See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279325745
Article in Independent Review · March 2015 CITATION 1 READS
1 author:
Andrei A. Znamenski
The University of Memphis 59 PUBLICATIONS 243 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Subscribe to The Independent Review and receive your FREE copy of the 25th Anniversary Edition of Crisis and Leviathan: Critical Episodes in the Growth of American Government, by Founding Editor Robert Higgs. The Independent Review is the acclaimed, interdisciplinary journal by the Independent Institute, devoted to the study of political economy and the critical analysis of government policy.
Provocative, lucid, and engaging, The Independent Review’s thoroughly researched and peer-reviewed articles cover timely issues in economics, law, history, political science, philosophy, sociology and related fields.
Undaunted and uncompromising, The Independent Review is the journal that is pioneering future debate!
Student? Educator? Journalist? Business or civic leader? Engaged citizen? This journal is for YOU! SEE mORE at:
SUBSCRIBE to The Independent Review NOW and Receive a FREE copy of Crisis and Leviathan OR choose one of the following books:
The Terrible 10 A Century of Economic
Challengeof
q YES! Please enroll me with a subscription to The Independent Review for: q Individual Subscription: $28.95 / 1-year (4 issues) q Institutional Subscription: $84.95 / 1-year (4 issues)
q Check (via U.S. bank) enclosed, payable to The Independent Institute q VISA q American Express q MasterCard q Discover
F
Thelinguisticabridgementsindicateanabridgementofthoughtwhich theyinturnfortifyandpromote.
—HerbertMarcuse, One-DimensionalMan
IndowntownVienna,thereisasmallsquarecalledtheJewishPlaza(Juden Platz).Rightinthemiddleofthisareastandsahouse-shapedmarblemonument devotedtothememoryofsixty-fivethousandofAustria’sJewswhoperished duringtheHolocaust.Thenamesofvariousconcentrationcampstowhichthese victimswererelegatedarecarvedaroundthefoundation.Onthepavinginfrontofthis symbolic“marblehouse”arethreelargeinscriptionsengravedinthreelanguages:on theleftGerman,ontherightEnglish,andinthemiddleHebrew(seefigures1a,1b, and1c).TheGermanonesays,“ZumGedenkenandiemehralso65.000o ¨ sterreichischenJuden,dieinderZeitvon1938bis1945vondenNationalsozialisten ermordetwarden”(Incommemorationofmorethan65,000AustrianJewswhowere killedbytheNationalSocialistsbetween1938and1945).Whentranslated,sodoesthe Hebrewoneinthemiddle.YettheEnglishversionreads:“Incommemorationof morethan65,000AustrianJewswhowerekilledbythe Nazis between1938and 1945”(emphasisadded).
AndreiA.Znamenski isaprofessorofhistoryattheUniversityofMemphis. TheIndependentReview,v.19,n.4,Spring2015,ISSN1086–1653,Copyright © 2015,pp.537–561.
CommemorativephraseinGermanonthepaving infrontoftheJudenplatzHolocaustMemorial
TwoyearsagowhenIvisitedthismonumentforthefirsttime,Ididnotpaythe slightestbitofattentiontothatsmalllinguisticdiscrepancy.However,lastsummer whenIvisitedAustriaagain,Ibecameintriguedwiththispeculiarity.Tobeexact, mycuriositywassparkedwhenonthesamedayaftervisitingthatsite,Istrolled intoThalia,Vienna’slargestbookstore.Browsingshelveswithsocialscienceand humanitiesliterature,IstumbleduponaGermantranslationof Hitler’sEmpire:How theNazisRuledEurope, a2009bookbythenotedBritishhistorianMarkMazower. TheGermaneditionofthatbook(Mazower2009b),whichhasthesamecoverpicture,istitled HitlersImperium:EuropaunterderHerrschaftdesNationalsozialismus (Hitler’sempire:EuropeundertheNationalSocialismrule)(seefigures2aand2b).
Figure1c CommemorativephraseinEnglishonthepaving infrontoftheJudenplatzHolocaustMemorial
Ieventuallydecidedtolookdeeperintotheoriginofthislanguageoddity.The firstthingonenoticesisthatwhenEnglish-speakingpeoplewriteandtalkabout Germanyofthe1930sand1940s,moreoftenthannottheyroutinelyusetheword Nazi. Thus,inEnglishwehavebooksandarticlesaboutNazieconomy,Nazilabor policy,Nazigeopolitics,Nazigenetics,andsoforth.Incontrast,whenGermansrefer tothesameturbulentyears,theyusuallyusetheterm NationalSocialism (Nationalsozialismus).Iftheyneedtoshortenit,theyoccasionallywriteNSorNSDP;thelatter isanabbreviationofthelongandall-embracingnameforHitler’sparty,theNational SocialistGermanWorkers’Party(NationalsozialistischeDeutscheArbeiterpartei). Infact,Hitlerandhisassociatesneverlikedorusedtheword Nazi. Theyalwayscalled themselves“NationalSocialists.”Incidentally,before1932,whentheBritishand AmericanmediacouldnotyetmakeuptheirmindsinwhichcamptoplaceHitler’s followers,theytoousuallyreferredtothemasNationalSocialistsorsometimessimply asHitlerites.
IntheEnglishlanguage,theword Nazi acquiredaverybroadmeaning.Like theterm fascist, itslinguistictwinexpression,itmovedawayfromitsoriginalcontext andenteredthemainstream.Nowitstaysthereasaloadedpoliticalsmear,which peopleonboththeleftandtherightusewhentheyneedtoputdowntheir opponents.BecauseintheWestthecrimesofHitler’sregimewereexposedmore widelyanddeeplythanequivalentormoremonstrousperpetrationscommittedby othermodernvillains,inpopularperception,“Nazi”Germanybecamethesymbol oftheultimateevil.Ifinaheatedpoliticaldebatepeopleapplythissinisterstickerto politicalopponents,theyclearlywanttodrivethemoutsideofacivilizeddiscourse andturnthemintomoraloutcasts.Thus,duringtheGeorgeW.Bushadministration,especiallyafterhisIraqiadventure,theLeftfrequentlyreferredtohim,Dick Cheney,JohnAshcroft,andtherestofhisneoconservativeretinueas“Nazis”or
byMarcMazower
“fascists.”Conservativemediafrequentlyoperateswiththesamelabel.Forexample, fromtherightonecanhearsuchsmearexpressionsas“lesbo-Nazi,”“femi-Nazi,” and“GreenNazi.”1 Infact,“Nazi”hasalreadytransgressedboththeleftandthe rightpoliticalvocabularyandisnowfirmlystuckinourcolloquialusageasadismissivereferencetosomebodywhoisstubbornlyrestrictiveaboutsomething.Remember“grammarNazi”orJerrySeinfeld’sfamous“soupNazi”?
However,goingbacktotheparticularcontextofGermanyinthe1930sandthe 1940s,RichardOvery,aprominentBritishhistorianofnationalsocialism,recently wonderedwhywecontinueusingtheword Nazi inreferencetoHitler’sregimewhen “historianswhowriteabouttheSovietUnionunderStalindonotusuallydescribeits featuresas‘Commiethis’or‘Commiethat.’”HestressesthatinEnglish Nazi becameashorthandtermthatobscuresmorethanitexplains,andhecautionsusthat “sloppylanguageisanenemytoproperhistoricalexplanation”(2013,3).Thus, Overywarnsthatanindiscriminateapplicationoftheword Nazi toallthingsGerman
1.Formoreabout“Nazi”namecallinginU.S.politicsasasymbolicdenunciationof“ultimateevil,”see Gallagher2005.
inthe1930sandthe1940screatedafalseperceptionthattheentirecountryalong withallitsculturalandsocialinstitutionshadbeentotallycontrolledbytheNational SocialistParty.Heassuresusthatthiswasnotthecaseandthat“Nazi”Germanywas nottheomnipresentandorderlytotalitarianmonolithwethinkitwas.Followingthe mostrecentscholarshiponHitler’sdictatorship,hepointsoutthattherewereinfact pocketsoflifeinart,music,science,andleisureactivitiesthatwereweaklyorhardly affectedbythedominantideology.ItappearsthatOverywantstoassureusthatifwe replaced Nazi with NationalSocialist, ourunderstandingofHitler’sGermanywould besomehowmorenuanced.Inhissuggestion,onefeelsanunspokenassumptionthat thedefinitionof NationalSocialism isless“totalitarian”thanthedefinitionofthe sinisterandloaded Nazi.
