The Civic Platform - A Political Journal of Ideas and Analysis

Strasser and National Bolshevism [2]

August 29, 2007 on 6:27 pm | Friedrich Braun | Books , Germany, History , National Bolshevism, National Socialism , Political analysis , The Greatest Man in History, The Jewish Question, The Third Reich | | Email This Post | Print this Post

The Elections of 1928 and the Electoral Failure of Strasserism

The Strasserite approach was not only a failure in attracting workers to the NSDAP (on average, only 7 percent of the party members were workers by 1928) but unsuccessful as an electoral strategy. In a series of local and provincial elections which the party fought on a “socialist” or Strasserite platform, the result were profoundly disappointing, and by 1928, after three years of electioneering, the NSDAP was independently represented in only four state parliaments: it had one seat in Prussia, six in Bavaria, and two each in Saxony and Thuringia. The same Strasserite strategy was stubbornly persevered, however, and the party looked on the Reichstag election in May 1928 as its first really important test.

The result of the election was a severe disappointment for the NSDAP and a personal blow to Strasser. By capturing only 2.6 percent of the vote (809,771) and twelve seats, the urban, socialist strategy had been dealt a fatal blow. The appeal to industrial workers floundered ignominiously. These results intimated that the way forward for a party of the Right was not among the proletarian masses, but among the unhappiest segment of the electorate, the Protestant Mittelstand. For the NSDAP to become that party a dramatic reorientation would be necessary in its organization, propaganda and ideological emphasis. Otherwise, it faced the prospect of remaining totally insignificant as an electoral force. The lesson was not lost on Adolf Hitler, nor on Gregor Strasser as he viewed the ruins of a strategy which had been initiated and sustained by him. For both the NSDAP and Strasser a profound crisis had emerged which required immediate and drastic resolution.

Reorientiation, 1928-30

Between the summer of 1928 and the beginning of the 1930s the NSDAP was well on the way to becoming a party of the Protestant small-town and rural-based Mittelstand, located for the most part in northern, central, and eastern Germany. The shock and disappointment occasioned by the Reichstag elections resulted in high-level discussions inside the party regarding an ideological realignment or reorientation. Emphasis was put on the NSDAP’s position as the only remaining viable representative of a racist and anti-Marxist political option, and the 300,000 Germans who had voted for the other völkisch parties at the election were identified as a primary future target of the NSDAP. This would mean a conscious swing to the right for the party because these völkisch supporters were drawn overwhelmingly from the middle-classes. Leading party spokesmen like Alfred Rosenberg and Wilhelm Frick called for a new alignment with the conservative Right and its organizations now that Strasser’s industrial-urban strategy failed to attract more than a handful of blue-collar workers.

Strasser came to realize the futility of the basically petty-bourgeois NSDAP trying to develop into a mass movement with the support mainly of the industrial proletariat. This new ideological turning meant identifying the NSDAP with politics, attitudes, priorities that were dear to the hearts and minds of the Mittelstand. The themes that were to receive priority henceforth were nationalism in the broadest sense, anti-Marxism, racism, anti-Semitism, militarism, law and order, and pan-German imperialism with particular stress on the injustice of the Treaty of Versailles and the Dawes Plan in so far as they were deleterious to the national interest.

The Resignation Crisis, 1932-3

During the last months of 1932 the NSDAP was faced by a major dilemma over political tactics: Adolf Hitler was a gambler by nature and took an “all or nothing” attitude, while Gregor Strasser was enthusiastically calling for a broad coalition with other political parties. In particular, Strasser wanted to follow the coalition plans put forth by Kurt von Schleicher and others.

The considerable setback sustained by the NSDAP at the election came as no surprise to Strasser, who had in early October predicted a loss of at least forty seats. Strasser was convinced that the loss was due to Hitler’s inflexibility and unwillingness to enter a coalition government. While Hitler maintained that it was Strasser’s radical socialist views (if never clearly defined) that alienated middle-class voters, the backbone of the party, at the election.

By December 1932, Strasser’s alienation from Hitler had reached a critical juncture, and was accentuated during the first week of that month when Goering replaced him as Hitler’s nominee for the post of Prussian Minister of the Interior. By that time Strasser himself believed the gap between Hitler and him was “unbridgeable.”

Many contemporaries had noted Strasser’s personal ambition in his character. For example, Hans Frank goes on to state that Strasser was ultimately a “victim of his own ambition.” In any case, by December 1932, convinced as he was of NSDAP’s imminent decline, Strasser took seriously Schleicher’s offer of a governmental participation. But first and foremost, the prospect of a cabinet office appealed to his ambition and personal vanity. Indeed, Strasser informed Schleicher of his willingness to act independently of Hitler. At a top-level party meeting in Weimar on 30 November, Hitler did reaffirm his negative attitude to the idea of a Schleicher cabinet.

Despite warnings from Franz von Papen, Dr. Hjalmar Schacht and Otto Braun that his quest to split the NSDAP had no hope of success, Schleicher was undeterred and went ahead with a formal offer to Strasser of the Vice-Chancellorship and the Minister-Presidency of Prussia at a secret meeting in Berlin on 3 December.

At a specially convened meeting of party leaders in Berlin’s Kaiserhof Hotel on 5 December, Hitler forbade Strasser from having any further talks with the old intriguer on behalf of the party. In point of fact, Strasser now had to decide whether he had the necessary support in the movement to lead a successful palace revolution. This raises once again the important debate about whether a Strasserite faction, “Strasser Wing” or “Nazi Left”, under his leadership, actually existed. It has been argued already that there was no such entity in the NSDAP in an organizational, ideological or personal sense. An analysis of the situation in the NSDAP in late 1932 provides final and conclusive evidence in support of this argument. Even in December 1932, he was still widely but unjustifiably regarded as the leader of what was in effect a non-existent entity, a “socialist” wing of the NSDAP. Moreover, the general public and the vast majority of party members could hardly have perceived how fundamentally Strasser’s ideological attitudes had been changing as he became less and less a “socialist” and more of what might be termed a populist social or neo-conservative.

