What do you think?
Rate this book
Nietzsche and the Nazis
Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) is famous for his statement that God is dead and his provocative account of Master and Slave moralities and for the fact that Adolf Hitler and the Nazis claimed that Nietzsche was one of their great inspirations. Were the Nazis right to do so or did they misappropriate Nietzsche's philosophy? In this book, based on the 2006 documentary, Professor Stephen Hicks asks and answers the following questions: * What were the key elements of Hitler and the National Socialists' political philosophy? * How did the Nazis come to power in a nation as educated and civilized as Germany? * What was Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophy the philosophy of "Live dangerously" and "That which does not kill us makes us stronger"? * And to what extent did Nietzsche's philosophy provide a foundation for the horrors perpetrated by the Nazis?
172 pages, Hardcover
First published July 29, 2010
About the author
Stephen R.C. Hicks
16 books158 followersStephen R.C. Hicks is Professor of Philosophy at Rockford University, Illinois, USA, Executive Director of the Center for Ethics and Entrepreneurship, and Senior Scholar at The Atlas Society.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 103 reviews
March 27, 2022
Nietzsche and the Nazis, Stephen R Hicks, books store and transmit ideas through time. The ideological and philosophical roots of Nazism, how his ideas were used or remade to fit and then direct, Nazi doctrines and actions. Nazis were not unique for their industrial size scale of millions of deaths, but they were unique in what follows, at the time by the most highly educated, hardest working industrious and developed country, with the most Professors, students, Universities and the highest literate group of people on the entire planet, that's a staggering fact, let that sink in for a moment. Then let's imagine a guy you know, works hard, loves his family, has a quirky sense of humor, then middle of the night is taken bundled into a cattle car, stripped naked, experimented on without anesthesia, starved half to death, gassed, thrown in an oven and burned to cinders, then replay these millions and millions of times but include racially different children and women. Unbelievable but true as the Sun is in the sky, this is what made the Nazis unique. This is an introduction, reminder to refresh the memory banks, that makes me sit up and shut up, racism is a really bad idea. But the world has come through tougher and stronger to weed out these insidiously evil belief systems, its still a work in progress, we really only have the U.N and its processes, that appear complex, complicated, difficult and incomprehensible but I would take this way any day over the alternative. We must question it, sometimes even rock the boat, kick up a stink, its everyone's duty to stamp out racism in your community, among your friends, among your family. Lest we forget this story, it’s for a stronger safer future, it’s our only single island planet in the blackness of space, an audio book found on YouTube.
March 12, 2015
The book presents good and comprehensive introduction to both Nazism and Nietzsche, but fails, to some extent, to draw its conclusion. Indeed there are some similarities between Nietzsche philosophy and Nazism policies, but no clear explanation was provided to show how these philosophy have put to practice. However, I love Stephen R. C. Hicks's works and lecture (on Youtube) for postmodernism.
December 15, 2021
WE THE PEOPLE are the greatest impediment to World Domination....
I learned a ton about the history of the Nazi movement. It's basically not what any of us thought. Propaganda is only the beginning. Quite interesting actually. The parallels to today's societal pressure, forcing medical procedures / vaccinations on everyday citizens is truly stunning:
Silencing the opposition. Complete control of the media. Weaponizing the human thought process.
We already fought a World War to prevent this kind of barbarism....
The Nuremberg trials determined that forced medical experimentation is cruel and wrong.
Yet.... The psychological warfare perpetuated against the populace today has them lining up to be experimented on... The Nazi's are alive and well in America... The gas chambers have closed but the genocide continues. You may not see it. You may not feel it.... The subject has been deliberately relegated to the grey area. The purpose, cloaked in a guise of righteousness. The water muddied. But...
One thing remains painfully clear, When we fail to Question Authority we become unworthy of Freedom.
C.A. Tedeschi
I learned a ton about the history of the Nazi movement. It's basically not what any of us thought. Propaganda is only the beginning. Quite interesting actually. The parallels to today's societal pressure, forcing medical procedures / vaccinations on everyday citizens is truly stunning:
Silencing the opposition. Complete control of the media. Weaponizing the human thought process.
We already fought a World War to prevent this kind of barbarism....
The Nuremberg trials determined that forced medical experimentation is cruel and wrong.
Yet.... The psychological warfare perpetuated against the populace today has them lining up to be experimented on... The Nazi's are alive and well in America... The gas chambers have closed but the genocide continues. You may not see it. You may not feel it.... The subject has been deliberately relegated to the grey area. The purpose, cloaked in a guise of righteousness. The water muddied. But...
One thing remains painfully clear, When we fail to Question Authority we become unworthy of Freedom.
C.A. Tedeschi
October 20, 2016
"Second, the Nazis reject cosmopolitanism, an ideal of Western liberals who believe that all humans are essentially the same wherever one travels in the world, and who believe that one should strive to be a citizen of the world, someone who can be at home anywhere."
Alright, so far so good--
"These themes explain the design of the Nazis’ swastika flag, as a symbolic integration of the socialism and the nationalism. Red is symbolic of socialism, white is symbolic of nationalism, and the swastika is, according to Hitler, representative of the Aryan struggle for racial and cultural supremacy against those who are trying to destroy the Germans."
As if his paper-thin Objectivist narrative wasn't bad enough, the man attempting a scholarly work on German history and philosophy can't even identify basic Prussian iconography. Don't waste your time.
Alright, so far so good--
"These themes explain the design of the Nazis’ swastika flag, as a symbolic integration of the socialism and the nationalism. Red is symbolic of socialism, white is symbolic of nationalism, and the swastika is, according to Hitler, representative of the Aryan struggle for racial and cultural supremacy against those who are trying to destroy the Germans."
