Where Does the Theory Calling Hitler a Communist Come From?

Where Does the Idea That Hitler Was a Communist Come From?

The man who prevented communists from coming to power in Germany in the 1930s and who later faced the Soviet Union in the bloodiest war known is today, in many analyses, portrayed as a communist. This theory has found new amplifiers: in an interview with an American tech entrepreneur, the leader of the German far-right claimed that Hitler was a communist and therefore had nothing to do with her political party. Reduced to its essence, the argument relies on three points: the party's name, the tonalidad of its flag, and a non-aggression pact signed in 1939. The question is when this label started circulating and why.

The Party Name as an Argument

National Socialist German Workers' Party. The word 'socialist' is in the name, and that's where it all begins. The most common explanation is that the name was a strategy to attract the labor vote at a time when communist and social democratic parties were gaining strong traction among that electorate, with growing social discontent and interwar liberal democracies in discredit. In practice, the party defined itself as anti-communist, anti-liberal, and anti-Marxist. Hence the paradox many highlight: the party that presented itself as a bulwark against communism bears the word in its name that is now attributed to its identity.

The Red Flag and the Tonalidad Syllogism

The party's flag was red, just like those of socialist and communist parties of the era. From this, a second argument is drawn: if red identifies the left, the banner would prove the socialist nature of the regime. The reasoning has the solidity of a casual syllogism but circulates effectively because it doesn't require knowledge of the rest of the platform.

1933 and 1939: The Pacts Supporting the Theory

The non-aggression pact signed with Stalin in 1939 is the most cited piece of evidence. The most common interpretation among those who defend the theory is that this alliance demonstrated ideological closeness; the usual response is that it was a tactic to gain time, as conflict was inevitable. The documented fact is the Anti-Comintern Pact, signed in November 1936 by Germany, Italy, Spain, Hungary, and Japan, which no liberal-capitalist democracy joined. In parallel, the United States recognized the Soviet Union in November 1933, just a few months after Hitler took office as Chancellor; the United Kingdom and France had already done so in 1924. The chronology inconveniences both sides.

The 1932 Interview That's Repeatedly Cited

There is one document that is always revisited: the interview that George Sylvester Viereck published in Liberty magazine on July 9, 1932, in which Hitler defined himself in terms that his supporters cite and his detractors dispute. To this source is added the recollection that Jean François Revel, author of The Totalitarian Temptation, attributes to Hitler himself in a conversation with Otto Wagener: his disagreements with the communists were less ideological than tactical. This testimony is the strongest ammunition for the theory, and also the most debatable, because a tactical difference does not make anyone a fellow traveler.

When Did the Label Emerge?

The most repeated dating places the phenomenon at the end of the 20th century, in conservative and libertarian American circles, as a reaction to the Allied narrative about World War II. In Spain, it is argued, until 1975, not even the most open-minded right-winger would have thought of calling Hitler a communist; the shift came with democracy, when the enemy to defeat ceased to be communism—legalized and with which agreements were made—to become fascism. Since then, the word has been stretched to cover almost anything. Some argue that twenty years ago, anything that didn't align with a certain consensus was reaccionario (fascist), and now it's communist.

Why the Argument Doesn't Convince Liberals Themselves

Juan Ramón Rallo summarized it in a publication: the argument that the Nancy were socialists is unconvincing unless one adopts an overly broad definition of socialism, equivalent to statism, and then historically relevant differences are erased. To this objection is added another: Mussolini was expelled from the Italian Socialist Party, and National Socialism presented itself as a third position, neither liberal capitalism nor Marxism. The proponents' reply is that socialism is not necessarily Marxist and that the regime's housing, public works, and employment policies have no equivalent in any liberal right. The debate continues, and some versions of the theory are accompanied by conspiratorial reinterpretations without documentary support.

With these pieces on the table, the label remains unresolved. Those who call Hitler a communist cling to the name, the tonalidad, and a pact of convenience. Those who deny it look at the facts: militant anti-communism and the Eastern Front. At what point did the word 'fascist' stop being useful and 'communist' start being used?