Unfortunately,Overy,whoIamsureknowsmoreaboutthetopicthanhe revealsinhisessay,hasglossedovertheoriginofthisabbreviation,nottakingus throughtheentirehistoricalandetymologicalmazetoshowhowandwhyitemerged andentrencheditselfinEnglish.Inoneparagraph,hehassimplysummarized:
Thetermoriginatedinthe1920swhencontemporariessearchedforsome wayofgettingroundthelong-windedtitleoftheparty—theNational SocialistGermanWorkersParty(NSDAP).Itwasusedchieflybythe
enemiesofthepartyandneverbytheregimeitself.Theterm“Nazi”or “theNazis”hadstronglynegativeassociations;itwasemployedasaquick wayofdescribingamovementpopularlyassociatedinthemindofleft-wing criticsoutsideGermanywithauthoritarianrule,stateterror,concentration campsandanassaultontheculturalvaluesoftheWest.Thetermthen,and now,wasloaded.(2013,3)
Let’sunpackthatbriefstatement,forIamconvincedthatwearenotdealingjustwith left-wingcritics’desiretogetaroundthelongnameofHitler’sparty.Itseemsthatthe originalchoiceoftheterm Nazi alsohadsomethingtodowithwhatGeorgeOrwell (1968)famouslyreferredtoas“politicsandtheEnglishlanguage.”Inordertoperform thatunpacking,Ineedtomaketwodetours:thefirstoneintothehistoriographyof NationalSocialism,particularlyintohowscholarshavewrittenaboutitseconomicand socialpolicies,andthesecondoneintothemindofitsleft-wingcriticsoutsideGermany.
WhatisintriguingaboutOvery’ssuggestionaboutpartingwiththeword Nazi and shiftinginsteadtotheexpression NationalSocialism is HistoryToday’sreadersreaction whentheyreadhisessay.Manyofthemwerenotenthusiasticabouthissuggestion. Moreover,oneofthemrushedtorebuketheprofessor,insistingthattherewasnoissue here.ThisreaderassuredOverythat“Nazism,whenusedtodistinguishtheGerman variantoffascism,isausefulword.”Besides,asthisreadercorrectlyremarked,many stillrefertowhathadbeengoingoninGermanyinthe1930sas fascism, usingthe latterwordasasynonymfor Nazi. Thisreaderwasconvincedthat fascism, theexpressionthathadbeenpeddledmostlybytheCommunistLeftinthe1930s,wasinfact moreprecisethan“colloquialNazism”andfarbetterthan“moremisleadingNational Socialism.”ThiscommentatoralsoconfidentlyenlightenedProfessorOverythat Hitler’sregimewas“neithernationalnorsocialist,butratherakindofoligarchywith anobsessionwith‘racial’purityrunningupitsspine”(“Comments”2013).
WhatthisparticularreaderthrewtoOvery’sfeetisveryinstructive.Hisargumentswerekeypointstakenfrommainstreampopularandtextbookliteraturethat stillcontinuetoinformourperceptionsofHitler’sGermany.Eventhoughforthe pastseveraldecadesscholarshavedebunkedsomeofthosehouseholdassumptions aboutNationalSocialism,theirnewapproacheshavenotalwaystrickledintomainstreammediaandpedagogy.Amongthesenewfindingsaretheregime’s“progressive socialpolicies”2 suchasprofessionaltrainingandexpandedwelfarebenefits,the
2.GermanhistorianNorbertFrei(2001)usesthisexpressioninhislandmarkbook DerFu¨hrerstaat: NationalsozialistischeHerrschaft1933bis1945.
attemptstoestablishsocialequalityforthosewhowereincludedintothepeople’s community(Volksgemeinschaft)ofGermans,andtheemotionalsatisfactionmany commoncitizensoftheThirdReichfeltfrompartakingofthe“totalitarian”ideological,economic,andsocialsystem.3 ThemistakennotionofHitler’sregimeasan “oligarchy,”whichallegedlyimposeditselfontheinnocent“virgin”populaceand whichoppressedthemajorityofGermans,stillresonateswithmanywritersofpopular literaturebothontheleftandontheright.
HereIamparticularlyinterestedinaddressingso-calledmisleadingNational Socialism,anotionthatstillsoundsappealingtothewritersontheleft.Wellintothe 1980s,alargenumberofhumanitiesandsocialsciencescholarswhostudiedmodern dictatorshipsroutinelyassumedthattherewasnothingsocialistaboutthe“Nazis.” Thiswasnotsomekindofintellectualdishonestyonthesescholars’part,assome conservativeauthorsfrequentlyimply.Itwassimplya“commonsense”approach shapedbythepopularMarxistandpost-Marxistintellectualbubbleinwhichthey grewup.Infact,theirintellectualstancewentbacktothetimeoftheantifascist PopularFrontideologyofthe1930s,whichviewedHitler’sandMussolini’sdictatorshipsasextremecapitalismatthetimewhenitwasmakingitslaststandbeforepassing away(Brown2009,7–8).TheeffortsofBritishandAmericanwartimepropagandato cementanalliancewiththeSovietUnionagainstNationalSocialismanditsallies inthe1940senhancedtheviewthatHitler’sregimehadnothingtodowithsocialism (Raico2012,141).
Laterscholarlytrendsblurredthepictureevenmore.Inthe1950s,formany WesternleftistsandliberalstheColdWarconfrontationendedtheirromancewith StalinistRussia,andnowStalinmoreoftenthannotwasrelegatedtothesame companywithHitler.ThoseColdWaryearsinspiredso-calledtotalitarianstudies (Gleason1995,72–88,108–42),whichappealedmostlytoanti-Communistleftists andliberalsaswellastothewritersontheright.The“totalitarianschool”viewed Hitler’sandStalin’sregimesasalienrepressiveforcesthatimposedthemselvesonan innocentpopulaceandexercisedtotalcontroloversociety.Theninthe1960sandthe 1970s,withtheascentoftheNewLeftinacademia,the“totalitarianschool”slowly lostitsinfluence,andmuchofscholarshiponfascismandNationalSocialismwasnow informedbythe“authoritarianpersonality”approachandbyvariouspost-Marxist studies,whichwereintellectuallylinkedtothepopularFrankfurtSchool.Inaddition toviewingHitler-typeregimesasthelast-ditchresistanceofdecayingcapitalism, scholarswhoworkedwithinthe“authoritarianpersonality”traditionbegantotreat NationalSocialistGermanyandStalinistRussiaasformsofcollectivepathology. Itwasonlyinthe1980sthatwritersbegantolookseriouslyintothesourcesofthe 3.See,forexample,suchlandmarkstudiesasFrei2001;Gellately2001;Baranowski2004;Overy2004; especiallyAly2007a,2007b;GeyerandFitzpatrick2009;andSteberandGotto2014.
masssocialsupportforthosedictatorshipsandtoexplorethematerial,emotional, andculturalmotivesthatforcedpeopleto,inErichFromm’s(1941)expression, “escapefromfreedom.”
BecausetheSovietUnionandtheWesternLeftcameoutofWorldWarII onthevictoriousside,andbecauseHitler’sGermanywasdefeated,National Socialismwasnaturallydisentangledfromsocialisttraditionandeventually becamesingledoutasauniquelyevilphenomenonwithnoanalogiesinhuman history.SuchdistortedlensesobscuredasimplefactthatHitler’sregimebelonged tobroadsocialisttradition.Tobemoreprecise,justlikeStalinistRussiaand Mussolini’sItaly,theGermanyofthe1930swasoneoftheextrememanifestations ofinterwarmilitantpopulismthathingedonthreepillars:collectivism,activist statism,andsocialengineering.InthewakeofWorldWarI,thismilitantpopulism moreoftenthannotchanneleditselfthroughexistingsocialisttradition(Brown 2009,10).Asweknow,itiswinnerswhowritehistory.Thatiswhyuntilrecently westillhaveapopularnarrativelinethat,notwithstandingalltheirwickedthings, the“Reds”areallinallstillprogressiveandthereforearebetterthanthereactionary“Browns.”
Onetypicalexample,outofmany,willsufficetodemonstratethistrend. In1983,historianEveRosenhaftpublished BeatingtheFascists atprestigious CambridgeUniversityPress.HerbookexploresfistfightsbetweenHitler’sStorm TroopersandCommunistparamilitaryunits,whowereequallybrutalandruthless. ThetitleandthetextclearlyshowthatRosenhaftsympathizeswiththeRedthugs. ShedoesnotmentionthattheCommunists’majortargetwasnotHitler’smovement buttheGermandemocraticstate,whichtheCommunistswantedtodestroyand replacewiththeirownproletariatdictatorship.Toher,theCommunistswerecarriers of“noble”goals,sotheirviolencewasvalidandredemptive.Conversely,the“fascists’”violencewasbad.WhenRosenhaftdescribeshowCommuniststreetfighters lootedstores,sheputstheword plundering inquotationmarks(1983,53).Inher view,these“proletarianshoppingtrips”represented“sporadicimpulsestowards directcollectiveactionsfortheimmediatereliefofmaterialhardship”(53).Incontrast,shepicturessimilaractionsbyfascistsaspredatoryandcriminal.Without mentioningthisesteemedscholarbyname,historianTimothyBrownhascompletely debunkedRosenhaft’sideologicallydriventhesisbyshowingthat,infact,CommunistandNationalSocialistfootsoldierssharedthesameculturalspace(2009,5–6). Hedemonstratesthatthestreetfighterswhorepresentedthetwopolesofthis radicalculturewereneverseparatedbymonolithicwallsandinfactfrequently shiftedsidesandcross-fertilizedeachother.Nevertheless,untilrecently,Rosenhaft’s approachhasbeenrathertypicalamonghistoriansofmodernEurope.Andthe reasonIchosetosamplethisparticularbookissimplythatin2008Cambridge UniversityPressdecidedtoreprintitwithoutanychanges.PrivilegingtheLeft ingeneralandCommunistsinparticularverymuchdistortsthestateofthefield andaffectstextbookliterature. 544
“Hitler’sWillingBeneficiaries”:FromDeficitSpending toSocialismattheExpenseofnon-Germans
RecentscholarshipshowsthatHitler’sregimewasinfactbothnationalistand socialist.4 Whenthedictatorandhisganglabeledtheirideology“NationalSocialism,”theyreallymeantit:theirgoalwastoempowerallpeopleof“Aryanstock”at theexpenseofnon-Germans.WhereasStalincannibalizedhisownpopulation, expropriatingandphasingoutsegmentsofsocietyonthebasisoftheirsocialand classorigin,Hitlerrejectedclasswarfareandactedasa“benign”dictatortoward Germanpeople.HisbiopoliticsaspiredtomoldthemembersoftheAryan“tribe” intoanall-inclusive“people’scommunity”(Volksgemeinschaft)byupliftingthem notthroughattackson“class”aliensbutonethnicandracial“others.”Hence,the ideologicalemphasisofHitler’sregimeontheexpropriationofresourcesbelonging tonon-Germansandtheexploitationoftheirslavelabor.