As if his paper-thin Objectivist narrative wasn't bad enough, the man attempting a scholarly work on German history and philosophy can't even identify basic Prussian iconography. Don't waste your time.
May 10, 2023
Mit den vielfältigen Facetten vertrauten Nietzscheanern wird diese Darstellung ebenso ein Greuel sein wie Hitler- oder Drittreich-Experten, denen jedes Detail im Alltagsleben dieser Diktatur ein Zeuge gegen gewisse Pauschalisierungen ist.
Es bleiben bei diesem simplifizierenden Ansatz einfach zu viele Details und Facetten unberücksichtigt als dass man manchmal nicht laut aufschreien möchte.
Ich gehöre leider, immer mal wieder zu den Leuten, die vor lauter Bäumen den Wald nicht sehen oder auch umgekehrt. Bislang sah ich daher eher die Unterschiede zwischen dem individualistischen Denker und dem Nazi-Kolletivismus. Cum grano salis arbeitet Hicks hervorragend jene Teile von Nietzsches Lehre heraus, die von Hitler und seinen Gefolgsleuten gründlich missverstanden wurden, aber auch bezeichnende Differenzen. Gerade in Sachen Antisemitismus.
Im Subtext ist die Analyse auch eine Warnung vor den totalitaristischen Tendenzen von aktuell praktizierten Herrschaftsformen. Die Beschreibung der von Nietzsche propagierten Eliten könnte auch auf die WEF-Truppe passen, auch wenn die Superreichen um Schwab und Co eine Art von Kommunismus für die Masse propagieren.
Es bleiben bei diesem simplifizierenden Ansatz einfach zu viele Details und Facetten unberücksichtigt als dass man manchmal nicht laut aufschreien möchte.
Ich gehöre leider, immer mal wieder zu den Leuten, die vor lauter Bäumen den Wald nicht sehen oder auch umgekehrt. Bislang sah ich daher eher die Unterschiede zwischen dem individualistischen Denker und dem Nazi-Kolletivismus. Cum grano salis arbeitet Hicks hervorragend jene Teile von Nietzsches Lehre heraus, die von Hitler und seinen Gefolgsleuten gründlich missverstanden wurden, aber auch bezeichnende Differenzen. Gerade in Sachen Antisemitismus.
Im Subtext ist die Analyse auch eine Warnung vor den totalitaristischen Tendenzen von aktuell praktizierten Herrschaftsformen. Die Beschreibung der von Nietzsche propagierten Eliten könnte auch auf die WEF-Truppe passen, auch wenn die Superreichen um Schwab und Co eine Art von Kommunismus für die Masse propagieren.
February 7, 2016
While much of this book is good, and the overall message was much more balanced than other treatments, many of the author's points are flat out wrong. The Nazis were NOT socialists, despite what their name might have said. The existence of early documentation that had a socialist sounding platform was intentional as has been conclusively shown elsewhere.
April 28, 2021
Well I read a lot of Marx and a lot about Marx before and during my read of the Gulag Archipelago because Marx preceded Lenin and Stalin by a couple generations and they claimed he was their inspiration. So it only makes sense that I’d lend Nietzsche the same attention as I read a history of the Nazi regime.
This book was clear, concise, and convincing. Maybe the author was a little too quick to discredit the non-philosophical causes of the rise of the National Socialist party, but honestly I’m fine with that. I’ve read a lot of authors lately who attribute 0% of history to the philosophy of prior generations, and explain everything that ever happened through the lens of economic and political struggle, SO this book was a refreshing swing in the other direction. Sure the American colonists were taxed unfairly and the French revolutionaries were victims of a massive wealth gap, but if it weren’t for Locke, Paine, and Rousseau, things could’ve gone very differently. The same can be said for Marx and Nietzsche, whose philosophies lead to >100 million deaths. I once read “history is just philosophy with examples”. I don’t think that quote is 100% true, but it sure does matter what people think - eventually it determines what they’ll do.
This book was clear, concise, and convincing. Maybe the author was a little too quick to discredit the non-philosophical causes of the rise of the National Socialist party, but honestly I’m fine with that. I’ve read a lot of authors lately who attribute 0% of history to the philosophy of prior generations, and explain everything that ever happened through the lens of economic and political struggle, SO this book was a refreshing swing in the other direction. Sure the American colonists were taxed unfairly and the French revolutionaries were victims of a massive wealth gap, but if it weren’t for Locke, Paine, and Rousseau, things could’ve gone very differently. The same can be said for Marx and Nietzsche, whose philosophies lead to >100 million deaths. I once read “history is just philosophy with examples”. I don’t think that quote is 100% true, but it sure does matter what people think - eventually it determines what they’ll do.
October 5, 2017
I'm reviewing Nietzsche and the Nazis quite some time after reading but the ideas have stuck in my mind nonetheless.
I've had a fascination with Nietzsche ever since I came across a text of aphorisms. I am by no means an expert on Nietzsche. In fact, most of his ideas are so densely referenced to other philosophical texts that I can barely decipher them but one thing that compels me to him and his ideas is that every line of his writing can be turned over and interpreted over days, weeks and months with no firm footing. It is this unsettling quality of Nietzsche to cut right to the heart of life that excites me about his work.
Nevertheless, I have been concerned about his ties to the Nazis, or largely liberal philosophy's attempts to untangle those links by blaming any such association on his sister. Whilst his sister undoubtedly altered a great deal of his work and influenced how he was interpreted in both Weimar and Nazi Germany, I feel that the desperate attempt to not be seen as a Nazi just for reading Nietzsche has caused a grotesque fear of seriously challenging his oeuvre.
