Why not? Who knows what Nazism is better than a Nazi? A weak argument must discredit the source because it cannot refute what the source says.
Sure it can!
And next, here's the verdict of an eminent expert researcher and one of the greatest experts on the Nazi phenomenon, the historian Alan Bullock:
"While Hitler's attitude towards liberalism was one of contempt, towards Marxism he showed an implacable hostility… Ignoring the profound differences between Communism and Social Democracy in practice and the bitter hostility between the rival working class parties, he saw in their common ideology the embodiment of all that he detested -- mass democracy and a leveling egalitarianism as opposed to the authoritarian state and the rule of an elite; equality and friendship among peoples as opposed to racial inequality and the domination of the strong; class solidarity versus national unity; internationalism versus nationalism".
Hitler’s values: radical inequality,
the fostering of a tiny elite, belief in ancestral notions of nationhood and
racial purity – were values of the far right, not the egalitarian values of socialism or liberalism. Since when do leftists speak of racial purity?
The actual socialists who emerged after Marx wanted three things -
1. Removal of classes.
2. World socialism.
3. Distribution of capital.
There was a huge gap between rich & poor in Tsarist Russia. The Bolsheviks sought to eliminate this division (yes, by violent revolt). After they succeeded, the Bolsheviks wanted to take the Revolution worldwide. Heard of 'Comintern'?
No race, no nations, only socialism.Before attaining dictatorial power Hitler allied himself with political conservatives, he had a fan club of conservatives outside Germany, he was largely funded by union-hating big business (like Ford) that saw him as the man to smash the socialists, and he was appeased internationally in part because of misguided conservatives who thought him a worthwhile ally.
Himmler, well before the Wannsee Conference, and after the "Night of the Long Knives", which eventuated the disposal of any and all left-sympathizing party members, including Ernst Roehm, about 1938, enunciated to a mass meeting of the SchutzStaffel (S.S.):
"We are of the right and of order. We shall sweep away Jews, Bolsheviks, and liberal democracies as one sweeps away flies."
Sure, the Nazis called themselves the 'National Socialists'.
It is however, a total misnomer.
It's like the World Series, or Democratic People's Republic of Korea, or 'ethics in gaming journalism'. The Nazis were fascists. Indisputably. They drew their ideology from Italy's fascists, who arose in reaction to the Left.
The Italian Right, still mired in 19th century thought, could not tackle the explosion in left-wing organization.
Mussolini gives us the first fascist platform - national/racial superiority, rearmament & expansion, and consolidation of capital.
The Italian Fascists appropriated, wholesale, Roman imagery, such as the 'fasces', to evoke renewed national pride & a sense of superiority.
The Italian Fascists sought to expand & reclaim historically Italian lands (mirroring a large portion of the old Roman Empire).
Fascist government formed corporate cartels, enriching the few.
Hitler and his Deutscher Arbeiter Partei buddies see this and decide that they need to steal support from actual socialists. So the DAP rebadged themselves as the NSDAP.
It's like adding the word "NEW!" to a product name.