Strictlyspeaking,themessageofNationalSocialismwasnotradicallydifferent fromthatofotherformsofegalitarianismandsocialism:strongantibourgeoissentimentsexpressedthrougharadicalempowermentofaselectedgroupofpeopleatthe expenseofothergroups.Moreover,theultimategoalsofnationalandinternational socialismswerethesame:theengineeringofaclasslesssociety(Overy2004,230). WhatmadeNationalSocialismnovelanddifferentfromearlierformsofsocialism wasanattempttoblendtheideasofsocialjusticeandrevolutionarynationalism (Aly2007b,323).AsphilosopherandeconomistWernerSombartexplainedinthe late1930s,theterm NationalSocialism meantanationalunionthatwasbasedon theconvictionthatsocialismandnationalismdependedoneachother(1937,113). ThisprominentMarxistscholarwholaterbecameanardentfellowtravelerofHitler elaborated:“ThisviewpointofNationalSocialismisbaseduponthethoughtthat thereisnotsocialorderhavinggeneralvalidity,butthateveryordermustbesuited totheneedsofaparticularpeople”(113).Hitlerhimselfwasmoresuccinctand preciseinexplaininghisideologicalgoalas“thesocialismoftherace”(qtd.inOvery 2004,232).
In1920,whenagroupofdisgruntledwarveteransanddriftersgatheredin MunichandconstituteditselfastheNationalSocialistGermanWorkers’Party,itwas notsimplyarhetoricaltrick.Itwasaradicalattemptto“cleanse”powerfulGerman socialisttraditionofits“harmful”class-basedcosmopolitan“Jewish”traitsandmake itservetheinterestsoftheclasslessGermannationalcommunity.Thisprojecthad allchancestosucceed.VictoriousFrance,Britain,andtheUnitedStateshad unwarrantedlyblamedandpenalizedandthusdeeplyhumiliatedGermanyforWorld WarI.Inthesecircumstances,itwasperhapsnaturalthattheGermansocialisttraditionwastoreceiveapowerfulinjectionofnationalism.AlthoughtheGerman
4.ThebestandmostcomprehensivestudyofsocialistelementsinHitler’spoliciesis Hitler’sBeneficiaries byGotzAly(2007a,2007b).
CommunistPartywideneditspopularityduringtheGreatDepression,inconditions oflingeringpostwarnationalhumiliationtherewasnotmuchroomleftforinternationalsocialiststomaneuverpolitically.ItwasthusnotdifficultforHitlerand hisassociatestopurgeGermansocialismofitscosmopolitanMarxisttraitsandto channelpowerfulanticapitalistsentimentsintoaracialandculturalwarfareagainst theJews,theinternationalistLeft,andwhattheyreferredtoasthe“Western capitalistoligarchy.”
Incidentally,historianMichaelKellogghasrecentlynotedthatpriortotheend ofWorldWarI,Hitlerwasnotobsessedwithanti-Semitism(2005,4).Infact,inthe earlyyearsthebehaviorandutterancesofthewould-bedie-hardanti-Semitedictator manifestedconventionalsocialistleanings.Itwasonlyin1918–19,whenGerman pridewaswoundedbythehumiliatingsurrender,thatHitlerdriftedtowardradical nationalism,justlikemillionsofhis“Aryan”compatriots.Inhiscase,nationalismwas toppedupbyavirulentanti-SemitismthatheabsorbedfromhisnewMunich acquaintances,mostlyBalticGermanandRussianeliteexpatriates,whohadbeen disempoweredbyurban-basedleftradicalsrepresentedbycosmopolitanRussianand ethnicdiasporarevolutionaries.
TheGreatDepression,whichplungedGermansocietyintodesperatepoverty,completedtheideologicalmutationofpeoplelikeHitler,shapingtheminto whatlaterbecameknownasNationalSocialists.Thus,thehistoricalcircumstancesofGermanytransformedtheoriginalmessageofsocialism—adoctrine oftheuniversalliberationofthepoor—intoanationalistprojectofempowermentfortheGermansonly.Driftingalongwiththerestofhiscompatriotsfrom socialtonationaljustice,WernerSombart,theeconomistImentionedearlier, reflectedwellmanyGermans’sentimentsduringtheinterwaryearswhenhe stressed,“FormeGermanSocialismsignifiesnothinglessthanSocialismfor Germany,thatis,aSocialismwhichaloneandexclusivelyappliestoGermany” (1937,114).
LeftauthorshaveinsistedthatHitler’sregimetoyedwiththeword socialism for purerhetoricalpurposesinordertodeceivethemasses.Inreality,Hitlerwas truly a NationalSocialist.TotheveryendofWorldWarII,whenhiscausewasalready doomed,thedictatorcontinuedtobeconcernedaboutGermans’well-being,distributedplunderedlootandapartmentstothevictimsoftheAllies’bombing,and rationedfood,makingsurethatthepeopleofthe“Aryanstock”wouldnevergo hungry.AremarkfoundinthememoirsofAlbertSpeer,theministerofwarproductioninHitler’sGermany,isveryrevealing:“Itremainsoneoftheodditiesofthiswar thatHitlerdemandedfarlessfromhispeoplethanChurchillandRooseveltdidfrom theirrespectivenations.TheGermanleaderswerenotdisposedtomakesacrifices themselvesortoasksacrificesofthepeople.Theytriedtokeepthemoraleofthe peopleinbestpossiblestatebyconcessions”(1970,214).
Moreover,theHitlerregime’sseemingbizarreattemptstoeliminatetheJewsby divertingneededtrainsandtruckstodeliverthemtoconcentrationcampsatthevery
endofthewaroriginatednotonlyfromsomeirrationalhatredoftheJewsbutalso fromanobviouseconomic“rationale”—adesiretoexpropriateandannihilatethe Jewryinordertoconservelimitedfoodresourcesforthe“Aryan”Germans.Inthis particularcase,thereasoningwasverysimple:theGermansweretobesustained throughtheeliminationof“parasites”and“uselesseaters.”The“existential”antiSemiticsentiments,whichalwayslingeredonthemarginsofEuropeantradition, servedhereasaconvenientexcuseforaneconomicexpropriationoftheJews.
ThemostnotoriouscaseofWorldWarII’sHolocaust—thekillingof1.2million PolishJewsunfitforworkin1942—wasjustifiedexclusivelyineconomictermsasthe needtoreleasefoodsuppliesforGermans’use.In Bloodlands:EuropebetweenHitler andStalin (2010),TimothySnyderremindsusthatthesamerationalestoodbehind theeliminationof3millionSovietprisonersofwarand3millionPolesthrough starvation,whichtookplaceapproximatelyatthesametimethePolishJewswere killed(169–70;seealsoAly2007b,193,279,285–86).Inthe1990s,inhisbestsellingbook Hitler’sWillingExecutioners (1996)politicalscientistDanielGoldhagen unfairlyplacedallwartimeGermansinthenationof“willingexecutioners”fixated ontheeliminationoftheJews.Twistingabitthissillyassumption—amirrorimage ofHitler’spropaganda—amoreappropriatewaytodescribethesentimentsofthe Germanpopulaceinthe1930sand1940swouldbetosaythattheywere“Hitler’s willingbeneficiaries.”
WhenHitlertookpowerin1933,hestrovetokeepworking-classpeoplehappy bydoublingtheirholidayentitlements,eliminatingthetaxingofovertimepay, crackingdownonlandlordswhowantedtoraiserents,andintroducinganationwide healthinsurancethatincludedretiredpeople.Themostambitiouseffortsinthis directionweregrandprojectsofmasspublicworks,whichincludedroadconstructionandmilitarybuildup.Tothepopulace’sgeneraljoy,theregimeeventually eliminatedunemployment.Asymbolicgesturethatwastoshowtheregime’ssensitivitytothepeopleoflaborwasitsdeclarationaboutmakingMay1anofficial holiday(Frei2001,58,85).
