Was Hitler economically left wing?

[J. J.]

Initially, the Nazis were exceptionally left wing and anti-big business; they initially proposed eliminating department stores, even those owned by non-Jews.  Generally, it was SA that was this radical.  When that faction lost power (1934), the Nazis economic moved more to the right, but still left of center.

Even if you factor out the "Aryanization," the Nazis were still left wing, and probably sightly to the left, economically, of the New Deal in the late 1930's.  Even prior to WW II, there was massive intervention and control of the economy, and of the segments of the economy not involving the Jews.

The Nazis could never be called right wing, economically, at any point during Hitler's reign.  The actual ideology was of small businesses and small farms.

[J. J.]

Even prior to WW II, there was massive intervention and control of the economy, and of the segments of the economy not involving the Jews.

This is not particularly 'left-wing'. Otto von Bismarck, the premiere conservative of the 19th century, created the first welfare state in modern history. And I'm quite left-wing economically and adamantly oppose government intervention in the economy, including welfare.

Bismarck actually introduced old age pensions to Germany and set the retirement age at 65.  Further, he tended to be protectionist.  He was, certainly for his time, left of center economically.  In England, at the same time, you had laissez-faire Conservatives that were the majority of the party (though it lead to the party split).

[J. J.]

Your mistake lies in accepting the narrow, myopic American definitions of 'right' and 'left' wholesale and trying to retroactively apply them to German history.

That, however, is how the question is phrased.

What was Bismarck's goal in establishing the welfare state in Germany?

His goal makes no difference.  His actions do.

Nobody who understands Bismarck as a politician considers him 'left-winged' in any respect. That he was more economically interventionist that the British Tories is a given; so was the French ancien regime, and nobody can accuse King Louis of being "to the left" of the Tories of the nineteenth century.

Actually, after 1871, that is debatable.  He certainly was no longer reactionary.

The same applies to both Bismarck and Hitler. German conservatism had always implicitly accepted government intervention in the economy because, once Prussia came to dominate the Landtag and then Germany, they foisted their economic model upon the rest of the country. And Prussia had always seen collusion between the Junkers and the civil government, as well as a powerful military economy.

This tradition of 'conservative Statism' proved useful in Germany in helping to undermine the SPD and the socialists by "buying off" the workers who were loyal to them. While the means used to achieve this might be (erroneously, in my opinion) identified as being 'on the Left' within dogmatic American discourse, the end sought by them was most certainly 'on the Right'.

Bismarck and Hitler were economic interventionists and authoritarians. That does not, however, make them 'left-winged' in the slightest.

Bismarck were far more to left, economically, than his opposites in England at the time, possibly the French, though I'm less familiar with 19th Century French economic policy.  Again, the "ends" don't make a difference, but the "means" do.  Almost every leader has the first priority of staying in power.

Here is the original 1920 Nazi platform:  http://users.stlcc.edu/rkalfus/PDFs/026.pdf

All companies nationalized, full employment, profit sharing, forbidding real estate to be rented for profit.  That is not right wing.

(Of course they later said, "Let's just do that to the Jews.")

[J. J.]

His goal makes no difference.  His actions do.

A ridiculous argument that - as far as I'm aware of - no credible historian of Germany in that period (or of social policy!) has ever actually made. It's also worth remembering that the social security system created by Bismarck in an (utterly unsuccessful, as it happens) attempt to blunt the rise of the SPD would not be described by anyone as a 'welfare state' if it existed today. For one thing, it only covered a minority of the population and didn't include unemployment payments.

Basically, that is what most say, regarding Bismarck.  He changed after 1871, being supported by more liberal parties.  For Bismarck, after the Franco-Prussian War, there was a sea change.  I think just about everyone did notice it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You have to take a look at Bismarck in his time.  He was by no means a conservative, economically after the Empire was formed.

As for the initial Nazi Party manifesto, it is relevant to the underlying ideology.  There was not any great love for big business or large landowners.  Hitler abandoned it, and that was partly responsible for the "Night of the Long Knives."  He supported business when it was in his interest, but there was no great love for it.

[J. J.]

You have to take a look at Bismarck in his time.  He was by no means a conservative, economically after the Empire was formed.

