National Socialism explained?

[DissentingOpinions]

At the risk of possibly going off topic(although a separate thread for this would be awkward), isn’t Thomas Dalton just a pseudonym for Michael Santomauro*? It’s a legitimate point that nobody knows anything about the man’s academic background, and he just appeared on the scene. I’ll give it the benefit of the doubt in good faith that Dalton’s German tomes are the original text, but I can’t really take anybody’s word on this 100% unless we have access to the first editions of both volumes.

*Logical conclusion: Santomauro registered the Holocaust Handbooks domain when Barnes reprinted volumes, supplied by Whois. His own website was also on an old version of the “Debating the Holocaust” site, and Santomauro was the one mass promoting the book at the time.

[borjastick]

Whatever he is called, and frankly it is of no import to me, his excellent book Debating the Holocaust is one of just a few go-to books on the subject.

[Otium]

It’s a legitimate point that nobody knows anything about the man’s academic background, and he just appeared on the scene. I’ll give it the benefit of the doubt in good faith that Dalton’s German tomes are the original text, but I can’t really take anybody’s word on this 100% unless we have access to the first editions of both volumes.

According to Dalton himself, he's a professor at a prestigious American university, hence his hesitancy in revealing who he is. That's good enough reason not to reveal your academic background.

I don't understand your hesitancy. Mein Kampf isn't an obscure hard to find document. First editions go on sale regularly. Even then all you'd need to do is buy the duel edition of Mein Kampf published by Dalton and compare it to an edition published by the NSDAP. I myself own two original copies, one from 1932 and another from 1938, I've posted a scan from a 1936 edition. Dalton's translation is taken from two original volumes published in the 1920s.

[Otium]

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.

That's kind of my point. Giving a name to an organic idea one sees present in nature isn't the same as creating an artificial and speculative ideological tenant. Other movements from countries around the world could of course discover it - like anyone from around the world could discover the wheel - because it's a universal concept that's applicable to everyone, and because it applies to everyone that's what National Socialism recognises. It's a focus on the bringing together of the perennial forces of nature which govern the world, and mans place in it generally, but more specifically the place in which your ethnicity and race can discover its most authentic sense of self.

The most basic elements of National Socialism are agreed upon, like I said earlier, but some of the practical ideas on how to bring about the most organic society might differ between National Socialists. Even people who aren't explicit National Socialists may uphold National Socialist tenants, much of which you will find in the sort of Nationalism which was a precursor to German National Socialism.

Goebbels knew National Socialism was an idea which people could instinctively know, but not totally be able to grasp or present particularly well (Gellately, Hitler's True Believers, Oxford 2020, p. 71). I think he's right about that, because anyone who tries to present National Socialism as anything to do with specific policies, tenants or theories utterly fails to convey the true meaning of the idea, which is essentially race feeling in all aspects of life.

[DissentingOpinions]

Don’t get me wrong: As somebody who grew up as a kid not believing in the traditional narrative of Hitler & NS Germany, I already knew that Manheim, the translation found in schools, was a smear & made to be as biased as possible. It’s just that even though I have German blood in me, I have absolutely no grasp on German, and I don’t want to get doxxed if I’m seen with Mein Kampf in any physical form, so I’m automatically going to be unsure about newer English translations, seeing as there are so many out right now. I must admit though, I have the second edition of Debating the Holocaust, and I think it’s really solid as a neutral view on the Holocaust myth. Maybe I’ll buy the newer volume later this year.

[sfivdf21]

....
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.

Hello Hektor, thank you for your answer or your information.

As for what you say about the alleged decrease in popular support, it's true that obviously when the situation is bad and times are hard, the morale is not so high as when things are going well and the situation is good (so probably German popular support for Hitler and Nationalsocialism in 1944 and 1945 was not so enthusiastic as it was for example in 1936 or in the early years of the war, although that doesn't at all mean that in 1944 and 1945 the German people were no longer loyal to Hitler and Nationalsocialism), I remain of the opinion that the overwhelming majority of Germans who lived through the Third Reich era were commited Nationalsocialists before, during and after World War II. In fact, I am also of the opinion that those of them who are still alive also remains loyal to the memory of Adolf Hitler and Nationalsocialism (today the only Germans of the generations who lived through the Hitler era with age of reason who are still alive are those who were born in the 1920s). Do you really think that the majority of Germans (when I say "Germans" in this case I don't include the postwar generations or those who were young children but only the Germans who lived through that time with the use of reason) believed that their Nationalsocialist leaders were the guilties of the defeat of their country? I certainly don't think that they were/are of this opinion. Their Nationalsocialist leaders were responsible for the resurgence of Germany as a world power and prosperous, civilizated and free country and also of the total eradication of poverty, Adolf Hitler was undoubtedly the best statesman that Germany has had in all its millenary history and the man in charge of the stage of greater prosperity than the Germans have experienced throughout their history, if they lost the war it was because they were forced to fight a World War against their will and have been surrounded (and the betrayal of some countries that were allies of Germany in the last years of the war also contributed to that situation), if the Germans had had a less good and competent government than they did, they probably would have lost the war before 1945.

