) that while rather weak in its arguments against Marxism, nonetheless excellently breaks down the myth of "private property" being an actual virtue of Capitalism.

Just in case YouTube decides to take it down from the site, (after all, they continue attacking and banning even explicitly anti-NSDAP German folk and military music channels) I will quote the entirety of the speech and provide the video (which in some parts is not well-translated, bear in mind, hence my numerous corrections) along with it.

When we talk about Capitalism -- you already know -- we don't talk about private property. Private property is to the contrary of Capitalism; property is the direct effect of man over his things, an essential human attribute. Capitalism has been replacing this property of man for the property of capital, the technical instrument of economic domination. Capitalism, through terrible and unequal competition of big capital against the small property, has been continuously nullifying artisans, small industry, and small agriculture; has been placing all and increasingly more in the hands of large trusts, of great banking groups.

Capitalism reduces the end to the same anxious state, to the same subhuman state of man detached from all of his attributes, from all his contents of his existence, to employers and employees, to workers and owners. And this I want to be well-kept in the mind of everyone: it's time that we do not take part in the mistake of presenting workers' parties as anti-employer, or employer groups being opposites, being enemies in the fight against the workers. Employees, employers, specialists, and organizers form the total weave of production, and there is a Capitalist system with expensive credit and abusive privileges of share and bond holders that takes without working the best part of production and ruins and equally impoverishes the employer, organizer, and worker. Think of how low the European man has come to by the work of Capitalism; he no longer owns a home, no longer has patrimony, no longer has individuality, no longer has craftsman skill, and now is just among a simple number of masses.

There are leftist demagogues around who speak against the feudal property and say that workers live as slaves. Well then: we that do not cultivate any demagoguery can say that feudal property was much better than Capitalist property and that workers are worse off than slaves. The feudal property imposed upon the lord, while giving him rights, also a series of burdens. He had to attend to the defense and also provision of his subjects. The Capitalist property is cold and ruthless; in the best case, it does not charge rent, but ignores the fate of the subjects. And regarding slaves, these were a proprietary component in the lord's fortune in that he had to care that the slave did not die, for the slave cost him the same as a machine or a horse, while a worker dies and the masters of the Capitalist industry know that hundreds of thousands starving await for replacement.

A figure, in part baleful, yet tempting, the figure of Karl Marx, foresaw this spectacle we are attending, the crisis of Capitalism. Now, to everyone around here that asks us whether we are Marxists or not -- I ask you with that rigor of awareness that I express in my words: what does it mean to be anti-Marxist? Does it mean that you do not fancy the fulfillment of Marx's forecasts? Then, we all agree. Does it mean that Marx was wrong in his forecasts? Then, who is wrong are those who blame his mistakes. Marx's forecasts are being fulfilled more or less quickly, but relentlessly. We are moving towards the concentration of capital, towards the proletarianization of the masses, towards, as the end, social revolution, that will have a tough period of Communist dictatorship. And this Communist dictatorship should horrify us Europeans, Westerners, and Christians, as this truly is the terrible denial of man; this truly is the acceptance of man as an immense formless mass where individuality is lost, where the corporeal apparel of each individual and eternal soul is dissolved.

Notice that is why we are anti-Marxists; we are anti-Marxists because it [Marxism] horrifies us, as it horrifies every Westerner, every Christian, every European, employer or proletarian, being like an inferior animal in an ant hill. And it terrifies us because we are somewhat aware of it because of Capitalism. It is international and materialist as well, which is why we want neither of them; this is why we want to avoid, as we believe in his affirmation, fulfilling Karl Marx's predictions. But, we want to avoid it with resolve, unlike those "anti-Marxist" parties that are around which believe that the inexorable fulfillment of economic and historical laws is mitigated when giving workers a few nice words and sending knitted coats for their children.

If the earnest willpower is held to impede the predicted results of the Marxist forecast, there is no other way but to dismantle the contraption whose running leads relentlessly to those consequences, and to dismantle the Capitalist contraption that leads to a social revolution, to the Russian dictatorship. Dismantling, but what do you replace it with? Tomorrow, in the past, and in a hundred years, idiots will continue to tell us "You want to dismantle it and replace it with another absorbent state, nullifying the individuality." To take this consequence, would we take upon the job of pursuing the last effects of Capitalism and Marxism until the annulment of man? If we have arrived there, and if we want to avoid it, the construction of a New Order has to be started by the man, by the individual, as Westerners, as Spaniards, and as Christians.

We have to start by the man and go through its organic units, and like this we will climb from man to the family, from family to the municipality, and on the other hand, to the labor union, and it will culminate in the State, which will be the harmony of everything. In such a way, in this political, historical, and moral understanding that we use to gaze at the world, we implicitly have the economic solution; we will disassemble the Capitalist apparatus that soaks all profits, to replace it with individual property, with family property, with communal property, and with union property.

Speech given by José Antonio Primo de Rivera at Cine Madrid, May 19th, 1935

(Again, as a warning, the translation in the video is sometimes significantly flawed compared to that in the quote, but it is nonetheless valuable.)

I wonder, then why did Otto decide to join a political party in which one of its main ideological foundations was the anti-Semitism (Hitler was not the only anti-Semite in the NSDAP, EVERYONE were anti-Semites in the NSDAP)? I can't find any explanation.

Though most members of the NSDAP were anti-Jewish prior to their membership in the party, even early on, I recall seeing in a thread a while back that the position of anti-Jewry took a back seat until the Great Depression hit when the economic exploitation of the German population re-accelerated. Perhaps I am wrong, but it if true, I suppose it is a reasonable explanation to the question that you raise here.

And sfvidf21, you finally wrote:

When he founded the Schwarze Front, Otto Strasser wrote an article denouncing the NSDAP, hypocritically saying that under the leadership of Adolf Hitler the party had "violated" the idea of ​​Nationalsocialism. He said: "Readers, Party comrades, friends! For months, we have followed the development of the NSDAP with deep concern, and with growing apprehension we have been forced. We conceive and continue to conceive of Nationalsocialism as a consciously anti-imperialist movement, whose nationalism it limits itself to preserving and safeguarding the life and growth of the German nation without any tendency to dominate other peoples and countries [isn't that what Hitler said and preached?] ". And he continued saying that: "for us, therefore, the rejection of the interventionist war pursued against [the Bolshevik] Russia by international capitalism and by Western imperialism was and is a natural demand [Here Otto gives himself away, as I said before, were precisely the capitalist Jews from the United States who financed the Soviet Bolshevism to carry out their "revolution", something he omits to mention, and yet says that the fact that Hitler seeks to crush the Jewish-Bolshevik tyranny that seeks to enslave the peoples and the nations based on an imperialist ideal is "capitalist", a contradiction in the purest Marxist style]. Therefore, we felt that the attitude of the Party leadership, which was becoming increasingly open to interventionist warfare, was contradictory with the idea and undermined the requirements of a German foreign policy [That is, for Strasser, the fact of defending the freedom of your country and your people from the threat of a criminal and foreign ideology such as Bolshevism is "contradictory" with the Nationalsocialist ideal, but instead adopting a pro-Soviet position belonging to a party whose ideology is frontally anti-Communist is not contradictory, an interesting utopia]. For us, sympathy with the struggle of the Indian people for their freedom from English rule and capitalist exploitation was and is a necessity, arising so much from the fact that any weakening of the Versailles powers is advantageous for a German liberation policy. as well as our instinctive approval for any struggle that would oppress the peoples directly against exploiting usurpers. Because it is a necessary consequence of our Nationalist idea that the right to fulfill a Völkisch character that we claim for ourselves is also due to all other peoples and nations, so the Liberal concept of the "blessings of culture" is unknown to us. We felt, therefore, that the policy of the Party leadership, which adopted a position of open support for British imperialism against the Indian liberation struggle, was as contradictory to the tangible interests of Germany as it was to the ideological presuppositions of Nationalsocialism. [That is absolutely false, Hitler never supported British imperialism, he was always very critical about it in his speeches, both before and after coming to power, and in fact he allied himself with the Indian nationalists, who fought side by side with the Germans, Italians and Japanese against British imperialism]. We conceive and continue to conceive of Nationalsocialism in all its nature as a great German movement whose domestic mission is the creation of a great völkisch Germany, a movement that rejects those individual states that have arisen for dynastic reasons. We conceive and still conceive of Nationalsocialism as a republican movement in which there is as little room for hereditary monarchy as any other privilege that is not based on the achievements of the nation". [Did Hitler ever say anything opposed thing that it? The answer is NO].

As a word of advice, I seriously recommend using the quote section [tool] whenever referring to Strasser's comments, as halfway through, I found myself confused about the viewpoint and information that you were trying to present. Other than that, my only comment on this is that Strasser's ending concerns on republicanism and meritocracy were most probably in reaction to Hitler's alliance with the DNVP. However, even when taking this into consideration, Strasser still manages to land himself in a place with his ears plugged.

The Second Reich, even in its stringent social attitudes towards the notion of class, was much more of a meritocracy than most would think; it was indeed possible for commoners to be promoted to the nobility for exceptional service to Germany, who could then gradually rise through the upper echelons of society. Even many commoners who never received a noble title did hold important positions in the government and the military (especially the Imperial Navy.)

This is not to defend the many unfair legal and educational privileges that were provided to the nobility, though regardless, Strasser is wrong in implying that the Empire's ranks were based entirely in the judgement of one's bloodline and not his own personal achievements. And of course, you are correct that Hitler made no remarks during his leadership over the NSDAP which contradicted the principle of meritocracy.

[sfivdf21]

sfivdf21 wrote:

As much as Marxists, Strasserists, Anarchists and Nazbols do not want to understand it, respecting private property has nothing to do with Capitalism, fighting for the rights of workers is not only freeing them from being under the yoke of exploiters and Capitalists without scruples, but also to guarantee them a good quality of life and respect their private properties.

You are correct. It's absolutely mind-boggling how little of a grasp on the reality of economic practice and theory that both Capitalists and Marxists have despite all the crackpot "theory" that they tirelessly read. This is no more true when asking them about the nature of private property, to which both will virtually always respond by saying that "it's a Capitalist principle."

Of course, while the concept of private and personal ownership is an ideal in Capitalism, (at least theoretically) both Marxists and Capitalists never seem to understand that while private ownership has existed for as long as mankind has roamed the earth, Capitalism's entire history spans less than two-and-a-half centuries.

The fact that Liberals and Capitalists always talk about private property does not mean that they really defend it, they only defend their own.

Or as some within the Fascist movement would put it, that the Capitalist system (revolving solely around the amoral and materialistic acquisition of human and financial capital) is principally in direct contradiction with the concept of private property altogether. There is a 1935 speech written by José Antonio Primo de Rivera (leader of the original Spanish Falange, the FE de las JONS) that while rather weak in its arguments against Marxism, nonetheless excellently breaks down the myth of "private property" being an actual virtue of Capitalism.

Just in case YouTube decides to take it down from the site, (after all, they continue attacking and banning even explicitly anti-NSDAP German folk and military music channels) I will quote the entirety of the speech and provide the video (which in some parts is not well-translated, bear in mind, hence my numerous corrections) along with it.

When we talk about Capitalism -- you already know -- we don't talk about private property. Private property is to the contrary of Capitalism; property is the direct effect of man over his things, an essential human attribute. Capitalism has been replacing this property of man for the property of capital, the technical instrument of economic domination. Capitalism, through terrible and unequal competition of big capital against the small property, has been continuously nullifying artisans, small industry, and small agriculture; has been placing all and increasingly more in the hands of large trusts, of great banking groups.

Capitalism reduces the end to the same anxious state, to the same subhuman state of man detached from all of his attributes, from all his contents of his existence, to employers and employees, to workers and owners. And this I want to be well-kept in the mind of everyone: it's time that we do not take part in the mistake of presenting workers' parties as anti-employer, or employer groups being opposites, being enemies in the fight against the workers. Employees, employers, specialists, and organizers form the total weave of production, and there is a Capitalist system with expensive credit and abusive privileges of share and bond holders that takes without working the best part of production and ruins and equally impoverishes the employer, organizer, and worker. Think of how low the European man has come to by the work of Capitalism; he no longer owns a home, no longer has patrimony, no longer has individuality, no longer has craftsman skill, and now is just among a simple number of masses.

There are leftist demagogues around who speak against the feudal property and say that workers live as slaves. Well then: we that do not cultivate any demagoguery can say that feudal property was much better than Capitalist property and that workers are worse off than slaves. The feudal property imposed upon the lord, while giving him rights, also a series of burdens. He had to attend to the defense and also provision of his subjects. The Capitalist property is cold and ruthless; in the best case, it does not charge rent, but ignores the fate of the subjects. And regarding slaves, these were a proprietary component in the lord's fortune in that he had to care that the slave did not die, for the slave cost him the same as a machine or a horse, while a worker dies and the masters of the Capitalist industry know that hundreds of thousands starving await for replacement.