As to the role of the proletarian SA, although it was showing unmistakable signs of deep unrest at the end of 1932, including outright revolt in some areas like Franconia, the main cause was traditional SA – NSDAP antagonism and local personal rivalries. Hence, any serious SA support for Strasser is extremely doubtful, even in industrial areas such as the Ruhr. The SA had always been loath to become involved in intra-party disputes, and, furthermore, there was the long-standing personal and political enmity between Strasser and Roehm. In December 1932, therefore, the SA remained a factor of support for Hitler.

During those days, Strasser’s principal source of support lay inside the NSDAP Reichstag faction where by some estimates as many as one-third of the deputies may have inclined to his positions. Nonetheless, it would be wrong to believe that this source constituted a Strasserite faction within the National Socialist movement. These elements were too varied and diverse, ranging from self-styled, insincere “socialists” to wooly-minded and uninfluential intellectuals and theorists, to be described as anything other than a loose assortment of support. Furthermore, they can in no way be seen as constituting a “Nazi Left”. This term is even more devoid of meaning than it was already in the mid-1920s. There was neither a “Nazi Left” nor a “Strasser Wing” to come to his aid at this time of personal and political crisis because they simply did not exist. Consequently, although the extremely serious and unstable position of the NSDAP in December 1932 is not to be underestimated, the unorganized and incohesive nature of Strasser’s friends and sympathizers removed any real possibility of his being able to split the party had he so desired. On the mundane practical level, the Führer’s control of the party’s press and propaganda network, the SA and SS, and the solid backing of leading and powerful figures such as Goebbels, Goering and Roehm militated decisively against a successful Strasser initiative.

The Führer, who by this time had become fully informed of Strasser’s traitorous double-dealings behind his back with Schleicher, was totally unbroken in his determination to pursue his quest for chancellorship and nothing else. A break of some kind between the tow men became inevitable.

Based on a careful scrutiny of what lay before him, especially his and Hitler’s power situation within the NSDAP, Strasser became disappointed by the failure of his friends in the party to openly give him the support that they had pledged in private. Emphasizing the personal nature of his decision, Strasser withdrew to his room at Hotel Exzelsior in Berlin where he wrote out his letter of resignation that was delivered to Hitler at his hotel at noon on 8 December 1932.

The now famous letter does not refer to Strasser’s extensive dealings with non-NSDAP political groups and personalities during the previous few years which lay at the heart of his conflict with Hitler, nor does he indicate the somewhat different, more moderate, more “socialist” interpretation of National Socialism he had come to accept. Indeed, notably absent from Strasser’s thoughts on the crisis was any emphasis on “socialism” as a motive for his decision. In December 1932 the crisis was not about a last stand by the party’s “socialists” against Hitler’s pro-business and nationalist course, and it is misleading to interpret is as representing the final victory of reactionary, anti-Semitic Munich wing over the “socialist” wing. “ In December 1932 there was no “Nazi Left” or “left wing” for Strasser, or anyone else, to lead. Additionally, the numbers seceding or resigning for the NSDAP in sympathy with Strasser were insignificant.

The Strasser crisis, paradoxically, made an indispensable contribution to solving the NSDAP’s strategic impasse; for, having set out to prevent Hitler from coming to power, Strasser’s actions and involvement with Schleicher merely succeeded in accelerating the chain of events that led to Hitler’s appointment as Chancellor.

Epilogue

The attempt by some elements of the leadership of the SA at a putsch in 1934 resulted in the infamous Night of the Long Knives and the Roehm Purge in June 1934, resulting in the death of a number of SA leaders and other enemies of the NSDAP leadership. Strasser succumbed on 30 June to the machinations of Goering and Himmler, above all, who seized the opportunity to settle scores with their common enemy.

In his address to the Reichstag on 13 July about the Roehm Purge, Hitler’s only reference to Strasser came when he curtly remarked that he had been “pulled into” a conspiracy by others against the state. A week or so previously, Hitler had during a ministerial meeting accused Strasser of having been directly involved in a Streicher-Roehm plot. Whether Hitler directly ordered Strasser’s murder or not is unknown. However, during the war the Führer denounced Strasser as a “great traitor” who “had met his just punishment”.

42 Comments »

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

I don’t often comment on other people’s blogs,but I feel that someone must answer this calumnious attack upon both Gregor Strasser and National Bolshevism. I should like to do this by refuting what I consider to be the main points of dis-information.

1] Peter D. Stachura’s biography, “Gregor Strasser and the Rise of Nazism,” is most definitely not definitive. Stachura is a bourgeois liberal who mistakes his own libertarian individualist agenda for socialism and fails to see that, far from being necessarily Marxist or liberal, socialism is simply that set of polices favoring the working classes. Thus, in taking Stachura as a starting point, the author of this blog has already misunderstood his subject.

2] The author calls Strasser’s ideas of socialism “vague and eclectic” and “wooly” while this is far from the case. There is a large and well developed body of writing explicating the National Bolshevik idea of socialism. Principle works would include:

• “Germany’s Third Empire,” by Arthur Möller van den Bruck, Allen & Unwin,London, 1934.
• “Das Ende des Kapitalismus (the Twilight of Capitalism)” by Ferdinand Fried, Jena, 1931 (no English translation available)
• “Prussianism and Socialism,” by Oswald Spengler, in “Selected Essays,” H. Regnery Co., Chicago, 1967.

All of these works enjoyed wide circulation in Germany before the war and, according to Otto Strasser, Fried’s “The Twilight of Capitalism” was read by all the Gauleiters and was the only book on economics that Hitler ever read. Both Fried and Gregor Strasser were published in a magazine called Die Tat, which characterized their program as “The world economy to be ended, the authoritarian state, planned economy, autarchy, a Southeast policy, and the need for a blending of nationalism and socialism and of Right and Left in a people’s community (Volksgemeinschaft.)”

