Hitler, Rosenberg, Goebbels and others differed on many topics and were not all marching in lockstep.

"the 'National Socialist worldview' did not exist - that is why I used the term 'Hitlerism'... I show that there were significant differences between the worldview of Alfred Rosenberg and Heinrich Himmler, criticized by Hitler as "mysticism," and his own views. [...] evidenced by the work of Frank-Lothar Kroll, "Utopia as Ideology," written in 1998 as a post-doctoral thesis (with Gregor Schöllgen and Hans-Ulrich Thamer, among others), which closed an important gap in research. In addition to Hitler's ideology, Kroll analyzed those of Rosenberg, Richard Walther Darre, Himmler, and Joseph Goebbels. Kroll chose to examine the thinking of these five National Socialists because the dual criterion of ideological formative power and a de facto involvement in the concrete political decision-making process of the Third Reich applied to them. Kroll states that there were only a few similarities between these National Socialist "masterminds," apart from the awareness that the establishment of National Socialism would usher in a fundamental epochal change in world history that would create a "new man" and a "new world. " Beyond this common ground, which in my view is rather thin, there were considerable differences, as Kroll shows. Hitler, for example, had regarded "any Germanic enthusiasm, as it was widespread above all in the environment of Himmler's SS, but also in the context of the >Blut und Boden< ideology championed by Darre [ . . . ], as an insipid private quirk of sectarians alienated from life and time and detrimental to the ultimate goals of National Socialism". "Contrary to obvious and widespread generalizations, Hitler had very little sympathy for the world of Germanicism. "

Source: Rainer Zitelmann, Hitler. Selbstverständnis eines Revolutionärs

Follow @redideologies

Hayek on the ease with which communists moved into fascism.

> "Hayek emphasized the similarities between National Socialism and Communism, which he saw above all in the basic socialist convictions. It was no coincidence that both the leaders and the supporters of the National Socialist and Fascist parties had often been former socialists: "Anyone who has observed the rise of these movements in Italy or Germany has noticed the large number of leading men, from Mussolini down, including Laval and Quisling, who began as socialists and ended as fascists or National Socialists. And what is true of the leaders is even more true of the mass of party members. IT WAS COMMON KNOWLEDGE IN GERMANY THAT A YOUNG COMMUNIST COULD BE RELATIVELY EASILY CONVERTED TO A NATIONAL SOCIALIST, and vice versa; the propaganda leaders of both parties knew this best. " Of course, Hayek replied to a frequently raised objection, it was true that Communists and National Socialists or Fascists came into conflict with each other more often than with other parties in Germany before 1933 and in Italy before 1922. Hayek's explanation: "They courted the favor of the same human material as rivals and hated each other like heretics. But their practice showed the close kinship between them." For both, the true enemy was "the old-school liberal". Anyone who reads Chapter VI.2 on Hitler's theory of elite recruitment in this book will find there a clear confirmation of what Hayek already formulated in 1944 as follows: "While for the National Socialists the Communist, for the Communists the National Socialist and for both the Socialist came into question as a recruit as a man cut from the right wood, even if he had listened to false prophets, they both knew that there could be no compromise between them and those who were really serious about the belief in freedom. " Hitler's revolution was, contrary to Ernst Nolte's opinion, not primarily a counter-revolution against a feared takeover of power by communism, but it represented an alternative revolution whose goal was likewise the destruction of the democratic, bourgeois-capitalist social order."

Source: Rainer Zitelmann, Hitler. Selbstverständnis eines Revolutionärs

Follow @redideologies

Covering your self-imposed debts via territorial conquest and expansion.