A figure, in part baleful, yet tempting, the figure of Karl Marx, foresaw this spectacle we are attending, the crisis of Capitalism. Now, to everyone around here that asks us whether we are Marxists or not -- I ask you with that rigor of awareness that I express in my words: what does it mean to be anti-Marxist? Does it mean that you do not fancy the fulfillment of Marx's forecasts? Then, we all agree. Does it mean that Marx was wrong in his forecasts? Then, who is wrong are those who blame his mistakes. Marx's forecasts are being fulfilled more or less quickly, but relentlessly. We are moving towards the concentration of capital, towards the proletarianization of the masses, towards, as the end, social revolution, that will have a tough period of Communist dictatorship. And this Communist dictatorship should horrify us Europeans, Westerners, and Christians, as this truly is the terrible denial of man; this truly is the acceptance of man as an immense formless mass where individuality is lost, where the corporeal apparel of each individual and eternal soul is dissolved.

Notice that is why we are anti-Marxists; we are anti-Marxists because it [Marxism] horrifies us, as it horrifies every Westerner, every Christian, every European, employer or proletarian, being like an inferior animal in an ant hill. And it terrifies us because we are somewhat aware of it because of Capitalism. It is international and materialist as well, which is why we want neither of them; this is why we want to avoid, as we believe in his affirmation, fulfilling Karl Marx's predictions. But, we want to avoid it with resolve, unlike those "anti-Marxist" parties that are around which believe that the inexorable fulfillment of economic and historical laws is mitigated when giving workers a few nice words and sending knitted coats for their children.

If the earnest willpower is held to impede the predicted results of the Marxist forecast, there is no other way but to dismantle the contraption whose running leads relentlessly to those consequences, and to dismantle the Capitalist contraption that leads to a social revolution, to the Russian dictatorship. Dismantling, but what do you replace it with? Tomorrow, in the past, and in a hundred years, idiots will continue to tell us "You want to dismantle it and replace it with another absorbent state, nullifying the individuality." To take this consequence, would we take upon the job of pursuing the last effects of Capitalism and Marxism until the annulment of man? If we have arrived there, and if we want to avoid it, the construction of a New Order has to be started by the man, by the individual, as Westerners, as Spaniards, and as Christians.

We have to start by the man and go through its organic units, and like this we will climb from man to the family, from family to the municipality, and on the other hand, to the labor union, and it will culminate in the State, which will be the harmony of everything. In such a way, in this political, historical, and moral understanding that we use to gaze at the world, we implicitly have the economic solution; we will disassemble the Capitalist apparatus that soaks all profits, to replace it with individual property, with family property, with communal property, and with union property.

Speech given by José Antonio Primo de Rivera at Cine Madrid, May 19th, 1935

(Again, as a warning, the translation in the video is sometimes significantly flawed compared to that in the quote, but it is nonetheless valuable.)

I wonder, then why did Otto decide to join a political party in which one of its main ideological foundations was the anti-Semitism (Hitler was not the only anti-Semite in the NSDAP, EVERYONE were anti-Semites in the NSDAP)? I can't find any explanation.

Though most members of the NSDAP were anti-Jewish prior to their membership in the party, even early on, I recall seeing in a thread a while back that the position of anti-Jewry took a back seat until the Great Depression hit when the economic exploitation of the German population re-accelerated. Perhaps I am wrong, but it if true, I suppose it is a reasonable explanation to the question that you raise here.

And sfvidf21, you finally wrote:

When he founded the Schwarze Front, Otto Strasser wrote an article denouncing the NSDAP, hypocritically saying that under the leadership of Adolf Hitler the party had "violated" the idea of ​​Nationalsocialism. He said: "Readers, Party comrades, friends! For months, we have followed the development of the NSDAP with deep concern, and with growing apprehension we have been forced. We conceive and continue to conceive of Nationalsocialism as a consciously anti-imperialist movement, whose nationalism it limits itself to preserving and safeguarding the life and growth of the German nation without any tendency to dominate other peoples and countries [isn't that what Hitler said and preached?] ". And he continued saying that: "for us, therefore, the rejection of the interventionist war pursued against [the Bolshevik] Russia by international capitalism and by Western imperialism was and is a natural demand [Here Otto gives himself away, as I said before, were precisely the capitalist Jews from the United States who financed the Soviet Bolshevism to carry out their "revolution", something he omits to mention, and yet says that the fact that Hitler seeks to crush the Jewish-Bolshevik tyranny that seeks to enslave the peoples and the nations based on an imperialist ideal is "capitalist", a contradiction in the purest Marxist style]. Therefore, we felt that the attitude of the Party leadership, which was becoming increasingly open to interventionist warfare, was contradictory with the idea and undermined the requirements of a German foreign policy [That is, for Strasser, the fact of defending the freedom of your country and your people from the threat of a criminal and foreign ideology such as Bolshevism is "contradictory" with the Nationalsocialist ideal, but instead adopting a pro-Soviet position belonging to a party whose ideology is frontally anti-Communist is not contradictory, an interesting utopia]. For us, sympathy with the struggle of the Indian people for their freedom from English rule and capitalist exploitation was and is a necessity, arising so much from the fact that any weakening of the Versailles powers is advantageous for a German liberation policy. as well as our instinctive approval for any struggle that would oppress the peoples directly against exploiting usurpers. Because it is a necessary consequence of our Nationalist idea that the right to fulfill a Völkisch character that we claim for ourselves is also due to all other peoples and nations, so the Liberal concept of the "blessings of culture" is unknown to us. We felt, therefore, that the policy of the Party leadership, which adopted a position of open support for British imperialism against the Indian liberation struggle, was as contradictory to the tangible interests of Germany as it was to the ideological presuppositions of Nationalsocialism. [That is absolutely false, Hitler never supported British imperialism, he was always very critical about it in his speeches, both before and after coming to power, and in fact he allied himself with the Indian nationalists, who fought side by side with the Germans, Italians and Japanese against British imperialism]. We conceive and continue to conceive of Nationalsocialism in all its nature as a great German movement whose domestic mission is the creation of a great völkisch Germany, a movement that rejects those individual states that have arisen for dynastic reasons. We conceive and still conceive of Nationalsocialism as a republican movement in which there is as little room for hereditary monarchy as any other privilege that is not based on the achievements of the nation". [Did Hitler ever say anything opposed thing that it? The answer is NO].

As a word of advice, I seriously recommend using the quote section [tool] whenever referring to Strasser's comments, as halfway through, I found myself confused about the viewpoint and information that you were trying to present. Other than that, my only comment on this is that Strasser's ending concerns on republicanism and meritocracy were most probably in reaction to Hitler's alliance with the DNVP. However, even when taking this into consideration, Strasser still manages to land himself in a place with his ears plugged.

The Second Reich, even in its stringent social attitudes towards the notion of class, was much more of a meritocracy than most would think; it was indeed possible for commoners to be promoted to the nobility for exceptional service to Germany, who could then gradually rise through the upper echelons of society. Even many commoners who never received a noble title did hold important positions in the government and the military (especially the Imperial Navy.)