In this book, the author succinctly and fairly points to how Nietzsche's beliefs are not strongly fascist but do contain much philosophical thought that can be interpreted as fascist leaning at least in our contemporary worldview. There are two examples from both ends of the spectrum that the author points to in order to give credence to his thoughts.
Firstly, as the Nazis believed in moral relativism, the author points to an extract of Nietzsche's thought that posits great people do not adhere to weak, herd like Christian morality. To summarise Nietzsche, one can not judge the morality of a wolf by the morality of the lamb. This is clear moral relativism and perhaps something the Nazis used to assuage their guilt for their crimes but it does not mean Nietzsche himself was a fascist. He, like many philosophers, liked to challenge long held notions and what bigger iconoclasm is there in the West than challenging the basic moral tenets of Christianity?
In opposition to fascist links, the author posits that many interpretations of Nietzsche linking him to a belief in a Germanic racial übermensch are based on misreadings. In one passage Nietzsche references 'blond beasts', a line often interpreted to refer to the strength of Northern Europeans but, as the author states, this is more likely refers to lions. Additionally, Nietzsche disavowed anti semitism and famously, criticised Wagner's anti Semitic beliefs.
All in all, this book is a fascinating overview of Nietzsche's writings through the scope of the fascism that would later destroy Europe. Was Nietzsche fascist? I fear those that believe he was are reading history backwards. Should we be wary of taking all of Nietzsche's ideas literally? Absolutely. Any idea taken literally and without critique is dangerous, many passages from the Old Testament would be awful if taken and practised literally. The Nazis did draw upon some of his ideas but many were done so without rigorous interpretation. The idea of the übermensch isn't that of a superior race, but rather Nietzsche hoped man could overcome god by himself being better and that a 'superman' could come and show the average person how to live a life free of fear and time wasting. The superman is the person who challenges the eternal return and ensures a life lived without regret.
Nietzsche's links to fascist thought are tangled and can't be wholly denied. Rather his thoughts should be treated carefully - but treated they shall be.
I've had a fascination with Nietzsche ever since I came across a text of aphorisms. I am by no means an expert on Nietzsche. In fact, most of his ideas are so densely referenced to other philosophical texts that I can barely decipher them but one thing that compels me to him and his ideas is that every line of his writing can be turned over and interpreted over days, weeks and months with no firm footing. It is this unsettling quality of Nietzsche to cut right to the heart of life that excites me about his work.
Nevertheless, I have been concerned about his ties to the Nazis, or largely liberal philosophy's attempts to untangle those links by blaming any such association on his sister. Whilst his sister undoubtedly altered a great deal of his work and influenced how he was interpreted in both Weimar and Nazi Germany, I feel that the desperate attempt to not be seen as a Nazi just for reading Nietzsche has caused a grotesque fear of seriously challenging his oeuvre.
In this book, the author succinctly and fairly points to how Nietzsche's beliefs are not strongly fascist but do contain much philosophical thought that can be interpreted as fascist leaning at least in our contemporary worldview. There are two examples from both ends of the spectrum that the author points to in order to give credence to his thoughts.
Firstly, as the Nazis believed in moral relativism, the author points to an extract of Nietzsche's thought that posits great people do not adhere to weak, herd like Christian morality. To summarise Nietzsche, one can not judge the morality of a wolf by the morality of the lamb. This is clear moral relativism and perhaps something the Nazis used to assuage their guilt for their crimes but it does not mean Nietzsche himself was a fascist. He, like many philosophers, liked to challenge long held notions and what bigger iconoclasm is there in the West than challenging the basic moral tenets of Christianity?
In opposition to fascist links, the author posits that many interpretations of Nietzsche linking him to a belief in a Germanic racial übermensch are based on misreadings. In one passage Nietzsche references 'blond beasts', a line often interpreted to refer to the strength of Northern Europeans but, as the author states, this is more likely refers to lions. Additionally, Nietzsche disavowed anti semitism and famously, criticised Wagner's anti Semitic beliefs.
All in all, this book is a fascinating overview of Nietzsche's writings through the scope of the fascism that would later destroy Europe. Was Nietzsche fascist? I fear those that believe he was are reading history backwards. Should we be wary of taking all of Nietzsche's ideas literally? Absolutely. Any idea taken literally and without critique is dangerous, many passages from the Old Testament would be awful if taken and practised literally. The Nazis did draw upon some of his ideas but many were done so without rigorous interpretation. The idea of the übermensch isn't that of a superior race, but rather Nietzsche hoped man could overcome god by himself being better and that a 'superman' could come and show the average person how to live a life free of fear and time wasting. The superman is the person who challenges the eternal return and ensures a life lived without regret.
Nietzsche's links to fascist thought are tangled and can't be wholly denied. Rather his thoughts should be treated carefully - but treated they shall be.
August 2, 2022
Know thy enemy
…the Nazis knew what they stood for, do we?
…the Nazis knew what they stood for, do we?
July 21, 2022
The powerful should rule, but anyone will do
Enlightening, succinct comparison of Nietzsche's proto-fascist philosophy with the Nazi brand of nationalist, racist fascism.
Many leading Nazis indeed considered Nietzsche to be their philosopher king: his criticism of the slave mentality of the Judeo-Christian tradition, reverence for the great and noble, romantic fantasy of the "good ol' Germany", etc. But, was Nietzsche racist?
Well, yes.
Although he also said some good things about various peoples, including the Jews... Nazis tend to ignore those supporting statements of Nietzsche's, such as 'the Jews are better people than the Germans', focusing instead on Nietzsche's condemnation of the Jews for 'introducing a slave mentality to the world and thus subverting human greatness.'
