Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Neo-Nazi vs. Nazi 1930s-1940s

Discussion in 'The Stump' started by Wolfy, Jun 16, 2009.

  1. Wolfy

    Wolfy Ace

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2008
    Messages:
    1,900
    Likes Received:
    90
    What are the principal differences?

    I ask this because I confronted a "white nationalist" on another forum in a rather bizarre exchange. The neo-nazi, to me, seems very concerned about incrimination (Jew this, Jew that, illegal immigrants, "they took our jobs!" ,holohoax etc.) and hate.

    The Nazi (1930s-1940s SS man) seems different. He seems to simply abandon conventional moral principals all together and does whatever is needed for the "new world order".
     
  2. Heidi

    Heidi Dishonorably Discharged

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2009
    Messages:
    609
    Likes Received:
    24
    What? You actually joined a White nationalist forum?yikes be carful,those white skin heads don't like any races apart from white people.

    I actually don't see any difference with Hitler and Nazi Germany and the neo- nazi's!
    They think the same way,kill and get gid of jews and non-white people.
    To me the neo -nazi's are trying to make an America Nazi Germany Government!
    The neo-nazi's are trying to get Hitler dream to carry on,plus there is no difference in neo nazi's and Hitler gaining power.
    The neo-nazi's are advertising to get brand new members to join there gruop and Hitler did that 70 years ago.
     
  3. Wolfy

    Wolfy Ace

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2008
    Messages:
    1,900
    Likes Received:
    90
    The 1930s-1940s SS man would not stoop down and pull out a "holo-hoax" agenda. There is not so strong of a belief in egalitarianism compared to the Neo-Nazi.
     
  4. Mussolini

    Mussolini Gaming Guru WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2000
    Messages:
    5,734
    Likes Received:
    559
    Location:
    Festung Colorado
    I'm not sure where you are getting your information, and comparing a Neo-Nazi to a a SS-Soldier is not the best comparison.

    A Neo-Nazi is some one who follows a set of beliefs similar or that are inspired by/reminiscent of Nazism that existed in the 1920's-1940's. They also believe in a revival of Nazism and the term basically sprung up immediately post war.

    So, a modern Neo-Nazi would probably be seen as a hardliner/extreme right of the Nazi party in a Hitler-run Germany. Neo-Nazis also deal with the fact that they lost and that their ideaology is shunned world-wide, which probably adds to the extremist hate.
     
  5. Wolfy

    Wolfy Ace

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2008
    Messages:
    1,900
    Likes Received:
    90
    Masters of Death and Heinz Zollin Höhne'sThe Order of the Death's Head: The Story of Hitler's SS .

    That's where my conception and psychology of the SS man comes from. I find the Neo-Nazi remarkably petty and unlike the type of individual that I envision to be a SS member. In that vein, it seems to me that the Neo-Nazi has a more traditional moral/value system than the SS man, who rejects traditional morality and is ordered to kill with emotionless discipline.

    Honor, loyalty, and shame are core values in the SS. The Neo-Nazi seems to have none of these (except perhaps loyalty).
     
  6. Mussolini

    Mussolini Gaming Guru WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2000
    Messages:
    5,734
    Likes Received:
    559
    Location:
    Festung Colorado
    I still don't think its fair to compare a Combative Unit Soldier with a 'regular Joe'. Its a bit of a stretch, since they have virtually nothing in common. You're talking about rednecks and comparing them to men who were thrown into combat on a global scale. Completely different subjects.

    The SS was a military unit, and Germany was/is known for its military tradition. From that standpoint, you get the Honor and Loyalty and Shame aspects of their ideology.

    The Neo-Nazi, on the other hand, isn't part of a Combat Unit, nor does he (or she) have orders to round up Jews and kill them. Neo-Nazis act more like a gang - fighting amongst themselves more then against outside threats. Of course, you get the occasional hate messages spray painted here and there, or the killing/beating of a gay-guy but otherwise they're very much in the backdrop. The KKK - not Nazi's - are more likely to string some one up based on their religion/color of skin then the Neo-Nazis.
     
  7. Wolfy

    Wolfy Ace

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2008
    Messages:
    1,900
    Likes Received:
    90
    I'm not talking about specifically the Waffen-SS, I'm talking about the SS institution of the whole (including the Allegimine SS, Totenkopf SS, Waffen SS, etc).

    The Neo-Nazis remind me more of the SA gangs that Hitler used to bring himself to power than the SS because their focus seems to be more about perpetuating hate rather than more efficiently acting out an ambitious world vision (as in the SS).
     
  8. Mussolini

    Mussolini Gaming Guru WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2000
    Messages:
    5,734
    Likes Received:
    559
    Location:
    Festung Colorado
    I still have a hard time with your comparison. The Neo-Nazis are from from being a Militant Organization, unlike any of the SA or SS which were Paramilitary Groups. In the case of the SA, they were used to terrorize opponents - like the Communists - and were often involved in street battles and were used as security.

    You also can't compare Neo-Nazi's to the Nazis, since they don't follow the same ideology. As I said before, the Neo-Nazis follow an Ideology that mimics/is based loosely on/remininscent of Nazism, but it is not the same form of Nazism that Hitler created. It is like compairing Marxism to Communism - highly similar, but not the same thing.
     
  9. Heidi

    Heidi Dishonorably Discharged

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2009
    Messages:
    609
    Likes Received:
    24
    Have you guys see that documentary when the Neo-Nazi's skin heads confess on camera that they want power of the united states of America and run there goverment like Hilter's Nazi germany did back in 1939-1945???
    This is telling me,they are 100% Nazi's!
     
  10. Wolfy

    Wolfy Ace

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2008
    Messages:
    1,900
    Likes Received:
    90
    What I'm talking about is the psychological underpinnings and framework of personal values within these two groups. The character of the SA seems to be more congruent with the Neo-Nazis rather than that of the SS. Historically, these two organizations confronted each other as well.

    The SA was also filled with people from a different social stratification than the SS.
     
  11. brndirt1

    brndirt1 Saddle Tramp

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    9,713
    Likes Received:
    1,501
    I think the comparison to the SA is more valid, but not as a full organization. More like the individual city groups which were more akin to gangs of thugs than to militia or a para-military. These SA tended to be angy, unemployed youn street toughs who needed someone else to blame for their own failings as persons and citizens.
     
  12. von Poop

    von Poop Waspish

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2006
    Messages:
    6,239
    Likes Received:
    1,865
    Location:
    Perfidious Albion
    Fine book.

    Maybe a prime differences between the 1930s/40s 'Nazi in the street' and the modern variety is that the early 20th century chaps had not yet experienced a complete defeat of the physical expression of their ideological stance. Therefore easier to be comfortable with, and see oneself as a part of, a new and energetic social movement, rather than a defensive representative of a beaten and generally discredited point of view that reminds most of pictures of concentration camps?
    c.Seventy years of history and X-million murders cast a long shadow.

    ~A
     
    brndirt1 likes this.
  13. Stefan

    Stefan Cavalry Rupert

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2001
    Messages:
    5,368
    Likes Received:
    335
    I think the point is that he is drawing a comparison between the ideologies of some of the most fervant Nazis (SS) and Neo Nazis.

    Clearly in order to establish that they aren't the same thing you have to compare them, that is what comparison means, to put them alongside one another and determine what the similarities and differences are. Nobody is saying they are the same thing, simply trying to establish where they differ and where they do not.
     
  14. Friedrich

    Friedrich Expert

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    6,548
    Likes Received:
    52
    It think that, indeed, neo-nazis have more in common with the average storm troopers: mostly social outcasts, rensentful, drunk by blind hatred... (which I wouldn't define as 'virtually nothing').

    A difference might be that neo-nazis are self-segregated and counter-cultural. Their background and social environment are those of democratic, capitalist societies, not militaristic, feudal and war-torn. Also, the street gang behaviour is different. SA and SS men shared a strong military tradition (of institutionalised violence, one could say) and many were war veterans, they were very deep-rooted in authoritarian structures and organisation (a leader principle, uniforms, paredes, comradeship) and had a defined rôle as a paramilitary force. Neo-nazis rarely have any military background or experience, they are more individualistic and rebel in essence and lack a political purpose, as they don't have similar, rival groups to smash in the streets...
     
  15. Wolfy

    Wolfy Ace

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2008
    Messages:
    1,900
    Likes Received:
    90
    Why are the Neo-Nazis more like the SA storm troopers? Your explanation points out that they were a completely different type of man. The SA men don't seem like true social outcasts like Neo-nazis.
     
  16. Friedrich

    Friedrich Expert

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    6,548
    Likes Received:
    52
    Neo-nazis may be social outcasts voluntarily... whilst SA men were 'thrown' into it by defeat, inestability and economic crisis. Hitler is the best example: a lazy, indolent vagabond, a complete loser that uses a dogmatic, irrational ideology of hatred as shelter and defence. Same can be said about the biggots of yesterday and of today...

