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.
The thing that you need to understand about Hitler is that he's the Stalin of National Socialism.
Lenin, Trotsky, those were the legitimately dangerous communists. Stalin though, wasn't dangerous due to his ideas, he was dangerous because he commanded loyalty, engaged in demagoguery, and was brutal to those who opposed him.
Which brings us to Mein Kampff.
I recommend everyone read Mein Kampff because it puts a real perspective on the entire affair of Nazi Germany and also leads one to discover Gustav Le Bon (probably one of the greatest thinkers you've ever read.)
If I were to say one thing about Hitler, it's that the man could not write and the book is so bitter that one might think it to have been written by some indoctrinated Anti-Fa dumbass.
An Encounter with a Viennese Jew, as a chapter is particularly damning when given a modern context. Imagine watching a video where a millennial explains how he moved to Toronto to live on government benefits and his single mother's savings, only to get reject by OCAD twice, then return home in shame and blame the entire thing on being disgusted by some minority with whom he had a few conversations.
Hitler was an Austro-Hungarian who lived in a border region and Austro-Hungary was a dying empire made up of tons of disparate people, formed into a turbulent empire. The entire Ubermenschen-Untermenschen thing has to do with the fractitious Balkan Kingdoms.
All the "aryan race" bullshit was simply an attempt to pull an empire of disparate people together under some element of commonality with a common enemy.
You can't research this shit on wikipedia. It's a terrible source for this information and it's been polluted by idealogues.
The thing that you need to understand about China in 1948 is that it was made up of multiple regions who neither saw each other as being racially the same, nor did they speak the same language, and nor did they see themselves as being the same people. Han-Chinese as an ethnicity is a communist invention. It isn't about being of an ethnicity or race, it's about swearing that you are a part of an ethnicity or race.
As for weather true National Socialism has every actually been tried, I'd argue that it has and that it's been successful in a few places.
Notably, Canada. When the government was promoting Canadians heavily as a people they were exceptionally successful at integrating people and giving them a common culture and the strong federalism that is required in such a massive country made us uncommonly suited for the system.
It was only once we started doing the "diversity is our strength" bullshit that we crossed the line into international socialism and that system certainly does not work.
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.
The thing that you need to understand about Hitler is that he's the Stalin of National Socialism.
Lenin, Trotsky, those were the legitimately dangerous communists. Stalin though, wasn't dangerous due to his ideas, he was dangerous because he commanded loyalty, engaged in demagoguery, and was brutal to those who opposed him.
Which brings us to Mein Kampff.
I recommend everyone read Mein Kampff because it puts a real perspective on the entire affair of Nazi Germany and also leads one to discover Gustav Le Bon (probably one of the greatest thinkers you've ever read.)
If I were to say one thing about Hitler, it's that the man could not write and the book is so bitter that one might think it to have been written by some indoctrinated Anti-Fa dumbass.
An Encounter with a Viennese Jew, as a chapter is particularly damning when given a modern context. Imagine watching a video where a millennial explains how he moved to Toronto to live on government benefits and his single mother's savings, only to get reject by OCAD twice, then return home in shame and blame the entire thing on being disgusted by some minority with whom he had a few conversations.
Hitler was an Austro-Hungarian who lived in a border region and Austro-Hungary was a dying empire made up of tons of disparate people, formed into a turbulent empire. The entire Ubermenschen-Untermenschen thing has to do with the fractitious Balkan Kingdoms.
All the "aryan race" bullshit was simply an attempt to pull an empire of disparate people together under some element of commonality with a common enemy.
You can't research this shit on wikipedia. It's a terrible source for this information and it's been polluted by idealogues.
The thing that you need to understand about China in 1948 is that it was made up of multiple regions who neither saw each other as being racially the same, nor did they speak the same language, and nor did they see themselves as being the same people. Han-Chinese as an ethnicity is a communist invention. It isn't about being of an ethnicity or race, it's about swearing that you are a part of an ethnicity or race.
As for weather true National Socialism has every actually been tried, I'd argue that it has and that it's been successful in a few places.
Notably, Canada. When the government was promoting Canadians heavily as a people they were exceptionally successful at integrating people and giving them a common culture and the strong federalism that is required in such a massive country made us uncommonly suited for the system.
It was only once we started doing the "diversity is our strength" bullshit that we crossed the line into international socialism and that system certainly does not work.