This is not to defend the many unfair legal and educational privileges that were provided to the nobility, though regardless, Strasser is wrong in implying that the Empire's ranks were based entirely in the judgement of one's bloodline and not his own personal achievements. And of course, you are correct that Hitler made no remarks during his leadership over the NSDAP which contradicted the principle of meritocracy.

Hello Kretschmer, thank you for your advice and for your response. Yes, I know perfectly the doctrine of José Antonio Primo de Rivera and the Falange (I am Spaniard). I have a lot of sympathy for Falangism and José Antonio, although in my opinion they have some doctrinal errors. I do not agree that José Antonio was weak in his arguments against Marxism. In what José Antonio Primo de Rivera was weak was in the racial question. José Antonio always said that Spain was "a unit of universal destiny" (that is, for him culture was more important than race, ignoring that it is race that creates culture). The racial question were of "secondary" importance according José Antonio. He even criticized the "Hitlerite Racism", he once said that about Nationalsocialism:

---

Translation: Hitlerism has some essential principles that coincide with ours, but it has German and Lutheran characteristics that, obviously, do not fit into the Roman idea of universality and not even in the Spanish and these principles are summarized in the word "Racism".

[img]José%20Antonio%20Primo%20de%20Rivera%20sobre%20el%20Nacionalsocialismo[/img]

However, (although perhaps a little late) José Antonio Primo de Rivera ended up realizing that races are the engine of history and evolved towards a racial doctrine that was increasingly similar to that of the Nationalsocialist. For example, a few months before being assassinated by the Communists, he wrote an article in August 1936 called "Germanos contra Berberes" where he exposes the racial differences and the importance that the struggle between races (for example, during the Spanish Reconquista, where the native Celtiberian peoples and the Germanic Visigoths fought to liberate Spain from the dominance of the Semitic races that had conquered it: the Jews and the Arabs), I recommend reading it: https://laotraeuropa.blogia.com/2012/ 110810-rereading-jose-antonio-germanos-against-berbers-1936-.php

---

Ramiro Ledesma Ramos.

[img]Ramiro%20Ledesma%20Ramos%202[/img]

However, the doctrine of Nationalsyndicalism or Falangism is not limited only to the thought of José Antonio Primo de Rivera. Many Falangists/Nationalsyndicalists were from the beginning pro-Nationalsocialists and Racialists (especially the Jonsists, that is, those who came from the JONS), such as Ramiro Ledesma Ramos, Julio Martínez Santa-Olalla, Federico de Urrutia, Onésimo Redondo, Manuel Hedilla, Agustín Aznar, José Antonio Girón de Velasco or José Antonio's own sister, Pilar Primo de Rivera.
Ramiro Ledesma Ramos (leader and founder of the JONS and my favorite Spanish fascist thinker) was a fervent admirer of German Nationalsocialism and Adolf Hitler (to the point of imitating his characteristic haircut) and he based the ideology and political organization of the JONS on the model of the SA.

---

Julio Martínez Santa Olalla speaking with Heinrich Himmler during the Reichsführer-SS's visit to Spain in October 1940.



Julio Martínez Santa-Olalla was a Falangist archaeologist who strongly sympathized with the racial doctrine of the Nationalsocialism and came to collaborate with Heinrich Himmler and the Ahnenerbe in their archaeological expeditions in Spain (Himmler was very interested in Spain's Visigothic past).

---

Cover of the book La paz que quiere Hitler, by Federico de Urrutia.



Federico de Urrutia was an important Falangist poet who collaborated in the Informaciones newspaper (a Spanish newspaper with a pro-German and pro-Nationalsocialist character) and wrote many publications that praised the Third Reich, the most famous of which was a book called "La paz que quiero Hitler (The Peace that Hitler wants)" written in 1939 where he described the Führer as "the restorer of a Germania heir to the Nibelungs and a champion of the [Christian] Cross against the Jews, Freemasons, Capitalists and Communists".

Onésimo Redondo was the co-founder of the JONS and the most important theorist of Falangism along with José Antonio Primo de Rivera and Ramiro Ledesma Ramos, he was probably the Falangist who gave the most importance to the racial question. Onésimo considered that Spain is a natural border between the Aryan world and the Semitic world, which is why he emphasized that the Spanish nation is an essential bulwark of Europe and Western civilization:

Marxism with its Mohammedan utopias, with the truth of its dictatorial Iron and with the ruthless lust of its sadistic moguls, it suddenly renews the eclipse of culture and freedoms with a new modern Saracen invasion. This danger of Africanization in the name of progress is clearly very visible in Spain. We can say categorically that our Marxists are the most African in Europe. Historically, we are a friction zone between what is civilized and what is African, between the Aryan and the Semitic. For this reason, the generations who built our homeland, those who liberated us from being an eternal extension of the African continent, raised their swords against the attacks from the south and never sheathed them. The great Isabel ordered the Spanish to always look towards Africa, defeat Africa and never be invaded by it again. Was the peninsula completely de-Africanized? Is there no danger of a new attempt at African domination, where the roots of the Moorish spirit remain in the character of a race at the forefront of Europe? We ask this important question dispassionately and answer it immediately by highlighting the obvious danger of a new Africanization.

All over the world, there is the Jewish conspiracy against Western civilization, but in Spain the Semitic element can be subtly and quickly connected with the African element. It can be seen to flourish in all its primitive freshness in our southern provinces, where Moorish blood lives in the subsoil of the race ... The follower of Spanish Marxism, soon takes his incendiary torch, breaks into manors and farms, driven like the subconscious of the bandit, encouraged by the Semites of Madrid, he wants bread without earning it, lazing around and being rich, taking his pleasures and taking revenge ... and his ultimate victory will be the Africanization of Spain, the victory of the Semitic elements combined with Jews and Moors who have survived on the peninsula.

Onésimo Redondo, Semanario Libertad (May, 1933)

---

Translation: The Communism is the tool of Jewish international Capitalism to decompose the States and then dominate them.



Onésimo Redondo also defined very good what were are the true objectives of Bolshevism.

---

Telegram that Manuel Hedilla sent to Adolf Hitler on January 30, 1937, in which he declared the admiration and sympathy of the Spanish Falangists for the German Nationalsocialists.

[img]El%20camarada%20Manuel%20Hedilla%20telegrafía%20a%20Hitler[/img]

Manuel Hedilla (second National Chief of FE y de las JONS after the death of José Antonio Primo de Rivera) was always a great defender of the Comradeship between Nationalsocialists and Falangists.

---

Agustín Aznar in Russia, as a volunteer of the Blue Division.



