Nietzsche and the Nazis

by Stephen R.C. Hicks, Christopher Vaughan (Illustrator)

Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) is famous for his statement that God is dead and his provocative account of Master and Slave moralities and for the fact that Adolf Hitler and the Nazis claimed that Nietzsche was one of their great inspirations. Were the Nazis right to do so or did they misappropriate Nietzsche's philosophy? In this book, based on the 2006 documentary, Professor Stephen Hicks asks and answers the following questions: * What were the key elements of Hitler and the National Socialists' political philosophy? * How did the Nazis come to power in a nation as educated and civilized as Germany? * What was Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophy the philosophy of "Live dangerously" and "That which does not kill us makes us stronger"? * And to what extent did Nietzsche's philosophy provide a foundation for the horrors perpetrated by the Nazis?

Genres: Philosophy, History, Nonfiction, Politics, Audiobook, World War II, Germany

172 pages, Hardcover

First published July 29, 2010

About the author

Stephen R.C. Hicks is Professor of Philosophy at Rockford University, Illinois, USA, Executive Director of the Center for Ethics and Entrepreneurship, and Senior Scholar at The Atlas Society.

Reviews

[Ken · Rating 5 out of 5]

Nietzsche and the Nazis, Stephen R Hicks, books store and transmit ideas through time. The ideological and philosophical roots of Nazism, how his ideas were used or remade to fit and then direct, Nazi doctrines and actions. Nazis were not unique for their industrial size scale of millions of deaths, but they were unique in what follows, at the time by the most highly educated, hardest working industrious and developed country, with the most Professors, students, Universities and the highest literate group of people on the entire planet, that's a staggering fact, let that sink in for a moment. Then let's imagine a guy you know, works hard, loves his family, has a quirky sense of humor, then middle of the night is taken bundled into a cattle car, stripped naked, experimented on without anesthesia, starved half to death, gassed, thrown in an oven and burned to cinders, then replay these millions and millions of times but include racially different children and women. Unbelievable but true as the Sun is in the sky, this is what made the Nazis unique. This is an introduction, reminder to refresh the memory banks, that makes me sit up and shut up, racism is a really bad idea. But the world has come through tougher and stronger to weed out these insidiously evil belief systems, its still a work in progress, we really only have the U.N and its processes, that appear complex, complicated, difficult and incomprehensible but I would take this way any day over the alternative. We must question it, sometimes even rock the boat, kick up a stink, its everyone's duty to stamp out racism in your community, among your friends, among your family. Lest we forget this story, it’s for a stronger safer future, it’s our only single island planet in the blackness of space, an audio book found on YouTube.

[Mahmoud Awad · Rating 1 out of 5]

"Sec­ond, the Nazis re­ject cos­mopoli­tanism, an ideal of West­ern lib­er­als who be­lieve that all hu­mans are es­sen­tially the same wher­ever one trav­els in the world, and who be­lieve that one should strive to be a cit­i­zen of the world, some­one who can be at home any­where."
Alright, so far so good--
"These themes ex­plain the de­sign of the Nazis’ swastika flag, as a sym­bolic in­te­gra­tion of the so­cial­ism and the na­tion­al­ism. Red is sym­bolic of so­cial­ism, white is sym­bolic of na­tion­al­ism, and the swastika is, ac­cord­ing to Hitler, rep­re­sen­ta­tive of the Aryan strug­gle for racial and cul­tural su­premacy against those who are try­ing to de­stroy the Ger­mans."

As if his paper-thin Objectivist narrative wasn't bad enough, the man attempting a scholarly work on German history and philosophy can't even identify basic Prussian iconography. Don't waste your time.

[C.A. · Rating 5 out of 5]

WE THE PEOPLE are the greatest impediment to World Domination....

I learned a ton about the history of the Nazi movement. It's basically not what any of us thought. Propaganda is only the beginning. Quite interesting actually. The parallels to today's societal pressure, forcing medical procedures / vaccinations on everyday citizens is truly stunning:

Silencing the opposition. Complete control of the media. Weaponizing the human thought process.

We already fought a World War to prevent this kind of barbarism....

The Nuremberg trials determined that forced medical experimentation is cruel and wrong.

