My question is: was the individual more important than the masses in the Third Reich? Any information would be appreciated, thanks.

In totalitarian regimes, whether they be communist or facist, the rights of the individual are always subjugated to that of the state. So the masses were more important and the individual counted for nothing.

If you are interested in the history & occult roots of the Nazi party I can recommend Alan Baker's "Invisible Eagle".

the nazis had a very intricate system using gauleiters and other official positions to control and spy on the population. individual streets and blocks of flats had a party member who made sure you toed the party line. hitler has been called an evil genius and the way the nazis controlled the country its hard to deny. people were under no illusions about the consequences of opposition.

quote:

people were under no illusions about the consequences of opposition.

Control extended to all aspects of life. Listening to foreign radio broadcasts was illegal and even primary school children were interviewed about what radio stations their parents listened to.

Swing and jazz music was banned. One 17 yr old lad in Hamburg ended up in Sachsenhausen concentration camp for illegally selling this type of music.

The lutheran pastor Niemoeller was sentanced to 7 months imprisonment for preaching that the church should return to worshipping Jesus Christ and not a man. On his release he was rearrested and placed into protective custody in Dachau concentration camp.

I think the orginal question is slightly off. You effect change in groups by targeting their constitutent parts.

Hence Germany targeted the individual parts (e.g hitler youth etc) in the hope of effecting a change in the masses.

quote:

Originally posted by Lady_atziki:
My question is: was the individual more important than the masses in the Third Reich? Any information would be appreciated, thanks.

I really dont understand the question. Why is it restricted to the Third Reich. ?

What's the evidence to support that the individual matters anymore/less currently in the so-called 'democratic' West. ?

Lady_atziki. do you really believe that your opinion as an individual matters more than that of the ruling elite of yr country. ?

Sure. at election time the politicians will make all sorts of promises, but how many of those promises have been full filled, or that you even remember them making. ?????

quote:

Originally posted by Fil2:
In totalitarian regimes, whether they be communist or facist, the rights of the individual are always subjugated to that of the state. So the masses were more important and the individual counted for nothing.

In what is commonly pereived in the 'west' mainly Britain + USA, the 'individual' is cunningly made to believe that he's not subjugated to the state by=ut in practice , HE IS.

On this question I'mn reminded by the Goethe quotation : " None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."

Are you really as '"free" as your masters have made you believe you are. ?

quote:

Originally posted by smoked duck:
I really dont understand the question.

You're a master of understatement.

The National Socialism of Hitler was based on Socialism but with a nationalist bent, ie, National Socialist, remember Socialist. In Socialism the individual is always part of the state, state property, a mere cell in the organism of the state. Within the Socialist framework there is no need for individualism, the individual is just part of the larger society.

And yet the Nazis, National Socialists, viewed Communist (Working Class ) Socialists as their greatest enemy, and received the full support from from the most powerfull reigning Capitalist dynasties like Krupps / Thyssens, etc.

Or did Adolf and his Nazi thugs just use a cloak of Socialism in order to trick the German masses ?

The industrialists didn't start to back the Nazis until they began to look as if they might win power. The same sort of thing happens in politics today, they all want to be on the winning side and "in" with the ruling party for obvious reasons.

There was a socialist aspect to the Nazis initial agenda but it became less important as things progressed. That said as late as 1943 Hitler had to re-assure the industrialists that there wouldn't be a programme of nationalisation after the war.

When the Nazis were elected to power and the staged arson attack on the Reichstag paved the way for Hitler to bring in emergency Acts, which allowed the State to imprison and oppress communists, socialists and jews.

The Nazis were financed by big business & capitalists. The use of the term National Socialist..had more to do with the left-wing dominance after World War One.
Just because something or someone proclaims themself socialist, capitalist or whatever...It doesn't mean that they actually are.
I think Orwell made an illustration of the point & power of language.

There was a good deal of Debate within the Nazi Party and German Government in 1933 and 1934 regarding the position to be taken with regard to the rich in general and the industrialists in particular. The more ‘Conservative’ position was espoused by the Reichsbank and the Finance Ministry. The ‘Radical’ wing was taken up by the SA under Ernst Roehm who aimed for an anti-bourgeois revolution. Hitler was eventually persuaded that the revolutionaries of the SA threatened production and would thereby undermine rearmament. He therefore resolved the debate on 30 June 1934 by wiping out the SA, thereby ending the revolutionary group in the Nazi Party.

