National Socialism explained?

[chaos]

Hey everyone, long time lurker here.

Been doing a ton of research this year, but am having trouble finding good sources that explain what National Socialism is. Does anyone have any book recommendations or other sources that explain National Socialism in it's entirety?

Thank you!

[Otium]

There are obvious sources like Mein Kampf which you definitely should read, but there's nothing academic for the most part that's any good. This is because for a long time, and still to this day, modern studies don't take National Socialism seriously, they're much more temporal in their evaluations of events rather than beliefs, and they usually approach the topics in a very superficial and reductionist way that leaves you with little actual content and a lot more of their inane moralistic ramblings.

If you want to read about a worldview or ideology, then the best thing you could do is read primary sources by those who are followers of the worldview. Unfortunately for native English speakers, there's next to nothing available to us, while if you speak German you have a wealth of material available to you.

I will nonetheless, list you some books you should check out.

The best place to find primary sources in English would be the website Third Reich Books, which has quite a lot of material, but nothing too substantial in terms of definitive studies on National Socialism by National Socialists.

You should also check out Ostara Publications as they've republished some valuable material on National Socialism and the NS period in general. However, you shouldn't buy their version of Mein Kampf, it's a poor translation.

You should read the Goebbels speech Nature and Form of National Socialism and check out the material published by Randall Bytwerk on 'Nazi Propaganda' there's some valuable stuff there which helps elucidate aspects of National Socialism.

Specific books you should check out:

Hitler's Revolution: Ideology, Social Programs, Foreign Affairs - Richard Tedor

National Socialism: Its Principles and Philosophy - Carlos Videla

Hitler Germany: As seen by a Foreigner - Cesare Santoro

The Programme of the NSDAP: The National Socialist German Worker's Party and Its General Conceptions - Gottfried Feder

The German State on a National and Socialist Foundation - Gottfried Feder

Manifesto for Breaking the Financial Slavery to Interest - Gottfried Feder

Landmark Speeches of National Socialism - Randall L. Bytwerk

The Third Reich Sourcebook - Anson Rabinbach, Sander L. Gilman

Nazi Ideology before 1933: A Documentation - Barbara Miller Lane, Leila J. Rupp

Hitler: The Policies of Seduction - Rainer Zitelmann

Sword of the Spirit: An Offering of Nietzschean Philosophy to the Soldiers of the Third Reich - Friedrich Nietzsche, Dietrich H. Wright

Hadding Scott has also translated and put up on his website various pieces about National Socialism written by National Socialists that has never been available before in English, it's definitely worth a read.

Specifically see the works:

The Racial Awakening of the German People - Dr. Rudolf Frercks | Link

The Philosophical Foundations of National-Socialism - Otto Dietrich | Link

Of course I've only recommended stuff regarding German National Socialism, don't make the mistake of thinking that everything discussed in the German context of the mid 20th century is applicable today. By this I mean something like the discussion of specific economic policies, rather than the morality of economics from a National Socialist perspective (e.g. the value of labour in and of itself, on behalf of your people, rather than money purely for your own self interest).

There is valuable material from the likes of Savitri Devi, George Lincoln Rockwell, Colin Jordan and others in the post-war period who contributed much to the understanding of National Socialism. As did National Socialists from other countries, like William Joyce who wrote some short but valuable material.

[chaos]

There are obvious sources like Mein Kampf which you definitely should read, but there's nothing academic for the most part that's any good. This is because for a long time, and still to this day, modern studies don't take National Socialism seriously, they're much more temporal in their evaluations of events rather than beliefs, and they usually approach the topics in a very superficial and reductionist way that leaves you with little actual content and a lot more of their inane moralistic ramblings.

If you want to read about a worldview or ideology, then the best thing you could do is read primary sources by those who are followers of the worldview. Unfortunately for native English speakers, there's next to nothing available to us, while if you speak German you have a wealth of material available to you.

I will nonetheless, list you some books you should check out.

The best place to find primary sources in English would be the website Third Reich Books, which has quite a lot of material, but nothing too substantial in terms of definitive studies on National Socialism by National Socialists.

You should also check out Ostara Publications as they've republished some valuable material on National Socialism and the NS period in general. However, you shouldn't buy their version of Mein Kampf, it's a poor translation.

You should read the Goebbels speech Nature and Form of National Socialism and check out the material published by Randall Bytwerk on 'Nazi Propaganda' there's some valuable stuff there which helps elucidate aspects of National Socialism.