However, something that also arouses my curiosity and that I have never been able to find out (since I am not aware of any information about it) and that is related to the issue that we are discussing here is how the German people reacted to the death of Adolf Hitler. Some time ago I posted a thread about it but so far no one has answered. If you have information about it please post it in that thread, I would appreciate it.

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=13567

About the issue of the "democratic parties" in the first decades of the postwar period in West Germany that you mention I also find it very interesting, in fact I have long planned to publish a thread about the Adenauer era and the influence of the Nationalsocialists in the West German institutions and politics during that time, I will publish it in the future.

Sorry for my ignorance, but what does the expression "take with a grain of salt" mean? I don't understand that expression, English is not my native language and I have not quite mastered it yet.

I share the opinion that the majority of Germans who lived through the Third Reich with use of reason (those were adults or teenagers during the 1940s), after the war and up to the present day, continued to have (and continue to have those of them who remain alive) a positive view of Adolf Hitler and have never believed in the lie of the "Holocaust". I also share the opinion that the majority of Germans who lived through the Third Reich era did not like the post-1949 parliamentary system of the puppet regime of the Federal Republic of Germany very much, since the comparisons are hateful and those who have lived in both political regimes and can compare and choosing between Nationalsocialism and Democracy is clear that Democracy doesn't leave very well.

That said, about the surveys, thank you very much for the information, I didn't know the most recent surveys either (the Austrian is from 2013 and the German from 2007), the result seems to me good and bad at the same time, good because despite the Orwellian persecution and censorship against everything related to Nationalsocialism and "Holocaust" Revisionism in the current ocuppied Germany the 42% of Austrians and 21% of Germans have a positive view of Nationalsocialism (although it are minority percentages, I don't consider it an insignificant amount). But also bad because I find disgusting that most part of the current German society have believe in the anti-German "Holocaust" propaganda, the Germans owe Hitler nothing but gratitude and loyalty due the heroic sacrifice of the Führer for his people and his Homeland, if I were German I would have it even clearer than I have it. However, I would like to make some observations about these surveys. Taking into account the large number of immigrants (and second and third generation immigrants, the latter having been born in Germany are listed as "Germans" even though they are not) that there are in Germany, namely how many of those who have voted they are really German. The 2007 German survey says that 37% of Germans over 60 had a positive opinion of Nationalsocialism. A German over 60 years of age in 2007 includes from those were born in the 1910s and 1920s to those were born in 1947, however if we were to reduce that group of Germans in the survey to a German over 80 years in 2007 (only the Germans born in the 1910s and 1920s) the positive view of Nationalsocialism would probably be higher than 60%.

However, you say that if we extrapolate these surveys to 50 years ago (that is, in the 1970s), twice or three times as many Germans and Austrians had a positive view of Nationalsocialism than those who have it now, that is, according to you, in the year 1971 between 42 and 63% of Germans and between 80 and 84% of Austrians had a positive view of Nationalsocialism.

But these surveys that you have shown me are surveys from the 2000s and 2010s, they are not the post-war and 1960s surveys that you read, do you know where I can find it? These surveys interest me more than the current ones that you show because in 1950s and 1960s the number of Germans who lived through the Third Reich era with use of reason was much greater than there is today, I would be very grateful if you could provide that information, I searched yesterday and could not find anything, only current surveys.

As for this documentary I will see it, it seem very interesting (however, do you know if there is any version subtitled to English? Unfortunately my German for now is not so fluent as to be able to understand a 2 hour documentary without subtitles). But out of curiosity, is it an objective documentary, or is the typical production that aims to denigrate those who supported Nationalsocialism? Thanks in advance.