Yet.... The psychological warfare perpetuated against the populace today has them lining up to be experimented on... The Nazi's are alive and well in America... The gas chambers have closed but the genocide continues. You may not see it. You may not feel it.... The subject has been deliberately relegated to the grey area. The purpose, cloaked in a guise of righteousness. The water muddied. But...

One thing remains painfully clear, When we fail to Question Authority we become unworthy of Freedom.

C.A. Tedeschi

[Mahdi · Rating 3 out of 5]

The book presents good and comprehensive introduction to both Nazism and Nietzsche, but fails, to some extent, to draw its conclusion. Indeed there are some similarities between Nietzsche philosophy and Nazism policies, but no clear explanation was provided to show how these philosophy have put to practice. However, I love Stephen R. C. Hicks's works and lecture (on Youtube) for postmodernism.

[Brice Karickhoff · Rating 5 out of 5]

Well I read a lot of Marx and a lot about Marx before and during my read of the Gulag Archipelago because Marx preceded Lenin and Stalin by a couple generations and they claimed he was their inspiration. So it only makes sense that I’d lend Nietzsche the same attention as I read a history of the Nazi regime.

This book was clear, concise, and convincing. Maybe the author was a little too quick to discredit the non-philosophical causes of the rise of the National Socialist party, but honestly I’m fine with that. I’ve read a lot of authors lately who attribute 0% of history to the philosophy of prior generations, and explain everything that ever happened through the lens of economic and political struggle, SO this book was a refreshing swing in the other direction. Sure the American colonists were taxed unfairly and the French revolutionaries were victims of a massive wealth gap, but if it weren’t for Locke, Paine, and Rousseau, things could’ve gone very differently. The same can be said for Marx and Nietzsche, whose philosophies lead to >100 million deaths. I once read “history is just philosophy with examples”. I don’t think that quote is 100% true, but it sure does matter what people think - eventually it determines what they’ll do.

[Armin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Mit den vielfältigen Facetten vertrauten Nietzscheanern wird diese Darstellung ebenso ein Greuel sein wie Hitler- oder Drittreich-Experten, denen jedes Detail im Alltagsleben dieser Diktatur ein Zeuge gegen gewisse Pauschalisierungen ist.
Es bleiben bei diesem simplifizierenden Ansatz einfach zu viele Details und Facetten unberücksichtigt als dass man manchmal nicht laut aufschreien möchte.
Ich gehöre leider, immer mal wieder zu den Leuten, die vor lauter Bäumen den Wald nicht sehen oder auch umgekehrt. Bislang sah ich daher eher die Unterschiede zwischen dem individualistischen Denker und dem Nazi-Kolletivismus. Cum grano salis arbeitet Hicks hervorragend jene Teile von Nietzsches Lehre heraus, die von Hitler und seinen Gefolgsleuten gründlich missverstanden wurden, aber auch bezeichnende Differenzen. Gerade in Sachen Antisemitismus.
Im Subtext ist die Analyse auch eine Warnung vor den totalitaristischen Tendenzen von aktuell praktizierten Herrschaftsformen. Die Beschreibung der von Nietzsche propagierten Eliten könnte auch auf die WEF-Truppe passen, auch wenn die Superreichen um Schwab und Co eine Art von Kommunismus für die Masse propagieren.

[Evan · Rating 3 out of 5]

While much of this book is good, and the overall message was much more balanced than other treatments, many of the author's points are flat out wrong. The Nazis were NOT socialists, despite what their name might have said. The existence of early documentation that had a socialist sounding platform was intentional as has been conclusively shown elsewhere.

[Michael Lowe · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'm reviewing Nietzsche and the Nazis quite some time after reading but the ideas have stuck in my mind nonetheless.

I've had a fascination with Nietzsche ever since I came across a text of aphorisms. I am by no means an expert on Nietzsche. In fact, most of his ideas are so densely referenced to other philosophical texts that I can barely decipher them but one thing that compels me to him and his ideas is that every line of his writing can be turned over and interpreted over days, weeks and months with no firm footing. It is this unsettling quality of Nietzsche to cut right to the heart of life that excites me about his work.