Specific books you should check out:

Hitler's Revolution: Ideology, Social Programs, Foreign Affairs - Richard Tedor

National Socialism: Its Principles and Philosophy - Carlos Videla

Hitler Germany: As seen by a Foreigner - Cesare Santoro

The Programme of the NSDAP: The National Socialist German Worker's Party and Its General Conceptions - Gottfried Feder

The German State on a National and Socialist Foundation - Gottfried Feder

Manifesto for Breaking the Financial Slavery to Interest - Gottfried Feder

Landmark Speeches of National Socialism - Randall L. Bytwerk

The Third Reich Sourcebook - Anson Rabinbach, Sander L. Gilman

Nazi Ideology before 1933: A Documentation - Barbara Miller Lane, Leila J. Rupp

Hitler: The Policies of Seduction - Rainer Zitelmann

Sword of the Spirit: An Offering of Nietzschean Philosophy to the Soldiers of the Third Reich - Friedrich Nietzsche, Dietrich H. Wright

Hadding Scott has also translated and put up on his website various pieces about National Socialism written by National Socialists that has never been available before in English, it's definitely worth a read.

Specifically see the works:

The Racial Awakening of the German People - Dr. Rudolf Frercks | Link

The Philosophical Foundations of National-Socialism - Otto Dietrich | Link

Of course I've only recommended stuff regarding German National Socialism, don't make the mistake of thinking that everything discussed in the German context of the mid 20th century is applicable today. By this I mean something like the discussion of specific economic policies, rather than the morality of economics from a National Socialist perspective (e.g. the value of labour in and of itself, on behalf of your people, rather than money purely for your own self interest).

There is valuable material from the likes of Savitri Devi, George Lincoln Rockwell, Colin Jordan and others in the post-war period who contributed much to the understanding of National Socialism. As did National Socialists from other countries, like William Joyce who wrote some short but valuable material.

Wow, thank you so much for your reply and recommendations.

I am glad to see that I am not the only one that found all the "mainstream" sources explanation of National Socialism to be superficial.

I have finished reading Hitlers War by David Irving, and The Myth of German Villainy by Benton Bradberry, and now currently reading Nuremberg The Last Battle by David Irving. I'll be sure to check out the linked Mein Kampf, and the others you mentioned.

Thanks again HMSendeavour!

[J William]

It would be informative to get an accurate copy of Mein Kampf without the usual interpretations of what the author meant rather than what people other than Hitler think it means. As usual one has to be aware of just how much false information has been put forth in brazen attempts to smear one's perceived enemy. A perfect example was the "book of the month" selection in 1939 of a "complete and annotated" version of Mein Kampf with a "review of Mein Kampf by Dorothy Thompson".( Dorothy Celene Thompson (July 9, 1893 - January 30, 1961) was an American journalist and radio broadcaster. She was the first American journalist to be expelled from Nazi Germany in 1934 and was one of the few women news commentators on radio during the 1930s. Thompson is regarded by some as the "First Lady of American Journalism" and was recognized by Time magazine in 1939 as equal in ...) She was obviously not an unbiased observer
This book has so many annotations that it is difficult to believe that this was nothing more than a crude attempt to slander the German Regime and propagandize the masses. Not much has changed in my lifetime.

[chaos]

It would be informative to get an accurate copy of Mein Kampf without the usual interpretations of what the author meant rather than what people other than Hitler think it means. As usual one has to be aware of just how much false information has been put forth in brazen attempts to smear one's perceived enemy. A perfect example was the "book of the month" selection in 1939 of a "complete and annotated" version of Mein Kampf with a "review of Mein Kampf by Dorothy Thompson".( Dorothy Celene Thompson (July 9, 1893 - January 30, 1961) was an American journalist and radio broadcaster. She was the first American journalist to be expelled from Nazi Germany in 1934 and was one of the few women news commentators on radio during the 1930s. Thompson is regarded by some as the "First Lady of American Journalism" and was recognized by Time magazine in 1939 as equal in ...) She was obviously not an unbiased observer
This book has so many annotations that it is difficult to believe that this was nothing more than a crude attempt to slander the German Regime and propagandize the masses. Not much has changed in my lifetime.

Will purchase the one HMSendeavour recommended. And I agree, the mainstream information contains no real substance, other than "it's evil and racist." Once I'm done reading, I'll try and post my findings. Thanks for the response J William!

[Horhug]

Thomas Dalton's Mein Kampf in two volumes are here, as free PDFs :
https://archive.org/details/mein-kampf- ... ranslation

Thomas Dalton's website :
https://www.thomasdaltonphd.com/

[chaos]

@Horhug @HMSendeavour

I prefer a physical book, but thank you guys!