Strasser was also the intimate of Friedländer-Prechtl, a German Dirigiste economist, and together they formulated the work relief program that was later put into effect so successfully by the Hitler government and which has often been incorrectly credited to Hijalmar Schacht.

3] The author claims that Strasser’s Bamburg Program was not genuinely socialist. I can only recommend that he read this program before dismissing it. The full text may be found in German in “Vierteljahrshefte fuer Zeitgeschichte” #14 (1966), pp. 317-33. A translation of the most pertinent sections is in the anthology “Nazi Ideology before 1933,” introduced and translated by Barbara Miller Lane and Leila J. Rupp, University of Texas Press, Austin and London, 1978.

4] The author makes no mention of Gregor’s even more radical brother Otto Strasser who left the NSDAP in 1930. In his disagreement with Hitler Otto Strasser insisted vehemently on five points: a thorough revolution, opposition to bourgeois capitalism, real socialism, no coalitions, no attacks on Soviet Russia. Hitler accused Strasser of advocating democracy and Bolshevism. Otto Strasser’s socialism was even more carefully thought out that his brother’s. No doubt Marx would have called him a petit-bourgeois socialist. In his best-known publication on his program [Aufbau des deutschen Sozialismus, Leipzig, 1932] he spoke of a Reich corporative chamber with the gilds, of hereditary fiefs and the reagrarianization of Germany. Strasser called for autarky with domestic currency, the war of revolution against Versailles, and a military aristocracy. But there was more than mere demagogy in his demands for splitting up large estates, for profit participation, for a people’s state of Germanic democracy. On the whole it was a genuinely socialist program, at least to the extent to which it was imbued with the emotional appeal of the expansion and attainment of freedom.

5] The author claims that Gregor Strasser’s urban strategy of 1928 was a failure, thus explaining a change of direction towards a more rural electorate. This is simply not the case. The NSDAP had increased its representation in the Reichstag from 3 to 12 seats at a time when every other Völkish party was in decline and this victory caused the entire left-wing of the DVFP to come over to the NSDAP en block (including such prominent men as Ernst graf zu Reventlow, Dr. Bernhard Rust, and Gauleiters Hildebrandt, Koch, and Kube). Not only was the NSDAP successful at attracting workers, but after 1930 it contained more workers than any other non-Marxist party. The surprise of the election was not any “failure” in attracting urban voters, but an unexpected popularity among rural ones. High turn-outs in rural districts like Schlesswig, Oldenburg, and East Prussia led to the establishment of party structures there and, for the first time, a propaganda effort directed at discontented farmers, but not to any abandonment of efforts at winning over workers!

6] The author claims that Hitler won Strasser away from an Eastern (i.e. pro-Soviet alliance) orientation, towards favoring an alliance with Britain. Perhaps he has confused Strasser with Goebbels? That this Eastern orientation, and not socialism, was the key difference between the two factions at the Bamburg Conference comes through clearly when one looks at the energetic way in which Hitler woos Goebbels away from Strasser’s Easternism while supporting his socialism. See “The early Goebbels diaries, The Journal of Joseph Goebbels from 1925-1926” (Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London, 1962) for Goebbels own account of this. To the end, the discord between Hitler and Strasser was over Hitler’s anti-sovietism, not his anti-socialism.

7] The author contends that Strasser resigned from the party because he had no support. Did he read Stachura closely? I quote: “Men who cold have been counted upon to support Strasser in the crisis would have included NSBO officials Reinhold Muchow, Walter Schuhmann, Ludwig Brückner and Otto Krüger, P-zero men Konstantin Hierl, Heinrich Haake, Jacob Sprenger, Wilhelm Loeper and Otto Wegener, Gauleiters Karl Kaufman, Joseph Wagner, Alfred Meyer, Bernhard Rust, Karl Röver, Erich Koch, Heinrich Lohse, Helmut Brückner, Wilhelm Murr, Josepf Bürckel, Rudolf Jordan, Friedrich Hildebrandt, Dr. Ernst Schlange. Sympathetic, though less sure, were Martin Mutschmann, Josef Terboven, and personal friend Wilhelm Frick. Doubtful of the party’s future were Feder, Rosenberg, and Buch. Against Strasser were Ley, Goebbels, and Göring.” These men represent about half of the higher-ups in the party. If Strasser had left, taking these men with him and becoming vice-Chancellor under Schleicher, a viable coalition would have been formed, a “New Deal” style government would have put Germany on the road to recovery, and the Second World War would never have happened. What prevented this happy scenario from unfolding? Simple — Gregor Strasser was a diabetic. After being kept in Hitler’s hotel room for a five hour harangue, with no food or water, Strasser was undoubtedly near to physical collapse and probably caved in from diabetic exhaustion. When he said he was resigning for his health, he probably meant it.

8] The author claims that the “Strasser wing” had no SA support. This is true, but not because the SA was not leftist, it was in fact probably more socialistic that the party. By 1932 the SA was fairly bursting with “Beefsteak Nazis,” so called because they had come over from the Communists and were “brown on the outside, red on the inside.” It was instead the personal alienation of Strasser and Röhm (over the latter’s homosexuality) that prevented an alliance of the two socialist factions in the NSDAP constellation. This alienation was probably brought about by Strasser’s right-wing aide-de-camp, Paul Schulz, an intriguer who was probably working under Hitler’s orders. Schulz was one of the few rightists that was targeted during the Blood Purge, probably because he knew too much about Hitler’s scheming against Strasser.

9] The author also claims that ”The Führer … become fully informed of Strasser’s traitorous double-dealings behind his back.” This is simply a lie. Strasser was completely above board about his meeting with Schleicher and it was this that he had come to talk with Hitler about when he ended up leaving the party.

10] The author comments at length on Strasser’s letter of resignation when, according to Dietrich Orlow (“History of the Nazi Party: 1919 - 1933,” University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, PA, 1969, p. 292, note #230), no copy of the Strasser resignation letter survives.

