From an Angry Reader:
Hello Mr Hanson. I read your articles on Townhall.com and have a question on something you wrote in Enemies Of Language. In your article you refer to Nazi Germany as having been “right wing.” This is a question that I have been wanting to pose so many times when reading articles or viewing documentaries on TV. What was it about Nazi government policies in Germany that made it “right wing” rather than left? It seems to me that Nazism was a politically left ideology due to big government control of everything such as industry, one party rule, censorship, anti religion, etc. What are the things you believe made it right wing?
Rick Bush
Victor Davis Hanson’s Reply:
Dear Not So Angry Reader Rick Bush,
Thank you for your reasoned inquiry. I addressed some of this in a prior response to a genuinely angry reader.
National Socialism was an odd hybrid, reflecting both the adjective National and the noun Socialism. In Hitler’s view, socialism in the German context meant more or less what it implied: anti-capitalist screeds, lots of entitlements and government services, infrastructure building, deals for like-sounding corrupt cronies, and government supervised education, recreation, environmentalism, and employment.
But Nazi economics were not so all-inclusive socialist as communism, given that crony capitalists were given concessions to profit and promises from Hitler et al. that they would be free of union strikes and popular pushback. Average Germans for the large part kept their property. There were no confiscations of private wealth on a mass scale other than the nightmarish hounding of Jews and political opponents—unlike the Soviet Union that collectivized almost everything (of course with exceptions for a privileged elite).
But the key was again “National.” Unlike communism and prior universal socialism, Nazism had no claim on universalism: it never sought to unite the workers of the world or to create a socialist global utopia.
Rather, it unapologetically believed that Germans, as Aryans, were a superior race. Like the nationalist and socialist ancient Spartans, there would be mandated privileged equality among most Germans, but based on cruel exploitation of a vast cast of inferiors below.
If socialism is a crackpot dream that the workers of the world will unite across race and geography against universal capitalist exploiters, unhinged National Socialism meant that pure Germans would advance a Third Reich, promoting arms, patriotism, bizarre mythologies about a past supposedly untainted from the very beginning by decadent Romanism, puffed-up fantastical Nordic religion, and a national creed of patriotic, well-armed, and mostly superior people who would naturally excel over lesser others if united by an anti-democratic single tyrant.
In short, I think Hitler and his predecessors were somewhat accurate in calling this hybrid movement of socialism at home and nationalism abroad Nationalsozialismus, and so we are mostly right in calling Nazism, as outsiders in World War II, who had to deal with its foreign policy, as “right-wing,” at least in comparison to Stalin’s left-wing version of mass extermination.
To be pedantic I might have instead better have referred to right-left wing Nazi Germany and a left-right wing Soviet Union, given that the latter was likewise unfree, highly patriotic, militaristic, and followed the cult of a caudillo—along with being a share-the-poverty and hating capitalism dictatorship. Stalin once admired Hitler and vice versa; they saw each other as somewhat similar, especially their shared barbaric means to an end. The difference perhaps ultimately was one of relative degree: Hitler to his enemies was more right-wing, dictatorial and militaristic than socialist, and Stalin was more ruthlessly communist than other right-wing autocrats.
—Victor Davis Hanson
Discussion (20)
Join the conversation. Logged in subscribers avoid the Captcha verification and get priority commenting approvals. No vulgarity, links, or code allowed.
In reaction to Mr. Davis Hanson: in stead of nationalizing the German economy, Hitler Spike of nationalizeing the German people. That is what made nazism more socialist, thus leftwing, than nationalist. Official nazi ideology was, according to Goebbels, more socialist. The same can be said of fascism. Mussolini was a Marxist.
Thanks for the clarification, I wondered about that too.
To see Hitler as merely a dictator is to misconstrue the conductor as only the composer. Hitler was both! To see 'Nazism' as merely a form of socialism is to deny eugenics as it primary function. Hitler saw farther, intuited further, and practically accomplished more than any figure since Napoleon, and as a social philosopher was far more trenchant and appropo' in his analysis. Napoleon was a child of his era, marching to endow the 'Rights of Man'. But Hitler was both author and instrumentor. He understood that the primary factor in history was the quality of subsets of Homo Sapiens. He knew that if the Germans did not control europe farcical jewish 'humanism' would, with the very loss of the qualities that made Aryan man superior. Hitler realized and defined three principles without which higher civilization cannot withstand innundation by its lessors. 1) That the quality of blood must be maintained and improved, 2) That economic problems could not be resolved through economic methodology but by brotherhood, and 3) That the jews are our mortal enemies as the propagandists and polluters of our society. And his example however demonized is proven now to be correct with the African/Muslim invasion of europe orchestrated by the jews and their 'liberal' allies. No reasonable person can now look at what europe is becoming and not wish that Hitler had triumphed. No reasonable person cannot thank Hitler for saving Europe from the rape that Stalin would have commited. Hansen, wake up! The state your grandparents made into one of the idols of civilization, with its high culture, sweet civility, and proficient economy has now been conquered by a people not capable of imitating its success while dragging California down into the morass that Mexico always has been. Hitler is the only light unto our path, more relevant than the Founding Fathers because our Republic failed to recognize and politically instrument that we are a special people and must keep ourselves intact as the primary social consideration. Biology trumps mere politics, and humanistic considerations are ridiculous considering our obligation to the maturation of the species. We were about to conquer the stars, and now we are being trampled in the mud. Wake up Hansen!
Interesting discussion. I once read that the reason Nazis were labelled right-wing is because Stalin made this statement to discredit National Socialism because he had declared that international socialism was now the only acceptable socialism.
Thank you for that lucid explanation. I had been wondering myself where the differences lay, I understood them but was unable to clearly explain them.
Isn't your last terminology best served, and "left and right wing" not so useful because of the current abuse of these terms in current demonized ordinary politcal agitprop? Especially after our run farther left by the Democrat party and bizarre label name calling by Soros and his and related networks, we might do better with your terms of "left right and right left nationalist dictatorship". On further thought, even that will be high jacked, will it not?
In the end, doesn't it all come down to how we define right wing and left wing? When people attempt to use them without definitions, and simply employ them as epithets, aren't they hindering, rather than aiding, any attempt to understand what may actually be going on?
Geez, VDH. Your head is normally screwed on "right" but this? The rationale is a to the bone case of mitigated crap. To wit: 1."National Socialism was an odd hybrid, reflecting both the adjective National and the noun Socialism" Hybrid my *. It's a made up word arrived at by a bunch of drunk gangsters that decided to go into politics because they weren't as good at thieving, robbing, and murder as they were at being not, gainfully employed. Using the same pretext, they were a Theocracy because the swastika was used to decorate ancient temples because it was easy to chip into rock with a chisel and hammer made of copper or stone. 2. "But Nazi economics were not so all-inclusive socialist as communism, given that crony capitalists were given concessions to profit and promises from Hitler et al. that they would be free of union strikes and popular pushback." There were nazis in control of every businesses finances, siphoning-stealing off millions, the "cronies" were nothing more than figureheads with a death sentence already written should they not do what they were told, or sometimes even if they did do what they were told. 3."There were no confiscations of private wealth on a mass scale" Good grief. What does it take to make a link to your cognitive skills. The gangsters had entire armies and multiple government-capo run confiscation-murder squads during their time in power. The monsters particularly targeted the Jewish race and entire countries. If that doesn't qualify as "mass scale" you're in the early stages of Alzheimers. 4. "Nazism had no claim on universalism:" Geez what a totally brain dead statement. the only rationale for this is the nazis didn't reveal their plan to use their rockets to conquer the Milky way. From meinkauf to the bunker, their stated-implied "claim" was world domination. 5. "who had to deal with its foreign policy, as “right-wing,” at least in comparison to Stalin’s left-wing version of mass extermination". Good grief. Two murderous narcissistic sociopaths whose only any kind of "policy" was doing whatever it took to maintain their perks, egos, and their twisted sustenance from the murder, rape, and chaos they instigated, do not a political ideology make. 5. "To be pedantic". There's a lesser used definition of pedantic. "unimaginative or dull". The memes in this email retort, however; demand a more pejorative that isn't in the dictionary. 6. "Nazi...and Soviet Union...followed a cult of caudillo". Here again you ignore-cannot comprehend the two dictator monsters had no personalities. Their genetic and mental processes were single-mindedly focused on self-preservation with like minded lesser organizationally inclined sociopathic gangsters. Either a intern of yours wrote this or you, Victor Hansen, have gone the way of hitler, glenn beck, and hussein obama. Your mind is gone. The dims could use a fresh voice metastasizing their nazi tendencies meme on conservatives, this sort of clap trap belongs on huffpo, gwaker, or cnn.
This is a highly informative analysis. My question is what are the core characteristics of right and left that you use in your analysis
Superb clarity. Great response.
Hi Mr. Hanson, You have written several times about the coming water crisis in California, but I cannot seem to find the articles. Could you help me figure out how to look up stuff in the back issues, please?
Your last paragraph explained the difference beautifully. Now could you explain the Spanish Civil war succinctly, please
At long last the answer to a question I also have had, but neglected to ask of a real expert. Thank you Professor Hanson.
Dear Dr. Hanson: A fellow teacher and I after debating the issue of the difference between Nazism and Communism (a tad under the influence I must concede) concluded that Hitler had better set and costume designers, while Uncle Joe had better script writers. In other words: one side could make evil, ugly and stupid look better and the other could make them read better. But like Dante's Inferno, while there are many sides to enter the Pit, all slide to the same bottom.
Well put, Professor Hanson. When there was only one choice left Hitler was going to go to his fate as an authoritative Aryan fabulist - the socialism would be forgotten - but Stalin would never have surrendered Communist party control, even in order to survive - Mother Russia be damned.
Good question. Complex reasoning, but well answered.
This is truly excellent explanation, sir.
Dear Dr. Hanson: I wish I could get you a copy of my Father's copyrighted view of the Political Spectrum, 1963. I am a year younger than you and grew up with it on a chalk board in his office but have some printed copies with his explanation. I think he got it right, though I did not get there until the mid 80's. He puts Communism far left, Nazis just to it's right, Constitutional Republic in the Center and far right Anarchy. His explanations seem sound, though I am prejudiced.
Professor Hanson, I would tend to view the National Socialist German Workers Party as being more left than right with their socialized medicine, emphasis on stay at home mothers, and strict gun control, this last being a classic move by dictatorships of all stripes. Moving afield from the socialist ideology, I am seeing a re-emergence of Hitler's Lebensraum in China's island creation in the dubious "nine dash" area where they actively seek hegemony. Japan did their "island hopping" simply by conquering the nations standing between them and their ultimate goal; Australia. Like Germany, Japan was a densely populated nation with an advanced military and desired to expand at the expense of all those in its path, much as Hitler first annexed most of Eastern Europe before launching Operation Barbarossa to conquer Russia itself and ensuring German dominance from the Atlantic to the Pacific. With the overly mighty U.S. Navy blocking the invasion of any nation states, China is taking the path of creating island territories by which they can proclaim sovereignty. But, the aim remains the same.
So if I am to understand, the Nazis of Germany were to the right of Communist Russia, but are still to the left of our Rebublic, and not as has been drilled into us that to the left of us is socialism and communists and to the right of us is nazism. I've heard it so many Times if you go to far right in American politics you'll end up factists nazis. I Personally don't believe that, but when discussing with leftys they always circle around to this argument. I've been wondering if there was a more linear view of political economic progression from say anarchy to our republican form? Thoughts?