Nevertheless, I have been concerned about his ties to the Nazis, or largely liberal philosophy's attempts to untangle those links by blaming any such association on his sister. Whilst his sister undoubtedly altered a great deal of his work and influenced how he was interpreted in both Weimar and Nazi Germany, I feel that the desperate attempt to not be seen as a Nazi just for reading Nietzsche has caused a grotesque fear of seriously challenging his oeuvre.

In this book, the author succinctly and fairly points to how Nietzsche's beliefs are not strongly fascist but do contain much philosophical thought that can be interpreted as fascist leaning at least in our contemporary worldview. There are two examples from both ends of the spectrum that the author points to in order to give credence to his thoughts.

Firstly, as the Nazis believed in moral relativism, the author points to an extract of Nietzsche's thought that posits great people do not adhere to weak, herd like Christian morality. To summarise Nietzsche, one can not judge the morality of a wolf by the morality of the lamb. This is clear moral relativism and perhaps something the Nazis used to assuage their guilt for their crimes but it does not mean Nietzsche himself was a fascist. He, like many philosophers, liked to challenge long held notions and what bigger iconoclasm is there in the West than challenging the basic moral tenets of Christianity?

In opposition to fascist links, the author posits that many interpretations of Nietzsche linking him to a belief in a Germanic racial übermensch are based on misreadings. In one passage Nietzsche references 'blond beasts', a line often interpreted to refer to the strength of Northern Europeans but, as the author states, this is more likely refers to lions. Additionally, Nietzsche disavowed anti semitism and famously, criticised Wagner's anti Semitic beliefs.

All in all, this book is a fascinating overview of Nietzsche's writings through the scope of the fascism that would later destroy Europe. Was Nietzsche fascist? I fear those that believe he was are reading history backwards. Should we be wary of taking all of Nietzsche's ideas literally? Absolutely. Any idea taken literally and without critique is dangerous, many passages from the Old Testament would be awful if taken and practised literally. The Nazis did draw upon some of his ideas but many were done so without rigorous interpretation. The idea of the übermensch isn't that of a superior race, but rather Nietzsche hoped man could overcome god by himself being better and that a 'superman' could come and show the average person how to live a life free of fear and time wasting. The superman is the person who challenges the eternal return and ensures a life lived without regret.

Nietzsche's links to fascist thought are tangled and can't be wholly denied. Rather his thoughts should be treated carefully - but treated they shall be.

[Michael K. · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent book, to say the very least! There is so much symbolism contained within, between the NAZI beliefs and Nietzsche's mind. Everything comes down to collectivism, socialism, & nationalism, all of which are the base of the evils of the world that must be overcome. All enemies are international capitalists, communists/socialists & Jews; and yet the NAZIs but a steppingstone away from communist ideologies. The color meanings behind the flag of the Third Reich were this: red=socialism, white=nationalism, swastika=Arian struggle...hmmmmmmmm...

Nieztsche blamed the western religious Christianity on the slavery mindset & morality. Master & slave, those who have & not have. Being humble to God & His Representatives, thereby maintaining the status of the slave. Religion used as a weapon against the wealthy for them to give more of their wealth. Revenge strategy for the weak to overcome the rich & powerful. Nature requires slavery in some sense. The NAZIs saw Nieztsche as an intellectual ally. Nieztsche saw no race any better than another which put him at odds with the ideology of the NAZI regime which believed they were the superior race.

Nieztsche condemns Christianity because they could only truly find their God after He was purposely crucified, which is corruptible and deserving of his wrath. Nieztsche’s belief is that a species of man destroyed by a stronger man is an improvement, hence an evolutionary believer. This seems to directly contradict his earlier belief that there was no difference between the races.

He believed much of mankind was worthless and yearned for the oncoming war that most would be rid of. Both he and the Nazis hated democracy but used democracy to push for anti-democratic ends. Democracy was a tool for an anti-democratic race or society.

We must not write-off the Nazis as madmen, because so many people have such similar beliefs. We must understand our enemies and ourselves, we must understand what they believe and take them seriously. More importantly we must understand what we believe and why, then argue from intelligence before ever using the last political position of war!

[Dimebag · Rating 5 out of 5]

Know thy enemy

…the Nazis knew what they stood for, do we?

[Colette · Rating 1 out of 5]

This analysis is limited to the point of almost quasi-dishonesty.

The criticism of the nazis, within the logic of the authors argument, rests mainly at their socialistic and collectivist tendencies. However, the author does not successfully argue that the nazis were socialist, and the argument that they were collectivist is missing the incredibly important context as to who within nazi society was part of “the collective.”

With respect to the motivations that come to mind when one thinks of nazi ideology, nationalism and white supremacy, the book is silent on the former and mentions the latter only as an afterthought. Instead, the author bullheadedly asserts that nazi ideology rests in a devotion to Nietzche’s work comparable to the relationship between Karl Marx and socialism ideology.

The book is full of illogical assumptions that are taken as fact. For example, that the nazis formed their own party is evidence to their devotion to their cause, because one does form a political party unless they really believe what they’re saying; therefore, the Nazis are socialists.

Furthermore, counter evidence to the claim that the nazis were socialists - like quotes from hitler and other officials that show it was simply a political move, or the fact that the very first people executed by the nazis were the socialists, anarchists and communists - are either unknown to the author or ignored entirely.

I could go on, but I won’t. All you need to know is this is a work of pseudo-intellectualism that would not be taken seriously in any credible academic institution.

[Mark · Rating 5 out of 5]

The powerful should rule, but anyone will do

Enlightening, succinct comparison of Nietzsche's proto-fascist philosophy with the Nazi brand of nationalist, racist fascism.

Many leading Nazis indeed considered Nietzsche to be their philosopher king: his criticism of the slave mentality of the Judeo-Christian tradition, reverence for the great and noble, romantic fantasy of the "good ol' Germany", etc. But, was Nietzsche racist?

Well, yes.

Although he also said some good things about various peoples, including the Jews... Nazis tend to ignore those supporting statements of Nietzsche's, such as 'the Jews are better people than the Germans', focusing instead on Nietzsche's condemnation of the Jews for 'introducing a slave mentality to the world and thus subverting human greatness.'

The highlighted juxtapositions:

Nazis tend to hold feebly to some generic form of Christianity--a sort that apparently shrugs at the ten commandments and the whole "Sermon on the Mount" thing, and pretty much everything else that one would recognise as Christianity, and of course denies that Jesus was Jewish... Meanwhile, Nietzsche held some of his most trenchant criticism for Christianity: "Christianity is a rebellion of everything that crawls on the ground against that which has height" for starters.

Nietzsche thought the powerful should rule the world to help humanity reach its potential (whatever that entails), but thought that basically anyone would do, even the Jews if they could free themselves from their slavish mentality. Nazis of course think only the Aryan race or a misc. caucasian "European" heritage makes one fit to rule, or live.

Nietzsche saw the Aryan culture as pretty much the worst in the world (excepting perhaps the adherents to a Judeo-Christian tradition), while Nazis are true-believers in the superiority of their own "culture".

[Patrick · Rating 4 out of 5]

Enlightening....

[Steve Scott · Rating 2 out of 5]

I discovered the audiobook version of this work online. The author reads it with skill, and his style of writing has clarity. Nietzsche’s works are pretty deep, but Hicks make them accessible.

It’s a short look at what impact Nietzsche’s work had on Germany’s National Socialists in the early 20th century…and where they differed.

One problem I have with it is that Hicks labels National Socialism as a form of collectivism. In a subsequent work on Post Modernism he goes out of his way as to describe the movement as leftist and collectivist, and seems eager to lump all forms of socialism-including communism-into one bag...something that Marx himself didn't do.

As Ron Granieri, an historican at the Army War College pointed out in a February 5th 2020 Washington Post article, National Socialism preserved property. (Re: "The right needs to stop falsely claiming that the Nazis were socialists" on the W.P. website)

Hitler himself stated this in an interview with German-American writer and Nazi sympathiser George Sylvester Viereck in 1939, stating:

"‘Socialism’, he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, ‘is the science of dealing with the common weal [health or well-being]. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists.

‘Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality and, unlike Marxism, it is patriotic."

Hitler saying that this form of socialism involves "no negation of personality" goes directly against what Hicks claims in this book. Given the narcissism of various Nazi leaders, and the fact that it and other fascist movements were driven by the bourgeois, the collectivist charge doesn't stick well.

