No, they're communists.
National socialism and communism are radically different ideas despite being ultra-left wing, requiring massive federal oversight and treating perceived traitors (often ethnic minorities) with brutality.
To put it mildly, national socialism seeks to provide a protected way forward for the perceived "people who constitute" the nation and seeks to have them flourish through strong governmental oversight, fascism seeks to do the same only with far more governmental oversight while communism seeks to ensure total equality through total government oversight.
The difference between national socialism and communism in a nutshell, is that a national socialist government seeks to provide their citizens with the option to have a good job, with vacations and housing while communism seeks to force people to work a job that will enhance the nation's success.
There's a reason why national socialism was so admired by the Liberals (check out Pierre Trudeau during WWII for example) while communism is only admired by the worst of politicians (check out Pierre Trudeau during his tenure for example.)
The problem with both systems is that they're both far-left, overly federalist philosophies which concentrate power in a government that is disconnected from the people themselves. Had WWII not happened, national socialism would have burnt itself out in the same way as communism over the years.
They're both flawed systems with a fair number of similarities, but they are distinct in very important ways.
Hence the inevitability that Molotov-Ribbentrov pact would be betrayed, leading to the Eastern Front. They're similar enough that they have roughly the same lefty goals, but different enough that they can't exist simultaneously without a fight for left-wing supremacy.
You're missing the key differences. Despite being both ultra-federalistic, extreme left-wing philosophies they're diametrically opposed.
The real difference is that National Socialism looks at the nation, declares that they're descended from a great history and seeks to connect with the traditionalism of the nation in order to seize extreme levels of control and justify their actions, while communism declares that they're descended from a shameful history that must be obliterated and seeks to create a new, fair history in order to seize extreme levels of control and justify their actions.
I hate using this example, but one has to look at the persecutions that both regimes conduct to understand them. Germany persecuted the Jews, stripped them of their wealth and sent them to labour camps for their perceived historical acts against the German people while the Soviet Union persecuted the Jews stripped them of their wealth and sent them to labour camps for their perceived acts against the current State.
Both philosophies committed the same act for the same reason (so the government could strip them of their wealth) but the reasoning is very different.
One is the past glories and greatness of history, while the other is past oppressions the desire to create a new history.
They can't exist together in harmony, and a regime can't go from one philosophy to the other. It's too big of an ideological divide to be bridged.
You're becoming tripped up over race issues, which a common mistake that's become endemic in our education system.
Neither national socialism nor communism depend on ethnic purity, in fact, contrarily they're designed to unite different ethnicities in under one banner.
For the Germans, you were looking at a mix of German, French, Nordic, Prussians and Pomeranians. The entire Aryan race thing is designed to forge a common history amongst a disparate people with the purpose of uniting them.
The Soviet Union faced the same issue, they had Russians, Siberians, Slavs, Muslims, Mongols, Poles, and a massive number of people whose individual differences needed to be stamped out for a future utopian (lol) nation.
These aren't what you'd call racist regimes, they're more hypersensitive to anything that could undermine the sense of harmony within the nation, which could then undermine the government.
China doesn't really repress people for racial reasons, they oppress people because they fear that their disunity could create a threat. They repress the Uigyurs because they're Islamic, not because of any racial reason. They repress the Christians for the same reason.
Communism is a dogshit philosophy, and as a dogshit philosophy it has to destroy all other philosophies because almost any other philosophy is better than communism, which is what makes them a threat to any communist government.
No, they're communists.
National socialism and communism are radically different ideas despite being ultra-left wing, requiring massive federal oversight and treating perceived traitors (often ethnic minorities) with brutality.
To put it mildly, national socialism seeks to provide a protected way forward for the perceived "people who constitute" the nation and seeks to have them flourish through strong governmental oversight, fascism seeks to do the same only with far more governmental oversight while communism seeks to ensure total equality through total government oversight.
The difference between national socialism and communism in a nutshell, is that a national socialist government seeks to provide their citizens with the option to have a good job, with vacations and housing while communism seeks to force people to work a job that will enhance the nation's success.
There's a reason why national socialism was so admired by the Liberals (check out Pierre Trudeau during WWII for example) while communism is only admired by the worst of politicians (check out Pierre Trudeau during his tenure for example.)
The problem with both systems is that they're both far-left, overly federalist philosophies which concentrate power in a government that is disconnected from the people themselves. Had WWII not happened, national socialism would have burnt itself out in the same way as communism over the years.
They're both flawed systems with a fair number of similarities, but they are distinct in very important ways.
Hence the inevitability that Molotov-Ribbentrov pact would be betrayed, leading to the Eastern Front. They're similar enough that they have roughly the same lefty goals, but different enough that they can't exist simultaneously without a fight for left-wing supremacy.
You're missing the key differences. Despite being both ultra-federalistic, extreme left-wing philosophies they're diametrically opposed.
The real difference is that National Socialism looks at the nation, declares that they're descended from a great history and seeks to connect with the traditionalism of the nation in order to seize extreme levels of control and justify their actions, while communism declares that they're descended from a shameful history that must be obliterated and seeks to create a new, fair history in order to seize extreme levels of control and justify their actions.
I hate using this example, but one has to look at the persecutions that both regimes conduct to understand them. Germany persecuted the Jews, stripped them of their wealth and sent them to labour camps for their perceived historical acts against the German people while the Soviet Union persecuted the Jews stripped them of their wealth and sent them to labour camps for their perceived acts against the current State.
Both philosophies committed the same act for the same reason (so the government could strip them of their wealth) but the reasoning is very different.
One is the past glories and greatness of history, while the other is past oppressions the desire to create a new history.
They can't exist together in harmony, and a regime can't go from one philosophy to the other. It's too big of an ideological divide to be bridged.
You're becoming tripped up over race issues, which a common mistake that's become endemic in our education system.
Neither national socialism nor communism depend on ethnic purity, in fact, contrarily they're designed to unite different ethnicities in under one banner.
For the Germans, you were looking at a mix of German, French, Nordic, Prussians and Pomeranians. The entire Aryan race thing is designed to forge a common history amongst a disparate people with the purpose of uniting them.
The Soviet Union faced the same issue, they had Russians, Siberians, Slavs, Muslims, Mongols, Poles, and a massive number of people whose individual differences needed to be stamped out for a future utopian (lol) nation.
These aren't what you'd call racist regimes, they're more hypersensitive to anything that could undermine the sense of harmony within the nation, which could then undermine the government.
China doesn't really repress people for racial reasons, they oppress people because they fear that their disunity could create a threat. They repress the Uigyurs because they're Islamic, not because of any racial reason. They repress the Christians for the same reason.
Communism is a dogshit philosophy, and as a dogshit philosophy it has to destroy all other philosophies because almost any other philosophy is better than communism, which is what makes them a threat to any communist government.