Tag Archives: Adolf Hitler

Fascism v. Nazism

Posted on by

Fascism and Nazism have often been grouped together with little, if any differentiation. In reality, there are significant differences between the two ideologies, which are clearly seen by examining Benito Mussolini’s What is Fascism, and Hitler’s The 25 Points 1920: An Early Nazi Program. Reading these two sources in conversation with each other reveals that the reasoning was different for both ideologies.

Mussolini’s What is Fascism was written in 1932 with the help of Giovanni Gentile. With this definition, Mussolini stove to define what Fascism was, and how it would bring Italy back into it’s former glory. The essence of Fascism was defined as the state, which was absolute.  Additionally, Mussolini believed that individuals were only to be conceived of in their relation to the State. ((“Modern History Sourcebook: Benito Mussolini: What is Fascism,” Fordham University, accessed September 19, 2014, http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.asp)) Furthermore, Mussolini noted why Fascism was different than other ideologies, (and therefore better in his mind). He stated that Fascism now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect. ((Ibid)) In addition, he discussed how Fascism was an ideology that would be able to organize the state, and allow it to expand. He continues with the idea of expansion as essential for the growth and subsequent success of the nation.

While Mussolini remained focused on expansionism and creating a national fervor for a better Italy, Hitler demonstrated through The 25 Points 1920: An Early Nazi Program that purification of the nation was his ideological goal to better the nation. A significant number of points deal in some way with race and purifying the German population down to the ideal citizen. Hitler discusses how citizenship should be defined by one’s race, and that only those of German blood could reap the benefits of citizenship. Foreigners and Jews specifically are not included as citizens. Hitler believed that through purification of the population, Germany would cleanse itself of any impurities, and return again to it’s former glory.

Both Hitler and Mussolini arguably had a common goal in asserting their ideologies. They both wanted to restore their respective nations to their former glory. However, the methodology for each leader was significantly different. Mussolini believed that fascism was defined by an absolute state, while Hitler believed that success could be achieved through purification of the German race.

What I found intriguing about reading these sources was specifically looking at the language and word choice in Mussolini’s definition. He writes fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and heroism. ((Ibid)) I find it interesting that he used the word “holy” in his definition. I believe in class we discussed that Mussolini was not religious. However, perhaps the choice in wording here was deliberate. Creating a mission to make a “holy and heroic” population would arguably attract both the Church and the population in general, most of whom were Roman Catholic. Thoughts? What other instances do you see where language and word choice was significant in either the Mussolini or Hitler document?

Hitler Speech- April 12, 1921

Posted on by
Adolf Hitler Speech- April 12, 1921

3 Substainative points:
“We are already a colony of the outside world.” Hitler displays the opinions of many Germans when he says that Germany no longer had the ability to work for itself. Not only were they subjected to the conditions of Versailles without input, but those conditions have allowed the suppression of their entire work force. “The product of Germany’s work thus belonged, not to our nation, but to her foreign creditors,” shows the angry sentiments of Germans towards the other European nations- an anger that would only grow towards an outburst of war.