[chaos]

Just received Thomas Dalton's 2021 version of Mein Kampf recommended by HMSendeavour.

It looks absolutely beautiful, and I can't wait to dive in once I am done with Nuremberg: The Last Battle by David Irving.

Here is link to a few images: https://imgur.com/a/ZXJ1wAF

[Hektor]

...
It even had an equivalent in Sweden: the Folkhemmet.

Hello Hektor, thank you for your answer or your information.

As for what you say about the alleged decrease in popular support, it's true that obviously when the situation is bad and times are hard, the morale is not so high as when things are going well and the situation is good (so probably German popular support for Hitler and Nationalsocialism in 1944 and 1945 was not so enthusiastic as it was for example in 1936 or in the early years of the war, although that doesn't at all mean that in 1944 and 1945 the German people were no longer loyal to Hitler and Nationalsocialism), I remain of the opinion that the overwhelming majority of Germans who lived through the Third Reich era were commited Nationalsocialists before, during and after World War II. In fact, I am also of the opinion that those of them who are still alive also remains loyal to the memory of Adolf Hitler and Nationalsocialism (today the only Germans of the generations who lived through the Hitler era with age of reason who are still alive are those who were born in the 1920s). Do you really think that the majority of Germans (when I say "Germans" in this case I don't include the postwar generations or those who were young children but only the Germans who lived through that time with the use of reason) believed that their Nationalsocialist leaders were the guilties of the defeat of their country? I certainly don't think that they were/are of this opinion. Their Nationalsocialist leaders were responsible for the resurgence of Germany as a world power and prosperous, civilizated and free country and also of the total eradication of poverty, Adolf Hitler was undoubtedly the best statesman that Germany has had in all its millenary history and the man in charge of the stage of greater prosperity than the Germans have experienced throughout their history, if they lost the war it was because they were forced to fight a World War against their will and have been surrounded (and the betrayal of some countries that were allies of Germany in the last years of the war also contributed to that situation), if the Germans had had a less good and competent government than they did, they probably would have lost the war before 1945.
....

Taking with a grain of salt means, you don't take it too seriously.
I don't think that the vast majority of Germans were "committed NS", but that they were satisfied with gov performance during the period before the war and actually also for long afterwards. The reasons were rather simple. The unemployed got jobs and an earned income again, middle class earned more, crime was low, there was progress on many fields. Youth was disciplined, while actually engaging in social activities they enjoyed. So the 80% approval rating is quite realistic. It could even be far more, but that doesn't mean those people were all "Committed National Socialists". Those that mattered were however and I'd put that figure at 25%. Those that were a bit disgruntled were mostly the staunch supporters of the Weimar parties, esp. SPD and KPD, but also some conservatives had their reservations. Example would be the Confessing Church, which was actually at first a conflict between those that tried to align the Church's teachings with NS and those that opposed that. Notably some NS, weren't too eager about this neither as they either wanted the Church to remain an autonomous institution or because they had for some reason a reservation against the Church as institution anyway. One should know that the Church's role in Germany wasn't exactly always positive. In the Kaiser era there was also some conflict between Church and State about education (and priests/pastors/preachers using the pulpit for political propaganda). That was settled with the Church getting some educational rights, while required to discipline clerics that used pulpit for propaganda. There was also legislation against it. Some monarchist conservatives might not find NS to hip as it was more egalitarian than there idea of a society. Of the wealthier classes would resent that their son/daughter would be compelled to serve in the Arbeitsdienst doing menial tasks together with their domestic servants kids. But those were minor issues, nobody would really jump the boat for this. Those leaving Germany mostly had more lucrative offers elsewhere, although there were also those that rejected NS on principle (esp. it being 'undemocratic' and 'authoritarian' - and well anti-Marxist, opposing degeneracy, etc.).

That Germany would wage war against countries hostile to it, wasn't that much of a big deal, since that was generally viewed as a way to settle political disputes that can't be resolved diplomatically. And the NS-gov tried to resolve all disputes diplomatically first. We discuss those issues (of war culpability, etc.) in a separate section.

I major problem is that neutral, sober, comprehensive, insightful works on on the inner workings on the 'third Reich' are rather rare. Most writings are slanted journalism or hammering on single issues out of context.

So one would have to revert to the archives and actually go through it. But even that doesn't really suffice, since documents are open to interpretation and one can not know what the actual people on the ground did think.

[Hektor]

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 ....