Generouswelfareandsocialpoliciesaswellasgrandpublic-worksschemes andmilitaryindustryexpansionwereaccomplishedthroughhorrendousdeficit spending.Asaresult,by1938theGermangovernmentwasonthevergeofbankruptcy.Hitler’sassociateswereconstantlyworriedaboutlosingpopularsupport, whichtheyhadtorepeatedlypurchasethroughthedistributionofvariousbenefits. Thenumberonequestionwashowtocoverthehugefinancialholecreatedbythe runawaybudgetdeficit.Again,thedoctrineofNationalSocialismalreadycontaineda naturalanswer—bygoingafterthemoneyandresourcesof“unworthy”domestic aliensandespeciallyaftercountrieswithdevelopedindustriesandabundantnatural resources.ByexpropriatingJewishpropertiesfirstandthenbymanipulatingoccupied nations’currencies,confiscatingtheirrawmaterialsandindustries,andplundering theirpreciousmetals,Germanywasabletosustainitself(Aly2007b).Thiswaspure andnakedpredatorybehavior—inotherwords,NationalSocialisminaction.
Becauseoftheseefforts,theregimeenjoyedtheoverwhelmingsupportof theGermanpopulation,includingthosewhowerenotexactlythrilledabout Hitlerinthefirstplace.Attheveryendofthewar,MinisterofPropaganda JosephGoebbelsoptimisticallypredicted,“Againandagainweseeonefact:that wewillneverlosethiswarbecauseofthepeople.Thepeoplewillpersevereinthis waruntiltheirlastbreath”(qtd.inConnelly2009,34).Asitturnedout,hewas totallyright:havingapersonalstakeintheexistingsystem,Germansresistedto theveryenduntiltheyweretotallyoverpoweredbysuperiorSoviet,American, andBritishforces.From1939to1945,the“Aryans”neverwentonstrikeand neverrebelledagainsttheirowngovernment.Itisnotable,forexample,thaton theeasternfrontnotasingletown,exceptGreifswald,wassurrenderedwithouta fight(Connelly2009,34).
Despitethemeteoricriseandthenrapidcollapseofthe“one-thousandyear”Third Reich,thenovelideapioneeredbytheNationalSocialistssurvivedwellafter1945. Betweenthe1950sandthe1970s,itwasrekindledbymanyThirdWorldnational liberationmovements,whichfrequentlysoughttoempowertheirown“tribes”atthe expenseofethnicandracial“others.”Inthiscontext,itisinterestingtonotethat attheveryendofthewarHitlerprophesizedthatifGermanyweredoomedtoperish, itsNationalSocialistideologywouldneverthelessreemergeinnon-Europeancountries(Weissmann1996,291).Servingasinstructiveproofthatthismorbidprophecy cametruearevariousThirdWorldnationalliberationmovements’numerous attemptstobuildegalitariansocietiesfortheirown“tribes”attheexpenseofothers “tribes.”Frequentlytingedwithclassanimosity,theseethnicandracialassaultsusuallytargetedparticularminoritygroupsthatdemonstratedvisibleeconomicsuccess. IncludedamongtheseattacksaretheAminregime’sbrutalpersecutionoftheHindu merchantsinUgandaandtheMugabevigilantes’maraudingraidsonorexpropriationofwhitefarmersinZimbabwe.Throughoutthetwentiethcentury,withrapid modernizationandthedeclininginfluenceofmainstreamreligions,socialismand nationalismbecameintimatebedfellows,providingpeopleanidentityandanewfaith. Thesourceoftheirintimacywastheircommoncoreprinciples,collectivismand groupthought,whichallowedregimestoquicklyshiftbackandforthfromclass warfaretoethnicwarfareortopracticebothsimultaneously.
TheexperiencesoftheSovietUnion,China,Yugoslavia,Vietnam,Cuba,and manyothercountriesthatclaimedtobebuildingsocialistsocietiesshowthatbythe endofthe1980salltheseregimes,despitetheiroriginalinternationalistandcosmopolitanrhetoric,eitherturnedtomobilizingtheirmassesagainstnationalenemies abroadorsimplymutatedintoxenophobicprojectsthateventuallycametotarget cultural,racial,ethnic,andforeign“others”insteadof“classenemies”withintheir borders.Itwasalsonotcoincidentalthatinpost-CommunistEurasia,throngsof
formerapparatchikssuchasSlobodanMilosevichinSerbiaandNursultanNazarbaev inKazakhstanquicklyreinventedthemselvesasdie-hardnationalists.
Oneofthebestexamplesofsuch“socialismtonationalsocialism”metamorphosisisthetransformationoftheStalinistSovietUnion.Inthe1930sandthe 1940s,thatcountryof“classicalsocialism”evolvedfromcosmopolitaninternationalistBolshevism,whichhadpeddledthesloganofworldrevolution,intoNational Bolshevism,whichwasconcernedabout“socialisminonecountry”andpropagatedapeculiarideologicalhybridoftraditionalMarxismwithitsclassapproach andpatrioticmythologybasedonSoviet/Russiannationalism(Brandenberger 2002).Ironically,thisparticularideologicalevolutionprovedanotherprediction issuedbyHitler,who,fullyunderstandingthemorbidpowerofnationalism, oncestressedthatthepoliticaltrendwouldnotbeGermanygoingBolshevikbut StalinistRussiagoingNationalSocialist(Brown2009,47).Inthe1930sand1940s, naturaloutcomesoftheStalinistshiftwerethemassexileandtargetedexecutionsof thediasporaBolsheviksandlaypeoplerepresentedbytheJews,Poles,Greeks, Germans,Chinese,Hungarians,andFinns,ofwhoseloyaltiestheSovietstatewas notcertain.
ApowerfulNationalBolsheviktrendwasalsopresentintheGermanCommunistPartyintheearly1920s(AscherandLewy1956).Atthattime,someGerman CommunistactivistscompetedwithNationalSocialistsforinfluenceonthemasses, glorifyingtheGermanarmyandtellingpeoplethattheyshouldworktorevive GermanyinalliancewiththeSovietUnionagainstthe“evil”West.Atonepoint, theseelementsformedthesplinterCommunistWorkersParty.Liketheir“Nazi” twins,theseCommunistactivistscondemnedparliamentarydemocracy,praisedmartialvalues,denouncedJewishcapitalists,andevencameupwithapeculiartheorythat Germanlaborcouldeffectivelysetupadictatorshipoftheproletariatonlythrough therevivednationalarmy.GermanNationalBolshevikswereabletoswaytotheirside manyofficersandwarveterans,whofoundsuchanideologicalbrewofnationalism andanticapitalismveryappealing.Moreover,theNationalBolshevikactivistssometimesinvitedNationalSocialistPartyspeakerstoaddressCommunistcrowdsand evenprintedpostersthatflashedboththeredstarandtheswastika(Marcuse2013, 179–80;Neumann2013a,154–55).TimothyBrown,whohasexploredWeimar Germany’sleftandrightradicalculture,writesabouttheexistenceofthewhole segmentofstreetfightersnicknamed“beefsteaks”(brownonthesurface,redonthe inside).Thislargered-brownmasswithconstantlyshiftingloyaltieswasattractedto theideasofsocialism,nationalism,andrevolutionthatwereadvocatedbyboththe NationalSocialistandCommunistParties(2009,4,79).Atonepoint,after1930, inalastdesperateefforttowinoverthemasses,theGermanCommunistParty madeanattempttobackupandwidenthoseNationalBolsheviksentiments.Yetit wasalreadytoolatebythen:NationalSocialismhadalreadytakenoverthepolitical playingfieldofmilitantnationalismmixedwithanticapitalismandanti-Western sentiments.ItisnotablethattheverynotionofHitler’sideologyas“socialismof
therace”camefromtheGermanNationalBolshevikoutlookofthe1920s(Overy 2004,232).
Fromtheverybeginning,theWesternLeftfeltuncomfortableaboutthe egalitariansocialistelementsinHitler’spoliciesandtriedtoplaythemdown (Hannan2014).Thisapproachwaslaterreflectedintextbooksandpopularmainstreamliterature.Sincethe1930s,theLefthaspeddledtwoversionsoftheHitler myth.Accordingtothefirstone,Hitlersprangoutofacapitalistcocoonasa puppetoflargeindustrialmonopoliesthatmanipulatedmillionsofGermans, mostlythemiddle-classor“pettybourgeois”people,intoacceptinghimastheir leader.WriterswhostucktothisversioninsistedthatdictatorssuchasHitler, Mussolini,andthelikewerethelast-ditcheffortofdecayingmonopolycapitalism thatusedthemintheirdesperatedesiretosavethatsystemfromitsfinaland unavoidablecollapse.Recentscholarshipshowsthatthisviewofmonopoliesasthe spearheadsofNationalSocialismistotallyuntrue.Infact,manylargefinanciersdid notoriginallytrustNationalSocialists,viewingthemastheright-wingversionof Bolshevism.Itisestimatedthatfrom1925to1933Hitler’smovementenjoyeda substantialsupportamongblue-collarworkers(whocomposed31percentof NationalSocialistPartymembership),mostlyfromnonunionsmallworkshops, andamongpublic-sectoremployees(9percent).Together,thesetwogroupscomposed40percentoftheNationalSocialistPartymembership.Thisnumberfar exceededthenumberoffarmers(10percent),professionals(4percent),andthe so-calledpettybourgeoiselement,whonevermadeupmorethan20percentofthe party(Mann2004,378).Moreover,bythemid-1930s,withtheirprogramsoffull employmenttheNationalSocialistswereabletowinoverthesympathiesofthe workersatlargeindustrialplants,agroupthatpriorto1933hadtraditionallyjoined theSocialDemocraticParty(70percent)andtheCommunistParty(80percent) (Gellately2001,15;Mann2004,159–60).Itisalsonotablethatby1933in Schutzstaffel(ProtectiveSquadronorSS)unitsthenumberofpeoplewithaworkingclassbackgroundreached41percent(Mann2004,380).Furthermore,theleadershipofthe“bourgeois”ultraconservativeGermanNationalPeople’sParty,theconservativeGermanPeople’sParty,andtheCatholicCenterleadershipwasrepresented bylandlords,industrialists,andhighexecutives,whereasamongtheNationalSocialist leaderssuchindividualswereveryrare.Overall,theNationalSocialistPartywasa multiclassnationwidemovementincontrasttothepartiesontheleft,whichwere “proletarian,”andtothepartiesontheright,whichwere“bourgeois”(Mann2004, 160,163).