“‘ Christian capitalism’ is already as good as destroyed, the international Jewish Stock Exchange capital gains in proportion as the other loses ground.” Hitler is attempting to rallying the majority of German people- people who were Christian- by helping them push off the blame of the failure of their economy. This was a targeted outlet for Hitler to chose because of the prominent anti- semitism already in Europe and because of the blame that the German people desperately wanted to rid themselves of (after the Treaty of Versailles expected them to accept all of the blame from WWI).
“There are only two possibilities: either victory of the Aryan or annihilation of the Aryan and the victory of the Jew.” Hitler views democracy as a Jewish idea and that it is not something that belongs in Germany. When discussing political ideas, he sees democracy as the “destruction of Aryan leadership,” and hence with its association with Judaism he rejects it.
2 questions:
If the reparations against Germany after the Treaty of Versailles weren’t as harsh, would the stability of the country have allowed an over powerful leader such as Hitler?
Hitler’s idea of “National Socialism” seems to bring together the right and the left, of which he condemns both initially, capitalizing on the state- promoting ideas of each. However, he also states that one should not associate with the party of compromises. He is not attempting to compromise between the two, yet the aspects that he wants to incorporate are key aspects from each. To what extent did this appeal to the public affiliated with these parties because of his use of their past ideas, and to what extent was this viewed as a purely unique idea?
1 interesting point:
This entire speech is Hitler taking the anger of the German people and focusing it on specific aspects of society. Yes, there was prevalent anti- semitism in Europe and there certainly was hatred for the creators of the Treaty of Versailles, but what made Hitler’s propaganda so powerful in his speeches was his ability to rally a people to only focus on those aspects of pure emotion. The German population was highly educated, and yet through all the trouble of the times and his personal abilities he was able to override that sensibility and key in on their frustrations with the treatment of Germany..

European Dictators: The Worse of Two Evils?

Posted on by

While viewing pictures of the gulags on gulaghistory.org, I was reminded of the pictures of Auschwicz  I had seen in high school during our holocaust unit. The starvation, disease, and forced labor I read about on the site, as well as in the book A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich seemed reminiscent of the Nazi concentration camps.

These facts made me wonder why in American culture Joseph Stalin’s crimes often seem to be minimized. (Not that I believe Hitler’s crimes are exaggerated at all.)  According to the Jewish Virtual Library, 11 million people were killed in the Holocaust. According to the International Business Times, Stalin’s kill count is estimated to be 20 million. *Both counts vary according to different sources.

I will not try to determine “who is worse.”  I am merely examining why Hitler seems so much more evil to Americans than Stalin does, while, at first glance, they committed similar crimes.

I think the reason America remembers Hitler more than Stalin is because 1) Hitler was concerned with the extermination of certain races 2) Hitler killed using more sadistic methods 3) Stalin’s crimes were internalized to his country and 4) Stalin had been an American ally.

While Hitler was probably “more racist” as his entire philosophy was based around race, Stalin wasn’t exactly Martin Luther King. He sent various nationalities to the gulags because he perceived them as a threat.  These nationalities included Ukrainians, Germans, and yes, Jews.  So Stalin was also anti-Semitic.  Though he was arguably less so than Hitler, (he didn’t want to actually exterminate them), does it really matter who is more or less anti-Semitic?  Both of them killed people simply for being Jewish.  Which we can all agree is incredibly wrong.

Yes, Hitler was definitely more sadistic than Stalin. While Stalin killed people who he felt threatened by, Hitler almost seemed to take joy in the pure act of sadistic killing. My guess is that this is what truly sets the two apart in the minds of most Americans. Stalin joins the ranks of Genghis Khan and the ancient Roman emperors- killing because they believed they had to in order to remain in power. Hitler’s more of a Jeffrey Dahmer figure with unlimited power.

Hitler also attempted to take over Europe: Poland, Czechoslovakia, Austria, the Netherlands, France and an alliance with Italy, and an attempt on Russia. When he would take over a country, he would send the local Jewish, Romani, handicapped, etc. populations to concentration camps (except in the case of Poland, where he basically sent anyone he could).  Stalin stuck to the Soviet Union. While it was the largest country in the world at the time, it was Stalin’s, so he could more or less do as he pleased.

Finally, during World War II, the United States sided with the Soviet Union, and Stalin. First of all, Soviet troops fought valiantly against Hitler, following the “enemy of my enemy is my friend” rule.  Also, as we did ally ourselves with Stalin, we may have trouble admitting we sided with someone who was basically as evil as the one we were fighting against.

Stalin is perceived as less racist and less sadistic than Hitler. He stuck to his own territory and was even an American ally for a little while. Whether deserved or not, these reasons make Stalin the “lesser of two evils” for many Americans.