Google Says Nazis were Right-Wing; But Were They?

Since World War Two American school children have been taught that the Nazis were "right-wing." But is it true? Totalitarians, yes, but right-wing?

The Nazis, including Adolf Hitler, represent the epitome of evil. As far back as elementary school, most of us were taught that the Nazis created and practiced a not just a right-wing form government, but one that was on the far right-hand side of the left-right political spectrum. In the post-war period, academia was able to convince the American public that without question, the Nazis fell at the extreme right side of the spectrum (despite their leader Adolf Hitler never declaring it as such), thereby successfully “establishing” Nazism as the opposite of Communism in the period following World War II. This conclusion received very little formal academic scrutiny for many years, and looking back it doesn’t just feel a bit off the mark, but the correct answer now seems quite obvious. Nevertheless, there are many who continue to push the deceptive narrative. For example, Google the question “were the Nazis socialists?” and you will receive the answer: “No. The Nazis were not socialists. The Nazi Party was a far-right party that was anti-socialist and anti-Marxist.” Regardless of what Google says, it’s about time that we put this important issue to rest and correct the historical record.

The Origins of Nazism

It is true that Hitler hated and opposed Marxism and Communism. This is a well-known fact; one that is not disputed. But declaring that Nazism is to the right of Marxism/Communism isn’t really saying much, given that everything is to the right of them. The important question is to confirm exactly how much farther to the right was it? To answer this question, it is relevant to observe that Hitler also denounced Democracy, which he viewed as a form of mob rule. Hitler, not being a fan of individual liberty, did not favor elections, and eventually appointed himself as leader of the German Reich for life. This suggests that Hitler and Nazism would fall somewhere to the left of Democracy on the political spectrum, and not to the right of it as many have been taught. The truth is that Nazism resides at a point between Marxism, on the far left, and pure Democracy, which falls somewhere near the middle.

But can such a conclusion really be so simple and/or obvious given that we Americans have been force-fed a different answer for so many years? As mentioned above, we know that Hitler did in fact despise Marxism/Communism, but we also know that Hitler didn’t begin his political career at any point on the traditional right. For example, he was not a monarchist, an industrialist, a laissez-faire capitalist, an aristocrat, a military officer (his highest rank achieved in World War I was lance corporal, roughly similar to Private First Class in the US Army) or an outspoken practicing Christian. Before he became a politician, Hitler was an aspiring artist. It is true that he did consider himself a “nationalist,” but patriotism, love of country, and love of your country’s history are not exclusive to the political right (which is illustrated by the fact that nationalism actually began as a left-wing movement in France during the French Revolution and the French Revolutionary Wars).

So what exactly was Hitler from an ideological standpoint? We know that his political career started when he joined the left-wing German Workers Party. As he climbed to power, and in the spring of 1920, he later changed that party’s name to the National Socialist German Workers Party (the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, most commonly referred to in its short form as the “Nazi” party). And the word “socialism” wasn’t simply just a name for him (as some have attempted to argue), since Hitler’s Nazi party was originally aligned with the German Socialist Party. To summarize, Nazism was without a doubt part of the broader socialist movement in Germany at the time, with its unique brand of big-government socialism being referred to as the “National Socialist Movement.” The roots of the Nazi party, while certainly also pro-German nationalist, were solidly left-wing, and not the opposite as has been taught in our schools over the years.

National Socialism as “Left” or “Right”

So where did the idea of the Nazis as being right-wing originate from? Curiously, Hitler never said it. Instead, at some point in the 1920s it was Benito Mussolini of Italy—a fascist leader who inspired Hitler—that described his unique ideology as “tending to the right.” As an anti-communist, Mussolini no doubt viewed his unique ideology as falling to the right of Marxism/Communism. But the important question that should be asked is exactly how far to the right did he mean? Apparently, no one at the time thought to ask him, even though the answer is actually quite simple. What has been missed by many in our modern times is that the concepts of “tending to the right” and “all of the way to the far right” are two very different things. Essentially, from a historical perspective Hitler’s Nazism, inspired by Mussolini, is understood to have co-opted the popularity of socialism—as well as the popularity of nationalism/patriotism—among the people of Germany. National Socialism, a new type of big-government socialism, was simply a less left-wing alternative to Communism and the ideology of Karl Marx, and to other forms of socialism that existed at the time. Specifically, Nazism was a progressive—not conservative—ideology; a unique brand of patriotic (and autocratic) socialism that Hitler and his party created, and not a new “right-wing” form of governing.