[Hektor]

....
Of course I've only recommended stuff regarding German National Socialism, don't make the mistake of thinking that everything discussed in the German context of the mid 20th century is applicable today. By this I mean something like the discussion of specific economic policies, rather than the morality of economics from a National Socialist perspective (e.g. the value of labour in and of itself, on behalf of your people, rather than money purely for your own self interest). .....

Of course a lot of it is in contemporary context. But there are several key tenets that are more rigid:
* Folkish Nationalism
* Folk Community
* Leadership Principle
* Mobilisation of People
* Dirigist Economy, with private ownership, market elements, social programs as well strategic planning.

None of this was exclusive to National Socialism, but they combined into a party and movement as to integrate both Socialists and Social Conservatives at the time. The key distinction from Marxist Socialists is their rejection of "Class struggle". Although some hang-over was initially present with some of the more leftist-radical NS like Strasser, Roehm, Goebbels also leaned that way. Himmler was more of a centralist and technocrat than e.g. Hitler was, who was content that the local National Socialists would resolve issues their own way. Overall NS was far more pragmatic than the usual ideology driven movements like the Marxist Leninists. Antisemitism didn't really play that big role as is insinuated today. The emphasis was on social transformation of Germany, which then should fruit into the popular culture over time. Bear in mind that they had about a quarter to a third of the voters behind them. After a couple of years they did however have a high approval rating, which I'd estimate to be about 80%. I'd guess that declined steadily during the war. But I recall surveys taken during the years after the war that still were quite favourable until a sway occurred during the 1960s.

[Otium]

Of course a lot of it is in contemporary context. But there are several key tenets that are more rigid . . . one of this was exclusive to National Socialism

National Socialism isn't an ideology that borrows tenants or principles from other ideologies. It's a holistic worldview which is predicated on the recognition of consistent social behaviours that are evolutionarily conducive to a stable, organic, and united Volksgemeinschaft (People's community). The methods of how to achieve this by best giving the people in question the most fertile ground to express their natural essence, and rid the community of the unnatural elements which corrupt the nation are largely contemporary considerations which are purely practical. No matter the ideological window-dressings, the goal of those differing and conflicting personalities in the German National Socialist milieu was largely the same. They all desired an organic state where the German people (in their context) could thrive as the purest representation of their racial spirit, which was allowed to take form and constitute what it meant to truly be German.

Doctrine was only a means to an end and not the end itself. The Führerprinzip for example isn't "National Socialist", it was simply a method Hitler used to establish order within the movement to avoid it becoming fractured. It was about discipline. Anyone, from any ideological background could use this principle, but not everyone could claim to be a National Socialist because they used it. That would be ridiculous.

National Socialism is tough for people to understand because they get so caught up in rigid ideological dogma, and cannot distinguish between what is dogma, and what is a means to achieve a goal which was recognized from the outset. Like building a bridge, you know where you want to get to, but you just need to figure out a way to get there.

It'd be tempting to say this can apply to other ideologies as well, but this isn't the case. Ideologies like Marxism aren't flexible or practical because it was thought up by rigid human minds who had determined not only the destination they wanted to reach, but also how they were going to get there, even if their method fails again and again with every attempt. National Socialism on the other hand was not "thought up", it was recognized as a state of human nature that was pre-existing by a few individuals (Hitler chiefly among them) as something that governs men of all races and has the ability to fluxuate, hence Hitler's strong emphasis on the laws of nature as a guide for what's best conducive to the healthy life of man, but also seeing that life is a constant struggle for existence against oneself and against others. What's needed to fight this struggle is the ability to remain flexible and practical. Unlike Marxism which negates struggle entirely, and believes in a stagnant end, where utopia is achieved. National Socialism repudiates such ideas.

The temporal political manifestation of National Socialism was something that had to be pulled together from various threads that already existed to one degree or another and be forged by discipline into a sharp political weapon that extolled through the best social mechanisms that which would give rise to it as a force of the peoples will, imbued with their innermost racial essence, their urging to become who they truly are according to their own development.

The human conscience should set justice above interests and parties. Every people has the right to live on its own soil, with its own faith, its history, its customs, and its economic possibilities. . . . We have one single doctrine which is that in economic life there is no place for doctrine.

Adolf Hitler, 26 January 1936. Norman H. Baynes, The Speeches of Adolf Hitler April 1922 - August 1939, Volume II (Oxford University Press, 1942), Pp. 1261.

Doctrine is rigid and it's limiting. Hitler clearly understood this, which is evidenced from the above quote, but also by how he conducted himself in his affairs as Führer. He didn't ever commit himself to any particular policy, or idea because it would take away his ability to manoeuvre. The goal remained the same, that whatever should be done, should be in the interests of the German people and nothing in the life of that people should come into conflict with their means to exist. Economic policy was a means to secure the nation a healthy life, not make money and sacrifice the people to the altar of capital and vain self interest.

Being a National Socialist is only purposeful in a world where you have people who aren't National Socialists to distinguish who recognizes the inalienable laws of nature which govern (whether you like it or not) the world we live in, and those who are subject to those laws, but don't recognize them are doomed to suffer.

---

NS_The_Biological_Wolrdview_&_NS_A_Left_Wing_Movement_Chaos_Press.pdf

(761 KiB) Downloaded 112 times

[DissentingOpinions]

HMS, just out of curiosity, what makes you believe that Mein Kampf Stalag isn't an accurate translation? I can't imagine that the translation coming straight from the National Socialists themselves wouldn't be as accurate as possible.

[Hannover]

HMS, just out of curiosity, what makes you believe that Mein Kampf Stalag isn't an accurate translation? I can't imagine that the translation coming straight from the National Socialists themselves wouldn't be as accurate as possible.

DissentingOpinion, do you have the original to review and compare?

- Hannover

[DissentingOpinions]

If I could find the original complete tome in German, I would link a pdf. I don't know why, but every time I go searching for the German version, all the results come up as its English counterparts(Manheim, Murphy, Ford). If it's Stalag you're referring to, that's available in free pdf & I'll link that here if it's what you're looking for.

[Otium]

HMS, just out of curiosity, what makes you believe that Mein Kampf Stalag isn't an accurate translation? I can't imagine that the translation coming straight from the National Socialists themselves wouldn't be as accurate as possible.

Unfortunately that's a preconception many people have and they're just plain wrong. Read the introduction to Dalton's translation of Mein Kampf, which i've already linked, and read his article Rethinking "Mein Kampf". Also see this article which goes into some of the various differences between the translations.

The TL;DR is that the Stalag is probably one of the worst translations out there because it was half completed by James Murphy before he quit the process of translating the book and went back to England, where he eventually finished the translation that's now known as the "Murphy Translation". The Stalag was re-worked from Murphy's manuscripts by the Germans who didn't speak or write good English and eventually completed by them in a severely sub-par fashion.

Thomas Dalton's is the best translation, for all the reasons you'll find listed in the articles I've linked. Seriously, don't bother with any other translations, it's not worth wasting your time on them because you feel sentimental.

Dalton as we should all know on this forum, is a revisionist historian and professor, he's the first person ever to publish a duel English-German edition of Mein Kampf so the reader if he were so inclined can compare his translation directly with the German.

You can view a scan of an original 1936 edition of Mein Kampf here.

---

Mein Kampf, Thomas Dalton English Translation, Duel English-German Edition
Purchase Link | Volume 1, Duel Translation | Volume 2, Duel Translation

---

[sfivdf21]

....
Of course I've only recommended stuff regarding German National Socialism, don't make the mistake of thinking that everything discussed in the German context of the mid 20th century is applicable today. By this I mean something like the discussion of specific economic policies, rather than the morality of economics from a National Socialist perspective (e.g. the value of labour in and of itself, on behalf of your people, rather than money purely for your own self interest). .....

Of course a lot of it is in contemporary context. But there are several key tenets that are more rigid:
* Folkish Nationalism
* Folk Community
* Leadership Principle
* Mobilisation of People
* Dirigist Economy, with private ownership, market elements, social programs as well strategic planning.

None of this was exclusive to National Socialism, but they combined into a party and movement as to integrate both Socialists and Social Conservatives at the time. The key distinction from Marxist Socialists is their rejection of "Class struggle". Although some hang-over was initially present with some of the more leftist-radical NS like Strasser, Roehm, Goebbels also leaned that way. Himmler was more of a centralist and technocrat than e.g. Hitler was, who was content that the local National Socialists would resolve issues their own way. Overall NS was far more pragmatic than the usual ideology driven movements like the Marxist Leninists. Antisemitism didn't really play that big role as is insinuated today. The emphasis was on social transformation of Germany, which then should fruit into the popular culture over time. Bear in mind that they had about a quarter to a third of the voters behind them. After a couple of years they did however have a high approval rating, which I'd estimate to be about 80%. I'd guess that declined steadily during the war. But I recall surveys taken during the years after the war that still were quite favourable until a sway occurred during the 1960s.