Bismarck was a 19th century conservative straight out of the textbook. He opposed parliamentarianism, he criminalized unions and the worker's movement, and he was a staunch monarchist.

Yet he modeled the German constitution on the US Constitution.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Encouraging, successfully, German manufacturing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And how exactly?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As did the governments of Britain, not to mention the US.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why weren't the Old Conservatives supportive?  Because Bismarck was well to the left of them.

[J. J.]

Let's take this in little sections.

1. Nazi underlying ideology = virulent nationalism/militarism, an especially nasty take on popular racial theories, anti-semitism (part of the former but enough of an issue, obviously, to deserve a mention on its own) and anti-socialism, combined with weird fetishes regarding leaders, action, and so on. Everything else was window dressing or a cynical attempt to win support (both electorally and in terms of powerful individuals and interest groups). If you think Hitler or any other leading Nazi gave a sh!t about whatever drivel the party adopted as its platform in its early years, then you should probably avoid further comment on the issue. Because there is just a little bit of a consensus over this.

2. Yes, the Nazis did not have much in the way of 'great love' for big business or for large landowners (or, indeed, for anyone other than themselves. Trite, I know, but essentially true). They weren't even vaguely hostile to them though, and formed a mutually beneficial (in the short term) relationship with both, especially the former. Which is what matters. Not what was in some badly written platform that wasn't even relevant when it was drafted.

Absolutely not window dressing to the SA, who wanted a "Second Revolution."  There was an element of the Nazi Party that put "socialist" and "workers" into NSDAP.  Now, Hitler was not part of that element, and that element lost out, violently, in 1934.  I've made that distinction.

However, Hitler was not wedded to "big business" either.  He used it when convenient, but it wasn't too important.  You had people like Schacht and Hugenberg forced out (although they both help Hitler get in). 

[J. J.]

Yet he modeled the German constitution on the US Constitution.

There are hardly any similarity between the German constitution of 1871 and the US Constitution. Only thing they have in common is, that both constituted a federal state, but besides that, nothing.

I think suffrage was identical, for example.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's a very special definition of economic conservatism.
[/quote]

Well, in some countries there was hostility to this new activities, because it drew workers from the land.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Take the high tariffs on rye and wheat for example.
There was no economic importance for them (in fact they had a very bad influence on the working class, as basic foods became more expensive), except for keeping a completely out-dated social class, the Prussian Junker, who relied on large-scale agriculture that became more and more inefficient and technically backwards, alive. Bismarck was one of them, and he tried (successfully) to conserve them as a political force against liberalism, socialism, democracy, progress in general.
He also ensured with the reform of the county law of 1872 that the Gutsbezirke, local administrative divisions in which the local landlord was the judicial, police and often church authority and that bare any local government, continued in existence. If I remember correctly, about 1/4 of the Prussian population still lived in a Gutsbezirk around 1900.
[/quote]

Tariffs were common, including in the US, so that is not an issue.  I am to familiar with the 1872 law, though wasn't similar the role of landed gentry and nobility in Britain at the time.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Basically because they were ultra-royalists, and Bismarck broke the old dynastic legitimacy of Hannover and some other noble houses by annexing them and making them Prussian provinces. Also because German nationalism was, before 1871, a political goal of the liberals and democrats, not of the conservatives.
[/quote]

That might have been a factor in Hanover, but Hanover was never known as a conservative bastion.  Further, some of that occurred in 1815.

In the same period, Bismarck was anti-colonial.  Britain was of course holding and expanding its colonial holdings and greater colonial support was growing in the US.

I'm not saying Bismarck was an enlightened 19th Century liberal, but he wasn't, either for German or the world, the ultra rightest political leader either.

[J. J.]

Tariffs were common, including in the US, so that is not an issue.  I am to familiar with the 1872 law, though wasn't similar the role of landed gentry and nobility in Britain at the time.

Right, but it were conservative forces in Britain and the US that supported this politics of tariffs and noble privilege, too. Just as Bismarck was a conservative, what is my point.

That doesn't make him conservative; it makes him main stream for his day.

[J. J.]

Tariffs were a signature policy of most European conservatives in the 19th century (and would remain so deep into the twentieth).

And in America.  However, you had liberals like Joseph Chamberlain supporting it.  If you look at his domestic policy, it was possibly the most left wing anywhere at the time.