Despitethesehistoricalfacts,theviewofHitler’sdictatorshipasaregimeinitiatedbycapitalistsandbackedupbytheGermanmiddle-class“pettybourgeoisie”was repeatedthousandsoftimesbyCommunistsandSocialDemocratsandeventually becamepartofthemainstreamhistorynarrative.ManystudentsofHitler’sGermany, includingsuchpopularnonsocialistwritersasAlanBullock(1971),begantaking itforgranted.
ThesecondversionoftheHitlermyth,whichemergedinthe1930sandbecame popularamongliberalsandthenon-CommunistLeft,insistedthatHitlerwasa demoniccharismaticdictatorwhotookadvantageoftheGermanpeople’ssadomasochisticandauthoritariannature.Itisarguedthat,buildingonthedesperation causedbytheGreatDepression,hesinglehandedlycaptivatedtheentirenation. Today,thispsychologicalviewisusuallypropagatedthroughcoffeetablebooksand TVshows.ThemostrecentexampleistheBBCdocumentary TheDarkCharisma ofAdolfHitler (Rees2012).5
WhoshapedthesetwoversionsoftheHitlermythology?ThetaleaboutHitlerasa puppetofbigbusinesswasdisseminatedmostlybytheCommunists.Atthesame time,manynon-Communistleftandliberalwriterssharedthat“capitalist”interpretation.However,thelatteralsofavoredthemythaboutthe“sadomasochistic”origin ofHitler’sdictatorship.InstrumentalinshapingthesetwotalesamongBritishand AmericanaudienceswereGermanandGermanJewishrefugeeintellectuals,who broughtwiththemtoGreatBritainandtheUnitedStatesaparticularvocabularyfor talkingabouttheirformercountry.Ideologically,theyweremostlypeoplewitha clearlyleftpoliticalorientation(Gleason1995,33).Itwasthesepeoplewho mainstreamedtheuseoftheexpression Nazi inEnglish.
Amongtheserefugeeintellectuals,agroupofleft-winge ´ migre ´ scholarswho collectivelycalledthemselvesthe“FrankfurtSchool”playedacrucialroleinshaping theAnglo-AmericanvisionofNationalSocialism.TheFrankfurtSchoolwasadisparatecommunityofhumanitiesandsocialsciencescholarswithMarxistbackgrounds. OriginallyclusteredaroundtheInstituteforSocialResearchinFrankfurt,Germany, theylaterescapedfromHitlertotheUnitedStates,wheretheyregroupedinNew YorkCity.Theirmajorintellectualsignaturewasanattempttomoveawayfromthe economicdeterminismofclassicalMarxisminordertohumanizeKarlMarx’steachingandmarryittoSigmundFreud’sideas.Thesescholars’writingslatercameto exerciseapowerfulinfluenceonAmericanintellectualcultureandshapedtheminds ofanentiregenerationofAmericanandBritishsocialscholarsinthe1950sandthe 1960s.Forexample,ErichFromm,oneofthe“Frankfurters,”becameadeanof Westernpoppsychologyandaprominentcounterculturaliconinthe1960s.During thesamedecade,hisfriendHerbertMarcusebecameanintellectualgurufor theNewLeftmovement.TheircolleagueTheodoreAdornospearheadedresearch intotheso-calledauthoritarianpersonality,whichdeeplyaffectedtheAmerican intelligentsia’sviewofpoliticsandhelpedtomarginalizeasaformofpathologyany ideasthatdidnotfitleftormainstreamliberalideologies.
5.ThebestearlyexampleofthepsychologicalinterpretationofHitler’sdictatorshipistheclassical Escape fromFreedom byErichFromm(1941).
Intheearly1940s,FrommandhisFrankfurtSchoolfriendFranzNeumann releasedtwopopularstudies—EscapefromFreedom (1941)and Behemoth:TheStructureandPracticeofNationalSocialism (1942),respectively—whichheavilyshaped theperceptionofEnglish-speakingintellectualelitesaboutwhatwasgoingon inGermanyatthattime.Fromm,whohadbecomedisenchantedwithtraditional MarxismandtheSovietUnion,soughttohumanizesocialismandlookedmorefor apsychologicalexplanationofNationalSocialism.Thus,hewasamongthefirst tobuildupthetheoryofthesadomasochisticnatureoftheGermanpeople, who,pressuredbytheGreatDepression,psychologicallysurrenderedthemselves toHitler’sauthoritarianpersonality. Behemoth grewoutofanexpandedmemo NeumannhadpreparedfortheU.S.assistantattorneygeneral,whohadaskedhim toexplaintheessenceofHitler’sregime.Thebook’smajorthesisisthatcapitalist monopoliesweretheoneswhobroughtHitlertopower.Although,followingcontemporaryGermanusage,Neumannstillreliedontheexpression NationalSocialism, heemphasizedthattheGermandictatorshipwasnakedcapitalisminitsextremeform andhadnothingtodowithsocialism.Inhisview,thelatterwasalwaysnobleand cosmopolitan,whereasthe“Nazi”doctrinewasuglyandnationalistic.6
DuringWorldWarII,severalFrankfurtscholarswhowereclosefriends (Marcuse,Neumann,andOttoKirchheimer)wenttoworkasintelligenceanalysts fortheU.S.OfficeofStrategicServices(OSS),thepredecessorofthepresent-day CentralIntelligenceAgency.7 BeforetheColdWarstarted,theU.S.intelligence communitywasnotconcernedtoomuchaboutsuchexperts’leftistbackground andhiredaboutfortyofthemattheOSS(EvansandRomerstein2012,104–6).
JohnHerz,oneoftheseanalysts,chuckled,rememberinghowa“left-Hegelianspirit” hadtemporarilytakenupresidenceintheOSSCentralEuropeanSection(qtd.in Laudani2013a,3).AspartoftheOSSResearchandAnalysisDepartment,these GermanexpertswereresponsibleforexplainingallthingsGermanandwestern EuropeantoU.S.policymakers.Infact,OSSheadColonelWilliamDonovan,who hiredtheseleft-leaningfolk,viewedtheResearchandAnalysisgroupasthe“final clearinghouse”thatwastofilterallinformationbeforeitwasusedforpolicydecision making(Laudani2013a,2–3).Marcuse,oneofthechiefOSSEuropeexperts,explicitlystressedthatbyjoiningtheU.S.governmenthewantedtoinfluencetheway GermanywaspresentedtotheAmericanpeopleinpress,movies,andpropaganda (Laudani2013a,8).
ForpeoplelikeMarcuseandNeumann,bothofwhomwerecommittednonCommunistleftists,recordinganddiscussingHitler’ssocialistpolicieswerenotahigh priority.Suchbiaswasnaturalandunderstandable:itwasaninstinctivedesiretoshut
6.Givenhisviews,itwasnaturalforNeumanntolatervolunteer,forpureideologicalreasons,tospyfor theSovietintelligenceservice,whichassignedhimthecodename“Ruff”(EvansandRomerstein2012, 103–4).
7.Forthesescholars’intelligencereportsandwartimeworkattheOSS,seeLaudani2013b. 552
outthepowerfulopponentwhohadsuccessfullyhijackedalargepartofthecollectivistethostheyweresofondof.Intheirpolicyprescriptions,NeumannandMarcuse, alongwithotherfellowexperts,downplayed“Nazi”anticapitalismandrecommendedswayingpostwarGermanyinthedirectionofdemocraticsocialism.Inone ofhismemos,NeumanninsistedthatpostwarGermanymust“embraceelements frombothAnglo-AmericanandSovietsocialstructureandpractice”(2013b,414). Translatingthismessageintoalanguageofpracticalrecommendations,heand MarcuseadvocatedaprivilegedtreatmentoftheorganizedLeftattheexpenseofall otherpoliticalparties.TheyalsoinsistedthattheU.S.occupationaladministration inGermanymaintainthecentralizedcontroloftheeconomythathadbeenimposed duringHitler’syears.Theyalsorecommendedcompilingalistofabout1,800 Germanbusinessmenandindustrymanagersandimmediatelyincarceratingthem. Intheirview,alloftheseindividuals,althoughnotmembersofHitler’sparty,should belockedupjustincasebecause,asMarcuseputit,theywere“essentialfortherise andmaintenanceofNazism”(qtd.inLaudani2013a,14).Indeed,forthosewho believedthatcapitalismwasthechiefculpritresponsibleforlaunchingHitler’sdictatorship,thissuggestionwasquitelogical.