Hello Hektor, interesting comment that you have said about German popular support for Nationalsocialism during and after the war (although I disagree with you in that the popular support was constantly decreasing during the war, Hitler died practically without internal opposition). Could you show those post-war surveys that say that the majority of Germans supported Nationalsocialism at least until the 1960s? I would like to see it, do you know where I can find it? Thanks in advance.

[Hektor]

....
Hello Hektor, interesting comment that you have said about German popular support for Nationalsocialism during and after the war (although I disagree with you in that the popular support was constantly decreasing during the war, Hitler died practically without internal opposition). Could you show those post-war surveys that say that the majority of Germans supported Nationalsocialism at least until the 1960s? I would like to see it, do you know where I can find it? Thanks in advance.

The (intensity of) popular support was def. decreasing since 1942. Although it won't manifest in internal opposition (There was some, but merely as a cop out and not really ideological opposition). Loosing intensity of support is different from being dropped altogether. And one needs to bear in mind that Hitler/NS also had a war bonus. Decent people are not likely to stab their leadership or soldiers into the back during a war and even if they are opposing the gov. They won't view it that way. The fact that bombing against civilian targets intensified from 1942 will actually have strengthened support for the government again. Also the constant Anti-German agitation, demands for unconditional surrender (something actually unheard of), and teaming up against Germany and the Axis etc. would rather have stabilised the NS-gov. What German soldiers saw in the USSR and reported back home def. won't make Germans make change their mind, since that wasn't an option anyone would have preferred for their children.

As far as the post-war surveys, I recall having read them 20 years ago. I came across similar surveys in other publications. What that indicates is that, while people may not have agrees with "the war and persecution of the Jews", they thought that NS was still a good social, economic and political system. So their what for the "democratic parties", then CDU/SPD/FDP was rather done for pragmatic reasons. A lot of their members and representatives were actually former members of the NSDAP, most were soldiers during WW2, etc.

Bear in mind that someone middle-aged or senior in the 1950s would have experienced WW2, the time past WW2, the currency crash, the Weimar Republic, the Great Depression (meaning mass unemployment in Germany and widespread impoverishment/ misery even of middle class people), the upswing in the 1930s, WW2 and the immediate aftermath. Both workers and more educated people could recall and compare their experiences. And well: the pre-NS Weimar era was a rather bad experience for more than 90% of them. Even if they were successful in that era, when the vast majority of your countryman suffers great injustices, it somehow doesn't feel right. So they may still take a lot of the published opinions then with a grain of salt without looking through the sham in total of course. Albeit I'd bet a lot of the older folks realised that they were propagandised by the Allies and their minions. The thing is, even Germans that weren't enthusiastic about NS, weren't too enthusiastic about Weimarian style democracy neither. To them this meant quarrelling about pedantic party-political differences, while a larger portion of the population struggles to survive in desperation.
Here is a documentary with interviews of people that supported the NSDAP
https://archive.org/details/WarumSieHitlerWaehlten
https://archive.org/details/WarumSieHit ... ichDienten
Quite clear why they supported the NSDAP (and why not). It reflects my experience with older Germans. And I recall that they all appeared far more decent (at average) than presently is the norm.

Here are two articles with more recent surveys:
https://www.derstandard.at/story/136210 ... s-schlecht
https://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/auc ... 71318.html

It's the "Did NS also have good sides" question. 40% in Austria 20% in rump Germany say YES. This actually only demonstrates that the brainwashing in Germany was/is stronger than in German Austria proper. But extrapolate this back by 50 years and one should get the picture that it was then double or triple that figure.

Of course a lot of it is in contemporary context. But there are several key tenets that are more rigid . . . one of this was exclusive to National Socialism

National Socialism isn't an ideology that borrows tenants or principles from other ideologies. It's a holistic worldview which is predicated on the recognition of consistent social behaviours that are evolutionarily conducive to a stable, organic, and united Volksgemeinschaft (People's community). The methods of how to achieve this by best giving the people in question the most fertile ground to express their natural essence, and rid the community of the unnatural elements which corrupt the nation are largely contemporary considerations which are purely practical. No matter the ideological window-dressings, the goal of those differing and conflicting personalities in the German National Socialist milieu was largely the same. They all desired an organic state where the German people (in their context) could thrive as the purest representation of their racial spirit, which was allowed to take form and constitute what it meant to truly be German.
....

It obviously did. German Nationalism was a movement emerging during the 19th century. The Labour movement came into being during the later stages of that era. And well, Volksgemeinschaft was also advocated by not strictly NS-figures, like Alice Salomon:
https://archive.org/details/AliceSalomo ... meinschaft

It even had an equivalent in Sweden: the Folkhemmet.