The highlighted juxtapositions:
Nazis tend to hold feebly to some generic form of Christianity--a sort that apparently shrugs at the ten commandments and the whole "Sermon on the Mount" thing, and pretty much everything else that one would recognise as Christianity, and of course denies that Jesus was Jewish... Meanwhile, Nietzsche held some of his most trenchant criticism for Christianity: "Christianity is a rebellion of everything that crawls on the ground against that which has height" for starters.
Nietzsche thought the powerful should rule the world to help humanity reach its potential (whatever that entails), but thought that basically anyone would do, even the Jews if they could free themselves from their slavish mentality. Nazis of course think only the Aryan race or a misc. caucasian "European" heritage makes one fit to rule, or live.
Nietzsche saw the Aryan culture as pretty much the worst in the world (excepting perhaps the adherents to a Judeo-Christian tradition), while Nazis are true-believers in the superiority of their own "culture".
Enlightening, succinct comparison of Nietzsche's proto-fascist philosophy with the Nazi brand of nationalist, racist fascism.
Many leading Nazis indeed considered Nietzsche to be their philosopher king: his criticism of the slave mentality of the Judeo-Christian tradition, reverence for the great and noble, romantic fantasy of the "good ol' Germany", etc. But, was Nietzsche racist?
Well, yes.
Although he also said some good things about various peoples, including the Jews... Nazis tend to ignore those supporting statements of Nietzsche's, such as 'the Jews are better people than the Germans', focusing instead on Nietzsche's condemnation of the Jews for 'introducing a slave mentality to the world and thus subverting human greatness.'
The highlighted juxtapositions:
Nazis tend to hold feebly to some generic form of Christianity--a sort that apparently shrugs at the ten commandments and the whole "Sermon on the Mount" thing, and pretty much everything else that one would recognise as Christianity, and of course denies that Jesus was Jewish... Meanwhile, Nietzsche held some of his most trenchant criticism for Christianity: "Christianity is a rebellion of everything that crawls on the ground against that which has height" for starters.
Nietzsche thought the powerful should rule the world to help humanity reach its potential (whatever that entails), but thought that basically anyone would do, even the Jews if they could free themselves from their slavish mentality. Nazis of course think only the Aryan race or a misc. caucasian "European" heritage makes one fit to rule, or live.
Nietzsche saw the Aryan culture as pretty much the worst in the world (excepting perhaps the adherents to a Judeo-Christian tradition), while Nazis are true-believers in the superiority of their own "culture".
May 2, 2018
Enlightening....
May 5, 2014
This is a fascinating book. Stephen Hicks points out that all the major social upheavals of the last 200 years had clear philosophical influences- the American Revolution had Locke, the French Revolution had Rousseau, the Communist revolutions in Russia and China had Marx. What about the Nazis? He builds a clear case that Nietzsche was the philosopher whose ideas most influenced the Nazis and he also shows how popular (and not confined to Nietzsche) those ideas were in Germany during the 19th and early 20th centuries. Nietzsche was just the most eloquent and poetic exponent of ideas that were extremely widespread at the time.
However, Hicks also provides a balanced and fair assessment of the links between Nietzsche and the Nazis and shows that Nietzsche also had many ideas that were at odds with the ideas that the Nazis held:
- Nietzsche wasn't a believer in Aryan supremacy, whereas the Nazis held that as central.
- Nietzsche thought contemporary German culture was awful, unlike the Nazis.
- Nietzsche was not anti-semetic and actually admired the jews, whereas the Nazis were so anti-semitic that they committed the holocaust.
- Nietzsche didn't see any real difference between Christianity and Judaism, unlike the Nazis who were pro-christian and rabidly anti-semitic.
However, Hicks shows that Nietzsche expounded 5 major ideas that the Nazis took up wholeheartedly and to murderous effect:
- Nietzsche was a proponent of Collectivism and anti-individualism.
- He advocated the idea of zero-sum conflict as inescapable.
- He embraced Irrationality and contempt for reason.
- He praised war and longed for it.
- Nietzsche was anti-democracy, anti-liberal and anti-capitalistic.
All these violent and anti-individualist ideas became core tenets for the Nazis, who were ruthlessly idealistic in fulfilling them.
I found the book a very helpful summary of what the Nazis were all about and what Nietzsche was about too. Nietzsche wrote so illogically and irrationally that I find it hard to make sense of his writings, but this book provides a really clear overview of his ideas. For example, I often wondered why you see quotes from Nietzsche that seem to praise a kind of rugged individualism, and yet other quotes where he was thoroughly collectivist and authoritarian. Hicks has a very clear explanation: at root Nietzsche was an arch-collectivist who had nothing but contempt for individual lives, but since he believed that biology leads to some "Ubermenschen" being born into the culture, he praised the idea of *those* individuals standing out, not because he thought individuality was an end in itself, but because he thought that they would improve the human race as a whole. In this way, even the Ubermensch for Nietzsche was not an end in itself but a servant of biology, or evolution, or the human race or something like that.
A great book for anyone interested in philosophy and history. Highly recommended.
However, Hicks also provides a balanced and fair assessment of the links between Nietzsche and the Nazis and shows that Nietzsche also had many ideas that were at odds with the ideas that the Nazis held:
- Nietzsche wasn't a believer in Aryan supremacy, whereas the Nazis held that as central.
- Nietzsche thought contemporary German culture was awful, unlike the Nazis.
- Nietzsche was not anti-semetic and actually admired the jews, whereas the Nazis were so anti-semitic that they committed the holocaust.