Hitler’s sole over-riding concern between 1933 and 1945 was armaments and conquest. So long as the industrialists were prepared to help in this goal he was happy to work with them. Whenever they appeared to pose obstacles to the larger plan they were removed, as happened to Heinrich Koppenberg of the Junkers aircraft company among many others. Although many industrialists were allowed to keep an appearance of control they only remained so long as they implemented the plans of the Nazi State. They were effectively reduced to being managers for the State.

As to the question of whether Germany at this time was a socialist society, any society can only be organized either around the rights of the individual or the pre-eminence of the group. You can’t have both. In Nazi Germany the rights of the individual counted for nothing and the needs of the group, the Volk, counted for everything. The entire country and its economy were directed toward this end. All resources were concentrated on the goal of national aggrandizement. The country was therefore organized on collective, socialist lines.

There is no contradiction between socialism and nationalism, indeed, socialism in practice can not exist without some form of nationalism. If resources are to be held in common then some measure of agreement must exist about how those resources are to be used. It would be impossible to obtain such agreement on an international or even a continental scale. If an economic plan is to be implemented it is therefore necessary to draw a line between those to be covered by it and those who will not. Insiders and outsiders. It is for this reason that for all the internationalist rhetoric in opposition socialists have been strongly nationalistic when in power.

For all their rhetorical differences National Socialists and Communist Socialists were really two sides of the same coin which is why vast numbers of their supporters were able to move so easily from one to the other and back again if necessary. Both groups believed that the individual must serve the group. Both of them reduced individual human beings to numbers, the property of the state. Both of them followed this dehumanizing thought to its terrible conclusion. That is the logic of centrally planned societies.

quote:

Originally posted by smoked duck:

quote:

Originally posted by Fil2:
In totalitarian regimes, whether they be communist or facist, the rights of the individual are always subjugated to that of the state. So the masses were more important and the individual counted for nothing.

In what is commonly pereived in the 'west' mainly Britain + USA, the 'individual' is cunningly made to believe that he's not subjugated to the state by=ut in practice , HE IS.

On this question I'mn reminded by the Goethe quotation : " None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."

Are you really as '"free" as your masters have made you believe you are. ?

7 pints of bow,a realy big old door,bostik and a bric a brac scrabble ...

Hitler needed a both a willing and guilable audience to work his magic.He got both.
Either or doesn't cut the mustard.

quote:

Originally posted by Greenjack:
If you are interested in the history & occult roots of the Nazi party I can recommend Alan Baker's "Invisible Eagle".

See,it takes a holiday to switch off and then you give me another book I have to read.
Ta

Benbow
The reasoning behind the execution of Rohm, was that his leadership of the SA was under question due to his homosexuality and the scandal it would provoke, due to Hitler's own un-married status. The other reason, was that the SA, wanted to be the political wing of the armed forces. The German High Command thought this was intolerable, and Hitler needed the Armed Forces on-side, so Rohm and his SA were sacrificed.
If you was to look to an example of "socialism" within the Nazis movement, then Gregor Strasser would be the better example. Strasser was a co-founder of the Germans Workers Party, and was influenced by socialist thinking. Unfortunately for Strasser, his ideas were put aside by Hitler very quickly, and Strasser himself was eliminated by Hitler during "the night of the long knives".
Hitler and the Nazis were fascists, bankrolled by big business and the Centre-Right Parties were happy to forge an alliance with Hitler against the socialists and growing communists in the late 1920s & early 30s.
The economic system collapsed in 1930, thanks to the Wall Street crash, and the fear of communism, was very real in Germany. The capitalists threw their weight behind Hitler, who made no secret of his hatred towards communists and socialists.
As for the capitalists having whats called a "veneer" of control, I'm sorry, but the major industrialists and banks were very much allowed a free run. As demonstrated by IG Farben, who were only too happy to supply the State with Zyklon B, knowing full well, that it was not going to be used to poison rats.
Krupps, also were very much in control, as they used slave labour on a massive scale, before and during World War II.
Germany was in no way a socialist society, because socialism or the ideas of socialism, rests on democratic participation. Hitler had banned Trade Unions and created a "Labor Front"..and the last thing they did, was question wages & conditions. Then, we had Hitlers complete seizure of power, in which all Political Parties were banned. The Centre-Right went along with this completely, as they saw Hitler as a defence against communism.