Agustín Aznar, the founder of the SEU (the Student Organization of the Falange), was appointed National Delegate for Health of FET de las JONS in 1941 and was a firm supporter of Spain entering World War II and joining the Axis powers. Although he remained loyal to Francisco Franco, was disappointed by his refusal to enter the war and establishing a 100% Nationalsyndicalist state, he enlisted in the Blue Division and returned to Spain in 1942. In January 1943 he paid a visit to Germany with other Falangist leaders such as José Luis Arrese, Valdés Larrañaga, Arias Salgado, Manuel Martínez de Tena, Víctor de la Serna and Xavier de Echarri, who, until February, studied at the services of the Nationalsozialistische Volkswohlfahrt. After his return to Spain, in contrast to Franco, Arrese, and most of the Francoist authorities, Agustín Aznar did not moderate his support for Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich.

He also colaborated with the Nationalsocialist doctor Leonardo Conti. In 1944 a program of sending Spanish doctors to the Third Reich conceived by Aznar took place; the departure of doctors from Spain began in January, and volunteers were still showing up in November.

---

José Antonio Girón de Velasco, the best Minister of Labour in the entire History of Spain.



José Antonio Girón de Velasco, one of the earliest Falangists. Velasco was one of Ramiro Ledesma's closest collaborators, joining the JONS in February 1932. Considered a Falangist loyal to Francisco Franco, and on the recommendation of his right hand, Ramón Serrano Suñer, he was appointed Minister of Labor on May 20, 1941, position that he held until February 25, 1957. In the context of World War II, some Falangist sectors came to postulate his name to be commander of the Blue Division that was to be sent to the Soviet Union to fight against Bolshevism within the ranks of the German Wehrmacht, however, the Generalísimo granted the command of the Division to General Agustín Muñoz Grandes. When the Americans landing in North Africa took place in November 1942, Girón de Velasco was one of the Francoist ministers (together with Carlos Asensio Cabanillas and José Luis Arrese) who stated that this was the moment for Spain to enter the war on the side of Germany. This provoked a strong debate within the Franco government, and finally there was no Spanish entry into the war.

---

Pilar Primo de Rivera shakes hands with Reichsjugendführer Artur Axmann. To the right stands BDM leader Jutta Rüdiger.



Or of course, José Antonio Primo de Rivera's sister, Pilar. Pilar Primo de Rivera, leader of the Sección Femenina de Falange (the Feminine Section of the Falange), made several trips to the Third Reich, of which she was an devote admirer. In April 1938 she made her first trip to Germany, where she visited Berlin. She also visited the Reichskanzlei and had an interview with Adolf Hitler that was widely commented on by the Francoist press.

After World War II started, she traveled to Berlin in 1941 to participate in a Women's Congress in which participated many organizations who supported the Axis powers; there she met the leaders of the women's sections of other European Fascist movements (in addition to Japan). Over time, Pilar Primo de Rivera ended up becoming a kind of ambassador of Nationalsocialist Germany in Francoist Spain, although he also maintained contacts with Fascist Italy to a lesser extent. In correspondence, she later received in Spain several delegations of the Hitlerjugend.

In August 1943 she visited Germany again, accompanied by her closest collaborators (Clara Stauffer and María García Ontiveros), making a tour that took her through the cities of Berlin, Munich, Salzburg, Vienna and Stuttgart. She was received by the German authorities German at Tempelhof Airport. In her first stage in Berlin, she made a five-day stop to meet important Nationalsocialist leaders such as Joseph Goebbels, Jutta Rüdiger, Artur Axmann, Gertrud Scholtz-Klink and Wilhelm von Faupel and visited the Berlin hospital where were the wounded soldiers of the Blue Division.

A loyal supporter of the Third Reich, when in October 1943 Franco decided to withdraw the Blue Division from the front after giving in to the multiple threats and pressures from American and British diplomats, Pilar Primo de Rivera was against this measure and came to comment that this constituted a betrayal of Germany and the Falange. A few weeks earlier, when the Minister-Secretary General of the FET and de las JONS, José Luis Arrese declared that Spain "was not a totalitarian nation," he was also very upset at those words.

Anyway, going back to the issue of the Strasser brothers, it seems very hypocritical that they reproached Adolf Hitler for allying with the DNVP but had no problems about allying with Kurt von Schleicher to try to prevent Hitler from coming to power.

[Kretschmer]

sfivdf21 wrote:
I have a lot of sympathy for Falangism and José Antonio, although in my opinion they have some doctrinal errors. I do not agree that José Antonio was weak in his arguments against Marxism. In what José Antonio Primo de Rivera was weak was in the racial question. José Antonio always said that Spain was "a unit of universal destiny" (that is, for him culture was more important than race, ignoring that it is race that creates culture).

I agree with your statement that the Falange in either its original or Francoist incarnations was not perfect, and indeed, though José Antonio is almost deified by some Falangists today, his ideological doctrine was not as developed as those of many other Fascists. While I do agree much more with his economic policies than those of Franco, the latter gave much more prominence to Catholicism in its vital role of guiding the Spanish state.

To be fair, it is also a strong tendency within all of Nationalism that less and less emphasis is placed on race or ethnicity in those countries which feature more and more ethnic diversity present in its foundations. While Germany under Hitler was almost entirely homogeneous, (with the exception of 80,000 Sorbs in Lusatia and 50,000 Danes in South Schleswig, plus all of the Jews who remained after 1939) a unified Spain has always been multi-ethnic, consisting of Castilians, Catalans, Valencians, Basques, Aragonese, Galicians, Andalusians, and so on.

Therefore, it would make much more sense for a unified Spain to guide itself primarily through religion and culture as it had been in centuries past, rather than through the collective will of one people, as was possible in mostly-homogenous Germany or Italy. I also never recall him ever viewing the Arab-Berbers in Morocco or the Sub-Saharan Africans in Spanish Guinea as proper Spaniards, which for all of its faults, would immediately place his grasp on the importance of race in a much better position than that of someone like Plínio Salgado (leader of Brazil's AIB), who was completely clueless about race.

Anyway, going back to the issue of the Strasser brothers, it seems very hypocritical that they reproached Adolf Hitler for allying with the DNVP but had no problems about allying with Kurt von Schleicher to try to prevent Hitler from coming to power.

Exactly, especially when examining the fact that von Schleicher was far more of a reactionary than the DNVP, at least in the sense that he rather desired to preserve the status quo instead of accepting Nationalsocialist leadership.

[Otium]

Anyway, going back to the issue of the Strasser brothers, it seems very hypocritical that they reproached Adolf Hitler for allying with the DNVP but had no problems about allying with Kurt von Schleicher to try to prevent Hitler from coming to power.

Exactly, especially when examining the fact that von Schleicher was far more of a reactionary than the DNVP, at least in the sense that he rather desired to preserve the status quo instead of accepting Nationalsocialist leadership.