Given what he wrote in his later book, and his appearance on one conservative podcast that I briefly listened to, I suspect Hicks may be straying out of his lane as a philosopher and attempting to influence political opinion by demonizing "collectivism"...or socialism...by equating it with the evils of mid-20th century autocracies or Soviet communism and German Nazism. This charge is nothing new, but it is ridiculously inaccurate and disingenuous. Hicks may be trying to give it an intellectual gloss that it doesn't deserve.

[St Fu · Rating 2 out of 5]

2 and a half stars rounded down to 2. Hicks is, if nothing else, clear and concise. It makes him easy to read and easy to understand. He sees Nazism as primarily an ideology and argues that it is best opposed by a counter ideology. This ideology matches that of Nietzsche half the time and opposes it the other half (though the Nazis chose to ignore that part).

I disagree that the ideology of Nazism is primary or as clear and consistent as Hicks makes it out to be. In fact, one aspect of Nazi theory is that passion is more important than the intellect so Nazism is explicitly anti-ideology. Just because philosophers like Heidegger supported him didn't make it an intellectual movement.

Hicks plays up the "socialist" part of National Socialism and points out the socialist aspects of the Nazi platform. Though these aspects existed when it was founded and Hitler gave speeches praising socialism and denouncing Capitalism, this was mainly lip service intended to win over the working class. He did favor nationalizing key aspects of the economy but that was just because he wanted to control them. Hitler was anti-union and anti-equality. Most other sources are clear on this (e.g. Encyclopedia Britanica) and point out, for example, he was probably behind the murder of Gregor Strasser, a party leader and proponent of socialism 1934 during the Night of the Long Knives.

On the plus side, you can read through this book in a day or two.

[Seth · Rating 2 out of 5]

A great introduction to both the Nazi and Nietzsche individually, however I found the parallels drawn between the two to be fairly weak.

[Chris · Rating 4 out of 5]

Hicks begins by arguing that some of the most common explanations for national socialism are weak. For example, while it's true that the Germans were bitter over losing WWI and the subsequent punitive measures imposed by the Treaty of Versailles this does not explain why Italy rallied behind Mussolini after they were on the winning side of WWI or why when other countries lose a war they do not drift towards national socialism. Similarly, Germany's economic troubles are not a sufficient explanation for national socialism because many countries that go through economic hardship do not turn towards this particular ideology, nor does it explain why there are Nazi sympathizers in economically prosperous nations.

Instead, Hicks contends, a more complete explanation lies in philosophy. In particular, according to national socialism, a person's identity is found within their particular group, that the group is locked in a mortal conflict with other groups, that reason is superficial, and that passion and instinct are the key drivers of human behavior.

[Aleksandar Todorovski · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great read

A deep dive into the intellectual history of Germanyband how it influenced the Nazis.

Hicks is a great scholar, I highly recommend his lectures online.

[Sathya Sekar · Rating 5 out of 5]

Really enjoyed this very short book/long essay. The perspectives were really thought-provoking, and encourages you to seek patterns in history, and in the day today.

[James Henderson · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read the book almost immediately after receiving it but I have had difficulty gathering my thoughts and deciding how to review it, not because the book itself was difficult to read; but because I was unsure how to approach this small jewel of a book. I decided to lay out some of the reasons why I both think highly of this book and like it as well.

Looking at its title, Nietzsche and the Nazis, I wondered what kind of book is this. Is it history, biography, some combination of both with sociology, or something else? The subtitle, "A Personal View", suggests that the author will inject his own personal opinions into the narrative in some manner. Looking at the Table of Contents we find that it is in fact something else; namely a book primarily about philosophy. In fact, the first three parts of the book have philosophy in their titles. This is one of the reasons I like the book. Books about philosophy appeal to me; especially well-written and well-reasoned books like this one.