Nope, that's exactly what they did. That they had a project of merging this into a new world view is a completely other matter. The ordinary NS-supporter joined the party simply for them:
* Restoring order in Germany.
* Resolving the huge unemployment problem.
* Reviving the economy.
* Securing Germany's position in the world.

While projecting unity to the outside. The movement itself was quite diverse internally. From social conservatives towards fiscally progressives. This also applies to the religious views, although I don't think they had a lot of fanatical Catholics or Protestants on board. They were still in Germany, though and wanted to use the church/religion as a platform... Which didn't sit to well with NS of course. A more negative attitude to especially the Catholic Church was present with Himmler, Goebbels, and Borman... With Goebbels perhaps the most conflicted about this. There were protests from the Churches in connection with Euthanasia and hey, they botched on the issue. Compare this to Abortion nowadays. Churches, both Catholic, Protestant and more fundamentalist circles are protesting and governments don't even blink an eye about this. Tell this to the folks that insist that NS was anti-Christian and then only can cite cases were some cleric was jailed because he was using his pulpit for political purposes.

[Otium]

Nope, that's exactly what they did. That they had a project of merging this into a new world view is a completely other matter. The ordinary NS-supporter joined the party simply for them:
* Restoring order in Germany.
* Resolving the huge unemployment problem.
* Reviving the economy.
* Securing Germany's position in the world.

While projecting unity to the outside. The movement itself was quite diverse internally. From social conservatives towards fiscally progressives. This also applies to the religious views, although I don't think they had a lot of fanatical Catholics or Protestants on board. They were still in Germany, though and wanted to use the church/religion as a platform... Which didn't sit to well with NS of course. A more negative attitude to especially the Catholic Church was present with Himmler, Goebbels, and Borman... With Goebbels perhaps the most conflicted about this. There were protests from the Churches in connection with Euthanasia and hey, they botched on the issue. Compare this to Abortion nowadays. Churches, both Catholic, Protestant and more fundamentalist circles are protesting and governments don't even blink an eye about this. Tell this to the folks that insist that NS was anti-Christian and then only can cite cases were some cleric was jailed because he was using his pulpit for political purposes.

No they didn't. Anyone can make their goal the restoration or order, the revival of the economy, or solving unemployment. All of these things are state matters which have been ever present in all societies, they do not define Nationalsocialism as a distinct worldview.

Nationalsocialism is intended to go beyond mere matters of state, but to essentially transform the life of the people and reorganise the way the people see themselves and their relation to the state and life as a whole. They were intended to be integrated into the larger whole, and see themselves as one part of that whole. The same cannot be said for any other "ideology". This cannot be "borrowed" it can only be recognized.

The fact is for their country to function in the way they want politicians will do whatever works, but it's always the interests of their worldview that guides these managerial decisions. Nationalsocialism may have implemented policy changes similar to those in other countries, or even the same, but it was in service of a wholly unique recognition of the way peoples, states, societies and races function in the world. You cannot invent it, and you cannot lay claim to it. Nationalsocialism is the recognition of what is, the political aspect of society works to ensure the state works in harmony with what is and implements policy to do so.

The disagreements within the NSDAP were largely a matter of policy and external forms of belief. You mention religion, and I agree. But essentially the key tenants are respected. Race above all, humility before nature, and social cohesion devoid of class distinction which is a figment of Marxist materialism. Nationalsocialism preoccupied itself with matters that were primordial.

Although not about Nationalsocialism, the author Herbert Hill in a publication for the journal "Reviews in American History", makes a good point regarding the history of race and labour movements in the United States, which summarizes the issues of primordial nature and the Marxist view of class consciousness:

Labor historians have failed to confront the fundamental issue: the historical development of working-class identity as racial identity . . . Labor historians (who are) committed to the belief that racial conflict among workers is a consequence of class relations or an expression of "false consciousness," celebrate the episodic occurrences of interracial solidarity while ignoring the overall historical pattern. . . . Implicit in much contemporary labor history is the concept of a coherent class entity that exists above and beyond these divisions. For the working class to have been "divided" by external agencies it would need to have had an original unitary existence, but working-class identity does not exist before everything else; it is not primordial and it is always already divided even as it is being formed. The "divisions" emphasized by labor historians articulate and define, at the workplace and in the community, social identities that are fundamental in themselves. Inevitably, multiple factors will determine the identity of workers, race and gender being foremost among them.

