The only leading Nazi that could be considered a 'National Socialist' was SA chief Ernst Rohm who was murdered on Hitler's orders 1st July 1934 during the purge known as the Night of the Long Knives. Rohm seen the SA as the vanguard of the "National Socialist revolution" with the Nazi's obtaining power according to Rohm the revolution was to continue to the point of an utopian German socialist state, cleansed of Jews and other undesirables. Rohm had used his SA to attack strike breakers during a time when Hitler was trying to woo the German Capitalists into believing Nazism was acting in their interest. With the removal of Rohm, big capital found Nazism far more acceptable, and threw its total support behind it.

First of all Socialism is not Marxism although that boogeyman word is used interchangeably by the Reich Wing media, like "leftist".

Basically Socialism is when taxpayers money is returned to the people in the form of services or infrastructure and not handed out as bribes, favours or paybacks to mates and cronies.
It's also when taxpayers money is used to bail out or subsidise failing corporations during financial crises or prop up unprofitable industries.
Jobkeeper was an example of socialism although it was really directed at business interests rather than the workers.

When Gerry Harvey got a '1000cm Big Screen Jobkeeper TV' from Scotty's Store he got lifetime interest free on Neverpay, and a $12 million bonus cashback. Now there's a smart shopper for you.

Just in the last week, Scotty sent a jumbo jet full of cash to QANTAS which in turn booted 2,500 workers. Cash for the struggling share holders, nothing for the workers.

Gladys is keeping Liberal Party donors shops open, whilst closing down the little battlers. She's also redirecting Pfizer vaccines from Labor areas so the children of Liberal silvertails can have protection. Hundreds of rich kids at St Josephs private school have been given the Pfizer jab already. So much for "we are all in this together" nonsense.

For God's sake SR, this is becoming embarrassing.

Sure there were refugees from Eastern Europe in the 1880's. But they didn't go to Germany. The majority went to the USA (over 2million) and a sizeable number went to the UK which ultimately instituted the so-called Alien Laws to try to stem the tide. More than a few also went to Palestine. But to Germany? Well I imagine some ended up there, but hardly enough to make a dint. In any case this all happened well before the NSDAP was formed and therefore is irrelevant in regards to this discussion, although very relevant in regards to you trying to muddy the water over your error.

And yes there were some refugees in Berlin in the mid-Weimar period. Most of them went to the USA as well. But this was in Berlin and post-dated the cementing of antisemitism in the NAZI programme, and thus is irrelevant to this issue.

Antisemitism had been strong in Germany for centuries. The so-called second wave of Jews to the USA was caused by anti-Jew riots in German territories in the mid 19th century. Anti-Jew activity had been occurring in German states since at least the 13th century. Hitler had been an anti-semite before the war while in Austria. So it didn't need a few refugees to kick it off.

Besides the NAZI beef was with the Jewish residents, the bankers, moneylenders, shop keepers, intellectuals, not with a shrinking number of refugees passing through.

You seem highly fixated on the 25 point programme as announced at the inception of the NSDAP. Those parts of that programme which relate to economic issues all point to a socialist agenda.

Its always been my experience that those who stoop to using the Duning-Kruger argument have signalled that they've lost the argument and are grasping at straws to try to salvage some degree of pride. This is another example of that.

Foxy,

You made claims about Rosebaum's book and about Robert Conquest in an attempt to give a veneer of authority to your ahistoric claims. I have Rosebaum's book having bought it in one of those 2-for-1 deals Amazon offers for Kindle books, the other book being 'The Banality of Evil', a vastly more satisfying read. Rosebaum's book is okay as far as it goes but doesn't in the least cover the issue of whether Hitler was socialist.

Nor does anything I've read of Conquest and as I explained previously, I'm pretty sure I've read all of his output.

So I invited you to show me where these books that you claimed supported your assertions did so. And you haven't because you can't because they don't. I knew that was the case as regards Rosebaum and was pretty certain about Conquest as well.

Now all of that might have been left as is. But in addition to making unsupported and unsupportable assertions, you then doubled down by trying to sanctimoniously claim that your research trumped mine.

It was at that point that you earned both barrels.

There are two areas of history that I consider myself to be extremely well read and able to hold my own with any credentialed historian - 5th and 4th century Greece and German history post 1870.

My combined hardcopy and digital library on Germany has over 100 books, many more articles in addition to a similar number on the two world wars. All read. The best annotated. I've been doing this since I was a teenager.

IF you want to argue Hitler wasn't socialist, fine. Many have. Most do so by using a modern meaning of the term rather than the meaning applying in the 20/30s. Again fine but invalid in my opinion.

But trying to assert an opinion by claiming false authority and misrepresenting evidence to do so is always wrong, never right. Then trying to use that false authority to denigrate my own research is doubly wrong. And will, as far as I'm concerned, always earn both barrels.

Dear mhaze,

You claim: “For God's sake SR, this is becoming embarrassing.”

Well you certainly got that right.

What an unseemly scramble to pull yourself out of the hole you dug for yourself.

I had said: “For a country being flooded with Jewish refugees for decades this had obvious resonance with the German people.”

You had ignorantly retorted with: “Where were these fictitious floods of refugees coming from? It's just rubbish.”

When you were rightfully mocked by me and I quoted the fact that: “At the height of the Jewish diaspora, 600,000 Russian refugees lived in Germany in 1922/23, more than half of them in the capital Berlin.” It wasn't a “a few refugees at all was it.

These were concentrated in the Berlin capital proper which then had a population of around 2 million. You are claiming that having 15% of the Berlin population made up largely by destitute but highly visible orthodox Jews from Eastern Europe for whom a portion could only survive through illegal means, who featured strongly in the ranks of the Ringvereine gangs - had no impact in driving the discontent within the German people that saw the NAZIs rise to power?

What mental gymnastics you have had to perform to do so.

Concede the point mate, you are looking silly enough right now without adding to it.