Tobefair,MaxHorkheimer(1941)andFrederickPollock(1941),twoother membersoftheFrankfurtSchool(neitherofwhomworkedfortheU.S.government),hadadifferentviewofNationalSocialism.Bothscholarsspeculatedthat Hitler’sGermanymighthavebeenpartofageneralworldwidepatternofthe burgeoningactiviststate.Thus,inaprivateletter,Horkheimer,theformalheadof theFrankfurtSchool,wrote,“Whathappenstodayisonlytheconsummationofa trendwhichpermeatesthewholemodernera”andfurthersuggestedthatrun-away militantstatismtransgressedbothcapitalismandsocialism(qtd.inWiggershaus 1994,290).Assuch,thisstatismwasequallycharacteristicfor“Nazi”Germany, theSovietUnion,andtheUnitedStates.Moreover,HorkheimerandPollockdid notfailtonoticethatinGermanyinthe1930stheprofitmotivewasreplacedwith whattheycalledthe“motivationofpower”andthatthemarketeconomywas subordinatedtothegoalsofstateplanning.8
Infact,Pollockcheeredthatprocessbecauseitincludedsuch“goodthings”as collectivism,astrongregulatorystate,andefficientscientificplanning.Subscribingto popularcontemporaryKeynesiannotions,thisreformedMarxistwentasfarasto suggestthatunderthisefficientworldwidestatecapitalism,economiccrisisand unemploymentwouldbeeventuallyarrestedandremovedthroughbenevolentinterferenceofenlightenedbureaucrats(1941,454–55).Suchcelebratoryreasoning couldeasilyraiseanuncomfortablequestion:If,liketheUnitedStatesandtheSoviet Union,the“Nazis”usedplanningandstatepowertoharnesscrisisandprovidefull employment,whydoweportrayGermandictatorshipasevil?Neumann—astalwart
8.Itisnowwellknownthatlongbeforethe“Frankfurters”stumbledonthesepoliticallyincorrect thoughts,LudwigvonMisesandF.A.Hayekhadalreadycomeupwithsimilarideas,whichweredoomed tostaymarginalatthattime.
Marxistwho,likeMarcuse([1941]1955,410),arguedthatHitler’sregimerepresentedcapitalismunchained—harshlyrebukedPollock.Pollock’sideas—which, bytheway,todayrepresentthehallmarkofmainstreamleft-liberalideological wisdom—appearedtotheFrankfurtscholarsaspureheresy.Neumanndirectly accusedPollockofideologicallydeviatingfromMarxismandalertedhiscomrades thatthedangerousspeculationsabouttheriseoftheuniversalomnipotentstate contradictedthetheoreticalfoundationoftheFrankfurtSchoolfrombeginningto end.ForNeumann,Hitler’smilitantstate,withitscentralizationandnumerous regulations,wasanaturaloutcomeofcapitalism’sfinalstage,whenthesystemwas simply“pregnant”withsocialismandreadytobetakenoverandusedbybenign forcesontheleft(Wiggershaus1994,286).
Inhisturn,AdornohintedthatPollock’sspeculationsmightcastashadowon theSovietUnion’sreputation.HenotedthatdespiteStalin’sshowtrialsandthe GreatTerrortheonlypoliticallycorrectlineofbehaviorwastostaysilentabout everythingthatwasgoinginStalinistRussia.Thus,Adornoadvisedhiscolleagues, “Inthecurrentsituation,whichistrulydesperate,oneshouldreallymaintaindisciplineatanycost(andnooneknowsthecostbetterthanI!)andnottopublish anythingwhichmightdamageRussia”(qtd.inWiggershaus1994,162).Asaresult ofthisplea,inthe1930sandespeciallyinthe1940stheFrankfurtscholarssilently agreednottosayanythingbadinpublicabouttheSovietUnion,bothforthesakeof theleftistcauseandforthesakeofholdinganantifascistalliance.Itappearedthat, havingspelledouttheinconvenienttruth,HorkheimerandPollackexperiencedtheir “Copernicus”moment,suddenlybecomingapprehensiveabouttheirowndangerous speculationsandquicklybackingoff.Feelinguncomfortableaboutthelineof thoughttheyweretaking,Horkheimerliterallysweptundertheruganypolitically incorrectpapersthatcouldcompromisethe“correct”viewofthe“Nazis’”origin (Wiggershaus1994,280–86).
Infact,Horkheimerhadalreadysetaprecedentforsuchselectivepublicationof FrankfurtSchoolscholarship.In1929–30,Frommhadfoundoutinhissociological surveyofseveralhundredleft-leaningindustrialworkersthatabout70percentof themvotedfortheLeftnotoutofconsciousloyaltytothecausebutoutofconformismandopportunism.Theuncomfortableconclusionthattheproletarians’wishywashyattitudesopenedthemtotheNationalSocialistagendawasthenanticipated. Stillworse,10percentofthoseworkersmanifestedclearpro-authoritariansentiments (Burston1991,109;Funk2000,90).Horkheimerandseveralofhiscolleagues decidedtosuppresstheresultsofFromm’sresearchtoavoidprovokingpeopleinto thinkingthattheleft-leaningworkersbecameNazissimplybecausetheyweresocialists.So,toaddintellectualinsulttothisresearchinjury,theresultsofFromm’ssurvey werenotpublisheduntilafterhisdeath(Burston1991,110).Furthermore,totally ignoringauthoritarianismontheleft,Frankfurtwritersproducedtheso-calledF-scale (Fis fascism)tomeasurepro-fascisttendenciesincontemporarysociety,whichthey linkedtochildhoodexperiencesandassociatedexclusivelywiththeRight.Onthis
F-scale,“fascist”right-wingtendenciesweredetectedbygradingpeopleonthebasis ofninepsychologicaltraits:submission,aggression,anti-intellectualism,superstition, stereotyping,longingforpower,destructiveness,anti-intraception,9 andobsession withsex.TheF-scaleprojectlatergaverisetothefamousstudy TheAuthoritarian Personality (Adornoetal.1950),whichbecameoneofthemust-own“holybooks” forAmericansocialsciencesandhumanities.10
TheF-scaleshowsthatfortheopponentsofNationalSocialismtherewasyetanother waytotalkaboutHitler-typeregimes,inadditiontotheparochialterm Nazi, while simultaneouslybypassingsocialism.Fromthe1930stothepresent,bothintheWest andinformerCommunistcountries,writershavefrequentlyusedthegenericterm fascism torefercollectivelytoMussolini’sItaly,VichyFrance,andHitler’sGermany. Infact, fascism becamethefavoritewordofchoicebothforStalinistpropaganda workersandfortheCommunistLeftoutsideoftheSovietUnion.Thiswasthe CommunistInternational’seasyandradicalsolutionintheearly1930stoavoiding anypotentiallyuncomfortablequestionsthatcouldarisewithregardtotheexpression NationalSocialism. IdeologicalavatarsofStalinismsimplyforbadeuseoftheword socialism inanyreferencestoHitler’sregimealtogether.Asaresult,thenameof Hitler’spartywasrarelyrenderedinfullinRussian.Furthermore,toremainpolitically correct,SovietandWesternCommunistwritersmoreoftenthannotshiedawayfrom theword Nazi toavoidanyhazardousquestionsabouthowthisacronymmighthave comeaboutinthefirstplace.
Communistssoonbeganusingtheterm fascism tolabelnotonlyMussolini’s andHitler’sregimesbutalsoallmovementsthattheydefinedastheirenemies.For example,theCommunistInternationalroutinelycalledSocialDemocrats“social fascists”until1934,whenCommunistsfinallyshiftedgearsslightlyandbeganreluctantlybuildingallianceswiththeseleft“apostates.”Inthecourseoftime,justlikethe term Nazi, theterm fascism enteredthemainstreamandevolvedintoametaphorfor somethingevil,sinister,andhated.Inasimilarvein, fascism, justlike Nazi, eventually lostitsoriginalmeaningandcame,asOrwell(1968,132)remindedus,simplyto describesomethingnotdesirable.11
9.IntheFrankfurtSchool’sjargon,“anti-intraception”meantanoppositiontosubjectiveandimaginativetendencies.
10.Aslateasthe1970s,theF-scalewasstilluncriticallyappliedtothestudyofschoolpopulations inGermanyandtheUnitedStates(Burston1991,237).
11.Itisnotablethatinhisotherwisewell-researchedbook LiberalFascism,JonahGoldberg(2008), apopularneoconservativewriter,resortstothisparticularloadedusageinordertodramatizehiscase regardingthehistoricallinkingoftheNationalSocialistsandItalianfascistswiththeprogressiveand socialisttradition.
