Tag Archives: Bolshevism

Hitler’s Twisted Vision of a “Judeo-Bolshevik Enemy”

6 May

In The Wages of Destruction, Adam Tooze argues that Nazism can only be understood as an ideology that was the product of a “society in transition” from a relatively agricultural and “backward” country into an industrialized European power.  Hitler and the Nazis sought the ability to colonize its neighbors and alter “the European distribution of land, resources, and population” under Nazi control (196).  In order to build the Nazi empire, Hitler relied on intensive mobilization and coercion to mass all possible resources to rearm Germany and then launch overwhelming attacks on several fronts.  According to Tooze, the ideology of German racial superiority and the autarkic nature of the Nazi economy were not just wild ideas, but a serious reality that Hitler and his followers strived to achieve.  Much of Hitler’s racial angst was directed towards the Soviet Union, were both Jewish, Slavic, and other populations soon became victims of Hitler’s racial war of annihilation.

While the U.S. was a growing threat constantly on Hitler’s mind, a threat that was closer to home and immediately undermined his domination of Europe was the Soviet Union.  Moreover, Hitler specifically referred to the Soviet Union as a “ruthless Judeo-Bolshevik enemy,” thus combining his anti-Semitism with anti-Communism.  The marriage of anti-Semitism and anti-Bolshevism was not unique to Hitler, but he was certainly the most extreme example.  In fact, Hitler believed in an international Jewish conspiracy that bankrolled not only the “Bolshevik dictatorship,” but also Washington and London.[1]  One irony in Hitler’s abhorrence of Bolshevism was the fact that both ideologies were “undoubtedly collectivist at their core.”  After all Stalin and Hitler were both concerned with the industrialization of largely peasant societies, and both shared affinities for aspects of modernity such as Fordist production lines.  However, Hitler had no problem contrasting his vision of a superior German racial community with the “Bolshevik cult of primitivism.”[2]

Not surprisingly Hitler found plenty of time in Mein Kampf for rants against his “Judeo-Bolshevik” enemy.  Tooze eloquently summed up Hitler’s view on the Historical significance as follows:

“The essence of politics was ‘the historical struggle of nations for life’.  This had manifested itself in a succession of major clashed: Christianity and the barbarian invasion, the rise of Islam, the Reformation.  The French Revolution marked the beginning of the modern era.  Ever since, the world had been moving ‘with ever increasing speed towards a new conflict, the most extreme solution of which is Bolshevism; and the essence and goal of Bolshevism is the elimination of those strata of mankind which have hitherto provided the leadership and their replacement by worldwide Jewry’.  Compromise was impossible: ‘ A victory of Bolshevism over Germany would lead not to a Versailles Treaty, but to the final destruction , indeed to the annihilation of the German people.”[3]

With such a radical and racist view of international history, Hitler’s war plans soon had the explicit goal of preventing the “Bolshevization” of the earth by annihilating of the Jewish race in Europe.  Furthermore, Hitler not only believed in an external Bolshevik threat, but his rise to power in Germany itself was to a large extent the defeat of German communists and “agrarian Bolsheviks” who were competing with nationalists in proposing solutions to peasant discontent, land reform, and other economic ills.

In sum, the fact that he applied the term Bolshevik to both internal and external enemies is indicative of the concept’s rhetorical potency during the interwar years.  It is also worth noting that Stalin shared an equally antagonistic view of Nazi fascism and that the battle between these two ideologies was one of the major factors in the terrible methods and outcomes of the Second World War, particularly the horrific destruction of European Jewry and Slavic populations.

Further Reading:

Hirsch, Francine. Empire of Nations: Ethnographic Knowledge and the Making of the Soviet Union. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University, 2005. (For great comparisons of Bolshevik and Nazi ideologies surrounding nationalism and race)

Hitler, Adolf.  “Adolf Hitler Warns the World of the Menace of Bolshevism: Main Part of the Fuhrer’s Closing Speech, 1930’s.” A book of primary sources found in the Harry Ransom Center Book Collection.  Call no. HRCMIN 18016 BW 12.

Hitler, Adolf.  Mein Kampf.  Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1999.

Tooze, Adam.  The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy.  New York: Penguin, 2007.

Waddington, Lorna Louise. Hitler’s Crusade: Bolshevism and the Myth of the International Jewish Conspiracy. New York: Tauris Academic Studies/ St. Martins Press, 2007.

[1] Tooze, 8-12.

[2] Ibid. 135.

[3] Ibid., 220.

How did Fordism and Bolshevism interact?

13 Apr

How did Fordism and Bolshevism interact?


       While Henry Ford’s disdain for Bolshevism and communism has been well document by Greg Grandin and other historians, I hope this post will initiate some comparisons between the industrialization and cultural paternalism undertaken by the very different systems.   In Fordlandia, Grandin dubs Ford’s social and economic engineering project “Fordism,” best defined as a “kind of holism, where the extraction and processing of raw materials, integrated assembly lines, working class populations, and consumer markets created vibrant economies and robust middle classes.”[1] Mixed into Ford’s practical goals was an odd mix of internationalism, anti-Semitism, nativism, passivism, progressive equality, and various personal vendettas against the Jazz Age and cows.  While capitalist consumerism was certainly not a Bolshevik goal, the all-encompassing Fordist project in Brazil at times seems eerily similar to Stephen Kotkin’s study of Stalin’s attempt to create a new “Soviet Man” and a steel industry on the desolate Russian steppe in Magnetic Mountain. Interestingly enough, Lenin and Trotsky both admired Ford’s industrial progress because, as Marxists, a quick and efficient capitalist stage was a positive step towards reaching communism.  In addition, Ford’s impressive manufacturing model would be replicated during Stalin’s time, as the dictator brought in Western specialists to help organize Soviet industry.

Furthermore, the ideological divide between Bolshevism and the capitalist West did not stop Ford Motor Company from doing business with the USSR and helping establish the Soviet automotive industry by building a factory in Nizhni-Novgorod as agreed upon in a 1929 contract.  For Ford, his capitalist machine was a way to combat Bolshevism by displaying capitalist prowess and he even provided executives and engineers for the Soviet factory project.  In fact, the extent to which Western corporations participated in providing technological assistance to the Stalinist regime is only now being thoroughly researched by historians.  Also notable is the fact that, despite the apparent problems and Western help, the Soviets were keen on presenting their progress to the West.  Much of that exposure came through a journal titled SSSR na sroike (USSR in Construction).  As illuminated by Erika Wolf, this journal had a wide readership, from George Bernard Shaw to Henry Ford’s son Edsel.  Not only did Edsel request a subscription to the journal, he was even kind enough to give it a positive review. By contrast, several other Western capitalists lambasted the journal’s ideological tinge.[2]  In sum, although the two “isms” certainly contained irreconcilable ideological differences, the emphasis both Bolshevism and Fordism placed on industrialization led to some fruitful and ironic interaction.

Further Reading:

Douglas Brinkley, Wheels for the World (Penguin 2004).

Greg Grandin, Fordlandia: The Rise and Fall of Henry Ford’s Forgotten Jungle City (New York, Picador 2009).

Stephen Kotkin, Magnetic Mountain: Stalinism as a Civilization (Berkeley, University of California Press 1997).

Erika Wolf, “When Photographs Speak, To Whom Do They Talk? The Origins and Audience of SSSR na stroike (USSR in Construction), Left History, Vol 6, No 2 (1999) 53-82.

[1] Grandin, 357

[2] Wolf, 64.