The Country was organized into Districts, run by Gautleiters, who in many cases, treated areas as their own fiefdom. As long as they carried out Hitlers policy against the Jews and they carried out designated Nazis policy which eminated from the Chancellory...then they hadn't much to fear!
Thanks to research carried out by Michael Burleigh & Laurence Rees, with his Warning from History...we discover how ramshackle the Nazis control actually was. The Gestapo was completely reliant on informants, we had Ministries competing with each other over responsibility in health, education, social services etc...We now know that Hitler was practically a loafer in Office, enjoying late nights watching films and waking up late in the day-time, where he was only too happy to pass on decisions to Bormann, Goebbells & Goering.
For a Centrally controlled Country, this must've been a nightmare!

As for socialism & Nationalism, the inherent flaw in Nationalism, is that it produces a spurious arrogance, a breeding for myths and half-truths, which elevates the Nation above all others. The Nazis demonstrated that in their ideaology all the time!

Socialists however, their philosophy eminates from the French Revolution, which was supported by other Nationals outside France's own borders. Thomas Paine being an obvious example.

The idea of socialism, taken from the tradition of the French Revolution and the writings of Saint Just..Is liberty, equality & fraternity (Solidarity)..These socialist ideas do not rest with Nazism, which was a racist nationalist creed that put Germany or Nation at the beginning and the end of its doctrine! How can a Nazis deal with ideas of solidarity with a jew, gypsie, trade unionist, catholic ???

So I would contend, as I believe the evidence demonstrates, is that Nazism & Socialism are two different ideas and values. We know this, as the first to be arrested during the Nazis seizure of power was socialists & communists.
The Commandant of Auschwitz, Rudolf Hoess gloats in these events, when he was a Prison Keeper during this period.

Thanks for your interesting reply Robred2

Although Hitler had many supporters in big business this was by no means unanimous. German industrialists in the 1930s were not a monolithic group. Hitler had support among those who stood to gain most from rearmament and the linked policy of economic protection. These industries included steel, coal, ship building, construction, aeronautics and, obviously, armaments. In other areas such as consumer goods, textiles, small business and the export sector the view of the Nazis was far cooler. These areas had much less to gain from Nazi policy and far more to lose. The one group that was decisive in bringing Hitler to power was German farmers who faced plummeting commodity prices. It was the promise of quotas on agricultural imports that bought Hitler the staunch support of this crucial 25 percent of the workforce.

German industrialists were allowed to retain control of their plants and sometimes to generate huge returns but only so long as they followed plans issued by state agencies. They had virtually no strategic control over their companies and were reduced to implementing plans made elsewhere. Whenever industrialists were considered to be holding up armaments production they were quickly removed, as happened to Heinrich Koppenberg at Junkers, Rudolf Blohm at Blohm and Voss shipbuilders and many others. The industrialists only remained on the sufferance of the State. The Nazis did not dance to the tune of the capitalists. The capitalists danced to theirs or they were removed. That of course does not excuse the atrocities in which these companies were complicit. It does however show that the German economy in this period was almost completely state-directed.

It is true that Hitler believed in divide and rule and that decision making in the Third Reich was therefore rendered chaotic. However, whilst there was much confusion, conflict and overlap in the State apparatus this does not alter that fact that State institutions had the whip hand over everyone else. It may have been a badly planned economy but the fact remains that it was a planned economy with Hitler as the ultimate arbiter.

Modern Socialist thought does emanate from the French Revolution. So does modern Nationalist thought. The two facts are not coincidental. Along with liberty, equality and fraternity there was also the concept of the nation in arms which began at that time and recurred later, notably in Germany. Many non French citizens supported the revolution but that was because of the attractive rhetoric seen in the early stages. What well meaning person would disagree with liberty, equality, fraternity and internationalism? Unfortunately all these attributes disappeared from France in a couple of years and the country became a xenophobic dictatorship, setting the pattern for similar utopian efforts in the future. That didn’t stop some outsiders from continuing to love the dream of 1789 even after everyone else had woken up. Incidentally, it is perfectly possible for people to feel nationalistically about a country other than their own. In fact this is very common.

Although Socialism has marched behind the banner of liberty, equality and fraternity these ideas have never lasted long whenever anyone has tried Socialism in practice. The contradictions of a planned society rise to the surface, the idealists (like St Just) are eliminated and the ruthless (also like St Just) take power. These principles have never lasted long in a Socialist society and have only ever survived at all in societies based on the liberty of the individual.

