Was Hitler Really “Right Wing”?

by | Mar 14, 2022

Hitler did not regard himself as being either on the left or on the right, but wanted to overcome both extremes – not in the ‘middle’, however, but by a new extreme in which both were abolished.

The following article is based on some of the content from Rainer Zitelmann’s book – Hitler’s National Socialism (published in February 2022). 

Was Hitler really ‘right wing’? The German-British publicist Sebastian Haffner, who wrote one of the most notable essays on Hitler, has pointed out that the only opposition which could really have become dangerous for Hitler came from the right: “From its vantage, Hitler was on the left. This makes us stop and think. Hitler can certainly not be so readily sorted into the extreme right of the political spectrum as many people are in the habit of doing.”

Indeed, the only effective opposition to Hitler represented by conservative and in part also monarchistic forces such as Ludwig Beck, Franz Halder, Hans Oster, Erwin von Witzleben, Carl Friedrich Goerdeler, Johannes Popitz, Count Peter Yorck von Wartenburg and Ulrich von Hassell, stood to his right. The German-British sociologist Ralf Dahrendorf has pointed out the dilemma of German resistance to Hitler which, while certainly having been highly moral, still did not mark a step forward on the road of German society to a constitution of liberty: “What is even worse is that it was Hitler who effected that transformation of German society which alone made the constitution of liberty possible, while the resistance to his regime appeared in the name of a society which could serve as a base for nothing but an authoritarian regime.” The assassination attempt on Hitler on July 20, 1944, and the persecutions set off by the failure, meant, said Dahrendorf, “the end of a political élite.”

Before joining the German Workers’ Party (later the NSDAP), Hitler was on the left of the political spectrum, as we know today. From the very beginning of his political activities Hitler had to contend with the accusation from the right that he was a “Bolshevist” or Communist, just as he had to contend with the accusation from the left that he was a lackey of monopoly capitalism. In a programmatic speech which Hitler gave on 13 August 1920, he took exception to the accusation that he was a Communist. On the one hand, he complained, that people were saying: “If you advocate what is in your programme, you are a Communist”; on the other hand, he was being denounced as an “arch reactionary” and a “militarily completely contaminated retrograde.”

Hitler never described himself as being a right-wing politician, but always criticised both left-wing and right-wing political movements and parties to the same degree. The following passages from the report on a speech on 26 October 1920, for example, are typical:

“Now Hitler turned to the right and left. The national right lacked a social concept, the social left a national one. He admonished the right-wing parties: if you want to be national, then climb down to your people and away with all this class conceit! To the left he called: you who have declared your solidarity with the whole world, first show your solidarity with your own national comrades, become Germans first!… You who are truly revolutionaries; come over to us and fight with us for our whole nation! Your place is not over there as drovers for international capital, but with us, with your nation!”

In a letter written on 6 September 1921 to the leader of the Hanover district group of the NSDAP, Hitler declared that the party was not being built up by mergers with other national-popular groupings but by gaining the forces of the extreme left and extreme right:

“What we need is to attract powerful masses, preferably from the extreme left and extreme right wing.”

When he was recalling the time of struggle in his monologues to his inner circle on 30 November 1941, he said: “My party at the time consisted of ninety percent of people from the left. I could only use people who had fought.” This was certainly an exaggeration, but we know from recent analyses of the NSDAP membership lists by political scientist Jürgen W. Falter that 40 percent of the National Socialist Workers’ Party’s members were indeed workers. The same is true for the party’s voters.

Hitler did not regard himself as being either on the left or on the right, but wanted to overcome both extremes – not in the ‘middle’, however, but by a new extreme in which both were abolished. On 26 May 1944 he said:

“In those days the definitions of both terms were diametrically opposed to each other. Then one was on the right side of the barricade and the other on the left, and I went right in between these two fighters, in other words climbed up on the barricade itself, and therefore was naturally shot at by both. I attempted to define a new term under the motto that in the end, nationalism and socialism are the same under one condition, namely that the nation moves into the center of all desire … In those days I had heavy battles both from the left as well as from the right.”

