“National Socialism” or Nationalsocialism?

“National Socialism” or Nationalsocialism?

Elsewhere a poster by the name of Tester has been said, ‘I advise against using the English “National Socialism” as a translation of the German “Nationalsozialismus”. The reason is that NS is not a nationalist Socialism, as this English translation would lead you to believe, but a new concept entirely. In the words of Alfred Rosenberg, in the Völkischer Beobachter of the 1st of September 1923 titled “Nationaler Sozialismus oder Nationalsozialismus?”‘…

“The word Nationalsocialism, as a noun, represents a new synthesis that emphasizes the inseparability of two concepts, while the term national Socialism actually means or could mean national Marxism.”

– Dr. Alfred Rosenberg, “Nationaler Sozialismus oder Nationalsozialismus?” (“National Socialism or Nationalsocialism?”), Völkischer Beobachter, September 1st 1923 [Original German: “Das Wort Nationalsozialismus stellt als Hauptwort eine neue Synthese dar, die die Untrennbarkeit zweier Begriffe betont, während die Bezeichnung nationaler Sozialismus in Wirklichkeit nationaler Marxismus bedeutet oder bedeuten könnte.”]

See also the article, We Are National Socialists, Not Nazis.

Later a interesting conversation developed on this topic:

Ed has been said:

“I admit that as an English speaker I spell it in two words — National Socialism. It doesn’t look right in English to put them together into one word.

We tend not to put words together in English, but I do find it fascinating that the German language always puts words together.”

Tester:

“German puts words together when it is supposed to be understood as one thing.

For example: “Schwarzmarkt” (black market)

You know what it means. It does not describe a market that is black. If the market had the color black (whatever that would look like) you would say “schwarzer Markt.” The fact that it is one word, tells us that the whole is greater than its parts. Just like a “Papiertiger” (paper tiger) isn’t an actual tiger made out of paper.

Same with “Nationalsozialismus.” Its one word, meaning that its not supposed to be a national Socialism. If it was, it would be “nationaler Sozialismus.”

Of course English doesn’t do that, but in this case it has the disadvantage of people assuming that “National” is just an adjective.”

MK:

“Its hard to explain in English but for example in Croatia we have term “Nacional(ni) Socijalizam” and “Narodni Socijalizam”

“Nacionalni socijalizam” would be nationalsocialism “Nationalsozialismus” and “nardoni socijalizam” would be “nationaler Sozialismus”.

Also i have Ustaše books of that era and for NS they mention few versions of name of NS.”

Tester:

“Yes, English doesn’t have that differentiation. Whether the “National” is separate or part of a greater word, its always just “National.”

Arthur:

“Clearly it’s important, as this seemingly ‘semantic’ issue leads to a lot of confusion.”

MK:

“Imo that is intellectual sperg.

There are much greater thing, problems and questions we need to solve than just a name.

I honestly dont care if someone calls me a nazi/neonazi, neofascist, neoustaša, white supremacist/nationalist etc.

Labels arent of big importance, only deeds and things we do.”

Arthur:

“That’s a reckless mentality. I couldn’t disagree more with it.

There are many problems with this.

First of all, the separation of the words ‘National Socialism’ leads to ideological and political confusion among those who consider themselves Nationalsocialists but have no real idea what that means, and it allows the enemy who can redefine what being a Nationalsocialist means to their advantage. Both problems occur as a result of this poorly translated phrase. To counter this, by encouraging the correct spelling, it cements in peoples mind what the word means, and discourages people from taking wilful liberties with it. This helps us because it’s harder to misrepresent our worldview.

Second. You should care what people call you, otherwise you allow your enemies to frame you in any way they want.

You might not realise it, but this has very serious repercussions.

There is a real world example which I won’t name in order to avoid potential discord, but I will explain it like this: If you allow your enemy to define you with their adjectives, and you take it upon yourself, you allow them to infiltrate you because they’d call you that anyway, and they want to call you what it is they invent. Strict rules of identification allow you to be just a bit more impregnable to subversion. It isn’t a strength to simply say “I don’t care”, although it seems like it.

Not caring – you probably think – takes away the power from your enemy, when in reality their power increases because they also hold the power of persuasion over everyone else. You’re only doing them a favour in the end.”

MK:

“I agree 100% but also im not 100% sure if that will be the factor that will lead us to endsieg.

We need to become militant in order to maintain peace and remove anti-white terror, yet we need to be smart to see manipulative dark forces and infiltrators.”

Arthur:

“Of course it won’t, and that’s not the point. Does shining your shoes lead to victory? No. Does being pedantic with your uniform? No. Not one singe thing leads anyone to victory, it is the culmination of many things great and small which do this and instill discipline and higher moral value in a people. On their own some things may seem pointless, but in the larger picture it’s a contributing factor. The negation of “small” seemingly insignificant things is what allows a snowball to turn into an avalanche.”

In response to “German puts words together when it is supposed to be understood as one thing.” Ed states:

“This is fascinating, because I never knew that was the reason until now. I guess I always assumed it was just the style of the German language.”

Tester:

“Yeah, they are called “compound words.”

water bottle = Wasserflasche

apple juice = Apfelsaft

washing machine = Waschmaschine”