- Nietzsche didn't see any real difference between Christianity and Judaism, unlike the Nazis who were pro-christian and rabidly anti-semitic.
However, Hicks shows that Nietzsche expounded 5 major ideas that the Nazis took up wholeheartedly and to murderous effect:
- Nietzsche was a proponent of Collectivism and anti-individualism.
- He advocated the idea of zero-sum conflict as inescapable.
- He embraced Irrationality and contempt for reason.
- He praised war and longed for it.
- Nietzsche was anti-democracy, anti-liberal and anti-capitalistic.
All these violent and anti-individualist ideas became core tenets for the Nazis, who were ruthlessly idealistic in fulfilling them.
I found the book a very helpful summary of what the Nazis were all about and what Nietzsche was about too. Nietzsche wrote so illogically and irrationally that I find it hard to make sense of his writings, but this book provides a really clear overview of his ideas. For example, I often wondered why you see quotes from Nietzsche that seem to praise a kind of rugged individualism, and yet other quotes where he was thoroughly collectivist and authoritarian. Hicks has a very clear explanation: at root Nietzsche was an arch-collectivist who had nothing but contempt for individual lives, but since he believed that biology leads to some "Ubermenschen" being born into the culture, he praised the idea of *those* individuals standing out, not because he thought individuality was an end in itself, but because he thought that they would improve the human race as a whole. In this way, even the Ubermensch for Nietzsche was not an end in itself but a servant of biology, or evolution, or the human race or something like that.
A great book for anyone interested in philosophy and history. Highly recommended.
May 16, 2020
2 and a half stars rounded down to 2. Hicks is, if nothing else, clear and concise. It makes him easy to read and easy to understand. He sees Nazism as primarily an ideology and argues that it is best opposed by a counter ideology. This ideology matches that of Nietzsche half the time and opposes it the other half (though the Nazis chose to ignore that part).
I disagree that the ideology of Nazism is primary or as clear and consistent as Hicks makes it out to be. In fact, one aspect of Nazi theory is that passion is more important than the intellect so Nazism is explicitly anti-ideology. Just because philosophers like Heidegger supported him didn't make it an intellectual movement.
Hicks plays up the "socialist" part of National Socialism and points out the socialist aspects of the Nazi platform. Though these aspects existed when it was founded and Hitler gave speeches praising socialism and denouncing Capitalism, this was mainly lip service intended to win over the working class. He did favor nationalizing key aspects of the economy but that was just because he wanted to control them. Hitler was anti-union and anti-equality. Most other sources are clear on this (e.g. Encyclopedia Britanica) and point out, for example, he was probably behind the murder of Gregor Strasser, a party leader and proponent of socialism 1934 during the Night of the Long Knives.
On the plus side, you can read through this book in a day or two.
I disagree that the ideology of Nazism is primary or as clear and consistent as Hicks makes it out to be. In fact, one aspect of Nazi theory is that passion is more important than the intellect so Nazism is explicitly anti-ideology. Just because philosophers like Heidegger supported him didn't make it an intellectual movement.
Hicks plays up the "socialist" part of National Socialism and points out the socialist aspects of the Nazi platform. Though these aspects existed when it was founded and Hitler gave speeches praising socialism and denouncing Capitalism, this was mainly lip service intended to win over the working class. He did favor nationalizing key aspects of the economy but that was just because he wanted to control them. Hitler was anti-union and anti-equality. Most other sources are clear on this (e.g. Encyclopedia Britanica) and point out, for example, he was probably behind the murder of Gregor Strasser, a party leader and proponent of socialism 1934 during the Night of the Long Knives.
On the plus side, you can read through this book in a day or two.
April 26, 2022
A great introduction to both the Nazi and Nietzsche individually, however I found the parallels drawn between the two to be fairly weak.
January 20, 2022
Hicks begins by arguing that some of the most common explanations for national socialism are weak. For example, while it's true that the Germans were bitter over losing WWI and the subsequent punitive measures imposed by the Treaty of Versailles this does not explain why Italy rallied behind Mussolini after they were on the winning side of WWI or why when other countries lose a war they do not drift towards national socialism. Similarly, Germany's economic troubles are not a sufficient explanation for national socialism because many countries that go through economic hardship do not turn towards this particular ideology, nor does it explain why there are Nazi sympathizers in economically prosperous nations.
Instead, Hicks contends, a more complete explanation lies in philosophy. In particular, according to national socialism, a person's identity is found within their particular group, that the group is locked in a mortal conflict with other groups, that reason is superficial, and that passion and instinct are the key drivers of human behavior.
Instead, Hicks contends, a more complete explanation lies in philosophy. In particular, according to national socialism, a person's identity is found within their particular group, that the group is locked in a mortal conflict with other groups, that reason is superficial, and that passion and instinct are the key drivers of human behavior.
September 14, 2022
Great read
A deep dive into the intellectual history of Germanyband how it influenced the Nazis.
Hicks is a great scholar, I highly recommend his lectures online.
A deep dive into the intellectual history of Germanyband how it influenced the Nazis.
Hicks is a great scholar, I highly recommend his lectures online.
February 21, 2021
I read the book almost immediately after receiving it but I have had difficulty gathering my thoughts and deciding how to review it, not because the book itself was difficult to read; but because I was unsure how to approach this small jewel of a book. I decided to lay out some of the reasons why I both think highly of this book and like it as well.
Looking at its title, Nietzsche and the Nazis, I wondered what kind of book is this. Is it history, biography, some combination of both with sociology, or something else? The subtitle, "A Personal View", suggests that the author will inject his own personal opinions into the narrative in some manner. Looking at the Table of Contents we find that it is in fact something else; namely a book primarily about philosophy. In fact, the first three parts of the book have philosophy in their titles. This is one of the reasons I like the book. Books about philosophy appeal to me; especially well-written and well-reasoned books like this one.