Thefirstrecordedsourceoftheexpression Nazi isHitler’searlyopponents, whobeganusingitinthe1920sasanegativeequivalenttothepositiveterm Sozi, a short-livedcolloquialabbreviationthatcontemporaryGermansoccasionallyusedto refertotheSocialDemocrats(Mautner1944,93). Sozi, like Nazi, nevertookroot intheGermanlanguage.Althougha1931brochurereleasedbyJosephGoebbels ([1931]1992),theThirdReich’schiefpropagandamaster,carriedthetitle Nazi–Sozi,theword Nazi nevercaughtonwithHitler’sfollowers,whocametodislikeit. Theyalwayspreferredthemoremeaningful NationalSocialism or NationalSocialist oroccasionallyNSforshort—theusagethathassurvivedinGermantothepresent day.Thus,onalltheirpropagandaposters,Hitler’sfollowersalwayswrote:“Vote NationalSocialist.”Theiropponentsneverthelessquicklypickeduptheterm Nazi andbeganusingitinaderogatorymanner.IthasbeenclaimedthatKonrad Heiden,apopularGermanJewishrefugeejournalistwithaSocialDemocratic background,wasactuallythefirstonetointroducethisexpressionintomainstream English(Clare1999).12 Ironically,Heiden’sveryfirstbookaboutthe“Nazis,” whenhestilllivedinGermany,carriedthetitle GeschichtedesNationalsozialismus (HistoryofNationalSocialism[1932]).However,twoyearslater,whenhewas alreadyontherun,hepublishedanotherbookthathecharacteristicallytitled Sind dieNazisSozialisten? (AretheNazisSocialists?[1934]),whichalreadyquestioned Hitler’ssocialistcredentials.
AlthoughthereisnoevidencethatHeidenwasthefirsttocointheweasel Nword,itisobviousthatleft-leaningwritersandpolicyexpertssuchashimself, Neumann,Fromm,andMarcuseweretheonesspearheadingitsuse.Forallpractical purposes, Nazi notonlysoundedconvenientlyshorttoEnglishspeakersbutalsodid wellthejobofgettingaroundsocialistelementsinHitler’sdictatorship.Apparently, anotherreasonwhythatnameestablisheditselfinEnglishwasthereluctanceof BritishandAmericanmedia,politicians,andpropagandaworkerstooffendtheSoviet Union,theirwartimeally.
Itwaspreciselyafter1942,whentheSovietUnionbecameafull-fledgedallyof theAmericansandtheBritish,thattheuseof Nazi becameincreasinglypopularand almosttotallyphasedouttheuseof NationalSocialism. Thisparticularturnaround wasespeciallyvisibleinMarcuse’swritings.Attheendof1942,thisphilosopher turnedintelligenceexpertwroteapropagandamemofortheU.S.OfficeofWar Informationinwhichheproposedasetofguidelinesonhowtosuccessfullymobilize theAmericanpeopleagainsttheenemybyutilizingloadedwordsthatshouldbe hammeredintotheirminds(1998,179–86).
Marcusestressedthatsuchexpressionsas totalitarianism werenotgoodenough forpropagandapurposesbecausetheyweretooabstractforthecommonfolkto
12.HeidenisknownmostlyastheauthorofthefirstcomprehensivebiographyofHitler(Heiden1944), whichstillremainsaninterestingread.AlthoughinthisparticularbookHeidenoccasionallydiduse thename“Nazi,”hisfavoriteexpressionforthedescriptionoftheGermandictatorshipwas“National Socialism.”Heapparentlyhadnotcaughtupyetwiththeundergoingchangeinusage.
swallow. Dictatorship, inreferencestoGermany,wasnotagoodwordeitherbecause itblurredthedifferencebetweenGermanyandtheSoviets,whichcouldundermine theAllies’unity.Sowhatwasagoodtermforhim?Marcusepointedlystressedthat “‘Nazis’and‘Nazism’(notNationalSocialism)stillseemtobethemostadequate symbols.Theycontainintheirverysoundandstructuresomethingofthatbarbaric hateandhorrorthatcharacterizebothreferences.Moreover,theyarefreefromthe nationalandsocialistillusionswhichtheirunabridgedformstillmightconvey” (1998,180).Marcusealsoregrettedthatthisusefulloadedtermwasstillconfinedto theGermanregimeonly.Tocorrectthesituation,hesuggestedthatAmericanradio andprintpropagandanotonlymainstreamtheexpression Nazi butalsoapplyitto fascistItalyandVichyFrance.Asiffollowinghisownadvice,inhistextswrittenafter 1942heswitchedfrom NationalSocialism to Nazi. WithregardtoJapan,asMarcuse remarkedinpassing,thepopularexpression Japs wouldworkjustfineforpropaganda purposes,andnochangewasneeded(1998,180–81).
Mysuspicionisthat,inadditiontoservingasaconvenientwaytogetaround Hitler’ssocialism,theabbreviation Nazi wasattractivetopeoplesuchasMarcuse becauseofitslocalGermanetymologicallinks.PeopleinBavaria(southernGermany) traditionallyappliedthisparticularword(sometimesalsospelled“Naczi”)asaderogatorynicknameforbackward,clumsy,andawkwardpeasants.Acloselyrelatedlink wasthat Nazi wastraceabletothepopularBavarianandCatholicAustrianname “Ignatius”(Mautner1944,94–95).However,“Nazis”werenotwhatinEnglishwe usuallycall“rednecks.”Bavarian“Nazi”peasantswerenotviewedasdumbcountry bumpkins.Onthecontrary,inapopularimaginationtheywereexpectedtobehave asmischievoustricksters,takingadvantageoftheirstereotypeasunpolishedpeasants tomanipulatepeople.ThefirstreferencestotheNationalSocialistsas“Nazis”were recordedinBavariasomewhereintheearly1920s.Obviously,andIamspeculating here,thosewhowerethefirsttouseitinreferencetotheNationalSocialistsimplied thatHitler’sassociatescateredinacunningmannertothelow-levelpopulistinstincts ofstreetcrowds,whichwascertainlythecase.
So,forallpracticalpurposes,inBritishandAmericansettings,theterm Nazi becameveryuseful.Itwasanemotionallyandmorallyloadedabbreviationthatwas alsoconvenientlyshortforanEnglish-speakingear.Itdidwellthejobofsweeping undertherugHitler’ssocialistpolicies,anditdidnotcastadarkshadowon theSovietsocialistally.Ironically,inhislaterbook One-DimensionalMan (1964), Marcuseprovidedabrilliantanalysisoftheundercurrentmeaningofsuchwordabbreviationgames,althoughheneverappliedhisanalysistohisownandhiscolleagues’promotionoftheshortenedterm Nazi. Instead,hedecipheredthehidden meaningofsuchabbreviationsasNATO,UN,andUSSR.Marcusecorrectlynoted thatinthecaseofNATO,UN,andUSSR,onedealtwithwhathecalledthe“cunning ofreason,”whenanabridgementhelpsrepressundesiredquestions.Forexample, hestressedthattheabbreviationNATOhidthefactthatthetreatyitselfwas concludedbynationsfromthenorthernAtlanticarea.Ifunabbreviated,stressed
Marcuse,thenamemightmakepeoplewonderwhatTurkeyandGreeceweredoing inthisorganization(1964,94–95).Usingasimilarlogic,onecandeducethesame “cunningofreason”intheuseoftheabbreviatedterm Nazi. FollowingMarcuse, onecansaythat,ifunabbreviated,theterm NationalSocialism mightmakepeople wonderwhat“socialism”isdoinginthisexpression.
GeorgeOrwellonceremarkedthatideologicallydrivenusagedidreflectexisting socialreality.Nevertheless,hewasconvincedthatvarioussillybutpoliticallycharged wordsandexpressionsmightdisappearnotthroughevolutionaryprocessbutbythe consciousactionofadeterminedminority(1968,137–38).ItappearsthatOrwell wastoooptimistic.First,theterm Nazi hasfirmlyestablisheditselfinageneral Englishusageasametaphorforanultimateevil,andIamsureitwillstaythere. Second,English-languagemainstreampublishersstilldancearoundHitler’ssocialism,followingtheirgutfeelingofwhatispoliticallycorrectandacceptablefortheir audiences.AsingleexamplewilldemonstratewhatImeanhere.
Thebookinquestionis HitlersVolksstaat:Raub,Rassenkriegundnationaler Sozialismus (Hitlerpeople’sregime:Plunder,racialwar,andNationalSocialism)by GotzAly(2005),aprominentGermanhistorian.ItstitlewastranslatedforAmerican audiencesas Hitler’sBeneficiaries:Plunder,RacialWar,andtheNaziWelfare State (Aly2007b).Apparentlytosparethesensibilitiesofleft-liberalaudiences,the Americanpublishercompletelychangedthemaintitleandtheword socialism inthe subtitle.However,itsimultaneouslyinjectedtheword welfare tointriguethose Americanswhomightnotlikethephenomenonthatstandsbehindthisword.Verso, thelargestEnglish-languageleftistpublisher,alsoreleasedaBritisheditionofthe book(Aly2007a)andfurthersanitizedthetitleas Hitler’sBeneficiaries:Howthe NazisBoughttheGermanPeople.Notonlyhastheterm socialism disappearedhere, butalsotheword welfare, which,onemayspeculate,remainssodeartoVerso’s editorsandreaders.SoIthinkwemightstillneedtoperformagreatdealofintellectualexorcismifwewanttosaygood-byetotheterm Nazis andbegincallingthem whattheywereinreality—“NationalSocialists.”