> "Hjalmar Schacht may not have been a rabble-rousing apostle of violence, but he had certainly become enough of a radical nationalist to approve wholeheartedly of the regime’s primary aim of rearming Germany at maximum speed. By the end of May 1933 he had come up with an ingenious scheme for DEFICIT FINANCING. A Metallurgical Research Institute (Metallurgisches Forschungsinstitut), set up by four big companies with a capital of a million Reichsmarks, was authorized to issue so-called ‘Mefo bills’, which were guaranteed by the state and discounted by the Reichsbank. The bank in turn simply met the bills presented to it by printing banknotes. Fifty percent of arms purchases by the military were made in these bills between 1934 and 1936. Since the Reichsbank covered the bills by printing money, the notes in circulation increased by 6,000 million by the end of March 1938, by which time about 12,000 million Mefo bills had been spent. Schacht was already worried about the inflationary effects of these measures, and he stopped the issue of Mefo bills in 1937, after which point tax vouchers and non-interest-bearing treasury notes were used instead. IN THE MEANTIME, GROSS REICH DEBT HAD SPIRALLED ALMOST OUT OF CONTROL. But neither Hitler nor his economic managers considered this very important. For deficit financing was only a short-term measure in their view; THE DEBTS WOULD BE PAID BY TERRITORIAL EXPANSION IN THE NEAR ENOUGH FUTURE. And besides rapid rearmament, Hitler was busily taking other steps to ensure that this would not only be possible but would also, as he saw it, bring the maximum economic benefit."

— The Third Reich in Power, Richard J. Evans

Follow @redideologies

Hannon on fascists and communists "fishing in the same pool" for the "same kind of voter". In other words, both claimed to be champions of the poor who would settle scores with the rich.

Follow @redideologies

"When it came to limiting the authority of government, the Nazis were adamant about placing no constraints whatsoever on state power"

That is totally in lockstep with what Giovanni Gentile said about fascism: no limits on state power.

Source: Killing History

Follow @redideologies

Hitler and Mussolini both declared at various points the "end of capitalism" and the ushering in of their socialist utopia.

> "The German dictator admitted during a conversation with Benito Mussolini on April 22, 1944, he had become convinced: “Capitalism too had run its course, the nations were no longer willing to stand for it. The victors to survive would be Fascism, and National Socialism – maybe Bolshevism in the East.” Hitler himself was convinced, as he emphasized in his last radio address on January, 30, 1945, 'that the age of unrestricted economic liberalism had outlived itself.'" - Hitler

> "In that same November 14, 1933 speech on corporatism, Mussolini reminded listeners that he still held to his promise of achieving a social revolution in Italy. He proclaimed the end of capitalism, declaring: 'To-day we can affirm that the capitalistic method of production is out of date. So is the doctrine of laissez-faire, the theoretical basis of capitalism... To-day we are taking a new and decisive step in the path of revolution. A revolution, in order to be great, must be a social revolution.' Mussolini further asserted that 'Italy is not a capitalist country according to the meaning now conventionally assigned to that term.' After pronouncing a death sentence to capitalism in Italy, critics asserted that Mussolini had "gone to the Left," while the Hearst newspaper chain ran the headline 'Mussolini Abolishes the Capitalist System.'" - Mussolini

Follow @redideologies

Companies in Nazi Germany were effectively annexed through regulations that told them exactly what to do.

> the regulations issued from 1933 onwards marked a massive intervention in particular markets, often prohibiting price competition and closely controlling foreign trade. From 1934/35 onwards, for example, industries dependent on supplies of precious metals could no longer decide autonomously from whom they would buy gold and silver. Nor could they influence the price they had to pay, which products the metals should be used for, or who would receive the final products — the terms of use were strictly dictated by the Nazi state, right down to the gram. This industry was one of a number of cases where the principles of market was entirely abolished early in the Nazi period and where state authorities fully controlled all the resources needed for production. The concrete means of state control thus formed an ever stronger regulation, rationing and other restriction of the possibilities of action for the individual companies.

Source: Ralf Banken, Introduction: The room for manoeuvre for firms in the Third Reich

Follow @redideologies

Historian says that national and internationalism socialism is "a distinction without a difference."

> "As Bullock shuttles between his two subjects, he continues to refute commentators who have treated Stalinism and Nazism as diametrically opposed ideologies by labeling the first internationalist and the second nationalist. In fact, those terms were, in this pairing, a distinction without a difference. Both regimes were chauvinistic and expansionist, and both were police states with one-man rule and a reliance on terror, concentration camps and the Big Lie. Hitler believed that the Third Reich would endure a thousand years. It lasted a dozen. For the first eight, he and Stalin, while geopolitical rivals, sometimes found common ground. Hitler’s minions admired and copied some of Stalin’s techniques of spying and liquidating enemies."

Article

Follow @redideologies