11] The author refers to an “attempt by some elements of the leadership of the SA at a putsch in 1934.” This too is simply an out-and-out lie and exposes the author as nothing more than an apologist for Hitler. The “Röhm Putsch” was cooked up by Himmler and Göring to cover up the fact that they had persuaded Hitler to purge the NSDAP of its leftist element.

12] I would invite readers of this blog to study this matter further. For a Topology of Factions Within the NSDAP see: http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=37334
For a genuinely National Bolshevik blog see: http://torgprom.blogspot.com/

Comment by Dutchman — August 31, 2007 #
Thanks for your lengthy post.

“There is a large and well developed body of writing explicating the National Bolshevik idea of socialism. Principle works would include:

• “Germany’s Third Empire,” by Arthur Möller van den Bruck, Allen & Unwin,London, 1934.
• “Das Ende des Kapitalismus (the Twilight of Capitalism)” by Ferdinand Fried, Jena, 1931 (no English translation available)
• “Prussianism and Socialism,” by Oswald Spengler, in “Selected Essays,” H. Regnery Co., Chicago, 1967.”

Quick points: I’ve read those books and for the life of me I don’t know what makes them National Bolshevist, since all the above authors denounce Bolshevism and support private propery, among other non-Bolshevist things. Additionally, I’d like to find out what makes those works National Bolshevist rather than National Socialist. Adolf Hitler thought that Arthur Möller van den Bruck’s work, for example, was National Socialist and had a signed copy in his library.

Comment by Friedrich Braun — August 31, 2007 #
In current usage, “National Socialist” refers to that movement dominated by Hitler and pursuing a program of imperialism and genocide. Whatever else Hitler may have professed to believe in, he subordinated everything to his war of expansion and extermination. Since neither Spengler, Freid, nor Möller Van Den Bruck were racist nor imperialist, and despite their being both nationalist and socialist, we refer to them as “National Bolshevik” in order to group them with such thinkers as Karl Radek, Ernst Jünger, and Jean Raspail. For a good over-view of the formation of the National Bolshevik tendency I would recommend Klemens von Klemperer’s “Germany’s new conservationsim; its history and dilemma in the twentieth century” (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1957).
As for definitions, Marx (correctly) defines “leftism” as being the political position that favors the working classes, while Lenin defines “bolshevism” as the furthest left position. “Bolshevism” is thus the position that favors the working classes the most and this is a matter for debate. While a Soviet style communist would say that the furthest left position encompasses state ownership and a centralized command economy, a National Bolshevik would say that this does not serve the workers as well as a Dirigiste economy of private production for public ends would. This is exactly Spengler’s meaning when he says: “The task is set: it is imperative to free German Socialism from Marx.”
National Socialism is also tainted by vulgar racism. National Bolshevism is a cultural movement and Spengler is quite dismissive of “race” as an issue: ‘“Take a set of men with every conceivable race-difference, and, while mentally picturing ‘race,’ observe them in an X-ray apparatus. The result is simply comic. As soon as light is let through it, ‘race’ vanishes suddenly and completely.”
Furthermore, both Spengler and Jünger are quite critical of the National Socialist regeime, each of them voicing their criticisms in books.
• Oswald Spengler, “The Hour Of Decision, Part One: Germany And World-historical Evolution,” Alfred A, Knopf, New York City, 1934.
• Ernst Jünger, “On The Marble Cliffs,” New Directions, London, 1947.
It is worth noting that these are the only two books critical of National Socialism published in Germany between 1933 and 1945.

Comment by Dutchman — September 1, 2007 #
Dutchman, it now becomes appearant your views are quite… biased? Influenced? Conservatized? Whatever. Friedrich, if you don’t mind, I’ll join in on this discussion. (1)Oswald Spengler being dismissive of race is simply: not true. Just read Der Mensch und die Technik (1931). This book is racialist. The only point you can make is that Spengler doesn’t believe in unscientific racism and doesn’t narrow it down to a National-Socialist view. But that still does away with your argument. (2)Furthermore Spengler is not a nasbol (national-bolshevist). He was a hardheaded genius perhaps, but he wasn’t a nasbol. Yes, dismissive of NS, but out of other reasons than you like to believe it seems. The beauty of Spengler is that anyone and no one is allowed to use his ideas. (3) Calling a national ideology a ‘cultural movement’ is modern nonsense, forced down our throats by the age we live in. Nasbol can be interpreted as non-racist, but also as racist. I prefer not being hypocritical in this and taking the facts as they present themselves. (4) A final note, nasbol/Third Positionism/… is a very loose ideology. Who are your main ideologists then? And please don’t say Jünger and Spengler, they don’t count.

Comment by Der Vermittler — September 1, 2007 #
In his post above, Dutchman shows himself to be a complete intellectual non-entity. I for one wouldn’t waste, yes waste, any time whatsoever debating him: some people simply haven’t got the required synapses. Let him grow a few neurons then do his homework before opening his yap, or be totally ignored.

Comment by Fred Scrooby — September 1, 2007 #
If the complete crock Dutchman spouts above is any indication of what National Bolshevism is, we don’t need to devote any more time to that either, as it’s going nowhere but down and every mentally-defective adherent along with it.

Comment by Fred Scrooby — September 1, 2007 #
(In my two comments, the post by Dutchman which I refer to, the one in which he glaringly betrays his grave cognitive inadequacy, is the second one by him in the thread.)

Comment by Fred Scrooby — September 1, 2007 #
“As for definitions, Marx (correctly) defines “leftism” as being the political position that favors the working classes, while Lenin defines “bolshevism” as the furthest left position. ”

The workers benefit from social stability, protection for their property, and most crucially from not getting kulturkampfed into the dustbin of history just as much as anyone else. Marx’s leftism is against all these desiderata.

Comment by alex zeka — September 1, 2007 #
No, Marx indeed made the correct observations, but he came to the wrong conclusions. “The workers benefit from…” yes, we’ve seen that NOT working by now!