Yes, Hitler was a nationalist, but that does not automatically make him a man of the right. It is true that Hitler had a strong love for his country and his country’s history. But while this characteristic is known to be common to modern day conservatives in the U.S., it is a position that, except for Marxists and Communists, is held by people throughout history who are on both sides of the political spectrum. Furthermore, according to the Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics, one of the main characteristics of the political right is its opposition to socialism. By definition then, it is impossible for Hitler and the Nazis to be considered as being on the political right and at the same time having practiced a form of socialism, and by their own choice, being labeled as socialists. In other words, in order to fall on the right, you must oppose socialism and big government in any of its various forms (which Hitler never did). Therefore, with regards to the hybrid ideology of National Socialism, because of its adherence to and promotion of fundamental aspects of big-government socialism, it belongs on the Left.

To aid in this discussion, a high-level view of the political spectrum is displayed below. Given the two major components of Hitler’s National Socialism (one being nationalism, and two being socialism), and due to its socialist origins and disdain for Democracy as a form of mob rule, Hitler’s Nazi Party would fall to the left of the “moderate” classification found at the center of the line, ultimately resting somewhere to the east of the “socialist” sub-category. In other words, nowhere near the far right-hand side of the spectrum, and not necessarily even close to the middle.

Source: Reddit

But what about the economic aspects of National Socialism, specifically that Nazi Germany allowed the private ownership of property? Although many present this as proof that the Nazi’s were right-wing, private property ownership, while offensive to Marxists and Communists, is not a right-wing concept and is clearly found in all forms of government which appear at the middle of the spectrum. Furthermore, while it is no doubt a complex issue, the simple fact is that while the Nazis did allow private ownership of the means of production, they utilized extensive price controls such that Nazism really only provided the appearance of private ownership.

And what of Hitler’s extreme antisemitism? Should antisemitism be considered in the equation as “tending to the right?” As “right” and “left” are words are used to describe one’s political philosophy, the hatred of an entire class of persons is not a political ideology (as someone should remind Hamas) and has nothing to do with what individuals believe is the best way to operate politics/government. Certainly antisemitism can be weaponized as a tool of the state (and/or used for different purposes by either far-right or far-left groups), but by itself it is simply hate and nothing more.

What’s in a Name?

So how, despite clear evidence, did National Socialism and Hitler (and Mussolini and fascism for that matter) end up being labeled as right-wing? It appears that after World War II, progressive academics (who tend to favor socialism) were not—and today are still not—anxious to admit that Nazism or fascism was a form of (and therefore exclusively connected to) socialism. And why would they? It is more than a little unflattering to their cause, and gives them a bad name to be ideologically tied to Hitler and Nazism (or to Mussolini and fascism). Furthermore, how could any activist be expected to “sell” and “market” their specific favored brand of big-government socialism to the masses when it was tied to something as horrible as Nazism?

Thus we can see the origin of, and the rationale for, the contrived long-standing argument that Hitler was not a socialist, despite that: 1) his personal political origins were embedded in socialism; 2) he called himself a socialist; 3) he selected the term “socialist” to be used in his Party’s name; and perhaps most importantly, 4) he never claimed a hatred nor a dislike of socialism, or that he was anti-socialist in any way. It should therefore come as no surprise that because of the inherent weakness of their argument, it later became advantageous to the success of the narrative of socialists, and to the success of the advancement of socialism both in the U.S. and worldwide, to pin the badge of Nazism on someone else—namely the opposing political side.

As we are all painfully aware (thanks to Orwell, who was a socialist), when incorrect statements are repeated enough times in an effort to change history, there are many who will eventually come to accept them as true, particularly those who are anxious to believe. But as surprising as it may sound to some—and despite what Google says—Nazism is not right-wing, and Hitler, while a dictator, was a not a right-wing dictator. On the other hand, while Hitler never specifically claimed to be “left-wing,” he did label himself and his Party as socialist. Thus, all one needs to do is look to the clear historical facts to see that Hitler’s National Socialism, while residing closer to the far side of the socialist sub-categorization (i.e., farther away from Communism than other forms of socialism) because of its nationalist and economic (private property) elements, still falls squarely on the left side of the dividing line of the spectrum as yet another left-wing totalitarian ideology which requires citizens to subordinate their personal freedoms to the interests of the “common good” of the state.

A Dose of Reality

We as humans know, or should know, that there is a fixed, factual truth to everything. Although some have certainly tried to forget the past, it cannot be ignored. While Hitler never claimed to be anti-socialist and specifically and intentionally labeled himself and his party as “socialist,” Google and others tell us that he was not one (over the years, we all should have been asking how mixing nationalism with socialism ends up consisting of exactly zero percent socialism). Moreover, Hitler never claimed to be “right-wing,” but many, including Google, have conveniently branded him as such (the argument that nationalism is exclusively a conservative ideology completely ignores the left-wing origins of nationalism). It only takes a quick dose of reality to expose that the labeling of conservatives and Republicans as “right-wing Nazis” isn’t just historically wrong, it’s ridiculous. After decades of finger-pointing in the direction of conservatives, these false statements continue to deceive the general public. From their behavior, one can see that this repeated deception necessarily reveals much more about the person(s) making these statements than it does about their intended target(s).