The introduction identifies the aim of this book by highlighting how people in general tend to have an interest in history, and then briefly defining the philosophy of history. The author describes the philosophical perspective of history as one that "is a huge laboratory of experiments in human living." (p 3) The book specifically focuses on one "major experiment" in the twentieth century, the rise of the Nazis.
The remainder of the book methodically and very efficiently tells about the nature of Nazism: its philosophy, National Socialism's programs, and the effective means that the Nazis used while in power over the Third Reich. The discussion of the Nazis is then contrasted with the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche. His life and influence is told through discussion of philosophical concepts that were key in his work such as nihilism, the death of God, the slave mentality, and the "overman". Having laid out the ideas of the Nazis and those of Nietzsche the book's climax presents the important differences between Nietzsche's thought and Nazism. This includes a discussion of ways in which Nietzsche's thought can be seen as a precursor of Nazism; they agree in such key areas as anti-individualism, anti-reason, and authoritarianism.

The book is excellent in several respects. It has a clarity of purpose and a logical structure. The principles of both the National Socialists and Nietzsche are well defined; in addition the conclusion highlights those principles which oppose the Nazis. This approach lets readers make their own decision about which principles they stand for. There are also helpful appendices that highlight relevant quotations on the ideas presented. If you are fascinated by history this book is a great place to discover both the reasons for one of the most important episodes in the history of the modern world and why each of us need to understand those reasons.

[Kári Þorkelsson · Rating 1 out of 5]

Nei

[Caleb Kirby · Rating 5 out of 5]

Super focused and dry in the best way. Delivered the info in an exploratory fashion, taking into account multiple perspectives and sweet primary sources. The book likely gave me the boost I need to finally finish Zarathustra/BGaE but tbd.

[Tomislav · Rating 2 out of 5]

Short, rudimentary comparison of Nazism and Nietzsche’s philosophy. As the title says it is "a personal view", not a scholarly work. It seems to be written for young libertarians who don’t really know anything about Nazism or Nietzsche and want to just skim over the subject.

Quite a large part of the book is devoted to the presentation of basic historical facts about Third Reich and NSDAP political program. Hicks is good at pointing out collectivist and anti-capitalistic elements in Nazi worldview. He doesn’t really go into complexities of Nazism, different competing groups that existed within the movement, historical evolution, internal contradictions etc.

Another large part is devoted to Nietzsche’s general philosophy without really focusing on his important political ideas. He gives a fair, although quite simplistic, overview of Nietzsche philosophy. The only aspect of his worldview that he seriously downplays is Nietzsche’s racism. He presents him as a far-right thinker whose philosophy overlaps with Nazism on some points.

If you have even some basic knowledge about Nietzsche’s philosophy and Nazi politics you won’t really find anything new and interesting in this book. It is very short, lacking details, context or an interesting conclusion. It is not completely bad, but it is not really worth reading.

[Dylan Sponder · Rating 5 out of 5]

An essential breakdown of the history, philosophy, psychology and rhetoric of National Socialism with the key differences and similarities between Nazi doctrines and Nietzschean philosophy. Hicks expends much energy to confidently dispell common and unsavoury myths regarding the Nazis rise to power, their mass appeal in Germany before the Second World War and much, much more. Hicks manages to do this all the while with an exemplary level of respect and purposefully uses ugly and brutal quotations from both sides to bring to light the unpleasant truths of the eventual Nazi storm.

Hicks is able to concisely summarise how Nietzsche is both a man who would have been ashamed to see how his philosophy came to be perverted by the Nazis, but also a man who would, not long after his death, ultimately serve Hitler and his allies the essential proto-Nazi blueprint.

Hicks has a calm, straightforward demeanor and doesn't mince words. I highly recommend anyone planning to read this book to listen to the audiobook.

[Lars · Rating 4 out of 5]

I listened to the audiobook on Youtube and I have to say that the whole thing is at the same time incredibly interesting and still simple enough to be understood while listening to it as if it where a podcast. I would definitely recommend it to everyone, who is interested in Nazi-Philosophy. This book finally gave me an answer to the question "Why the hell where so many people convinced to be the good guys while following this cruel ideology?" A question I (a German) never got answered during my history lessons. It was always just about memorizing raw facts and dates and oh btw. this was all horrible, we where the bad guys, this should never happen again. Yeah but why did it happen in the first place. Did my grandparents just get insane out of nowhere?? Where they all stupid or evil?? No there was a complex moral Philosophy behind it that made a lot of sense during its time, but sadly led us into horrible territories.

