Germany’s New Nazis

Charlemagne

Charlemagne

Neoreactionary and related analysis of politics and meta-politics

Germany’s New Nazis is a book sponsored by the Anglo-Jewish Association, most of whose content was provided by a “well-known journalist.” Where does the book see Nazis, and what forces does it think act as a bulwark to Nazism? Such opinions will help us understand the early development of Antifascism as an ideology.

The authors view any right-leaning party that has any nationalist tendencies as potential vectors for fascist subversion. “Right” in this book seems to me “free-market” and/or “nationalist.” The The Free Democrat Party is called out specifically for moving “consistently to the right” and becoming a “nationalist-inclined” party. The German Party, a sort of Lower Saxony Guelf monarchist party, is called out for providing “useful cover for nationalists” of the less “sentimental” and “tradition-ridden” nationalists.

After Congress ended the State of War between the United States and Germany in October 1951, Germany was to essentially be given back full sovereignty, save a few unresolved questions regarding the Soviet Union and mutual defense vis-a-vis NATO. The authors provide a view of what they believe will help avoid a slide back into Nazism.

The Trade Unions are mentioned first and foremost, specifically for being united, rather than divided among Catholic, Socialist, Communist and other unions, which allows Nazi unions to flourish.

Less sure are the Christian Democrats and Social Democrats. The authors say that there are “elements amoung the Christian Democrats which are deeply suspected of harbouring a sneaking sympathy for neo-Nazi ideas”—whatever that means. Dr. Adenauer, the first chancellor of the Bonn Republic (West Germany) found “questionable allies” to the right with which to form his government, since these two parties alone were unable to form a government. The authors are a bit concerned a how “ex-Nazis” and “extreme nationalist” took advantage of this “democratic disunity.”

Here we already see the concept of the One Party Antifascist State, where the “Unity” of Democracy is the goal, and not pluralism, which would be the more literaly interpretation of democracy.

The authors are even more skeptical of the Church. They say that it “should be solidly behind democracy” but there is a tendency “not to think of the fight against Nazism as a prime need in the present situation”—clearly, the Anglo-Jewish Association does not comprehend what the primary mission of the Church is. What is expected is that the Church place Antifascism above God, which is something the Church should not do, but unfortunately is something that it is doing more and more these days.

The authors do note the following positive elements of the church:

“A very encouraging facet of the churches’ work is to be found in the societies for Christian-Jewish co-operation. They exist mainly in the American Zone as a result of the initiative of General Clay (then U.S. governor). These Protestant-Catholic-Jewish associations have set themselves the task of overcoming racial and religious intolerance through all the media at their disposal. They were started under the guidance of an American minister Carl Zietlow, to whose tremendous energy they owe much of their success. Christians and Jews in Britain may be inclined to wonder whether the somewhat spirited transatlantic flavour of some of the activities strictly applicable to German needs. In fact, Germans in the American Zone have shown a marked tendency to absorb American methods and outlook. They will probably adapt this form of religious-civic co-operation to their own requirements, and the results should be of great benefit to the strengthening of the democratic fibre of Western Germany.”

The authors feel better about the press, which was recreated in 1945. They note:

“A few papers have stood out like beacons above the others in their relentless, insistence that every political question must be judged on the basis of whether it helps or hinders the growth of German democracy.”

Here we see the straightforward and familiar admission that the primary purpose of the media is not “news,” but Antifascism. Any time you see the word “democracy,” it means “Antifascism.”

The authors are surprisingly disappointed in the re-education of the youth:

“It must be recorded with sadness that the educational system of Western Germany is not at the moment turning out democrats. It is always hard to convince young people that the trial and error methods of democracy are best. In Germany it seems nearly impossible. Observers do not feel that the majority of boys and girls leaving school and young people leaving the universities are actually antagonistic to democracy. But they are not positivity for it, and this must be accounted for.

Communism, in the form of the Free German Youth Movement, makes its greatest conquests in just these age groups, and with the experience of 1933 behind us, it is not difficult to see groups, the young people might, in similar circumstances, easily swing over to a revived Nazi Party”

The part about Communism is interesting, because the authors not only view ideology like nationalism as adjacent to fascism, but are also afraid of circumstances that look like those prior to fascism. This explains why they are afraid of anything that “looks” fascist-y, with more ridiculous false alarms as actual fascism fades out of living memory.


Read more