Early history of Nazism, fascism and other far right movements in Germany and Austria, until 1934

[The Great Duck]

A few months ago I looked up Austrian Nazism on Wikipedia - looking for info on the Austrian branch of NSDAP - Seyß-Inquart & co., that is.
To my surprise, the actual article talks about an earlier far right movement with its roots reaching as early as 1893, with German Worker's Party of Austria, a party espousing far right views, ultranationalism, pan-Germanism and anti-semitism forming in 1903 - 16 years before the party of the same name that would later transform into NSDAP formed in Germany. In 1918 the party changed its name to German National-Socialist Workers' Party - two years before NSDAP formed.

Then, looking up elections in Weimar Germany in the early 20s, I found out there were two other parties similar to (NS)DAP at the time - the German Social Party and German Socialist Party - both adhering to far-right, ultranationalist and anti-semitic ideologies while using left-wing and socialist sounding names. There was also another German Social Party formed in the late 19th century during the imperial era, and it was also anti-semitic and racist. OTOH, Hitler allegedly tried to join the German Socialist Party, but was refused, while Julius Streicher used to be a member. Streicher apparently allied with the Völkisch Work Community, another far right organisation led by a certain Otto Dickel, and the parties even seem to have attempted a merger while Drexler was still in charge of the NSDAP, but this was opposed by Hitler.

Then during the period while Hitler was in prison, the NSDAP was replaced by several splinter groups, which included the NSFB, or the National-Socialist Freedom Movement, led by Albrecht von Gräfe, who was allegedly seen as a possible major rival to Hitler.

Lastly, looking at the July 1932 elections, I see there was a bunch of minor parties using the National-Socialist name that contested that election.

So I was wondering if anyone here knew something more about the relations between all these parties and movements? Like, how much did the pre-1918 parties influence the far right that rose after WW1? Has Nazism actually been around since the late 19th century, with Hitler just popularizing the ideology? And what's up with the tendency to use left-wing sounding terms, like "social(ist)" or "work(ers')" in their names?
Were there any significant ideological differences between all these far right parties? Was there anything in Germany at the time that would be more similar to Italian fascism than Nazism?
Other than Streicher, were there any other significant figures who used to belong to any of the more obscure parties?

And what's up with all these NS parties in the '32 election? Were those factions that split from NSDAP? Nazi satellite parties formed to attract additional votes? Satellite parties of Nazi rivals formed to split the nazi votes? Just people trying to capitalize on the popularity of Nazism at the time? Or something entirely different?

Also, if anyone can recommend any good books, articles, websites or documentaries with more info on these subjects - those would be highly appreciated.

 

[Sarmatia1871]

There are lots of extreme German nationalist organizations in both Germany and Austria from the latter part of the nineteenth century that - looking backwards - you can identify as laying the ideological and organizational groundwork for interwar fascist and Nazi movements. Some of these are politically organized (there are a whole load of "Anti-Semitic" deputies in the German Reichstag, for example), but most of them are in extra-parliamentary leagues, pressure groups, and cultural organizations. This gets called the Völkische Bewegung in German (there's not really a good translation, but "folkish/people's movement" sort-of covers it) and there's quite a lot written about it, although mainly in German. I think George Mosse's Towards the Final Solution and The Crisis of German Ideology have a fair amount on it (as well as equivalent trends in other countries).

They often use socialist-sounding language, because (1) they are often opposed to traditional German right-wing politics, which is based around old aristocratic and religious hierarchies, (2) the word "Volk" ("people") can have both socialist and nationalist connotations in this period depending on the context, (3) lots of pre-1914 anti-Semites see Jews controlling exploitative capitalism and banking systems ("Workers" in this context invariably means "Ethnic German Workers" against "Jewish or Foreign exploiters"), and (4) lots of extreme right-wing ideology in this period goes in for collectivist or communitarian economic policies.

 

[diegosimeone]

Fascim and Nazism are vastly different. They shouldn't be grouped together just because Mussolini and Hitler allied eachother.

