Further, and in relation to Mousollini's admonition that "facsism" does not attempt to replace the Church...

Both Bolshevism and nαzι-ism attempted to do just that.  Use the State as proxy for the Church.  The messianic need of both systems was apparent.

Not a "narrative".  Simple history.

Can you make the case that it was simple convenience with plans for betrayal?  Sure.  But that doesn't change the cooperative nature of the history.

https://infogalactic.com/info/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact

They collaborated in this temporary manner, sure. But you claimed Hitler was a communist, something quite different from saying that Hitler made a calculated political move to prevent a war with the Soviet Union over Poland in 1939. It is more indicative that, Hitler, in my view, much like Bismarck before him, was a practitioner of Realpolitik. 

I will admit to over simplifying on this basis:

Marxism = Socialism
Socialism + (inevitable) Totalitarianism = Communism

nαzιs were Socialists.  It's in the name.  Despite Hitler's rantings about being anti-Marxist (as well as anti-Capitalist), he adopted a Marxist (Socialist) framework and construct.  And... we all know that the point of Socialism is Communism.  Uncle Joe told us so.

Moreover.... Assignment of "Facism" to Hitler and equating it with nαzι-ism is a feature of h0Ɩ0cαųstianity.  And... has given Facism a bad name as a result.

Because, there's no business like Shoah business.

By "Socialism" in "National Socialism", I think what the primary sources tell us is that their "Socialism" was about pan-German racialism, not the economic nor cultural socialism we typically associate with that term. What Hitler said and did as a result of the Bamberg conference is a clear indicator of this in my view, and furthermore his expulsion of the Strasser brothers (who were socialists in the sense that we are most familiar with, favoring abolition of private property, along with an alliance with the Soviet Union, among other things) is further proof of this. The National Socialist government of Germany wasn't Catholic, neither was their ideology. But in a half-Protestant, half-Catholic nation like that, with the legacy of the Kulturkampf of Bismarck, a German nationalist government was not going to cross the Tiber.

Some primary source docuмents I am referring to:

Hitler's 1930 letter to Joseph Goebbels commanding him to purge the Strasserists from the NSDAP.

Otto Strasser's 1930 announcement of his break with Hitler and the NSDAP. Otto and his brother Gregor shared the same "salon bolshevik" views.

I would agree that the racial element was a unique feature of Hitler's vision.  But, I'm pretty sure Adolph understood what "socialism" was and meant when he adopted the name.  It wasn't a secret.  Nor, do I believe it was an accidental assignment.

He was allied with Mussolini and greatly admired the man in the 1920s before ascending to power. He admits to modeling the NatSoc party on the ideas of Fascist Italy. They are two sides of the same ideology. It is just that, as Louis said, Hitler's "socialism" of the National Socialist party emphasized the collectivization of the German race, which is not found in Mussolini's Fascism due to the wider diversity of racial types in Italy at the time. This is the same with Dollfuss' Austrofascism, which (rightly) utilized Catholic social principles as its "binding force" (i.e. fasces) rather than the fasces of racial identity in Germany. Henceforth, Hitler and his allies chose a name to set their movement as distinct from the other Fascist movements. But it was not seen as exclusive, nor was it at all seen as some derivation from Marxism or Communism (Jєωιѕн creations which Hitler abhorred).

Equating National Socialism with Marxist Socialism is a misnomer of those same "h0Ɩ0cαųstianity" Jєω-worshippers who vilify all things Fascist and NatSoc.

Yes... but I think you have to dig a bit deeper than that.  Going to the point of a mixed Protestant and Catholic populace:

If you understand the inherent Rationalism in Protestantism, and you understand Rationalism as directly feeding ideas like Socialism --> Communism, and relate that back to the messianic complex... I think you have a fuller picture.

To me... the distinction between "socialisms" is a little specious.  Similar to AOC and the Bernster trying to deny Socialism by adding a modifier: "Democratic Socialism".

The Germans knew what Socialism was.  Marx was German.  Again... it wasn't a secret.

They could have simply named it the National Worker's Party.  Why did they feel the need to drop a well known term in the name if they didn't agree with that ideology?  Everybody knows you can't reliably and successfully redefine common terminology...

What matters is how the National Socialists defined their ideology and terminology, and not observers as yourself.

Cornelieu Codreanu and his Legion of St Michael the Archangel led a National Socialist movement in Romania. To call them Marxists (or socialists in the classical sense) is preposterous.

To me... the distinction between "socialisms" is a little specious.  Similar to AOC and the Bernster trying to deny Socialism by adding a modifier: "Democratic Socialism".

The Germans knew what Socialism was.  Marx was German.  Again... it wasn't a secret.

They could have simply named it the National Worker's Party.  Why did they feel the need to drop a well known term in the name if they didn't agree with that ideology?  Everybody knows you can't reliably and successfully redefine common terminology...

Which of Marx's 10 planks of Communism did Hitler implement in his country, then?





Note on Hitler using the term "Socialist": On further consideration, I am going to draw another comparison between Hitler and Bismarck. Bismarck implemented a program of "anti-socialist" policies that included such things as the first ever state welfare programs as a means to draw the "moderate" socialists out of the Socialist party and make them supporters of his regime, since these reforms would, in Bismarck's mind, satisfy their demands. And, he was correct. In much the same way, I think that Hitler used the term "Socialism" to draw more moderate minded socialists (think mainly workers here) who desired some labor and economic reforms, but were not all in favor of internationalism and the abolition of private property, out of the socialist movements and into his party.

Also, since this topic is getting derailed a bit, can we move the discussion about Hitler and NS to another topic? The article I posted was about how, even under severe persecution by governments, the Church will win in the end. Moreover, it sheds light on how Mussolini (along with the Italian Fascists who followed him) saw the relationship between the Church and the Italian state. I would prefer if we could discuss that here over discussing Hitler and NS, because Mussolini and his movement comparatively attract little attention in comparison. 

And... again.  Hitler assigned the "socialist" terminology.  I didn't.

But, again drawing on +Williamson... words don't just mean different things because we wish it so.  "Repurposing" the language is a patently Marxist technique.