• Hi Guest!

    The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress

Weimar Germany- M,N,O

The "Memory" segment and the urban/rural gap it talked about reminded me of (I believe) Tooze saying that Germany had one of the lowest car ownership rates in interwar Europe. Which led to both obvious issues in keeping most of the Wehrmacht on horseback and the Volkswagen boondoggle (as originally intended, the forced-savings economics of the Type 01 were so questionable that some historians incorrectly but understandably believed it to be just a scam, conveniently giving the regime both a giant plant for rearmament and the funding to build it).
 
Considering how often one comes across the transparently disingenuous claim that the Nazis were somehow left-wing, even among fans of alternate history who really ought to know better, it's refreshing to see the NSDAP's reactionary ideological foundation described in dispassionate, objective terms.
 
Considering how often one comes across the transparently disingenuous claim that the Nazis were somehow left-wing, even among fans of alternate history who really ought to know better, it's refreshing to see the NSDAP's reactionary ideological foundation described in dispassionate, objective terms.

The Nazis were not left-wing but they were not reactionaries either. They were right-wing revolutionaries. Hitler hated the Catholic Church and monarchism, for example. He got rid of the DNVP as soon as he could. To him, the term reactionary was an insult.
 
Last edited:
The Nazis were not left-wing but they were not reactionaries either. They were right-wing revolutionaries. Hitler hated the Catholic Church and monarchism, for example. He got rid of the DNVP as soon as he could. To him, the term reactionary was an insult.
Sarah Zama says it best:

These groups often considered themselves revolutionary because they hated many things about the old regime, but they largely were in agreement with the reactionary forces, including most keywords: order, discipline, people, nation, antisocialism and anti-Semitism.
 
They did share a lot of characteristics with reactionaries but they were not reactionaries, themselves.

They were reactionaries cosplaying as revolutionaries because revolutions are cool and they didn't like the existing reactionary leadership even if fundamentally they agreed with them 95% of the time.

Hitler could pretend not to be reactionary and dislike being described as such the same way he could pretend to be socialist and use the word in his party's name, it doesn't make either true. He was a self-deluded liar.
 
The Nazis were not left-wing but they were not reactionaries either. They were right-wing revolutionaries. Hitler hated the Catholic Church and monarchism, for example. He got rid of the DNVP as soon as he could. To him, the term reactionary was an insult.
Yeah but Hitler replaced the monarchy with an all-powerful leader whose legitimacy stemmed from his supposed superhuman abilities, which is basically monarchy but without hereditary succession (and even then the big reason hereditary succession was never considered was Hitler's lack of kids). Similarly, while his plan for dealing with the Church was never entirely clear it's obvious that whatever he was gonna replace it with would have served the same function of maintaining social control and upholding traditional values. Revolution is defined by the destruction of the traditional order, and the Nazis never tried to destroy the traditional order but merely tried to cover it in a National Socialist coat of paint.
 
You do have to give credit where it is due though. Nearly 100 years on and people still twisted in knots by the rebranding from German Workers Party.
 
You do have to give credit where it is due though. Nearly 100 years on and people still twisted in knots by the rebranding from German Workers Party.
Well, we are talking about the same people who claim with a straight face that the Alt-Right is not actually right-wing because, they allege, it really means "alternative to the right". (See Prager, Dennis)
 
They were reactionaries cosplaying as revolutionaries because revolutions are cool and they didn't like the existing reactionary leadership even if fundamentally they agreed with them 95% of the time.

Hitler could pretend not to be reactionary and dislike being described as such the same way he could pretend to be socialist and use the word in his party's name, it doesn't make either true. He was a self-deluded liar.
The Nazis used the term reactionary as an insult in propaganda. Meanwhile, the use of the term socialist is a different matter entirely. The Nazis used the term socialist but they always made it clear it was not in the traditional sense. I agree it's wrong to call the Nazis socialists. However, I also think it's wrong to call them reactionaries.
Yeah but Hitler replaced the monarchy with an all-powerful leader whose legitimacy stemmed from his supposed superhuman abilities, which is basically monarchy but without hereditary succession (and even then the big reason hereditary succession was never considered was Hitler's lack of kids). Similarly, while his plan for dealing with the Church was never entirely clear it's obvious that whatever he was gonna replace it with would have served the same function of maintaining social control and upholding traditional values. Revolution is defined by the destruction of the traditional order, and the Nazis never tried to destroy the traditional order but merely tried to cover it in a National Socialist coat of paint.
I would say those plans were actually revolutionary.
Hitler even planned to eventually overthrow the reactionary Franco.
 
The Nazis used the term reactionary as an insult in propaganda. Meanwhile, the use of the term socialist is a different matter entirely. The Nazis used the term socialist but they always made it clear it was not in the traditional sense. I agree it's wrong to call the Nazis socialists. However, I also think it's wrong to call them reactionaries.

I would say those plans were actually revolutionary.
Hitler even planned to eventually overthrow the reactionary Franco.

Reactionaries never like being called reactionaries - traditional monarchist reactionaries would just call themselves "traditionalists" or "conservatives", no matter how reactionary they were in fact. The Nazis merely follow the trend of rejecting the label of reactionary for themselves no matter how relevant it is, and it is relevant. Furthermore, at the very foundation of Nazism was being willing to turn the aesthetic of revolution to the purpose of reactionary conservatism; turning "reactionaries" into a word they used to denigrate their opponents (some of whom actually were also reactionaries) is merely another layer of cosplay.

National socialism is reactionary because they set out reactionary ideas with reactionary plans in the context of a reactionary ideology that seeks to turn back to a better, more perfect time of absolute government in the context of a perfected Western civilization. Their rejection of traditional reactionism was not a principled rejection of the old forces because they were old - either in theory or in practice - but a question of strength -- the old order failed to maintain the perfect, absolutist state, so why would we turn back to them if our ideology is based on power and those who wield it -- which is at the fundamental core of all reactionary ideologies. And the fact that the Nazis didn't get along with other reactionaries -- well, hell, that's also fundamentally reactionary. Reactionaries often have very specific ideas of where society should be - and, where their own nation, their own people should be - and even very slight variations in this vision will lead to conflict between different reactionary fashions. The fact that two groups that share very similar political ideals and goals clash does not change that they are very similar.

Frankly, if the Nazis are not reactionaries, then "reactionaries" really just doesn't have any meaning.
 
I wouldn't consider Hitler a reactionary so much as whatever Napoleon was. Which, granted some people consider reactionary, but I think is generally considered to be its own thing. (Although I'd also argue that reactionary and revolutionary aren't mutually exclusive categories, e.g. ISIS).

(Do I think anyone would argue Hitler wasn't a socialist in a timeline where Barbarossa didn't happen? Not remotely.)
 
I wouldn't consider Hitler a reactionary so much as whatever Napoleon was. Which, granted some people consider reactionary, but I think is generally considered to be its own thing.
While Napoleon did implement specific policies that reversed social progress, such as the reduced status of women in the Code Civil and, unforgivably, the reinstitution of slavery in the French Caribbean, he did not base his rule on a reactionary worldview--and for good reason, the idea that some commoner could be in charge of a whole country was anathema to the reactionaries of his time. He did not appeal to some mythical golden age, nor did he entertain pastoral fantasies of a continent populated by happy farmers. His ideology, such as it was beyond "I'm in charge, deal with it", was based from the most part on the revolutionary heritage. New legal systems, new rights, new measurement systems, he endorsed the whole package and spread it beyond French borders.
 
Back
Top