The major similarity is that they're both socialist byproducts and focus a lot on nationalism.
Nationalism itself is not fascism. Socialism itself is obviously not fascism. It's mostly leftists that want to connect anything that has to do with nationalism as 'fascist', Nazism included, just because not doing so leaves room for anyone else to call anything socialist as 'fascist'. And as in most cases, leftists have 'corrected' the dictionaries around the world since WW2.

 

[HuzzButt]

There's a wealth of articles on appropriation of Leftwing vocabulary, attributes (clothes, hair) and narratives. It's largely a one way exchange: the far right produces very little new or interesting, with some obvious exceptions. The use of the word worker ought to be put in this light, the far right hijacks the lefts social dichotomy by equating worker with belonging to the nation as opposed to cosmopolitan jewry. The dichotomy isn't formative to actual political aspirations, it merely served to appropriate an existing narrative.

My goto source is Nordisk Familjebok for its very contemporary perspectives. @diegosimeone argues that Fascism and National Socialism shares a genesis in Socialism or that they are in fact socialist. But as noted by OP, already divergent progenitors to fascism and nationalsocialism existed at the time of the Social Democratic formation in the latter half of the 19th century (Social Democracy itself being the similar conclusion of different scools: Free Churches, temperance movements, Marxists; all found in opposition to fascism and National Socialism). Looking for the early history Fascism and Nazism is best done in art history, specifically concering the arts and crafts movement and other revivalist movements. Not that the movements themselves were representative of either idea but because the starting point in understanding both is the almost atomist search for a true representation.

 

[diegosimeone]

I said they are by products of socialism, not that they are branches of it. They are different, but there are more things in common with socialism than say liberalism. But not to the extent that you can call it part of socialism of course.

Arguably, there have always been three dominant political spectrums at any given time, everywhere. Two of them were more dominant and the other was let's say, dormant or a small minority.

During WW1 we had Monarchism, Socialism and Liberalism.
An example for this is Greece. The monarchists and the liberals were mostly nationalist. The socialists were not. But they sided with either party, during the same election, depending on location and other things. (For those who are not aware, Greece had a Civil War in 1915 and was split into two, almost officially).

In Europe, Socialism started to gain momentum after the Great War ended. You had the revolution in Russia, Germany was under socialist control with the so called Weimar Republic. The rest of Europe followed after the Soviets ended up on the winning side of WW2. Then you had the destruction of monarchism (and/or a fusion of liberalists and monarchists in some places) and all you had was liberalism and socialism. Post-WW2 fascism was almost non-existent, at least in the major powers.

As for Fascism, during that Interwar period, it was a 4th wheel. It took elements from all three in order to gain momentum. It was a weird construction. More socialist than liberal, yet more liberal than socialist. More monarchist than socialist, yet more socialist than monarchist. More monarchist than liberal, yet more liberal than monarchist. It depends on what you were looking at. If you looked at it with a political science eye, you'd be confused and think it was a schizofrenic ideology or political power. Classification of fascism is not easy, but you have to decide/accept which elements made it tick. You had collectivism (socialism), corporatism (I'd say oligarchism/monarchism is best suited, but one can argue crony capitalism as well), nationalism (at that point, it wasn't a taboo and it was common for almost all politcal parties to be nationalistic, except the internationalistic socialists) and militarism (this can be argued for a lot of things, such as imperialism, monarchism etc). It was also obvious that fascism was at odds with classic liberalism and internationalism. Most socialist parties were internationalist, so that's why there's this misconception that "fascism hates socialists, therefore it cannot have socialist characteristics". If anything, history has shown us that those who shared an ideology core, especially socialists, tend to argue with eachother more than with the rest. It just doesn't get bloody as often.

As monarchy died out, we've had a new third spectrum, where fascism pretty much lies. One that has been dormant for ages. We still call this Populism. Another word that existed in the political world, but took on a much different meaning. Or did it? Maybe it was just not in use because the political systems in place did not allow for it to exist.
Arguably, fascism is just another populist construct. Just like nazism is a populist construct. There were many populist movements, doesn't mean they were all the same. Just like liberalism can mean something completely different in France than in Japan.