Comment by Der Vermittler — September 1, 2007 #
Socialism first and foremost is (a) idealistic, (b) democratic, (c) progressive, (d) chialistic, (e) revolutionary and (f) for the lower classes, i.e. leveller.
At the very beginning Hitler wanted to call the party “The Social Revolutionary Party”; others dissuaded him and keep the name. So Hitler really didn’t “form” the party. He was first an army spy, spying in on the party DAP. Nor did he name it or the 25 point program. I tend to agree with the Dutchman. Nazism/Fascism was not “doctrinaire”. It was very fluid. Fascist ideology was not anything like Marxism that was doctrinaire. It was part of the Hegel dialectic within the whole Socialist movement/cause. Hitler got most of his ideas from the Social Democrats in Vienna that he observed. He learned from them.

Comment by WLindsayWheeler — September 1, 2007 #
Mr. Scrooby, you are usually gentlemanly and precise. Your comments on the Dutchman are a little out of character for you.(unless it is somebody else.) Take it easy on the visitor.

Comment by WLindsayWheeler — September 1, 2007 #
Maybe I was a bit harsh. You’re right. My apologies.

Comment by Fred Scrooby — September 1, 2007 #
Mr. Wheeler, where did you get that info from exactly?

Comment by Der Vermittler — September 2, 2007 #
On what Socialism is, I read the book “Elements of Socialism” of 1925, author Fargo. On the term “Social Revolutionary Party”, you need to look at Rudolf Jung who was the intelectual brains behind National Socialism. This info is found in “Leftism Revisited” by Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, pg 147-149. Not many people know the history of the DAP in Austria under the Hapsburg Empire before WWI, the growing nationalism of the Germans and the workers. Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn is an Austrian, a polyglot, a voracious researcher, now passed to his reward. On Rudolf Jung please see: http://www.internet-encyclopedia.org/index.php/Rudolf_Jung

Comment by WLindsayWheeler — September 2, 2007 #
Alright, thank you.

Comment by Der Vermittler — September 2, 2007 #
“In his post above, Dutchman shows himself to be a complete intellectual non-entity. I for one wouldn’t waste, yes waste, any time whatsoever debating him: some people simply haven’t got the required synapses. Let him grow a few neurons then do his homework before opening his yap, or be totally ignored.”
.
Is that the best you can do? Mere name calling?

Comment by Dutchman — September 3, 2007 #
I apologize to the Dutchman. I over-reacted.

Comment by Fred Scrooby — September 3, 2007 #
One thing’s obvious, Dutchman: if National Bolsheviks consider themselves non-Marxist Spenglerians (which they’re not, by the way: Prussian Socialism as discussed by Spengler is not at all National Bolshevism) they need to get rid of the word Bolshevism in their name. What are they waiting for? That would avoid a lot of potential misunderstanding.

Comment by Fred Scrooby — September 3, 2007 #
Mr. Scrooby, Marxism is a form of Socialism; saying National Socialism can be said to be National Bolshevism. It is recorded that Stalin in the strain of WWII said to have also used the concepts/terms of National Socialism to bring about national cohesion in the face of German aggression. Hermann Rausching is said to have heard Hitler say: “We are the fullfilment of Marxist doctrine stripped of its Talmudic teaching”. Him and Goebbels both said that they are the full counterparts of the French Revolution. Nazism is ideological, it is progressive, and it is a New Order creating a “New Man”. It was Darwinist just like Socialism believed in the evolution of man. Josef Pfitzner was a National socialist ideologue; he wrote that the national socialism of Germany was “the synthesis of the two great dynamic powers of the century, of the socialist and national idea” and that this specific brand of German socialism was perfected in the German borderlands of Austria and especially in the Sudetenland before it came to Germany. Hitler did anything to take power, to stay in power and to ride power and then his foolishness led him to destroy Germany. He was a demogogue just like any ancient Athenian and American politician like Huey Long. For the quote on Joseph Pfitzner see: http://www.internet-encyclopedia.org/index.php/Josef_Pfitzner Hitler did not creat German national socialism.

Comment by WLindsayWheeler — September 3, 2007 #
Dutchman, how about what I said then? As for mr. Wheeler, this discussion is not really on topic and I’m not an expert in the matter either. However, I do know who made the ideology into a movement and a success, I also know Hitler had many sources he based his ideas on. So whether or not Hitler’s NS was initially plagiary, I don’t care. Though I won’t deny what you are saying can be true of course.

Comment by Der Vermittler — September 3, 2007 #
“10] The author comments at length on Strasser’s letter of resignation when, according to Dietrich Orlow (“History of the Nazi Party: 1919 - 1933,” University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, PA, 1969, p. 292, note #230), no copy of the Strasser resignation letter survives.”
)
I finally had some time to read the author’s litany of lies and half-truths in its entirety; and the above statement, among many other whoppers, is false. Stachura reproduces Gregor Strasser’s letter of resignation in full. The author accuses me of not having read Stachura’s work closely enough while he obviously haven’t read him at all! Moreover, in the flood of ad hominems aimed at Stuchara, alleging ideological bias, the author offers not a shred of evidence to back up his (irrelevant) claims. Stachura was a respected American academic who was certainly not an apologist for Hitler. He had access to Strasser’s family members, including Gregor’s widow, diaries, personal notebooks, and a vast array of primary sources. To accuse Stachura of harbouring a pro-Hitler bias is totally bonkers. The author’s obvious emotional attachment to a the mirrage ideology of National Bolshevism clouds his judgment and impartiality. I’ll also mention that Otto Strasser is not a reliable source on anything. He has been exposed time and time again as a fabulator extraordinaire. It’s noteworthy that Gregor and Otto remained on bad terms until Gregor’s death. Gregor didn’t want to have any thing to do with Otto’s half-baked idea of an anti-Hitler “Black Front”, and told him so in a letter, also quoted by Stachura. I’m not going to transcribe Stachura’s work here to take apart all of the author’s points. Those who care about the truth can read “Gregor Strasser and the Rise of Nazism”.

