no similarities whatsoever ... ???
(snip)"First, "Nazi supporters were no different from average citizens elsewhere."Second, the Nazi program found an audience primarily in the lower middle and working classes. Third, and finally, "
the Nazi Party's emergence between 1925 and 1933 as the most popular political party in Germany resulted from its superlative success at fashioning economic programs that addressed the material needs of millions of Germans" (xii-17). "(snip)
(snip)On the other hand, narrowly focused explanations, for example, a lower-middle-class panic or political confessionalism, failed to acknowledge the Nazi Party's evolution into a "successful catchall party."Brustein's central argument against existing theoretical explanation is their "disproportionate emphasis on Nazi followers' reactive response, while ignoring the degree to which
individuals' support for the Nazi Party stemmed from their desire to improve their material condition."(snip)
(snip)"He finds that only an account of "interest-based action" reveals the clearly wide appeal of the Nazi Party. As the "logical choice for millions of Germans,"
the Nazi Party drew into its ranks a large percentage of "blue-collar workers, livestock farmers, and independent artisans." Politically, the Nazi Party offered a "third path between Marxist centralized state planning and laissez-faire capitalism" (23-29). "(snip)
(snip)"Nazi Party ideas about "
state socialism [i.e. government partnership with industry - sic] , autarkic development [i.e. social insurance, gov't provided health care, unemployment, retirement benefits - sic], and Lebensraum" were largely gleaned from discussions already in popular circulation. Nazi policies, however, were unique in their emphasis on more aggressive and innovative planning in the face of a growing economic catastrophe (52-55).
Brustein's research significantly refines our understanding of who joined the Nazi Party, namely, "that members of the old middle class,
married white-collar employees, workers in import-oriented industries, and skilled blue-collar workers constituted the backbone of the Nazi Party's membership before 1933."Those who cast their lot in with the Nazi Party did so largely out of an economically defined self-interest. Xenophobia, antisemitism, racism, and hyper- nationalism cannot account for the rise of the Nazi Party. These elements had been well represented in numerous other political groups long before the arrival of the Nazi Party but had failed to propel their promoters to seats of power (57-62, 179-183).
Reviewers have so far not focused on the theoretical and empirical contributions made by Brustein's research. For example, James Sheehan's review in The New York Times (September 15, 1996) underestimates the explanatory power of the rational choice model employed in Brustein's book. In fact, the theory can easily account for the facts that Sheehan cites to refute it. First, Sheehan argues that "the concept of rational self-interest" cannot explain the wide fluctuations in Nazi party voting and membership between 1928 and 1933. However, as Brustein stresses, individual interests depended on the conditions faced, and those conditions changed dramatically in this period due to the depression. To take just one example,
the increasing unemployment rates of skilled workers made them more favorably disposed to Nazi promises of job creation and tariffs in 1933 than they were in 1928. Second, Sheehan claims that Brustein's stress on
the role of selective incentives and disincentives (the personal benefits and costs associated with joining the party, such as paying dues [i.e. taxes - sic] or getting a job) "undermine[d] the basic structure of his argument."Far from undermining it, this is an essential component of any rational choice analysis. All cost-benefit models include not only the costs and benefits associated with particular parties gaining power, but the personal costs and benefits of joining as well."(snip)
from
http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/GENOCIDE/reviewstr15.htm
again please understand that I am not necessarily supporting the author's contention, only pointing out that if the political correctness of Godwin's Law doesn't pre-empt factual research there would indeed appear to be a number of curious similarities.
~