Hitler never succumbed to the whim of any other party, or their leaders. Hitler always took the lead and in doing so leading the other parties despite their reservations because they knew quite well that they (the conservatives), or other Volkish parties could not get anywhere without the public support of the NSDAP and it's mass movement. It's a ridiculous criticism from Strasser.

If you read any book on Hitler you will see historians sneering down their noses at Hitler's hyper-masculine whipping of all other right-wing parties, leading the way for his own mastery over Germany. Hitler's will to never capitulate got him into trouble with those in the NSDAP who thought he should've accepted the vice chancellorship he was offered. In 1930-31 you had the Stennes revolt which was really the precursor to the Night of the Long Knives - where Hitler managed in this case to settle down the rowdy SA elements that were threatening a Second Revolution.

As for Hugenbergs DNVP, Hitler never really allied with them. He did so on paper perhaps, but not in practise.

[sfivdf21]

sfivdf21 wrote:
I have a lot of sympathy for Falangism and José Antonio, although in my opinion they have some doctrinal errors. I do not agree that José Antonio was weak in his arguments against Marxism. In what José Antonio Primo de Rivera was weak was in the racial question. José Antonio always said that Spain was "a unit of universal destiny" (that is, for him culture was more important than race, ignoring that it is race that creates culture).

I agree with your statement that the Falange in either its original or Francoist incarnations was not perfect, and indeed, though José Antonio is almost deified by some Falangists today, his ideological doctrine was not as developed as those of many other Fascists. While I do agree much more with his economic policies than those of Franco, the latter gave much more prominence to Catholicism in its vital role of guiding the Spanish state.

To be fair, it is also a strong tendency within all of Nationalism that less and less emphasis is placed on race or ethnicity in those countries which feature more and more ethnic diversity present in its foundations. While Germany under Hitler was almost entirely homogeneous, (with the exception of 80,000 Sorbs in Lusatia and 50,000 Danes in South Schleswig, plus all of the Jews who remained after 1939) a unified Spain has always been multi-ethnic, consisting of Castilians, Catalans, Valencians, Basques, Aragonese, Galicians, Andalusians, and so on.

Therefore, it would make much more sense for a unified Spain to guide itself primarily through religion and culture as it had been in centuries past, rather than through the collective will of one people, as was possible in mostly-homogenous Germany or Italy. I also never recall him ever viewing the Arab-Berbers in Morocco or the Sub-Saharan Africans in Spanish Guinea as proper Spaniards, which for all of its faults, would immediately place his grasp on the importance of race in a much better position than that of someone like Plínio Salgado (leader of Brazil's AIB), who was completely clueless about race.

Anyway, going back to the issue of the Strasser brothers, it seems very hypocritical that they reproached Adolf Hitler for allying with the DNVP but had no problems about allying with Kurt von Schleicher to try to prevent Hitler from coming to power.

Exactly, especially when examining the fact that von Schleicher was far more of a reactionary than the DNVP, at least in the sense that he rather desired to preserve the status quo instead of accepting Nationalsocialist leadership.

It's obvious that the Falangists developed their doctrine much less than other Fascisms, but it's not their fault. The Falange was founded in 29 October 1933 and almost all the founders and theoreticians of Falangism were assassinated in the first months of the Spanish Civil War. So they only had 3 years to develop their doctrine, and that is obviously a very short time. 3 years are not enough to consolidate a political movement, it takes more years to do so. If Benito Mussolini had died in 1921 and Adolf Hitler in 1923, then Italian Fascism and the German Nationalsocialism would have a much less developed doctrine than they really did. That is why after the death of José Antonio Primo de Rivera in 20 November 1936 many Falangists did not agree on how the Falangist movement should evolve and how its doctrine should be applied. There were Falangists such as Manuel Hedilla or Dionisio Ridruejo (although in his case he initially collaborated with Franco, but from 1941 on he would become an implacable opponent against the Francoist regime) who refused to comply with the orders of Francisco Franco (a Monarchist and right-wing Conservative general) and merge his party with the rest of the political forces that made up the National Spain (Carlist and Alfonsine Monarchists, right-wing Republicans of the CEDA, The Spanish Church, the Technocrats, etc.) and also there were other Falangists such as José Luis Arrese or José Antonio Girón de Velasco who understood that due to the circumstances in which the Spanish nation found, fighting in a civil war in which the two sides were not politically homogeneous and were composed of coalitions (the Red Spain, like the National Spain was not ideologically homogeneous either, the Republican side was composed by Stalinist Communists, Trotskyist Communists, Anarchists, Basque and Catalan Independentists, Socialists, Liberals and Socialdemocrats) it was impossible to establish a homogeneous Fascism in Spain like in Italy and in Germany and for this reason they decided to support the Caudillo and apply what they could of the Falangist doctrine within the Franco regime (this was what happened, although Franco was not a Falangist, it's true that the Francoism put into practice a great part of the Falangist doctrine, especially in social matters, the overwhelming majority of the social achievements of the Franco regime are due to the Falangists). Even today there is no ideological unanimity among the Falangists and among themselves they cannot agree on many things. For example, there are Falangists who hate Franco and consider him a traitor and an opportunist, but there are also other Falangists who love Franco and consider him a great statesman who really applied the Falangist doctrine what he could.