Comment by Friedrich Braun — September 4, 2007 #
Dutchman is lying again, Spengler’s work “The Hour of Decision” is indeed a racist book where the author postulates a future racial war between the coloured races and the White race. It’s one of the most reactionary books that I’ve ever read…incredibly anti-Marxist. Furthermore, nowhere in the said work does he attack National Socialism. Spengler voted National Socialist and exhibited the Swastika flag in front of his home. To now turn him into an anti-N.S., National Bolshevist intellectual (Spengler would’ve undoubtedly shuddered at this designation) is simply false. The fact that Spengler lived before the cracking of the genome, Jensen, Murray, Herrenstein, Rushton, Lynn, Salter, Lahn, MacDonald, etc. doesn’t mean that he didn’t hold typically racialist views normal to all educated 19th Century Europeans, although he didn’t subscribe to the more doctrinaire racial materialism. Fred Scrooby is indeed correct, it’s a waste of time to debate someone who’s willing to misrepresent to such an extent the most rudimentary facts. Generally, I avoid National Bolsheviks like the plague. They might say something interesting now and then on economic matters or western democracy but their complete dismissal of race or the immigration crisis makes them inconsequential to the 21st Century and the big questions facing the West and the White man.

Comment by Friedrich Braun — September 4, 2007 #
As my previous comments have attracted a good deal of response, much of it specious, I would like to address many of the charges made against me.

• Der Vermittler accuses me of being “biased.” Yes, indeed I am. I will state without reservation that I am a National Bolshevik and that I stand for undiluted socialist principles. It would probably be best if we put aside bourgeois notions of “objectivity” and simply stated our biases openly.

• Several of my critics have stated that Oswald Spengler was a racist. Specifically, Der Vermittler says that “Der Mensch und die Technik” was a racist book, while Friedrich Braun has made the same claim for “Hour of Decision.” I have earlier provided a quote by Spengler (for the record, from Decline of the West, II : p. 129) denouncing the very concept of race. Can my auditors provide documented statements by Spengler that contradict this?

• Der Vermittler has made the statement that “Spengler is not a nasbol (national-bolshevist).” This is much like saying “Marx was not a Leninist,” in the sense that Leninism is derived from, and acknowledges its origins in, the thought of Marx. Spengler, Radek, Möller van den Bruck, and Jünger are the intellectual progenitors of National Bolshevism, and not Hiterlism, despite whoever may have feigned to embrace their thought.

• Alex Zeka states that “Marx’s leftism is against (his desiderata for the workingman).” So what? It is axiomatic that “Leftism” is that political position favoring the working classes. What an actual “leftist” program might be is as debatable as what genuine Christianity might look like, yet this does not discredit the earnest sincerity of the myriad o

• WLindsayWheeler says that “Socialism first and foremost is (a) idealistic, (b) democratic, (c) progressive, (d) chialistic, (e) revolutionary and (f) for the lower classes, i.e. leveller,” and I have three questions for him.
– Wherever did he get that definition?
– What on earth does “chialistic” mean? I have tried two dictionaries and an “on line” search with no success.
– What does he mean by “lower classes?” Classes are defined, not by their relation to each other relatively, but by their relationship to the means of production. By “lower classes” does he mean proletarian or lumpen?

• Fred Scrooby believes that National Bolsheviks “need to get rid of the word Bolshevism in their name,” and he might have a point. Since we are both nationalist and socialist, the name “National Socialist” would seem both more descriptive and more accurate — except that the name “National Socialism” has been forever poisoned by Hitler’s appropriation of that name for his program of imperialism and racial extermination.

• WLindsayWheeler has put forth Hitler’s idea that “(National Socialism is) the fulfillment of Marxist doctrine stripped of its Talmudic teaching.” Could Mr. Wheeler give one example of Talmudic teaching” in Marx? I think not.

• He also claims that “Nazism is ideological, it is progressive,” when frankly it is not. The actions of the Hitler Regime in no way correspond to any of the socialism or even nationalism put forth in their early propaganda. National Socialism, as it played out, was simply Hitlerism: a program of imperialism and race hatred with no actual developed ideology.

• Friedrich Braun has accused me of fostering a “litany of lies and half-truths” because I mention that Dietrich Orlow denies the existence of any actual copy of the Strasser resignation letter. I would invite Mr. Braun to check my facts first! Dietrich Orlow does indeed make this statement on page 292 of his “History of the Nazi Party: 1919 - 1933,” University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, PA, 1969 in footnote #230. Please not that I WAS CITING MR. ORLOW! This is what scholarship is all about, listing your sources! Mr. Braun goes on to say that “Stachura reproduces Gregor Strasser’s letter of resignation in full” when in fact Mr. Stachura does nothing of the kind. He dies not provide a photo nor photostat of the supposed letter, nor even the supposed original German text, but instead gives us an English translation of what the letter is supposed to have said. If Mr. Braun had bothered to go to the citation that Mr. Stachura provides (footnote 57 on page 156) he would find the following: “The letter is printed in Schultz, “Rettungen,” pp. 9-11. Kissenkoetter, “Gregor Strasser,” pp. 177 ff., doubts whether this is the full, original version, but does not clearly explain his reasons.” So you see — Stachura himself is forced to admit that this might not be the actual text of Strasser’s letter. Next time, Mr. Braun, try reading the footnotes.

• Braun then accuses me of aiming a “flood of ad hominems aimed at Stachura, alleging ideological bias,” adding that I “offer not a shred of evidence to back up his (irrelevant) claims.” In response to this, let me point out that Stachura is so steeped in this bourgeois/liberal viewpoint that he is able to call the socialism of Gregor Strasser “hollow” because Strasser was anti-feminist (“Gregor Strasser and the Rise of Nazism,” p. 60.), as though opening the path of careerism to bourgeois women was of any use to the proletariat! He calls feminism a “progressive movement,” never questioning its worth or importance for the working classes, never addressing its relevance as “leftist.” Despite the fact that Strasser declares time and again that he “stands for undiluted socialist principles” or that he was the man that made the famous “Bread and Work” speech before the Reichstag, Stachura has the gall to question his leftism. If this is not bias, I don’t know what is.