The introduction identifies the aim of this book by highlighting how people in general tend to have an interest in history, and then briefly defining the philosophy of history. The author describes the philosophical perspective of history as one that "is a huge laboratory of experiments in human living." (p 3) The book specifically focuses on one "major experiment" in the twentieth century, the rise of the Nazis.
The remainder of the book methodically and very efficiently tells about the nature of Nazism: its philosophy, National Socialism's programs, and the effective means that the Nazis used while in power over the Third Reich. The discussion of the Nazis is then contrasted with the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche. His life and influence is told through discussion of philosophical concepts that were key in his work such as nihilism, the death of God, the slave mentality, and the "overman". Having laid out the ideas of the Nazis and those of Nietzsche the book's climax presents the important differences between Nietzsche's thought and Nazism. This includes a discussion of ways in which Nietzsche's thought can be seen as a precursor of Nazism; they agree in such key areas as anti-individualism, anti-reason, and authoritarianism.
The book is excellent in several respects. It has a clarity of purpose and a logical structure. The principles of both the National Socialists and Nietzsche are well defined; in addition the conclusion highlights those principles which oppose the Nazis. This approach lets readers make their own decision about which principles they stand for. There are also helpful appendices that highlight relevant quotations on the ideas presented. If you are fascinated by history this book is a great place to discover both the reasons for one of the most important episodes in the history of the modern world and why each of us need to understand those reasons.
Looking at its title, Nietzsche and the Nazis, I wondered what kind of book is this. Is it history, biography, some combination of both with sociology, or something else? The subtitle, "A Personal View", suggests that the author will inject his own personal opinions into the narrative in some manner. Looking at the Table of Contents we find that it is in fact something else; namely a book primarily about philosophy. In fact, the first three parts of the book have philosophy in their titles. This is one of the reasons I like the book. Books about philosophy appeal to me; especially well-written and well-reasoned books like this one.
The introduction identifies the aim of this book by highlighting how people in general tend to have an interest in history, and then briefly defining the philosophy of history. The author describes the philosophical perspective of history as one that "is a huge laboratory of experiments in human living." (p 3) The book specifically focuses on one "major experiment" in the twentieth century, the rise of the Nazis.
The remainder of the book methodically and very efficiently tells about the nature of Nazism: its philosophy, National Socialism's programs, and the effective means that the Nazis used while in power over the Third Reich. The discussion of the Nazis is then contrasted with the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche. His life and influence is told through discussion of philosophical concepts that were key in his work such as nihilism, the death of God, the slave mentality, and the "overman". Having laid out the ideas of the Nazis and those of Nietzsche the book's climax presents the important differences between Nietzsche's thought and Nazism. This includes a discussion of ways in which Nietzsche's thought can be seen as a precursor of Nazism; they agree in such key areas as anti-individualism, anti-reason, and authoritarianism.
The book is excellent in several respects. It has a clarity of purpose and a logical structure. The principles of both the National Socialists and Nietzsche are well defined; in addition the conclusion highlights those principles which oppose the Nazis. This approach lets readers make their own decision about which principles they stand for. There are also helpful appendices that highlight relevant quotations on the ideas presented. If you are fascinated by history this book is a great place to discover both the reasons for one of the most important episodes in the history of the modern world and why each of us need to understand those reasons.
April 7, 2022
I discovered the audiobook version of this work online. The author reads it with skill, and his style of writing has clarity. Nietzsche’s works are pretty deep, but Hicks make them accessible.
It’s a short look at what impact Nietzsche’s work had on Germany’s National Socialists in the early 20th century…and where they differed.
One problem I have with it is that Hicks labels National Socialism as a form of collectivism. In a subsequent work on Post Modernism he goes out of his way as to describe the movement as leftist and collectivist, and seems eager to lump all forms of socialism-including communism-into one bag...something that Marx himself didn't do.
As Ron Granieri, an historican at the Army War College pointed out in a February 5th 2020 Washington Post article, National Socialism preserved property. (Re: "The right needs to stop falsely claiming that the Nazis were socialists" on the W.P. website)
Hitler himself stated this in an interview with German-American writer and Nazi sympathiser George Sylvester Viereck in 1939, stating:
"‘Socialism’, he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, ‘is the science of dealing with the common weal [health or well-being]. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists.
‘Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality and, unlike Marxism, it is patriotic."
Hitler saying that this form of socialism involves "no negation of personality" goes directly against what Hicks claims in this book. Given the narcissism of various Nazi leaders, and the fact that it and other fascist movements were driven by the bourgeois, the collectivist charge doesn't stick well.
Given what he wrote in his later book, and his appearance on one conservative podcast that I briefly listened to, I suspect Hicks may be straying out of his lane as a philosopher and attempting to influence political opinion by demonizing "collectivism"...or socialism...by equating it with the evils of mid-20th century autocracies or Soviet communism and German Nazism. This charge is nothing new, but it is ridiculously inaccurate and disingenuous. Hicks may be trying to give it an intellectual gloss that it doesn't deserve.
It’s a short look at what impact Nietzsche’s work had on Germany’s National Socialists in the early 20th century…and where they differed.
One problem I have with it is that Hicks labels National Socialism as a form of collectivism. In a subsequent work on Post Modernism he goes out of his way as to describe the movement as leftist and collectivist, and seems eager to lump all forms of socialism-including communism-into one bag...something that Marx himself didn't do.