Just like in Greece, SYRIZA and Golden Dawn are both populist parties. Both advocate for (underground) violence, one sides with anarchists and the other with, well, themselves. Sure, SYRIZA is far-left and GD is far-right, but that's exactly the point. You cannot really distinguish anything with left and right, when populism is involved. And populism is essentially the promise of a more social state, which is also what socialism argues. Now, populism is not socialism and socialism is not populism. Monarchists are also populists, probably even more. The voting pool is essentially the same group. And people need to stop saying that socialism can only be internationalist. It's just prevailing. And due to this, left wing populists will go with modern socialist/communist parties, while right wing populists will go with far-right or monarchy loving parties. But they're too big to be ignored anymore and I think they are the 3rd wheel now in the international Liberalism vs Socialism politcal duel. [An American may get confused here as he may think that Liberals and Socialists are part of the same group, but I'm talking about classical liberalism here and its European epigones]

 

[Arilou]

Fascism (or proto-fascism) can't really be called a product of socialism simply becuase they are largely contemporary: They grow out of the same mileu of late 19th-century capitalism and the crisis of both "traditional society" (whatever that means) and liberal capitalism.

 

[Geriander]

I would use ”reaction to” rather than ”product of” when discussing the relationship of fascism and socialism. Some of the methods and rethoric of the left were appropriated to achieve other goals.

 

[diegosimeone]

Fascism (or proto-fascism) can't really be called a product of socialism simply becuase they are largely contemporary: They grow out of the same mileu of late 19th-century capitalism and the crisis of both "traditional society" (whatever that means) and liberal capitalism.

Fascism was born in the early 20th century, in Italy. By socialists who didn't appreciate the international stand of the existiing socialist parties and the status quo.

German 'national socialism' (aka nazism) is not fascism and it was born earlier than it, as the initial post of this thread suggests.

 

[HuzzButt]

Fascism was born in the early 20th century, in Italy. By socialists who didn't appreciate the international stand of the existiing socialist parties and the status quo.

German 'national socialism' (aka nazism) is not fascism and it was born earlier than it, as the initial post of this thread suggests.

Being founded by disgruntled socialists doesn't make Fascism a product of socialism. The 'ideology' draws from several often opposing ideologies and motifs. Although I suspect it's in large part an after construct, the disgruntled socialists cobbled together an ideology that pandered their middle class sensibilities.

 

[diegosimeone]

Being founded by disgruntled socialists doesn't make Fascism a product of socialism. The 'ideology' draws from several often opposing ideologies and motifs. Although I suspect it's in large part an after construct, the disgruntled socialists cobbled together an ideology that pandered their middle class sensibilities.

I said byproduct, not product. I even made a rather long post just before, pretty much confirming your position.

 

[Emperor_Constantine]

Fascim and Nazism are vastly different. They shouldn't be grouped together just because Mussolini and Hitler allied eachother.

The major similarity is that they're both socialist byproducts and focus a lot on nationalism.
Nationalism itself is not fascism. Socialism itself is obviously not fascism. It's mostly leftists that want to connect anything that has to do with nationalism as 'fascist', Nazism included, just because not doing so leaves room for anyone else to call anything socialist as 'fascist'. And as in most cases, leftists have 'corrected' the dictionaries around the world since WW2.

Fascism and Nazism are descended from yellow fascism they split from red socialism for their desire to use the old hierarchy as a vehicle rather than as an enemy when it came to capitalism

 

[Geriander]

Fascism and Nazism are descended from yellow fascism they split from red socialism for their desire to use the old hierarchy as a vehicle rather than as an enemy when it came to capitalism

Do you mean yellow socialism? Yellow fascism doesn’t seem to be an established term.

 

[Emperor_Constantine]

Yellow socialism means state control rather then the state seizure of red socialism. Yellow socialists were also more nationalistic and many supported ww1

 

[Geriander]

Yellow socialism means state control rather then the state seizure of red socialism. Yellow socialists were also more nationalistic and many supported ww1

It is also associated with anti-semitism but it doesn’t pre-date the far-right groups mentioned in the OP.