Adorno,TheodorW.,ElseFrenkel-Brunswik,DanielLevinson,andNevittSanford.1950. TheAuthoritarianPersonality. NewYork:HarperandRow. Aly,Gotz.2005. HitlersVolksstaat:Raub,RassenkriegundnationalerSozialismus.Frankfurt amMain:Fischer.
———.2007a. Hitler’sBeneficiaries:HowtheNazisBoughttheGermanPeople.London:Verso. ———.2007b. Hitler’sBeneficiaries:Plunder,RacialWar,andtheNaziWelfareState NewYork:Metropolitan.
Ascher,Abraham,andGuentherLewy.1956.NationalBolshevisminWeimarGermany: AllianceofPoliticalExtremesagainstDemocracy. SocialResearch 23,no.4:450–80.
Baranowski,Shelley.2004. StrengththroughJoy:ConsumerismandMassTourisminthe ThirdReich.Cambridge,U.K.:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Brandenberger,David.2002. NationalBolshevism:StalinistMassCultureandtheFormationofModernRussianNationalIdentity,1931–1956.Cambridge,U.K.:Cambridge UniversityPress.
Brown,Timothy.2009. WeimarRadicals:NazisandCommunistsbetweenAuthenticityand Performance.NewYork:BerghahnBooks.
Bullock,Alan.1971. Hitler:AStudyinTyranny.NewYork:Harper&Row.
Burston,Daniel.1991. TheLegacyofErichFromm.Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress.
Clare,JohnD.1999.BrushUpYourHitler. TeachingHistory, February.Availableathttp:// www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/projects/hitler/articles/99ClareBrushUp.htm.
CommentsonRichardOvery,“Goodbyetothe‘Nazi’s.’”2013. HistoryToday 63, no.5.Formerlyavailableathttp://www.historytoday.com/richard-overy/goodbye-nazis. AccessedAugust2,2014.
Connelly,John.2009.ItNeverOccurredtoThem. LondonReviewofBooks 31,no.16:34.
Evans,M.Stanton,andHerbertRomerstein.2012. Stalin’sSecretAgents:Subversionof Roosevelt’sGovernment.NewYork:SimonandSchuster.
Frei,Norbert.2001. DerFu¨hrerstaat:NationalsozialistischeHerrschaft1933bis1945.Munich: DeutscherTaschenbuch.
Fromm,Erich.1941. EscapefromFreedom.NewYork:Avon. Funk,Rainer.2000. ErichFromm:HisLifeandIdeas.NewYork:Continuum.
Gallagher,Megan.2005.ThePresidentNazi:HowU.S.PresidentsandTheirPoliticalParties AreComparedtoHitlerandtheThirdReich.Availableathttp://www.history.ucsb.edu/ faculty/marcuse/classes/33d/projects/media/AnalogiesUSPresHitlerMegan.htm.
Gellately,Robert.2001. BackingHitler:ConsentandCoercioninNaziGermany.NewYork: OxfordUniversityPress.
Geyer,Michael,andSheilaFitzpatrick,eds.2009. BeyondTotalitarianism:Stalinismand NazismCompared.Cambridge,U.K.:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Gleason,Abbott.1995. Totalitarianism:TheInnerHistoryoftheColdWar.NewYork: OxfordUniversityPress.
Goebbels,Joseph.[1931]1992. The“Nazi–Sozi”:QuestionsandAnswersforNationalSocialists.ValleyForge,Pa.:LandpostPress.
Goldberg,Jonah.2008. LiberalFascism:TheSecretHistoryoftheAmericanLeft,fromMussolini tothePoliticsofMeaning.NewYork:Doubleday. Goldhagen,Daniel.1996. Hitler’sWillingExecutioners:OrdinaryGermansandtheHolocaust NewYork:VintageBooks.
Hannan,Daniel.2014.LeftistsBecomeIncandescentWhenRemindedoftheSocialistRoots ofNazism. TheTelegraph, February25.Availableathttp://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ danielhannan/100260720/whenever-you-mentionfascisms-socialist-roots-left-wingers-becomeincandescent-why/#.
Heiden,Konrad.1932. GeschichtedesNationalsozialismus:DieKarriereeinerIdee. Berlin:Rowohlt.
———.1934. SinddieNazisSozialisten? Saarbru¨cken,Germany:Volksstimme.
———.1944. DerFu¨hrer:Hitler’sRisetoPower.Boston:HoughtonMifflin.
Horkheimer,Max.1941.TheEndofReason. Zeitschriftfu¨rSozialforschung 9,no.3:366–88.
Kellogg,Michael.2005. TheRussianRootsofNazism:WhiteEmigre ´ sandtheMakingof NationalSocialism,1917–1945.Cambridge,U.K.:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Laudani,Raffaele.2013a.Introductionto SecretReportsonNaziGermany:TheFrankfurt SchoolContributiontotheWarEffort, editedbyRaffaeleLaudani,1–24.Princeton,N.J.: PrincetonUniversityPress.
———,ed.2013b. SecretReportsonNaziGermany:TheFrankfurtSchoolContribution totheWarEffort.Princeton,N.J.:PrincetonUniversityPress.
Mann,Michael.2004. Fascists.Cambridge,U.K.:CambridgeUniversityPress. Marcuse,Herbert.[1941]1955. ReasonandRevolution:HegelandtheRiseofSocialTheory London:Routledge.
———.1964. One-DimensionalMan:StudiesintheIdeologyofAdvancedIndustrialSociety Boston:BeaconPress.
———.1998. Technology,War,andFascism:CollectedPapersofHerbertMarcuse. London:Routledge.
———.2013.TheGermanCommunistParty.In SecretReportsonNaziGermany:The FrankfurtSchoolContributiontotheWarEffort, editedbyRaffaeleLaudani,169–98. Princeton,N.J.:PrincetonUniversityPress.
Mautner,FranzH.1944.NaziundSozi. ModernLanguageNotes 59,no.2:93–100.
Mazower,Mark.2009a.Hitler’sEmpire: HowtheNazisRuledEurope.NewYork:Penguin.
———.2009b. HitlersImperium:EuropaunterderHerrschaftdesNationalsozialismus. Munich:C.H.Beck.
Neumann,Franz.1942. Behemoth:TheStructureandPracticeofNationalSocialism Toronto:OxfordUniversityPress.
———.2013a.TheFreeGermanyManifestoandtheGermanPeople.In SecretReportson NaziGermany:TheFrankfurtSchoolContributiontotheWarEffort, editedbyRaffaele Laudani,149–66.Princeton,N.J.:PrincetonUniversityPress. ———.2013b.TheRevivalofGermanPoliticalandConstitutionalLifeunderMilitaryGovernment.In SecretReportsonNaziGermany:TheFrankfurtSchoolContributiontotheWar Effort, editedbyRaffaeleLaudani,412–35.Princeton,N.J.:PrincetonUniversityPress. Orwell,George.1968.PoliticsandtheEnglishLanguage.In TheCollectedEssays,Journalism, andLettersofGeorgeOrwell, editedbySoniaOrwellandIanAngus,4:127–40.NewYork: HarcourtBrace.
Overy,Richard.2004. TheDictators:Hitler’sGermanyandStalin’sRussia.NewYork:Norton. ———.2013.Goodbyetothe“Nazi’s”[sic]. HistoryToday 63,no.5:3–4.Availableat http://www.historytoday.com/richard-overy/goodbye-nazis.
Pollock,Frederick.1941.IsNationalSocialismaNewOrder? ZeitschriftfurSozialforschung 9,no.3:440–55.
Raico,Ralph.2012. ClassicalLiberalismandtheAustrianSchool.Auburn,Ala.:Ludwigvon MisesInstitute.
Rees,Laurence.2012.TheDarkCharismaofAdolfHitler. BBCHistoryMagazine 13,no.10: 19–24.
Rosenhaft,Eve.1983. BeatingtheFascists:TheGermanCommunistsandPoliticalViolence 1929–1933.Cambridge,U.K.:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Snyder,Timothy.2010. Bloodlands:EuropebetweenHitlerandStalin.NewYork:BasicBooks.
Sombart,Werner.1937. ANewSocialPhilosophy.Princeton,N.J.:PrincetonUniversityPress. Speer,Albert.1970. InsidetheThirdReich:MemoirsbyAlbertSpeer.NewYork:Macmillan.
Steber,Martina,andBernhardGotto,eds.2014. VisionsofCommunityinNaziGermany: SocialEngineeringandPrivateLives.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.
Weissmann,Karlheinz.1996.TheEpochofNationalSocialism. JournalofLibertarianStudies 12,no.2:257–94.
Wiggershaus,Rolf.1994. TheFrankfurtSchool:ItsHistory,Theories,andPoliticalSignificance Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress.