[Mark · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good for finding the truth somewhere in the middle. Were Nazis socialists? They tried to be, and they did privatize some aspects of their economy when deemed necessary. Was Nietzsche an anti-semite? maybe not. Compared to other Germans he was less. Seemed to be more as an equal opportunity hater of all religions. Nazis were a populist movement. Nietzsche had the concept of the "Overman" and focused a lot on the slave/master dynamics. There are connections to be made, but he also thought Germans were weak. Nazis promulgated his philosophy simply because he was German. Easy to bastardize his work, but he wrote much more. Meaning: you have to read Nietzsche to understand who he really was. Then, you will most likely find that he wasn't all that impressive (at least not seriously impressive enough to be the impetus for a world war). Can't say that about *cough The Bible *cough.

[Mario Russo · Rating 5 out of 5]

Hicks goes deep into the philosophical roots of Nazism and untangles the simplified mess it has became ever since after the end of WWII. While it seems usual to define Nazism as Right due to its opposition to socialism this book point out several common ties between communist revolutions(China, Russia, Cuba) and the Nazism:
Collectivism, Passion, War, Authoritarianism. As George Orwell put once

“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

[Yash Arya · Rating 5 out of 5]

Nietzsche and the Nazis, by Stephen Hicks (eBook, Audiobook)

1. If we don't fight Nazism in theory, we'll be forced to fight it in practice.
"We do not do ourselves any favors by not understanding Nazism thoroughly or by being satisfied with superficial explanations. It took a world war to stop National Socialism in the twentieth century. War is brute force. Brute force rarely changes anyone’s minds about anything, and it alone does not destroy the underlying causes that motivate conflict. To use a crude analogy: If two neighbors are having an ongoing argument about a series of issues, and one neighbor hits the other and knocks him unconscious—that ends the argument but it does not solve their problems. The source of their argument is still there and it will re-surface." - Stephen Hicks, in Nietzsche and the Nazis

"Arguing over philosophical and political ideals is often unpleasant. And the issues involved are often abstract, complicated, and emotionally difficult. But there are no shortcuts. Perhaps the best motivation for doing the hard work comes from reminding ourselves regularly and often how much more it costs to settle disputes by war.

We may not like that the Nazis had arguments and positions that many people find attractive. We might find it repulsive to take their arguments seriously. We might find it difficult to get inside their heads to see where they are coming from.

But we have a choice: We either fight those ideas in theory or we fight them in practice. We either fight them in the intellectual realm or we fight them on the battlefield. It might still come to fighting them on the battlefield—but that is always the most terrible option, the most expensive in every possible way, and the one we should avoid if there is any other way to defeat them."

2. Nazism is a kind of Socialism
Despite their differences, a cat and a dog are both animals. Despite their differences, rat poison and ant poison are both poisons. So despite their differences, Marxism and Nazism are both Socialisms. Despite their differences, both are poisonous to human flourishing.

Don't be misled by those who self-identify as being anti-fascism, for that leaves unsaid that they're often pro-communism. What is needed is to oppose all poisons in your food, not replace rat poison with ant poison.

There is nothing stopping the neo-Marxists of today from adopting the methods of Fascists/Nazis in the past, or vice versa.

“I have learned a great deal from Marxism, as I do not hesitate to admit. I don’t mean their tiresome social doctrine or the materialist conception of history, or their absurd ‘marginal utility’ theories and so on. But I have learnt from their methods. The difference between them and myself is that I have really put into practice what these peddlers and pen-pushers have timidly begun. The whole of National Socialism is based on it. Look at the workers’ sports clubs, the industrial cells, the mass demonstrations, the propaganda leaflets written specially for the comprehension of masses; all these new methods of political struggle are essentially Marxist in origin. All that I had to do was take over these methods and adapt them to our purpose. I had only to develop logically what Social Democracy repeatedly failed in because of its attempt to realize its evolution within the framework of democracy. National Socialism is what Marxism might have been if it could have broken its absurd and artificial ties with a democratic order.”
—Adolf Hitler

“THE COMMON INTEREST BEFORE SELF-INTEREST.”
—Nazi Party (NDSAP) Program, Point 24, 1920

