Kraxis

Come on now... Have I ever been that shallow?
Nobody said you were shallow… perhaps, defending a lost cause with no logical arguments? ;)

No, I do not base it on the name as in fact it was a move to gain votes. But just because it was that doesn't mean it didn't have a historical background.
The name was not there just to fish votes from the worker classes. There is a seed of truth somewhere in those claiming a joint legacy for the two movements, but it's only a mere seed and a barren at that. The Nazionalsocialistisches Partei was a primarily Nationalist movement. The fact that it took an appealing name (Socialist) as part of it's title, can be explained in a number of ways and also has some historical analogy: In Italy, the Fascists have also a similar connection to the left.

But let us be more methodical, a mere point-to-point reply won't do any good to the discussion. Let me put forth my arguments, and you can see what I am trying to say.

Let us see what is the take of both ideologies regarding several important concepts and issues:

- Socialism
Communism: The mean to go to Communism. A society in which classes still exist, but great care is being taken to ensure equality among all members of the society. The society has precedence over any individual.
Nazism: All Aryans of blood, who are not weak, handicapped, corrupted or decadent, have the right to live a good life. No mentioning of any alteration of the social classes (Nazis did not believe in social classes anyway, workers and Industrialists are merely "part of the Deutsches Volk", not groups with colliding interests). Individuals can have precedence over the society, but not over "the Volk".

- Equality
Communism: The aim of the communist ideology. To create a world where everybody will be equal to each other, irregardless of race, colour, physical characteristics or features. No man should have more than any other or more than he needs. Everybody should be entitled to every luxury the society can produce. Communism is for everybody, for all the people on earth. The communists are depriving the rich from their fortunes (and more importantly from the means of production and their capital) in order to incorporate them into the body of the society as a whole. The working class is not a group of people with a specific background, education, blood or whatnot, it is the whole society in the communist universe.
Nazism: There is no such word in the Nazi vocabulary. The Nazis fundamentally believe that people are not (and cannot be) equal. They are born unequal. Blood is the defining factor, family, personal ability and others are accepted. Powerholders not only are allowed to keep the power the got, but also are becoming even more powerful by cooperating with the Nazi party. The social structure remains unscathed, there is no social movement - a good society is a society that is frozen and does not allow the distortion of the social structure.

- Imperialism
Communists: The communist ideology loathes imperialism and generally imposing the will of one nation over the other. The "revolution" can be exported (according to Lenin's writings, at least) but not by war. Stalin was the first to implement aggressive expansionism as a state policy, but even then it was not "imperialism": USSR gave much, much more to the countries it controlled, than it was given back. Sure, US government did the same, but USSR didn't have the bourgeois class to take advantage of the "allies" and exploit them like the Yank businesspeople did. No financial imperialism. But loads of political imperialism. Again, though, this is not something inherent in the communist ideology, but just a malpractice by Jo S. and gang.
Nazis: Imperialism is the only way to achieve something. Aggressive, expansionist imperialism, including the exploitation of other countries and their resources, the enslaving of their population, the evacuation of their population to create more space for the ubermenschen and a load of others. War for Nazism is not the means, it's the goal, the aim.

- Economy
Communism: Society-owned (state-owned in the Socialist interim) means of production. Equal spread of wealth, according to everyone's need. No paid labour (exploitation of one human by another).
Nazis: A typical protectionist ultra-capitalist economy. Nothing more, nothing less.


Regarding this

the theory contained many similarities for the previledged.

As to them, in Nazism they were the Aryans. In Socialism (the hard one) it was the workers. They were the groups that would benefit the most.
As I mentioned above, the "workers" are not a fixed group of people. And they would not be "the privileged ones" anyway. What do you mean "privilege"? As "having more than the other guy"? Well, sorry, that's just wrong. Equality is the chimera of the Communists.


If the positions on the spectrum forced any war, then it is surprising that no war was initiated because one side was capitalistic and the other Socialist. Even Korea and Vietnam were not wars of ideology, they were wars because of bad settlements. In both cases the North made was because they wanted the South, for economical and nationalistic reasons. They used ideology to keep the soldiers going, of course, why not?
So I don't buy into the political spectrum as a reason for war.
Uh… Kraxis, my old man, you've completely lost it here. If you haven't noticed, in 1989 a 44year old "war" was terminated. It was called "Cold War" and about two dozens of "hot" wars were fought in its context. If that wasn't a clash of ideologies, I don't know what is. Ideology is just a theoretical construct to support the interests of people/classes/nations etc. Communism is (was, whatever) the ideology of the working class, while capitalism is (and shall remain) the ideology of those who have the wealth in their hands.

As I have said, Hitler had a deepseated hatred for communism after WWI, because of what he percieved to be the reason for the loss in that war. I hope nobody denies his 'backstab' legend as being a great part of his legacy and reasons for war.
I do however agree that it wouldn't have been important if the Soviet Union was communist or not, he would still have attacked.
Explain please all his efforts to render "racial (and ideological) kinsmen" Brits and Americans, into his allies to fight together communism. Explain why the Nazis didn't consider moving in western Europe for "lebensraum" but considered only "communist" USSR. Explain why a host of great industrialists from all over the world cooperated with the Nazi regime. Explain why he targeted communists as the #3 state enemy (and the only ideological, the #1 and #2 were racial). Explain Dunkirk. Explain the half-cooked attempt at "Seelowe".

I don't think those are explainable by your line of thought…