As Ron Granieri, an historican at the Army War College pointed out in a February 5th 2020 Washington Post article, National Socialism preserved property. (Re: "The right needs to stop falsely claiming that the Nazis were socialists" on the W.P. website)
Hitler himself stated this in an interview with German-American writer and Nazi sympathiser George Sylvester Viereck in 1939, stating:
"‘Socialism’, he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, ‘is the science of dealing with the common weal [health or well-being]. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists.
‘Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality and, unlike Marxism, it is patriotic."
Hitler saying that this form of socialism involves "no negation of personality" goes directly against what Hicks claims in this book. Given the narcissism of various Nazi leaders, and the fact that it and other fascist movements were driven by the bourgeois, the collectivist charge doesn't stick well.
Given what he wrote in his later book, and his appearance on one conservative podcast that I briefly listened to, I suspect Hicks may be straying out of his lane as a philosopher and attempting to influence political opinion by demonizing "collectivism"...or socialism...by equating it with the evils of mid-20th century autocracies or Soviet communism and German Nazism. This charge is nothing new, but it is ridiculously inaccurate and disingenuous. Hicks may be trying to give it an intellectual gloss that it doesn't deserve.
September 5, 2021
Super focused and dry in the best way. Delivered the info in an exploratory fashion, taking into account multiple perspectives and sweet primary sources. The book likely gave me the boost I need to finally finish Zarathustra/BGaE but tbd.
December 9, 2021
This analysis is limited to the point of almost quasi-dishonesty.
The criticism of the nazis, within the logic of the authors argument, rests mainly at their socialistic and collectivist tendencies. However, the author does not successfully argue that the nazis were socialist, and the argument that they were collectivist is missing the incredibly important context as to who within nazi society was part of “the collective.”
With respect to the motivations that come to mind when one thinks of nazi ideology, nationalism and white supremacy, the book is silent on the former and mentions the latter only as an afterthought. Instead, the author bullheadedly asserts that nazi ideology rests in a devotion to Nietzche’s work comparable to the relationship between Karl Marx and socialism ideology.
The book is full of illogical assumptions that are taken as fact. For example, that the nazis formed their own party is evidence to their devotion to their cause, because one does form a political party unless they really believe what they’re saying; therefore, the Nazis are socialists.
Furthermore, counter evidence to the claim that the nazis were socialists - like quotes from hitler and other officials that show it was simply a political move, or the fact that the very first people executed by the nazis were the socialists, anarchists and communists - are either unknown to the author or ignored entirely.
I could go on, but I won’t. All you need to know is this is a work of pseudo-intellectualism that would not be taken seriously in any credible academic institution.
The criticism of the nazis, within the logic of the authors argument, rests mainly at their socialistic and collectivist tendencies. However, the author does not successfully argue that the nazis were socialist, and the argument that they were collectivist is missing the incredibly important context as to who within nazi society was part of “the collective.”
With respect to the motivations that come to mind when one thinks of nazi ideology, nationalism and white supremacy, the book is silent on the former and mentions the latter only as an afterthought. Instead, the author bullheadedly asserts that nazi ideology rests in a devotion to Nietzche’s work comparable to the relationship between Karl Marx and socialism ideology.
The book is full of illogical assumptions that are taken as fact. For example, that the nazis formed their own party is evidence to their devotion to their cause, because one does form a political party unless they really believe what they’re saying; therefore, the Nazis are socialists.
Furthermore, counter evidence to the claim that the nazis were socialists - like quotes from hitler and other officials that show it was simply a political move, or the fact that the very first people executed by the nazis were the socialists, anarchists and communists - are either unknown to the author or ignored entirely.
I could go on, but I won’t. All you need to know is this is a work of pseudo-intellectualism that would not be taken seriously in any credible academic institution.
August 2, 2021
Short, rudimentary comparison of Nazism and Nietzsche’s philosophy. As the title says it is "a personal view", not a scholarly work. It seems to be written for young libertarians who don’t really know anything about Nazism or Nietzsche and want to just skim over the subject.
Quite a large part of the book is devoted to the presentation of basic historical facts about Third Reich and NSDAP political program. Hicks is good at pointing out collectivist and anti-capitalistic elements in Nazi worldview. He doesn’t really go into complexities of Nazism, different competing groups that existed within the movement, historical evolution, internal contradictions etc.
Another large part is devoted to Nietzsche’s general philosophy without really focusing on his important political ideas. He gives a fair, although quite simplistic, overview of Nietzsche philosophy. The only aspect of his worldview that he seriously downplays is Nietzsche’s racism. He presents him as a far-right thinker whose philosophy overlaps with Nazism on some points.
If you have even some basic knowledge about Nietzsche’s philosophy and Nazi politics you won’t really find anything new and interesting in this book. It is very short, lacking details, context or an interesting conclusion. It is not completely bad, but it is not really worth reading.
Quite a large part of the book is devoted to the presentation of basic historical facts about Third Reich and NSDAP political program. Hicks is good at pointing out collectivist and anti-capitalistic elements in Nazi worldview. He doesn’t really go into complexities of Nazism, different competing groups that existed within the movement, historical evolution, internal contradictions etc.
Another large part is devoted to Nietzsche’s general philosophy without really focusing on his important political ideas. He gives a fair, although quite simplistic, overview of Nietzsche philosophy. The only aspect of his worldview that he seriously downplays is Nietzsche’s racism. He presents him as a far-right thinker whose philosophy overlaps with Nazism on some points.
If you have even some basic knowledge about Nietzsche’s philosophy and Nazi politics you won’t really find anything new and interesting in this book. It is very short, lacking details, context or an interesting conclusion. It is not completely bad, but it is not really worth reading.
