Analyzing the Nazi's 25-Point Plan

In recent years, the American left has been pointing to pretty much any right-wing individual and calling them “Nazis” or “fascists,” and even some individuals, most notably President Donald Trump “literally Hitler.” The only problem with that is that the European right, with which Adolf Hitler’s National Socialist (Nazi) Party is affiliated, is a different beast from the American right. Not only that, but what we consider “right” now can sometimes be considered left in the big picture, as they don’t actually associate with conservatism for most issues, especially with economic issues (most conservatives actually belief in economic liberalism, but for purposes of this article, we will associate economic liberalism with conservatism). To settle this issue once and for all, I will thoroughly analyze each of the Nazi Party’s 25 points that were in their National Socialist Programme, published by Adolf Hitler February 24, 1920.

Note: If not discussing an economic position, keywords like right-wing, right, rightist, and conservative refer to modern-day social conservatism, which does not always apply to right libertarians. Liberal will not always apply to leftists; instead, look for progressive or some left-themed adjective.

"1. We demand the unification of all Germans in the Greater Germany on the basis of the right of self-determination of peoples."

This point is a very nationalist point, pretty much calling for the unification of all Germans as Germans. The idea that didn’t seem to follow into Hitler’s regime or the rest of the points was the self-determination part, but this would overall be considered a right-wing idea because of the idea of nationalism, though nationalism isn’t necessarily influenced by other political beliefs.

"2. We demand equality of rights for the German people in respect to the other nations; abrogation of the peace treaties of Versailles and St. Germain."

This point calls not necessarily for equality among Germans, but equality of Germans to non-Germans, which they believed was restricted by the treaties listed in the point, thus they should be ignored. This is nationalist with a mix of liberalism. More a sovereignist and nationalist position than a partisan one.

"3. We demand land and territory (colonies) for the sustenance of our people, and colonization for our surplus population."

This point calls for an imperialist approach to foreign policy, one America actively took from Thomas Jefferson to Theodore Roosevelt. This has had bipartisan support throughout U.S. history, and both parties are interventionist now, though not expansionist.

"4. Only a member of the race can be a citizen. A member of the race can only be one who is of German blood, without consideration of creed. Consequently no Jew can be a member of the race."

Both parties have used identity politics to gain their support, including both parties today. The left tends to use identity politics more today, and has in the past as well, so we could consider this a leftist viewpoint, but racism is nonpartisan, so we should consider this nonpartisan as well.

"5. Whoever has no citizenship is to be able to live in Germany only as a guest, and must be under the authority of legislation for foreigners."

This is considered right-wing. Even right non-nationalists believe we should regulate immigration and not consider illegal immigrants citizens. However, there is also leftist idea that “guests” can live here without citizenship, so this is really up for interpretation. For purposes of this article, we will consider it a conservative approach to immigration.

"6. The right to determine matters concerning administration and law belongs only to the citizen. Therefore we demand that every public office, of any sort whatsoever, whether in the Reich, the county or municipality, be filled only by citizens. We combat the corrupting parliamentary economy, office-holding only according to party inclinations without consideration of character or abilities."

This is a basic, bipartisan belief for most people. There have never been huge challenges to what has been written in the Constitution that you must be a citizen to run for federal office, and I do not know of any state or local office you can run for without citizenship.

"7. We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens. If it is impossible to sustain the total population of the State, then the members of foreign nations (non-citizens) are to be expelled from the Reich."

If translated literally, this is saying that Germany should provide for the general welfare of its citizens, and non-citizens should be deported if they get in the way of said welfare. This is a tie between both classical and modern liberalism and nationalism. This is probably a centrist position because it suggests actively providing for its citizens, as opposed to a laissez-faire approach, as well as actively controlling citizenry, which is more right-wing populist.

"8. Any further immigration of non-citizens is to be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans, who have immigrated to Germany since the 2 August 1914, be forced immediately to leave the Reich."