You correctly point out that the Nazis were Fascists but it is my contention that Fascist philosophy, far from being the opposite of Socialism is an outgrowth of it. Both systems are based on the totalitarian idea that the interests of the group, as decided by some authority, must take precedence over those of any individual. Both views come from the same mode of thought and to a very great extent they were developed by the same people. Mussolini, Laval and hordes of grass roots fascists started their political life as Socialists. After 1945 many switched back again. The mutual antipathy occurred mainly because both groups competed for the same type of mind.

It is also notable that there was little in National Socialism that was not espoused by leading Socialists in the years before 1914. The Socialist GB Shaw stated that, ‘the world is to the big and powerful states by necessity and the little ones must come within their border or be crushed out of existence.’ Shaw and his friends the Webbs were staunch imperialists, they glorified power, they believed in planning, order, and eugenics. In time they transferred their sympathies to Stalin. If they had been a little younger they may have transferred again to Hitler as there was little in their world view that did not exist in his. Oh, and they together with the Fabian Society they founded are revered figures in the history of English Socialism.

I would therefore contend that Socialism and Nazi ideas have more in common than either side would like to admit. They both can only achieve their aims by totalitarian, collectivist methods. Orwell described Fascism as Socialism with the virtues stripped out. The problem is that the stated virtues never last long in practice anyway and all attempts at Socialism have quickly relapsed into nationalism, xenophobia and dictatorship. That is, into Fascism. The fine words didn’t last long in France, Russia or China. I’ve yet to see anywhere where they did.

Benbow
An extremely good response. Your last point, has a classic example in our own lifetime, as the former socialist State of Yugoslavia soon broke up into extreme Nationalist constructs, such as Croatia, Slovenia & Serbia. The later was pushed by a so-called Serbian Socialist Party, that used Nationalism to maintain control, until the Kosovan crisis.

My own socialistic leanings, tend to look at the Internationalist strain of socialism, which would be the complete opposite of fascist thinking. My examples of international socialist thinkers, leaders point to the common thread of humanity. That socialism, is seen as a philosophy that allowed working class people to construct a society, in which the wealth producers, would derive maximum benefit from that wealth. The capitalists or bourgouisie had equipped their own gravediggers as industrialization and technology increased. Marxism and its political agenda was the promotion of class conflict. On the surface, very attractive, but it is socialist thinking that allows an accomodation between capital & labour. I'm thinking from an anglo-socialist point of view.

As I stated before. The Industrialists & Capitalists of Germany in the late 1920s, were fearful of communism, how could they not? The communists enjoyed a membership of nearly 7 million Germans. Hitler was a product of what I would call...The last throw of the dice, by the capitalists and ruling class of Germany.
The Capitalists/Ruling elite..as represented by Von Papen, honestly believed that they could control Hitler...But they under-estimated Hitler and his Nazis, who were busy terrorising the streets, making communists, socialists and jews their particular targets.

The fascists have always been supported by the petit bourgouisie (I hate using Marxist terminology) such as farmers, shop-keepers and lower middle classes, because they are a body that fights against the collectivist instincts of socialist & communists. The fascist also puts an emphasis on order. Both Hitler & Mussolini emphasised this creed particularly.
Franco in Spain enjoyed tremendous support from the clergy and Upper Middle classes, plus the military in colonial possessions. Because they quite rightly feared a left-wing government, who would actually undermine the notions of Imperialist conquest.

The analysis you give that somehow the Nazis were socialist, is certainly undermined, when Tom Bower's excellent book Blind Eye To Murder, which is a book that demonstrates how clearly German big business bank-rolled and engaged actively in Hitler's war & indeed crimes. Its
extremely revealing.

You are perfectly correct, that nationalism & socialism were twins in the same birth, that being the French Revolution. Again, my romantic notions are drawn to the belief advocated by the likes of Thomas Paine, in the "rights of man". A book that found itself on the burning mounds very quickly in Nazis Germany. A book that inspired the modern day labour movement and Thomas Paine, would certainly be granted as an internationalist, as he himself wrote.."I am a citizen of the world and my religion is to do good".

Then we have the example of the French socialist leader Jean Jaures, who had immense following in France and also notably in Germany as well before World War One. Jaures tried to avert war, by appealling to both the French & German working class...needless to say, he was assassinated by a French Nationalist. These two examples, two of many I hasten to add, points to the internationalist vision of both socialism and socialists, something that Nazis would find appalling.

I await your response with interest!