September 27, 2021
I listened to the audiobook on Youtube and I have to say that the whole thing is at the same time incredibly interesting and still simple enough to be understood while listening to it as if it where a podcast. I would definitely recommend it to everyone, who is interested in Nazi-Philosophy. This book finally gave me an answer to the question "Why the hell where so many people convinced to be the good guys while following this cruel ideology?" A question I (a German) never got answered during my history lessons. It was always just about memorizing raw facts and dates and oh btw. this was all horrible, we where the bad guys, this should never happen again. Yeah but why did it happen in the first place. Did my grandparents just get insane out of nowhere?? Where they all stupid or evil?? No there was a complex moral Philosophy behind it that made a lot of sense during its time, but sadly led us into horrible territories.
March 3, 2018
Good for finding the truth somewhere in the middle. Were Nazis socialists? They tried to be, and they did privatize some aspects of their economy when deemed necessary. Was Nietzsche an anti-semite? maybe not. Compared to other Germans he was less. Seemed to be more as an equal opportunity hater of all religions. Nazis were a populist movement. Nietzsche had the concept of the "Overman" and focused a lot on the slave/master dynamics. There are connections to be made, but he also thought Germans were weak. Nazis promulgated his philosophy simply because he was German. Easy to bastardize his work, but he wrote much more. Meaning: you have to read Nietzsche to understand who he really was. Then, you will most likely find that he wasn't all that impressive (at least not seriously impressive enough to be the impetus for a world war). Can't say that about *cough The Bible *cough.
August 11, 2020
Hicks goes deep into the philosophical roots of Nazism and untangles the simplified mess it has became ever since after the end of WWII. While it seems usual to define Nazism as Right due to its opposition to socialism this book point out several common ties between communist revolutions(China, Russia, Cuba) and the Nazism:
Collectivism, Passion, War, Authoritarianism. As George Orwell put once
“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”
Collectivism, Passion, War, Authoritarianism. As George Orwell put once
“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”
January 5, 2022
An essential breakdown of the history, philosophy, psychology and rhetoric of National Socialism with the key differences and similarities between Nazi doctrines and Nietzschean philosophy. Hicks expends much energy to confidently dispell common and unsavoury myths regarding the Nazis rise to power, their mass appeal in Germany before the Second World War and much, much more. Hicks manages to do this all the while with an exemplary level of respect and purposefully uses ugly and brutal quotations from both sides to bring to light the unpleasant truths of the eventual Nazi storm.
Hicks is able to concisely summarise how Nietzsche is both a man who would have been ashamed to see how his philosophy came to be perverted by the Nazis, but also a man who would, not long after his death, ultimately serve Hitler and his allies the essential proto-Nazi blueprint.
Hicks has a calm, straightforward demeanor and doesn't mince words. I highly recommend anyone planning to read this book to listen to the audiobook.
Hicks is able to concisely summarise how Nietzsche is both a man who would have been ashamed to see how his philosophy came to be perverted by the Nazis, but also a man who would, not long after his death, ultimately serve Hitler and his allies the essential proto-Nazi blueprint.
Hicks has a calm, straightforward demeanor and doesn't mince words. I highly recommend anyone planning to read this book to listen to the audiobook.
July 4, 2021
This is the perfect introduction to Nietzsche and the Nazis with well-rounded facts. And I've quite liked that author has ended the book with question 'Nazis knew what they stood for, do we?. I say challenge accepted.
On side note, humans are weak, we're not great as predators or prey. However, we are persistent. Through sheer persistence we have reached our current mode of life; technology that makes our life easy, shops that deliver to food in our doors, ... And I say WWI and WWII were only part of our history that we must learn from, otherwise how are we to reach our next level?
I don't know what is the ultimate goal, but if we continue living in ignorance or easy living, it may end it in nuclear wars who knows what mad man is thinking? All of us are in precarious time. Continual learning, transferring the knowledge, plain facts will save all humanity and give us some time. Neh?
On side note, humans are weak, we're not great as predators or prey. However, we are persistent. Through sheer persistence we have reached our current mode of life; technology that makes our life easy, shops that deliver to food in our doors, ... And I say WWI and WWII were only part of our history that we must learn from, otherwise how are we to reach our next level?
I don't know what is the ultimate goal, but if we continue living in ignorance or easy living, it may end it in nuclear wars who knows what mad man is thinking? All of us are in precarious time. Continual learning, transferring the knowledge, plain facts will save all humanity and give us some time. Neh?
Read
January 4, 2022Part 2: Five weak explanations for National Socialism: Quote “In 2005 Mein Kampf was a bestseller in Turkey. Do you think Turks were inherently blood thirsty and genocidal? I don’t think so” . Well sir your book is interesting, but don’t pose a statement in a domain which you have no clue of! The answer to your question is Yes, a bold and solid YES!
Now we continue with this opus, see what else lapsus trivia might pop up
Now we continue with this opus, see what else lapsus trivia might pop up
November 20, 2021
Philosophical thought process proposed by Nietzsche and applied by many, among them are Nazis and socialist party they had.
It's my first time with Nietzsche and I am taken aback with the thought process. Skimming through the book without knowing about his philosophy will only make you verify what's being interpreted in the book. But anyway book content is good enough to just hover around the psyche of the political party of the Nazis.
It's my first time with Nietzsche and I am taken aback with the thought process. Skimming through the book without knowing about his philosophy will only make you verify what's being interpreted in the book. But anyway book content is good enough to just hover around the psyche of the political party of the Nazis.
December 31, 2021
Interesting
Displaying 1 - 30 of 103 reviews