• Mr. Braun goes on to call me “bonkers” for accusing “Stachura of harbouring a pro-Hitler bias.” I accused Stachura of being a bourgeois liberal. If Mr. Braun thinks that Hitler was a bourgeois liberal then I think we all know who is bonkers.

• Mr. Braun asserts that “Otto Strasser is not a reliable source on anything,” and perhaps that is right. But when did I cite Otto Strasser as an authority on anything? Did I repeat his claims that Hitler was a coprophiliac? Or his accusation that Hitler shot his niece Geli when she caught him flagrante delicto with Emil Maurice? No — I simply mentioned that no account of the National Bolshevik tendency in Germany would be complete without mentioning his contribution to it. I never repeated Otto’s revelation to the OSS that Hitler only had one ball — even though the Soviet autopsy confirmed this!

• Braun give the advice that “Those who care about the truth can read “Gregor Strasser and the Rise of Nazism.” I would say that, while this book is scholarly, it also has a bourgeois liberal bias. A much better account would be Robert Henry Frank’s superlative “Hitler and the National Socialist Coalition,1924 - 1932” (Doctoral Dissertation - Johns Hopkins University, 1969, available from University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor, Michigan). Not only does this lack the PC bias of Stachura, but it features much more original research, based as it is upon actual interviews with Otto Strasser, Walter Stennis, and others.

• Hot Flash: according to Friedrich Braun “Dutchman is lying again!” This time I refused to acknowledge that “Hour of Decision” “is indeed a racist book where the author postulates a future racial war between the coloured races and the White race.” Let me point out that predicting a war between races does not make one a racist, any more than predicting a Yankee victory in the World Series makes one a Yankee fan. He then goes on to say “nowhere in the said work does he attack National Socialism.” This is completely disingenuous. Spengler never once mentioned either Hitler or National Socialism in the book as an intended slight! Farrenkopf, in his “Prophet of Decline: Spengler on world history and politics” (Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge, 2001), states “Although mindful of the danger of censorship, the aspiring praeceptor Germaniae advances in this work a politically courageous criticism of the Nazi leadership. Indeed, “Hour of Decision” is one of the few regime-critical and the most sensational to appear during the Third Reich. Spengler criticizes the racial ideology of the Nazi party and its anti-Semitism … adding insult to injury, in a daring affront to the Führer and his cronies, Spengler characterizes Germany as ‘a nation without leaders or weapons.’”

• “Spengler voted National Socialist and exhibited the Swastika flag in front of his home.” Yes — and when asked about it he responded “Hitler is an idiot, but one must support the movement.” (Farrenkopf, “Prophet of Decline: Spengler on world history and politics,” p. 236.) By this Spengler meant that while he supported both socialism and nationalism, he thought that Hitler represented neither — a judgement that proved to be quite prescient.

• “ To now turn him (Spengler) into an anti-N.S., National Bolshevist intellectual is simply false.” It’s not just me that thinks this. Try Klemens von Klemperer’s “Germany’s new conservatism; its history and dilemma in the twentieth century” (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1957). Of course, if a whole book is too much to take in, you could try Klemperer’s seminal article on the subject “Towards a Fourth Reich? The History of National Bolshevism in Germany” published in Review of Politics XIII, April 1951, pp. 191-210.

• Mr. Braun then accuses National Bolsheviks of a “complete dismissal of race or the immigration crisis makes them inconsequential to the 21st Century and the big questions facing the West and the White man,” and I think this sums up the difference between a bigoted position of race hatred and a well considered cultural position. I, as a National Bolshevik, harbor no brief against other races (I am in fact married to a non-white), but this has no bearing on the fact that I consider Western Culture to surpass all others. As people are the vessels of culture, I am deeply troubled by the demographic crisis of the West, of the flood of non-Western immigrants that are turning places like Spain and Italy into Moslem nations, of the “multi-culturalism” that is causing our own youth to abandon their own culture. But that does not mean that I will abandon the Christian understanding that we are all God’s children and succumb to vulgar racism.

Comment by Dutchman — September 6, 2007 #
If the final paragraph of the comment above by the Dutchman is not withdrawn or modified I shall have to withdraw the apology I made in regard to my strong earlier reactions against his opinions and re-assert them in their entirety. I’m not concerned with the fact that he’s married to a non-white. That doesn’t concern me in the least and by itself means nothing. What I want to know is: 1) in his view, is there a crisis of forced race-replacement, not just forced culture-replacement?; 2) does he oppose forced race-replacement, by governments, of the traditional Euro races around the Eurosphere?; 3) what is his view of the statement recently made by Constantin von Hoffmeister that “races make nations, not the other way around as some misguided individuals may think”?

Comment by Fred Scrooby — September 6, 2007 #
If you do not understand the significance of race — race, not culture — you are in today’s political world a non-entity, a zero, and are of no good, no use, whatsoever to anything relating to the present crisis but can only cause harm. Either get your understandings straight or keep out of it!

Comment by Fred Scrooby — September 6, 2007 #
4) Is the Dutchman familiar with Horst Mahler’s current political positions (as of the end of the ’90s) and if so, what is his opinion of them?

Comment by Fred Scrooby — September 6, 2007 #
Mr. Scrooby:

You are withdrawing your apology from me?

That’s just pathetic.

Yours For A Better World — Dutch

Comment by Dutchman — September 6, 2007 #
“You are withdrawing your apology from me?”

Damn straight.