    And I think that, beyond the causes, hardcore prejudices and cult of violence (which, obviously, are the fundamental 'values' of nazism, 'neo' or 'paleo') are what makes these two similar in essence to my eyes, equally despicable.
     
    brndirt1 likes this.
  17. Wolfy

    Wolfy Ace

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2008
    Messages:
    1,900
    Likes Received:
    90
    Do the SA and the SS have a differing opinion about the Jews? The SA, since it's more hate and "justice" oriented, seems to be a group that would accept less radical methods of driving away Jews.

    The NeoNazis like to claim that the holocaust is fake, but that doesn't seem like something a SS man would like to do.


    I get the impression that the SS seem to reject any notions of revenge entirely along with many elements of the traditionally moral Christian value system (as far as their treatment of "subhumans" go) and to partake in these killings is rather a symbol of bravery rather than something loathsome. There's a lot of emphasis on "killing them decently" and "killing them in an efficient, stoic way". The SS, at least officially by Himmler, seems to have discouraged killing with torture or extreme violence as it was seen as being too "barbaric".

    The SS seems to have discouraged wasting energy on open hate mongering and encouraged "stoicism" and "decisive action".

    Is this correct?
     
  18. Friedrich

    Friedrich Expert

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    6,548
    Likes Received:
    52
    In theory, perhaps... But reality was very different. Since after Stalingrad, Himmler (pushed by Speer and the growing needs of the 'Total War') wanted to increase productiveness of slave labour in concentration camps. He failed miserably because the entire Lager system had been built on sheer brutality (Eicke's 'iron fist'). To increase productiveness it took having qualified, well-fed and well-rested workers, something impossible under such a corrupt, de-centralised system full of sadists who thought were dealing with vermin, Üntermenschen.

    The whole thing is actually very interesting, since it means there was a severe hole in the Nazi Weltanschauung. What was the régimes first priority, its raison d'être: the annihilation of inferior races or the utilitarian, short-termed aim of increasing production and winning the war?

    And, as a foot note, I think the average German from that time seems to have disregarded public, 'barbaric' violence. Public reaction against the Kristallnacht, by example, was based on material damages and perturbation of public order... not antisemtic hatred. Same with the 'outraged' officers of the Armed Forces by the attrocities in Poland and the USSR: it was alright to shoot en masse unarmed male civilians and 'partisans', not women and children... And it was far worse killing them in such 'unsoldierly' ways, at the sight of everybody... That is, I think, the greatest paradox and the uniqueness of Nazi genocide: its 'civilised', industrialised system. :rolleyes:
     
  19. Wolfy

    Wolfy Ace

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2008
    Messages:
    1,900
    Likes Received:
    90
    Thanks Friedrich. I re-read my post yesterday and realized that I just repeated the same thing, LOL.

    I'm trying to get into their head, what were they thinking? I don't get the impression that they were, as a whole, utterly consumed with the singular hatred of the Jews but in fact, these were merely first in a long line of peoples to be slaughtered for the new Nazi world order.

    Ultimately, the Jews were not so special. They were just in their way, and the SS wanted them to go.

    Those Nazi plans for the new world order (conquest of North America in the 1950s, etc.) essentially promoted the extinction of not only Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, etc. but ultimately anyone who was not of Western European genetic origin. From what I've read, it is written that in their world vision- a hundred years later only Ango-Saxon types would remain in North America.

    Was this their dream and were all their acts guided by this type of value?
     
  20. Vanir

    Vanir Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2008
    Messages:
    186
    Likes Received:
    28
    Lucky me I came from a Nazi family.

    I've been trying to tell people for some time the Nazis were religious. Neo-Nazis are political extremists. Both are criminals, but there's your fundamental difference.

    Go talk to a Nazi. Talk to a religious fundamentalist. Talk to a neo-Nazi and talk to a political extremist. You'll see the difference plain as day.

    When I was little I got slapped by grandma for coming home from school once with the news Hitler was insane. Should've seen the look on her face, still don't know if it was rage or terror.
    To a Nazi Hitler was Jesus, that simple. A genius she told me, saved Germany.

    Neo-Nazis, yeah met a few of those too. They're a joke, wannabe homophobe Nietzscheans looking for boys to love in their special violent way.

    There is no comparison. None. I could tell you stories.
     

Share This Page