We know, however, that Hitler did not proceed against the left in the same way as he did against the right. Some dedicated monarchists were also delivered into the concentration camps in certain cases, and some conservative bourgeois forces, such as Franz von Papen’s associates Herbert von Bose and Edgar Julius Jung, were also shot just like the SA leaders on June 30, 1934. In the balance, however, it is incontestable that the Communists and the Social Democrats had to bear the greater sacrifices.

This has nothing to do with Hitler’s preference for the right, however – quite the opposite. He regarded the right-wing and bourgeois forces as being cowardly, weak, without energy and incapable of any resistance, whereas he assumed the left to have the brave, courageous, determined and therefore dangerous forces. And for him these were more appealing than the conservative elements he despised and basically no longer took seriously as opponents.

This ideologically mistaken assessment was to avenge itself, however, because it was not the Communists who became a danger for him. He had convinced many of them, who had become fervent adherents of National Socialism. Others offered resistance, but they never posed a threat to Hitler’s rule. The actual dangers came from other forces, from conservative men such as Carl Friedrich Goerdeler, from Ulrich von Hassell and Johannes Popitz, who can only be described as extreme reactionaries, and from monarchists like Hans Oster and Wilhelm Canaris. At least from 1938 onwards, these forces engaged in a systematic conspiracy and opposition which was not at all doomed to failure from the beginning.

It was only towards the end of his life, when he appreciated the total and irreversible failure of the Third Reich, that Hitler recognised that it had been a mistake to proceed one-sidedly against the forces on the left and to spare those on the right. At a conference of the Gau leaders on 24 February 1945 he said, as his adjutant Nicolaus von Below reports, “We liquidated the left-wing class fighters, but unfortunately we forgot in the meantime to also launch the blow against the right. That is our great sin of omission.” As we know from numerous remarks to his inner circle, Hitler admired Stalin because he had consistently acted against the old elites. And his admiration for Stalin was accompanied by an increasing admiration of the state planned economy in the Soviet Union, which, in Hitler’s view, was far superior to the liberal market economy.

In view of his failure, Hitler searched for an explanation for his defeat and recognised that his alliance with the bourgeois and right-wing forces – without which he would, however, never have come to power – was irreconcilable in the long run with the radical revolutionary policies he had conceived. And he had not “forgotten” to launch “the blow against the right”, but, based on his ideological premises, had simply not believed it to be necessary – at least until the assassination attempt of July 20, 1944 – to proceed against his opponents on the right whom he despised as being weak, lacking in energy and cowardly. In view of the war plans Hitler was pursuing, proceeding against the right, which played an important role in business, the military and the civil service, would moreover hardly have been possible, particularly since he would thereby have provoked a dangerous “war on two fronts” in domestic politics.

Resignedly, he stated in his political testament: “Since we lacked the élite we had envisaged, we had to make do with the human material to hand. The results are what you would expect! Because the mental concept did not agree with the practical possibilities of implementing it, the war policy of a revolutionary state such as the Third Reich necessarily became the policy of reactionary petit bourgeois”.

Learn more at hitlers-national-socialism.com.

Dr Rainer Zitelmann is a Berlin-based historian and sociologist. He is also a world-renowned author, successful businessman and real estate investor. He has written 25 books and his latest book Hitler's National Socialism was published in February 2022. He is also the author of The Rich in Public Opinion: What We Think When We Think about Wealth. His book, The Power of Capitalism, was released in 2019

Voice of Capitalism

Our weekly email newsletter.

Related articles

The United States of America and Slavery

The United States of America and Slavery

The proper evaluation of the United States in relation to slavery is this: ending slavery by fighting and winning the Civil War was a tremendous moral achievement and should be celebrated.

Don’t Let Them Memory-Hole The Totalitarian Lockdowns of 2020

Don’t Let Them Memory-Hole The Totalitarian Lockdowns of 2020

We are seeing a real-time example of how history is really written. The narrative is more self-serving than we knew. If all the power centers in society get something tremendously wrong, an informal conspiracy of silence develops around it, with the hope of just wiping it from the history books. 

Pin It on Pinterest