Anyway, you also have to be fair to Franco. The Francoism was a coalition regime that was made up of many political factions, not just the Falangists. That is why the Franco regime was not a Nationalsyndicalist state, because Franco ruled for all Spaniards, not only for the Falangists, and he had to solomonically distribute the power levels among all the factions of the regime. For example, he gave the Falangists a lot of power and influence in the tasks of propaganda, press and social affairs, he gave the Priests and the Church the control of the educational system, the Carlists were given a lot of influence in the judicial system and he gave the monarchical military the control of the armed forces. The ideological bases of Francoism were based on uniting all the forces of National Spain, emphasizing the ideological traits that all factions of the regime shared (Nationalism, political Catholicism, anti-Communism and anti-Liberalism) and follow the nexus that united them: the Caudillo, that is, the figure of Francisco Franco. It is also important to say that apart from the Falangists there were also among the rest the factions of National Spain people who opposed Francoism and who did not accept Franco's leadership. For example, in the 1940s, among the monarchical generals (the overwhelming most of them Anglophiles who wanted Spain to enter the Second World War, but on the side of the Allies) there were also people such as Valentín Galarza who conspired against Franco and they tried to assassinate him (something similar to what the German Monarchical and Conservative officers tried to do against Hitler in 20 July 1944). Another decisive factor as to why Franco could not establish a 100% Fascist state like Mussolini's Italy and Hitler's Germany was precisely because of the outcome of World War II. After the defeat of the Axis powers in 1945, the United States, Great Britain and the USSR subjected Spain (although it had remained neutral during the war) to international isolation as punishment for having maintained a pro-Axis policy throughout the war (despite the fact that in the last years of the war Franco was forced to moderate his collaboration with Fascist Italy and Nationalsocialist Germany he continued to supporting Hitler and Mussolini to the end). The purpose of this criminal policy that Stalin, Churchill, Truman and the UN established was to cause great famines and social conflicts in Spain so that the Spanish people would rise up in arms against the Franco regime and overthrow it. But they achieved the opposite effect, the popularity of the Francoism was reinforced and Franco pointed out that this policy of the victors of international isolation was a Judeo-Masonic International conspiracy against Spain and that the Spanish people had to follow their Caudillo to survive and get ahead, and the Spanish people followed Francisco Franco. However, despite being successful in such a situation, Franco understood that with American tanks in the Pyrenees from 1945 on, he had to moderate his regime in order to survive the new postwar order, and for this reason he had to relegate the Falange (the Fascist faction of the Francoism) to the background. But still there is no doubt that Franco applied great part of the Nationalsyndicalist doctrine as I have said before. Francisco Franco honestly sympathized with Fascist Italy and Nationalsocialist Germany, but he did not join the Axis powers not because he did not want to, but because he could not, Spain had just emerged from a bloody civil war and could not engage in another war, but he still collaborated until the end with Hitler and Mussolini in what he could (although always watching over not to go beyond the limits of neutrality), he collaborated militarily by sending the Blue Division to help fight against Bolshevism, he allowed German spy cells in Spain throughout the war (On the other hand, it did not tolerate the presence of British and American spies), it supplied Germany with large quantities of Wolfram, he allowed the sending of Spanish workers to go to Germany to work in weapons factories to support the war effort of the Third Reich and allowed that there were U-Boat bases on the Spanish coasts. And throughout the war the press and propaganda of the Francoism spread the course of the war in a pro-Axis views.

There are some things about Francoism that I don't like and I disagree (like when Franco moderated his support for the Axis powers in the last years of WWII, when he relegated the Falange to the background since 1945 or when he allied with Eisenhower in 1959 during the Cold War) but even with his flaws, Francisco Franco has been the best ruler that Spain has had in its contemporary history and without a doubt, the best and most important Spanish ruler of the 20th century. When it won the war in 1939, Spain was a hungry and devastated country and when he died in 1975, Spain was the eighth world power, the second nation with the fastest economic growth in the world (only surpassed by Japan), a prosperous country with a consolidated middle class and with only 3.97% unemployed and a sovereign nation free from any Jewish influence.

As for what you say about the racial composition of the Spanish people, you are totally wrong, we Spaniards are a 100% racially homogeneous people. In order to justify the political agenda of multiculturalism, the Spanish leftists invented the myth that we Spaniards are "half-Moors" and that we are "mestizos", but this is not true. We Spaniards are a racially pure people whose racial composition is composed of the genes of the native Iberian and Celtic peoples of the Iberian peninsula with a small percentage of Italic (from the Roman settlers) and Germanic (from the Visigoth settlers and landowners) genes, all of them, White peoples. There was never any racial miscegenation between Spaniards with Moors, Arabs and Jews. This is what the genetic researches corroborate, the science shows that the genetics of the Spanish people is very similar to that of the rest of the European peoples, a Spaniard is so racially homogeneous as a German, French, English or Italian. And the German Nationalsocialists knew it very well, Heinrich Himmler when he made his famous diplomatic trip in Spain in October 1940 (including the anthropological investigations of the Ahnenerbe in the Iberian Peninsula and the Pyrenees) qualified the Iberians (and therefore also their genetic heirs, the Spaniards) as an Aryan people. You have also been wrong about another thing, you have said that in the 1930s Germany had less racial diversity than Spain, the reality is the opposite. Whereas as you have said Germany had racial minorities of Slavs, Jews, Danes in South Schleswig and Gypsies. In Spain, the only foreign ethnic and/or racial community that we had were the Gypsies (who had no political or economic power and they lived self-segregated, so the average Spaniard did not interact or coexist with them). Even the Jewish problem in Spain was much less than Germany, why? Because while in Germany the powerful Jewish lobbies were settled in the country in Spain they were not. The Jews who influenced the political decisions of the Second Republic (the 1930s Spain until 18 july 1936 and later the Leftist faction during the civil war) were the Jewish Bolsheviks of the Soviet Union, who lived in Russia, not in Spain. So the Spanish people (unlike the German people) never had to interact with the Jews within their country in the 1930s, because the Jewish community in Spain in the 1930s was almost non-existent, and most of the Jews who were in the Spain of at the time, they did not even reside in Spain proper, but in the Spanish Protectorate of Morocco. The average Spanish citizen of the 1930s had never personally interacted with a Jew or any other foreign race (except the Spanish soldiers and generals who were destinated in the Spanish Protectorate in Morocco, like Francisco Franco himself).

Your claim that Spain is a "multi-ethnic" nation is equally wrong. Catalans, Castilians, Valencians, Basques, Aragonese, Galicians, Andalusians, Cantabrians, Asturians, Extremadurans, etc. They are not different ethnic groups, they are different regions that make up the same nation, Spain. There is no big genetic difference between them. All the peoples of Spain have the same racial composition, which, as I have said before, is composed of the genes of the native Celtic and Iberian peoples of the Iberian Peninsula and a small Italic and Germanic percentage. Although with small variations, for example in the Western Spain (especially in the Northwest of Spain) the Celtic genetic influence is greater than the Iberian because almost all the settlers of this part of the country were Celts and in the Eastern Spain happens the opposite, the Celtic influence is very small, because almost all the inhabitants of the Eastern Iberian Peninsula were Iberians, or in the Northeast of Spain (especially the North of Catalonia) there is more Germanic genetic influence than most of the rest of the country since there it is the presence of the Germanic population (first the Visigoths and then the Franks) was much greater or in Eastern and Southeastern Spain also exist a small Greek genetic influence due the presence of Ancient Greek seattlers in the eastern Peninsula. The genetic diversity between a Catalan, a Basque or a Castilian is not greater than that between a Bavarian, a Saxon or a Silesian or Parisian, an Occitan or a Corsican. A European country that we could qualify to some extent as "multi-ethnic" is Italy, where there are great genetic differences between the north and the south of the country (although today less than before, since many of the current Northern and Center Italians descended from Southern Italian immigrants who emigrated to the center and north of the country after the unification of Italy in the second half of the 19th century to the present day due to the impoverishment of the Southern Italy and the enrichment of the North since the fall of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, so that today all Italians are genetically more "mixed" than before).
This lie of the "multi-ethnic" Spain with great genetic diversity among its regions was created by the Basque, Catalan, Galician and Andalusian independentists to justify their political ideology, but it does not have any serious foundation.