Herbert Hill, "The Problem of Race in American Labor History", Reviews in American History, Vol. 24, No. 2 (Jun., 1996), pp. 189-208, here. pp. 189, 190, 193.

Nationalsocialism is all about recognizing the "original unitary existence" bound by the primordial racial in-group mentioned by Hill. All the programs you mentioned were in service of orientating society towards this goal which could hardly be "borrowed". Thus the goals you mentioned weren't ends in themselves.

How could they be?

Do you think Hitler would've considered Germany a truly German country had order been "restored" by Communism like in Russia? Do you think he would've been happy that Germany had her unemployment issue been solved and economy revived if achieved by a Communist or Capitalist system? Or Germany restored to her "position" in the world by a Communist government akin to Stalin's? No, if these ends had been achieved under the circumstances of any other "worldview" or ideology it would've been unthinkable. Nationalsocialism therefore relies on more than just these tangible goals, but on the motivation of something deeper which comes before these goals. That is where you will find the explanation of Nationalsocialism.

[Hektor]

Nope, that's exactly what they did. That they had a project of merging this into a new world view is a completely other matter. The ordinary NS-supporter joined the party simply for them:
* Restoring order in Germany.
* Resolving the huge unemployment problem.
* Reviving the economy.
* Securing Germany's position in the world.

While projecting unity to the outside. The movement itself was quite diverse internally. From social conservatives towards fiscally progressives. This also applies to the religious views, although I don't think they had a lot of fanatical Catholics or Protestants on board. They were still in Germany, though and wanted to use the church/religion as a platform... Which didn't sit to well with NS of course. A more negative attitude to especially the Catholic Church was present with Himmler, Goebbels, and Borman... With Goebbels perhaps the most conflicted about this. There were protests from the Churches in connection with Euthanasia and hey, they botched on the issue. Compare this to Abortion nowadays. Churches, both Catholic, Protestant and more fundamentalist circles are protesting and governments don't even blink an eye about this. Tell this to the folks that insist that NS was anti-Christian and then only can cite cases were some cleric was jailed because he was using his pulpit for political purposes.

No they didn't. Anyone can make their goal the restoration or order, the revival of the economy, or solving unemployment. All of these things are state matters which have been ever present in all societies, they do not define Nationalsocialism as a distinct worldview.

Nationalsocialism is intended to go beyond mere matters of state, but to essentially transform the life of the people and reorganise the way the people see themselves and their relation to the state and life as a whole. They were intended to be integrated into the larger whole, and see themselves as one part of that whole. The same cannot be said for any other "ideology". This cannot be "borrowed" it can only be recognized.
....

Do you really think that ordinary Germans joined the NSDAP, vote for or supported it over high-minded ideological matters? They knew the name, that they were well organized and disliked unemployment, economic upheaval, communist thuggery and also the invasions of German territory after WW1 weren't exactly popular with ordinary Germans.

That there were National Socialists that went far beyond this like Rosenberg, Himmler and several others is not in dispute. But their views also diverged as well. It is indeed between 'new political system' and even some 'esoteric beliefs'. The later not sitting exactly well with most Germans including many, if not most members of the NSDAP. And it indeed caused friction as the "Kirchenkampf" does testify for example. It is often portrayed as if NS tried to "exterminate Christianity" or "create a new religion"... There is of course reasons for this misconception and they are used in the usual narrative creation by those engaged in the Myth-making after WW2.
E.g. Arresting and detaining several members of the clergy, which was misconstrued as being for religious reasons, while it was about them abusing the pulpit as a political platform. Something even Goering dismissed as unnecessary. On the other hand NS made it clear that they'll leave the "Church in the village"... As long as it was about spiritual matters or good works Christians (and other groups) were allowed to do so. They even got financial support for their Church activities (something I'd be opposed to for a number of reason's though). And well, the NS-gov botched in the matter of euthanasia and rumors about it. The later being a special tenet not shared by most National Socialist neither.

NS simply isn't as monolithic a block like Marxism-Leninism is. Even Marxism as a whole would be more narrow.

[hermod]

How the German National Socialist Party was portrayed one year before Hitler became Germany's new Chancellor :

https://postimg.cc/WDyFnLF6

[Otium]

Do you really think that ordinary Germans joined the NSDAP, vote for or supported it over high-minded ideological matters? They knew the name, that they were well organized and disliked unemployment, economic upheaval, communist thuggery and also the invasions of German territory after WW1 weren't exactly popular with ordinary Germans.

No I don't think they did, I do agree with you. But, I will say that if you look into the studies which have documented the motivations for those who joined the party, many of them did so not because they disliked Jews (as is commonly maintained) but for their desire for unity, for the very volksgemeinschaft which Nationalsocialism recognizes. I think explaining what it is actually makes it sound more "ideologically high minded" than it really is. Much of what developed organically is in line with Nationalsocialism whether anyone is consciously pursuing a detailed explanation of it or not. This is what differentiates the Nationalsocialist worldview from other temporal ideologies that must be achieved through strict ideological adherence.

Ideological guidance of course still existed in Germany, Rosenberg's diary, all the way up until the start of the war sporadically documents the attempts by him and others whom he doesn't agree with as well as those who agree with him to influence what "ideological" direction they'd like to see Nationalsocialism go. While agreeing on fundamentals there were other issues of dispute, and their goal was to put in place a proper long term framework. None of it was set right off the bat.

But the reason I go into the 'high minded ideological matters' isn't because I was trying to argue the reasons "ordinary" Germans joined the NSDAP, but because the point of the thread is to understand Nationalsocialism.

That there were National Socialists that went far beyond this like Rosenberg, Himmler and several others is not in dispute. But their views also diverged as well. It is indeed between 'new political system' and even some 'esoteric beliefs'. The later not sitting exactly well with most Germans including many, if not most members of the NSDAP. And it indeed caused friction as the "Kirchenkampf" does testify for example. It is often portrayed as if NS tried to "exterminate Christianity" or "create a new religion"... There is of course reasons for this misconception and they are used in the usual narrative creation by those engaged in the Myth-making after WW2.
E.g. Arresting and detaining several members of the clergy, which was misconstrued as being for religious reasons, while it was about them abusing the pulpit as a political platform. Something even Goering dismissed as unnecessary. On the other hand NS made it clear that they'll leave the "Church in the village"... As long as it was about spiritual matters or good works Christians (and other groups) were allowed to do so. They even got financial support for their Church activities (something I'd be opposed to for a number of reason's though). And well, the NS-gov botched in the matter of euthanasia and rumors about it. The later being a special tenet not shared by most National Socialist neither.

Yes I agree.

NS simply isn't as monolithic a block like Marxism-Leninism is. Even Marxism as a whole would be more narrow.

I also agree.

[Archie]

At the risk of possibly going off topic(although a separate thread for this would be awkward), isn’t Thomas Dalton just a pseudonym for Michael Santomauro*? It’s a legitimate point that nobody knows anything about the man’s academic background, and he just appeared on the scene. I’ll give it the benefit of the doubt in good faith that Dalton’s German tomes are the original text, but I can’t really take anybody’s word on this 100% unless we have access to the first editions of both volumes.

*Logical conclusion: Santomauro registered the Holocaust Handbooks domain when Barnes reprinted volumes, supplied by Whois. His own website was also on an old version of the “Debating the Holocaust” site, and Santomauro was the one mass promoting the book at the time.

I don't think so. Dalton did a radio interview with Kevin Barrett around 2010 and even though he used a voice modifier it didn't sound anything like Santomauro who has a very New York way of talking. Santomauro has said Dalton is a philosophy professor and he simply helped him publish and promote the book and stay anonymous. Germar Rudolf also seems to know Dalton and says he's a philosophy professor. I doubt Santomauro reads or can translate German or that he has the scholarly chops to, for example, write introductions for Mein Kampf or Myth of the Twentieth Century or On the Jews and Their Lies or produce all of Dalton's original work.

[Lamprecht]

That doesn't mean anything. He could just be a guy that learned how to make websites and supported revisionism, so he decided to buy the domain and promote the material.

At the risk of possibly going off topic(although a separate thread for this would be awkward), isn’t Thomas Dalton just a pseudonym for Michael Santomauro*? It’s a legitimate point that nobody knows anything about the man’s academic background, and he just appeared on the scene. I’ll give it the benefit of the doubt in good faith that Dalton’s German tomes are the original text, but I can’t really take anybody’s word on this 100% unless we have access to the first editions of both volumes.

*Logical conclusion: Santomauro registered the Holocaust Handbooks domain when Barnes reprinted volumes, supplied by Whois. His own website was also on an old version of the “Debating the Holocaust” site, and Santomauro was the one mass promoting the book at the time.