3. The Differences between Nietzsche and The Nazis

"1. The Nazis believe the German Aryan to be racially superior—while Nietzsche believes that the superior types can be manifested in any racial type.
2. The Nazis believe contemporary German culture to be the highest and the best hope for the world —while Nietzsche holds contemporary German culture to be degenerate and to be infecting the rest of the world.
3. The Nazis are enthusiastically anti-Semitic—while Nietzsche sees anti-Semitism to be a moral sickness.
4. The Nazis hate all things Jewish—while Nietzsche praises the Jews for their toughness, their intelligence, and their sheer survival ability.
5. And finally, the Nazis see Christianity to be radically different and much superior to Judaism—while Nietzsche believes Judaism and Christianity to be essentially the same, with Christianity being in fact a worse and more dangerous variation of Judaism."

4. The Similarities between Nietzsche and The Nazis
"1. The Nazis were strongly collectivistic, and Nietzsche, with some qualifications, also advances
strongly collectivistic and anti-individualistic themes.
2. Both Nietzsche and the Nazis see zero-sum conflict as inescapable and as fundamental to the
human condition.
3. Both are irrationalists in their psychological theories, downplaying radically the role that reason
plays in life and emphasizing the power and the glory of instincts and feelings.
4. Both Nietzsche and the Nazis accept willingly—even longingly—that war is necessary, healthy, and
even majestic.
5. And finally, both Nietzsche and the Nazis are anti-democratic, anti-capitalistic, and anti-liberal—
and so, come the 1930s, the Nazis were in fundamental opposition to those nations to the West
that were still broadly committed to democracy, capitalism, and liberalism."

5. Liberal Capitalism: Principled Anti-Nazism / Anti-Socialism

"1. The Nazis stood for collectivism. The opposite of that is a philosophy of individualism that recognizes each individual’s right to live for his or her own sake.
2. The Nazis stood for instinct and passion as one’s basic guides in life. The opposite of that is a philosophy of reason that has a healthy confidence in the power of evidence, logic, and judgment to guide one’s life.
3. The Nazis stood for war and conflict as the best way to achieve one’s goals. The opposite of that is a philosophy that encourages productiveness and trade as the best way to achieve one’s goals in life.
4. The Nazis stood for political authoritarianism and top-down leadership. The opposite of that is a philosophy that leaves individuals maximum freedom to live their lives by their own choice and direction, respecting the equal right of other individuals to do the same.
5. The Nazis stood for socialism and the principle of central direction of the economy for the common good. The opposite of that is the system of free market capitalism, with individual producers and consumers deciding for themselves what they will produce and what they will spend their money on.

I will end on a provocative note: The Nazis knew what they stood for. Do we?"

[Dakota · Rating 3 out of 5]

Was alright, he missed quite a bit detail by not discussing Nietzsche’s sister, who in short used him as a museum in his bedridden final days charging people to see “the great thinker”, altered his work to make it appeal to the Nazi party, and did other unthinkable horrors. Is it really a surprise Hitler made an appearance at her funeral? The fact the author didn’t elaborate on this point makes me question the whole books integrity as a whole, it seems so intuitively obvious to include. I would research it more to see if this was common knowledge like it is now among scholars back when this was written, but I’m too tired. He also gave an—in my opinion anyway—not so great explanation of Slave vs Master/Nobility morality. It’s redeeming factor though was I learned quite a lot about the nazi party, and I think he did a great job of explaining how it emerged and came to power.

[Буянхишиг Отгонсэлэнгэ · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is the perfect introduction to Nietzsche and the Nazis with well-rounded facts. And I've quite liked that author has ended the book with question 'Nazis knew what they stood for, do we?. I say challenge accepted.

On side note, humans are weak, we're not great as predators or prey. However, we are persistent. Through sheer persistence we have reached our current mode of life; technology that makes our life easy, shops that deliver to food in our doors, ... And I say WWI and WWII were only part of our history that we must learn from, otherwise how are we to reach our next level?
I don't know what is the ultimate goal, but if we continue living in ignorance or easy living, it may end it in nuclear wars who knows what mad man is thinking? All of us are in precarious time. Continual learning, transferring the knowledge, plain facts will save all humanity and give us some time. Neh?