The fact that the doctrine of the Falange and later also of the Francoism gave special importance to the religious element has nothing to do with the supposed "racial diversity" of the Spanish people but is because Catholicism is an essential part of the Spanish culture and national identity. Spain as a Nation-State was born with the Catholic Monarchs when they unified all the Hispanic Kingdoms that fought and expelled the Arabs, Moors and Jews from the Iberian Peninsula. And what was the bond that all these Hispanic Kingdoms shared (apart from the racial one)? The Catholicism. Spanish culture and national identity cannot be separated and cannot be understood without Catholicism. Because Spain is not only a nation whose culture is based on the Roman legacy and the Catholic religion, but it was also the nation that exported the European culture and Christianity in the new world, the Americas and also in great part of Asia. A Spaniard who rejects the Catholic identity of his nation cannot be a Nationalist (and therefore also not a Fascist, in that case a Falangist) because, as I have said before, Catholicism is an essential part of the Spanish national identity. That is why the Falange and the Franco regime incorporated political Catholicism into their doctrine and did not ignore the religious element in their ideology. That is as if Adolf Hitler and the Nationalsocialist movement had rejected the Prussian spirit and legacy (which they evidently did not do as it would have been nonsense), since it is an essential part of the German culture and the basis of which Germany was born as a nation-state in 1871.

[sfivdf21]

Anyway, going back to the issue of the Strasser brothers, it seems very hypocritical that they reproached Adolf Hitler for allying with the DNVP but had no problems about allying with Kurt von Schleicher to try to prevent Hitler from coming to power.

Exactly, especially when examining the fact that von Schleicher was far more of a reactionary than the DNVP, at least in the sense that he rather desired to preserve the status quo instead of accepting Nationalsocialist leadership.

Hitler never succumbed to the whim of any other party, or their leaders. Hitler always took the lead and in doing so leading the other parties despite their reservations because they knew quite well that they (the conservatives), or other Volkish parties could not get anywhere without the public support of the NSDAP and it's mass movement. It's a ridiculous criticism from Strasser.

If you read any book on Hitler you will see historians sneering down their noses at Hitler's hyper-masculine whipping of all other right-wing parties, leading the way for his own mastery over Germany. Hitler's will to never capitulate got him into trouble with those in the NSDAP who thought he should've accepted the vice chancellorship he was offered. In 1930-31 you had the Stennes revolt which was really the precursor to the Night of the Long Knives - where Hitler managed in this case to settle down the rowdy SA elements that were threatening a Second Revolution.

As for Hugenbergs DNVP, Hitler never really allied with them. He did so on paper perhaps, but not in practise.

I agree with you in the most of what you said, but I must make two clarifications:

1- The NSDAP was never a right-wing or a Conservative party, Nationalsocialism (like all the rest of Fascist ideologies) is neither left-wing nor right-wing, the fact that at the time it was allied with right-wing parties and organizations such as the DNVP or the Stahlhelm does not mean that the NSDAP was a right-wing party. Hitler allied himself with these organizations because they were also Nationalists (just like the NSDAP). Adolf Hitler was always a great Patriot, he approached the DNVP and the Stahlhelm because they shared Nationalist, anti-Semitic and anti-Communist ideals, the Führer did not care if the DNVP or the Stahlhelm were right-wing or not.

2- At some point it's obvious that the NSDAP and DNVP were allies. Adolf Hitler's cabinet was initially a coalition government of the NSDAP with the DNVP, and its leader Alfred Hugenberg was the Reich's Minister of Economy from January 30, 1933 to June 29, 1933, it's true that they later broke up, but at the time it's clear that they were allies. In addition, some important Nationalsocialist leaders came from the DNVP, such as the Chief of the Reichskanzlei Hans Heinrich Lammers (he was affiliated with the DNVP until at the beginning of 1932 he left it and joined the NSDAP) or the Reich's Labor Minister Franz Seldte (who was a member both of the DNVP and Stahlhelm).

[Otium]

1- The NSDAP was never a right-wing or a Conservative party, Nationalsocialism (like all the rest of Fascist ideologies) is neither left-wing nor right-wing, the fact that at the time it was allied with right-wing parties and organizations such as the DNVP or the Stahlhelm does not mean that the NSDAP was a right-wing party. Hitler allied himself with these organizations because they were also Nationalists (just like the NSDAP). Adolf Hitler was always a great Patriot, he approached the DNVP and the Stahlhelm because they shared Nationalist, anti-Semitic and anti-Communist ideals, the Führer did not care if the DNVP or the Stahlhelm were right-wing or not.

2- At some point it's obvious that the NSDAP and DNVP were allies. Adolf Hitler's cabinet was initially a coalition government of the NSDAP with the DNVP, and its leader Alfred Hugenberg was the Reich's Minister of Economy from January 30, 1933 to June 29, 1933, it's true that they later broke up, but at the time it's clear that they were allies. In addition, some important Nationalsocialist leaders came from the DNVP, such as the Chief of the Reichskanzlei Hans Heinrich Lammers (he was affiliated with the DNVP until at the beginning of 1932 he left it and joined the NSDAP) or the Reich's Labor Minister Franz Seldte (who was a member both of the DNVP and Stahlhelm).

I never said the NSDAP was right-wing. The parties Hitler aligned with were conservative and right-wing, not Nationalsocialist. All the colloquially "right-wing" parties allied with the NSDAP to form a united front against the Communists and Social Democrats who are considered to be colloquially left-wing. Hitler did not ally with anyone simply because they were nationalists, for the same reason he did not accept the coalition government because it was similarly made up of "nationalists". The conservatives who allied with the NSDAP were "bourgeois nationalists", completely out of touch and represented the last remnants of a failed Democratic experiment. They were no friends of the Nationalsocialists, their goal was to contain Hitler and use him and the popularity of his movement for their own ends - to create their own kind of authoritarian dictatorship. This is common knowledge. Hitler from my recollections was not the one to approach Hugenberg, it was the other way around.

Movements that owe their expansion only to a so-called combination of similar structures-which means that their external strength is due to a policy of compromise-are like hothouse plants. They shoot up quickly but lack the inner strength to withstand the storms of centuries. The greatness of every powerful organization that embodies a creative idea lies in the spirit of religious devotion and intolerance with which it stands out against all others.

Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Volume 1: A Reckoning (New English Translation by Thomas Dalton, Clemens & Blair, 2018), Pp. 347

Joachim C. Fest, Christian Herrendoerfer, Hitler, a Career, 1977.