Straight-forward enough to label as a right-wing position.

"9. All citizens must have equal rights and obligations."

Basic liberal position. Maybe more right-wing because it also mentions having equal obligations instead of plainly equal rights, which generally has bipartisan support.

"10. The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually and physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all. Consequently we demand:"

This section works as an introduction to other points by grouping them together under a single point. This demands everyone works as a cog in the machine of society. This is a collectivist idea underpinning communist and socialist thought, but is not unique to those. In fact, it is likely the majority of our own government looks to us only as cogs of a giant societal machine, so this is nonpartisan.

"11. Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery."

This is definitely a left-leaning belief. This would effectively abolish interest, loans, scholarships, grants, gifts, and inherited money, as well as much else. You could not invest in the stock market, even if trying to avoid speculation. The exception may be paying for something for your child.

"12. In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits."

This takes away from the manufacturing industry as a whole. World War II jogged the economy enough to get us out of the Great Depression, so this is effectively saying the government would confiscate all the money which helped us economically. This is leftist once again.

"13. We demand the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries (trusts)."

This calls for the socialization of all trusts, so very leftist.

"14. We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries."

Depending on how you interpret this, it could be either left-winged or right-wing, but since it doesn’t divide the profits equally, we will consider this a right-wing position.

"15. We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare."

This is progressive. The welfare state has bipartisan support now, but only because it is hard to remove without losing most public support, and conservatives who do support the welfare state usually wish to keep it in check at its current levels rather than expanding it.

"16. We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality."

This calls for a middle class. A middle class is not bad, but the second half of this asks for the government to be active in its creation, which is definitely a progressive position.

"17. We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land."

This was later expanded upon by Hitler himself to explain that this still supports private ownership of land (right-wing), but the government can take and give that land as they wish (left-wing). This is essentially eminent domain without granting just compensation, which would fall under far-left - probably farther left than most American leftists.

"18. We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, Schieber and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race."

This is essentially granting the death penalty to those the government considers criminals without due process of the law. You may say this is similar to Title IX, but this is truly not a position of any modern American party.

"19. We demand substitution of a German common law in place of the Roman Law serving a materialistic world-order."

This calls for legal reform to essentially take down the better-off. This is a communist position, and may be held by the more radical, progressive left.

"20. The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. The plans of instruction of all educational institutions are to conform with the experiences of practical life. The comprehension of the concept of the State must be striven for by the school [Staatsbuergerkunde] as early as the beginning of understanding. We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession."

This calls for free education (including college education), as well as control over what is taught. This is bypassing the federalist education system they likely had before, as well as further socializing education. I’m not sure if many of even the most radical American leftists would call for controlling the education, but several have called for making college education free.

"21. The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young."

This is possibly one of the most socially and economically progressive points in here (besides maybe a few when it comes to economics). This has implications of a pro-life stance, but Hitler’s Nazis would themselves legalize abortions. However, abortions were completely under the control of and decided by the state. Healthy Aryan women could give birth, but non-Aryans and sickly Aryans had to abort their children (Source 2). This position goes far beyond even the most radical American progressives. They outlawed child labor, which had bipartisan support when American outlawed it. Finally, they also forced exercise, effectively socializing all gymnasiums and physical instruction. That, too, goes far beyond the American left.

"22. We demand abolition of the mercenary troops and formation of a national army."

They wished to not have to hire foreign soldiers, but rather “Germanize” their own military. I’m not sure if this is really partisan at all, but rather just an idea that hasn’t really been brought up in American politics.

"23. We demand legal opposition to known lies and their promulgation through the press. In order to enable the provision of a German press, we demand, that: a. All writers and employees of the newspapers appearing in the German language be members of the race: b. Non-German newspapers be required to have the express permission of the State to be published. They may not be printed in the German language: c. Non-Germans are forbidden by law any financial interest in German publications, or any influence on them, and as punishment for violations the closing of such a publication as well as the immediate expulsion from the Reich of the non-German concerned. Publications which are counter to the general good are to be forbidden. We demand legal prosecution of artistic and literary forms which exert a destructive influence on our national life, and the closure of organizations opposing the above made demands."

This is generally anti-”fake news,” but taken a step further than Trump. Trump’s claim has some merit because of some of the biases in the media, but Hitler’s plan would effectively socialize the industry, only allowing reporters to report what Hitler wished them to, which would be in itself Trump’s version of “fake news” because it is still heavily biased. The bias on both sides of the media today suggest the most radical on both sides would ultimately support the basic outline of this plan, as does Trump’s reaction to some of the news, but the whole plan is a little too radical to find its way into American politics. If it did find its way, the Trump right is likely to be the first to suggest the plan (minus the sub-points).

"24. We demand freedom of religion for all religious denominations within the state so long as they do not endanger its existence or oppose the moral senses of the Germanic race. The Party as such advocates the standpoint of a positive Christianity without binding itself confessionally to any one denomination. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and around us, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our nation can only succeed from within on the framework: common utility precedes individual utility."

This is more “freedom of Christian denomination” than “freedom of religion.” The most radical conservatives may support this idea, but it is not often heard in America. I would assign this to the Alt-Right. It is also explicitly anti-Semitic, which can be found in the Alt-Right, but ties Judaism to capitalism, which would be leftist. So this is a far-right idea for far-left reasons, but I would still assign this to the far-right more.

"25. For the execution of all of this we demand the formation of a strong central power in the Reich. Unlimited authority of the central parliament over the whole Reich and its organizations in general. The forming of state and profession chambers for the execution of the laws made by the Reich within the various states of the confederation. The leaders of the Party promise, if necessary by sacrificing their own lives, to support by the execution of the points set forth above without consideration."

In the final point, Hitler suggests an extremely powerful unitarian government to fulfill these points, even willing to sacrifice his own life to secure this government of his. This idea is employed by the American left, who wish to strengthen the central government and increase its scope. I don’t know if they’d abolish the federalist system we have in place in favor of a more unitarian one, but the concept is still leftist at heart, as conservatives would wish to overall weaken the federal government and limit its scope.

In summary, Adolf Hitler’s Nazis employ ideas and tactics utilized by both sides of American politics, as well as some of their own. Overall analysis points to the Nazi Party having left-leaning tendencies, with the more economic and extreme ideas belonging usually to the American left and more moderate and social ideas belonging usually to the American right. Thus, it may be fair to label more extreme social conservatives Nazis (e.g. the Alt-Right), but one shouldn’t employ bias, and thus should also label the more extreme social and economic leftists Nazis.

Ps.

We’re a small but comprehensive political news team, comprised of dedicated reporters, an attentive editorial staff, a relentless developer and our very own political cartoonist. We are dedicated to honest, unbiased political reporting and strive to be the steadfast name you know and trust in a shifty political environment. - The Political Inquirer One of our main objectives at The Political Inquirer is to address the underlying fundamentals and philosophies of political parties. We keep up to date on current events and report real time news in meaningful ways, that keeps the reader informed. We’re progressing ahead of schedule for a newly formed outlet, we need additional members though. If you’re interested in becoming a reporter, columnist, editor, developer, cartoonist or have other viable skills and are interested in being a part of our news team please join us at: https://discord.gg/2JEUE9

Sources

1. “Nazi conspiracy and aggression.” Avalon Project - Documents in Law, History and Diplomacy, Yale Law School, 2008, avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/1708-ps.asp. Accessed 23 Sept. 2017.

2. “The Nazis and Abortion.” Christian Patriots For Life (Pro-Life education), 2014, www.cpforlife.org/the-nazis-and-abortion. Accessed 23 Sept. 2017.

The National Socialist Programme (25-Point Plan) was taken from Source 1. All other sources were either cited or taken from prior education and research.

If you have any questions, e-mail me at nimrodcreed@gmail.com.