Comment by Fred Scrooby — September 6, 2007 #
LOL

Comment by Dutchman — September 6, 2007 #
Chialistic means the same as millenarianism, the belief in a coming Utopian age, this “1000″ year reign. Also the “Age of Aquarius”. Millenarianism is from the Latin, Chialistic is from the Greek, Xila, meaning ‘thousand’. The Nazi’s sought to create a “New Man”, that is progressive. Yea, they mixed some conservative, family values stuff, but it was all about winning the masses. To destroy the Old Order, which National socialism seeks to do like all other types of socialism, is nihilistic. Hitler didn’t care one bit for the aristocracy or the German royalty. That is progressive, and nihilistic. He was a leveller, the identitarian politics of making everything the same.
Yes, that is what “idealism” wroughts–nothing but death and destruction.

Comment by WLindsayWheeler — September 6, 2007 #
Notice Dutchracereplacer didn’t answer any of my questions.

Comment by Fred Scrooby — September 6, 2007 #
*Your bias IS following a ‘diluted’ national form of socialism. You would be better off with an international socialism.
*As for Spengler, I will not continue discussing him for he is not a Nasbol. I will not allow you to use him in this fashion. Get your own ideologists.
*You claim Spenglern, Jünger et al are nasbols before the principle was invented. National-revolutionaries, national-socialists… all of them use these men for ideological purposes. But you are the first I’ve ever met who blatantly swallows them to make your ideology look more interesting. Spengler was never too explicit about his ideological opinion, so I wonder what you attribute to him. As for Jünger, he wanted to allow Communism without the Internationalism. And therefore he is a nasbol? Shucks, Goebbels said so too, you guys are using him as well? It appears the only resemblance between all these men is that they were nationalists who opposed the national-socialists to at least some degree for it not being socialist enough. That still leaves huge gaps of difference between them. Not much of an ideological basis if you ask me. How about Bouchet? Or Limonov? Those are the real nasbols.

Comment by Der Vermittler — September 7, 2007 #
Which Bouchet do you mean?
• Barbara Bouchet - American actresse.
• Christophe Bouchet - French painter
• Edward Bouchet - American physcist most notable for having been the first African American to earn a Ph.D. from an American university.
• André du Bouchet - 20th centuary French poet.
• Louis Bouchet - French settler in the Los Angeles area who with Jean-Louis Vignes planted one of the first vineyards in the area
• Christophe Bouchut - French race car driver whose name is sometimes spelled Christophe Bouchet

Comment by Dutchman — September 7, 2007 #
None, I’m talking about Christian Bouchet, but obviously he’s not famous enough for you to be called a nasbol rather than ridiculed?

Comment by Der Vermittler — September 13, 2007 #
Sory for having never heard of Christian Bouchet but I guess that comes from my whole approch to National Bolshevism through Spengler. Having read and agreed with just about everything Spengler wrote, I then began reading various commentaries on him, including both Farrenkopf and Klemens von Klemperer. This last formulates things something like this: “Spengler + Möller van den Bruck + Jünger = National Bolashevism” Finding all three of these thinkers acceptable, I do not hesitate to call myself a National Bolshevik.

Comment by Dutchman — September 13, 2007 #
Christian Bouchet is also a racialist, well on the right of Le Pen.

Comment by Friedrich Braun — September 13, 2007 #
Friedrich, indeed, and he’s recognized as a prime theoretician on Third Postitionist (especially nasbol) ideology. As for Dutchman, “Spengler + Möller van den Bruck + Jünger = National Bolashevism” LOL, okay, I’ll stop trying now. Last comment: It would be better to start calling yourself “someone who believes in these three” rather than a nasbol. These three are not the founders of the nasbol ideology, anymore than Frederick William I was a founder of national-socialism.

Comment by Der Vermittler — September 14, 2007 #
Otto strasser lived down the road from me when he was banished to a rural area of Canada during his Canadian exile nightmare. I cannot find anything actually written by Otto Strasser that is anti semetic. Can anyone cite me a source on that actually written by Otto?

During his stay in Canada Otto was often referred to as the Ex nazi, or the Nazi, and government reports made him out to have struggled with Hitler for control of the NS Party. he was often portrayed as anti democratic.

peter Dodge

Comment by peter dodge — October 5, 2007 #
About 6 years ago a Canadian daily newspaper pubished an interview with a female RCMP officer who kept him under surveillance during W.W. II. She’s on the record as saying that he was extremely cultured, and excellent cook, and virulently anti-Semitic. Otto Strasser was a member of NSDAP until 1930, it’s safe to say that all members shared the Party’s anti-Semitic stand.

Comment by Friedrich Braun — October 5, 2007 #
Is that true? sorry i’ve found this discussion by looking for evidence of Otto Strasser’s committment to the anti-semitic parts of nazism. And i’ve nothing like the detailed knowledge of the rest of you. But did Otto not form a political alliance in exile with a Helmet Hirsch, who was a jew involved in the plot against Hitler?

Comment by alan — October 20, 2007 #
Dutchman in his post refers to the national socialist policy leading to “racial extermination”. If you mean the alleged genocide of the Jews then this is discredited, outdated atrocity propaganda. The main murder weapon was supposed to be “gas chambers” but the mass gassing procedures described in holocaust literature and movies are chemically and scientifically impossible. See the following articles -
http://www.cwporter.com/c1.htm
http://www.nazigassings.com/dieselgaschambera.html
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p391_Luftl.html

Comment by Bruce — November 26, 2007 #
I think that Hermann Rauschning’s “memoirs” have been comprehensively exposed, not only by revisionist critics in the USA, but also by German, Austrian, and Swiss scholars. Here is the essential reference:

Wolfgang Hänel, Hermann Rauschnings “Gespräche mit Hitler” - Eine Geschichtsfälschung (= Veröffentlichung der Zeitgeschichtliche Forschungsstelle Ingolstadt, Bd. 7), Ingolstadt 1984

Comment by Rowan Berkeley — April 19, 2008 #

Strasser and National Bolshevism [2]

42 Comments »

Leave a comment

Recent Comments

Archives:

Categories:

Visitors

Meta:

Strasser and National Bolshevism [2]

42 Comments »

Leave a comment

Greatest Hits

Recent Comments

Archives:

Categories:

Visitors

Meta: